Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1 - Folder 1 of 3PARTIES OF RECORD Fieldbrook Commons (Apts) LUA12-001, PPUD, ECF Katrina Garrison 17032 110th Place SE Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) William O'Neil )4 Executor of Viola T. O'Neil Estate 215 N 56th Avenue ste: #36 Yakima, WA 98908 tel: (509) 965-0573 (owner) Robert B. Lyon 10817 SE 170th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: ( 425) 255-0395 (party of record) Timothy S. Bell 11004 SE 173rd Street Renton, WA 98055-5927 tel: (253) 569-9801 (party of record) Terestia Tamayao 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #2C Renton, WA 98055 tel: ( 425) 226-7823 (party of record) D. Bruce & Nancy Stanley 10825 SE 172nd Street ste: # S- B Renton, WA 98055-5969 tel: (425) 277-1415 (party of record) Updated: 08/23/12 Justin Lagers ' C)\J)1;"i' PNW Holdings, LLC . .. ,'1 \. 9675 SE 36th Street ste: #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 tel: (206) 588-1147 eml: justin,pnwholdings@gmail.com ( owner / contact) Richard Niemi 17022 108th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 tel: ( 425) 255-3054 (party of record) Linda & Jesse Hurtado PO Box 59743 Renton, WA 98058 tel: (425) 228-2481 (party of record) Sylvia Coppock 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #2A Renton, WA 98055 tel: ( 425) 235-8076 (party of record) Dan Miles 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #lB Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 228-7164 (party of record) Laura L. Smith 10841 SE 172nd Street ste: #9A Renton, WA 98055 eml: lauraleesmith@comcast.net (party of record) Ray Lotto fY Trustee of Marjorie L. Lotto 1250 Jones Street ste: #1701 San Francisco, CA 94109 tel: (415) 928-5482 (owner) Steve Cuspard 17515 110th Lane SE Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Patrick Creager 10833 SE 173rd Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Donna Hart 10813 SE 172nd Street ste: #2B Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 271-0148 (party of record) Dan Russell 829 S 31st Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 853-6678 (party of record) David Hoffman 10824 SE 170th Street #A201 Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) ---LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET , Field brook Commons/LUA12-001 -February 12, 2013 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS ~ I Phone# with area code (including City & Zip) fnt.., i:J;t' (optional} Jc-et j\k '2\-sjvz<-n () lj(, 15 X 3 , .,,., ~/ (J > ('1 «-(X>,~ ~)I>" 0 1 '2o (, ) i I) i2..o0 1J. D b G-\&u{j{ e1 , 6J-5,6 lctJ/6hDre D~ JtrN$1:toS--.7Y-/o]._9 -'=--~" M ClvK<Q,,v j o-vJvi' fotJu4 r-.f e ~f'"tl ?f #2-~2--/:.,tvk~V\J\-f 4),r f7,,7~fs 'rosA i" ., P1 'e_J. i ..i c ,, l "I..-, q fl 2, /Obo4-/1/(£ 3s-+>. PL P23"-,K,;-k(..,._,J t.1141 ~.:2--S---'"2.7-301,3, .,e-J ~...,q -;z. 7~ 'i I c ... •• "J hv """1 ss .,.. "t.. C"' v ,...., f.,,..... V"" ff '1 8'"0 ~ tlaJ4 SE' 1?3/fl) ST_.,.._ I ~53 -Sb'/-'i'?O/ ,'(\ w 4 "'19:::6 _J ~ i 4 t.,.o C> :'.) C Z.. 44 ~"'--6-\. \( e 2::.~ fo"?,"f Oh78 / \--w\v l~v'-{.z6JV1ScV\. \ 1 o?,2--\l()I" r~ 5 t ~ 9 \PsY z_o\o· 2l-lP -l'M-5 /v't1oJ0{e/Jk <2/,,'1( ~ 71..'#1<.f' ""'+(~~WVJ · ~ 7Cif-BS?'r Sec\\-'2~ I Ko~ i>Gt-1\ /-0 i:;:-cl~f;---'-q '.,$'1,l~~,,,-[ '-l l \ '-1 L\ ~ '-1701j V)lll\LE SilY\bN s 221 \.,JLLL'> ,ivr s, ~rv"' '1~51 G~0u~ 41D /Jf /;;i.4b,S,t_pS'90l .ct-z5 -'iZ2 -4 ll tU4 160 $,4- Email (optional) (,.)=''::, . ·;-, LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Fieldbrook Commons/LUA12-001 -February 12, 2013 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY NAME ADDRESS I Phone # with area code (including City & Zip) (optional) '11:, 15 X 3 r-1' ~/ fJ > !'1 d",u 1>1~ ~'lP" ul '2o C. ?, 1 0 i2...o0 6J-5h /ctf.e5/1D(e D'f" 5 I J.ei:,--?JP-/oJ-9 folrl4 r,./e ~ptJ 11 =#232--ltv~~V\-kl 4~r f77~fs Yoshi~ p,-e_J.; .1 c,, l i, -/Ofio4-/1/e 3g-+>. PL P23-z_ /Ci;-k(.,.J t.1/.l-l 4-.:2-S--rz.,-3oi,:S < J £e.,..,, .._,\ \ ':Z. 7" 'i I c., •• "") hv w-., S..£ # 1... C.,. V '"Y f-,,,,.,, l,N' A-'1 'ff'O '-1 1!{)'.')L/ SE' / ;J/fO GT 0 w 4 '!fl::§> ?i53 -SbC/-'i~O/ L i 4.t.,00 s C z_"'\44'-'L-6~ ~ 25°~ fa "37 Oh78 4eo I 1 '-0,...,~ \Y<f-. fzoJVlSGV\. \ 1 o'~l-I[(.)\'\. ~\ s £_ ~ 'i ~rr Z..O\o' 2Z..t., -1'193 <tb 7 ( ~ 7,., '#1<-r V"'f let 7Cif-SS1'r ~(~ '2~ l'tor-1>,-t-11 ~ Q'<\\N___,_ ,~•-x.f I yl1-'-''-\'i. '-170'-f VV) l \LE S11vt b N $ 221 ~LL'> Ave s, ~ rv"' c.itos 1 Vtr11 {._'f./,JI 0::>~6LI wq 5'/Ql ,d.z5 -'522 -4 I/ Email (optional) LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Fieldbrook Commons/LUA12-001 -February 12, 2013 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS Phone# with orea code Email NAME (including City & Zip) (optionol) (optional) .. I I LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Field brook Commons/LUA12-001 -February 12, 2013 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS Phone # with area code Email NAME (including City & Zip) (optional) (optional) ·--- i _ __J Office of the City Clerk '1F{i City of ~ ~rmi@rm ~ 1055 South Grady Way -Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED .. ~(<~ _:{ · 01'"t'-f:,."{', -'• 'l ~·r -<>°' • .... V'° V "" ' ~ •• G\'>J°<-1) "A(;.',.i"' -. ..,.,r,Y-. . ~c.O~ , c\°" ,;-J;.'<' ~ -~ ·::n::i042$g i i6 S f-~~q~~ 7 \ _e,'5,,-v~ J '? EJ/2 r-~ .1 _; r ~ .. .-;-, " 3C: 9'tO'i/·;,:--1-,i.:;., ,..-, \ /<} ~ ?1' ~\ ~-·"""/ !'1 "!. ~ 1.: . ~, > (-.. )· '~: :·1} "'D'.:.zo 1~.:.c.;7 :t::., .. 45 IL\11l 1/ ill: tt, !1 i1\ii;Ld]1nld,dl ·,!id: !i j, ldiu;lll Office of the City Clerk _. -~~rm~@J]) e 1055 South Grady Way -Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED \Ao_, /1\·· ) . --, )-/ ! i C/, \/ \ ; gc \ $ t")1,.., .. , .-(~/\/:.,,, , Scott Riegel s"J-9-, ''/ ·: ·/•;.·., ·.-;"" ,' 0.,.;,: !_ i 4 ,a R 8 ;.::ifg·,¥; 7 '@§l !D.Pf.i 1805 1361h Pl NE Bellevue, WA 9800'.5 cy,, . , '"{c<:~vf, ''c~,_ .. ~ L ,'I, I t- "lr,t;s '~ f, C: r: ;; Or-;o,C !i: (_!L\-t)::'./2·.~:/]:} P.E T..: ~:r~ TQ ~~,::: t'~!}~ !-J. NC..":c:::;:::c· F'-..--:-.:.,._;-Jr:;;;r '~; ,j ~ J.:..\.; ,-n --,:-,~ ;v;JbP r·: :{c.: 980')7:\--:'.J:~5 1) ~"2589--lQL'.40--20-40 \ ! l \I; l 1 ! I I l i; I H ! ii di!\ 1 ! ! l I\\ t 1 ! l I I! I! i I l .1 l 11 i Ld l ! ! ! ! l ! ! \ Office of the City Clerk ~~~mi~@J]l e 1055 South Grady Way -Renton WA 98057-3232 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED rJo?-ts\ e,11:.I-I' 1' ,,11, · ,1-1s\ll'I'\_ r,_11o1c1e,0Rl'-1:.c"'i w,1s\,0"'1-1sD \Iii'\\.? Mike Simons 221 Wells Av S Renton, WA 98057 Ct"f).·<-.' .. ,. f' Eo, - .j -j ,;112 '~ly ' Cfi~ic> 0 l1ccf?I(, <- So. 'f..1,:,fs-.,:"· 78 ~RBCNMP 98057 I'" 1 q ·I, I· 1,.,, 11111, I·' I, /I• 111111' •/• "11, 11, ,, , I' I 11 · '11, I· 1 February 15, 2013 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9725 SE 26th Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Re: Staff Review of Exhibit 22 for Fieldbrook Commons, LUA-12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached is your copy of the City of Renton's Staff Review of Exhibit 22, dated February 14, 2013, in the above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Deputy City Clerk Enc.: Staff Review cc: Hearing Examiner Larry Warren, City Attorney Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts,Development Service Director Karen Kittrick, CED Bob MacOnie, CED Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record (27) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 43D-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov I February 14, 2013 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator CITY OF RENTON _ ''/ P\ l-j :lJi' Phil Olbrechts FEB 1 4 2013 &"' RECEIVED Olbrechts and Associates 18833 NE 74th Street Granite Falls, WA 98252 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SUBJECT: Staff Review of Exhibit 22, Public Hearing Fieldbrook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Examiner Following the public hearing, the record was left open for staff to review the applicants updated open space recreation public benefit diagram, submitted by the applicant at the public hearing, held on February 12, 2013 (identified as Exhibit 22). It is staff's understanding that Exhibit 22 was a first attempt at meeting the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner; particularly, conditions related to surface parking lot landscaping and Bonus Density. Staff had an opportunity to review the provided Ex_hibit 22 (attached), and has made the following findings: 1. The common open space calculations, provided with the original application were incorrect. As noted on Exhibit 3 of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner the total common open space for the site was listed at 101,298 SF. After double checking the calculation, the total appears to be incorrect and should be lOS,585 SF. This correction increases the open space provided and reviewed prior to the public hearing. However, the configuration and layout of the open space did not change; the error was simply an arithmetic mistake. 2. Due to the correct amount, 105,585 SF, of open space for the original proposal; the open space calculations in Exhibit 22 does not result in an increased amount of open space as presented at the public hearing. The total amount of common open space included in Exhibit 22 is 104,565 SF, which is a reduction of 1,020 SF. 3. The open space reductions primarily came from two locations identified as areas 18 and 19 on Exhibit 22. These are the two largest common open spaces that provide active recreational ame,1itiesto the overall development. These.two spaces are designed to be usable and function truly as a common space. Other areas counted towards open space are smaller and would be landscaped with screening landscaping and may not be usable for active recreation. Based on the importance of areas 18 and 19 to the value of the overall development, staff would not be supportive of the reduction in common open space as proposed. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov Mr. Examiner Page 2 of 3 February 14, 2013 4. Pursuant to the Bonus Density criteria, surface parking lots containing not more than 6 parking stalls separated from other parking area by landscaping with a minimum width of 15 feet shall be provided to receive the bonus density credit. The Updated Exhibit 22, accomplished this in several locations, however in three areas the lots contained 7 continuous parking stalls without intervening landscaping which would not be compliant with the bonus density criteria. After review of the provided Exhibit 22, the proposal does not accomplish the goal identified in the original recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, which states "that staff only recommends approval of the bonus density to 18 du/at if the surface parking lot presence can be reduced and at the same time the square footage and configuration of the open space remains as proposed". Moreover, the provided Exhibits reaffirm staff's second recommendation to the Hearing Examiner that a partial bonus density approval of 16 du/ac is more appropriate for the subject site. The overall surface parking lot presence was not significantly reduced by the proposed amount of added landscaping, which is less than the minimum needed to comply with Bonus Density. Furthermore, surface parking stalls remain in the wetland buffer area perpetuating impacts to the sites critical areas, and the common open space area is reduced. Based on the above, staff recommends that Bonus Density be reduced to 16 du/ac which will reduce the number of dwelling units from 162 to 144, a reduction of 18 dwelling units, with a specific reduction in units as follows: . • BLDG K, L, M, and N -Each building should eliminate 3 units from the third story. This change would reduce the height and bulk of these buildings. By reducing the height and bulk, the scale of the buildings would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly the neighboring single-family developments. The buildings should be re-designed similar to BLDG D and G. This would result in a reduction of 4 three-bedroom units, 4 two-bedroom units and 4 one-bedroom units. • BLDG J -In order to reduce the bulk of this building, two units should be eliminated from the third floor in the center, providing modulation to the building elevations. These two units would be two-bedroom units. • BLDG G and H -Both these buildings should eliminate the third floor units. This would eliminate 2 two-bedroom units and 2 one-bedroom units. If the above changes are made to the project, a total of 24 parking stalls could be removed from the site. The reduction of 24 parking stalls would accomplish two things. First, if tandem parking was eliminated from the alley behind HLDG A and B, then there would be sufficient backout room for the vehicles parked in the garage and would not require the relocation of BLDG B. This would allow the open space to remain as proposed in the original application. Secondly, parking stalls could easily be eliminated from the wetland areas and finally, additional stalls could be transformed into landscaping to increase pedestrian vehicular separation and provide sufficient space to comply with all parking lot landscaping regulations. Moreover, staff ' Mr. Examiner Page 3 of 3 February 14, 2013 supports this modified recommendation as the overall project would be improved and the impact on the surrounding community would be reduced. Staff recommends approval of the Fieldbrook Preliminary PUD and a bonus density of 15.96 du/ac subject to all 31 conditions identified in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner (hearing date February 12, 2013) and Exhibit 20 in addition to the following conditions: 32) Tandem parking shall not be permitted in the alley way between BULD. A and B. · 33) The applicant shall modify building floor plans and elevations as follows: a) BLDG K, L, M, and N -Each building should eliminate 3 units from the third story. This would reduce the height of these three buildings which is impacting neighboring properties. These buildings should be re-designed similar to BLDG D and G. This would result in a reduction of 4 three-bedroom units, 4 two-bedroom units and 4 one- bedroom units. b) BLDG J -In order to reduce the bulk ofthis building, two units should be eliminated from the third floor in the center, providing modulation to the building elevations. These two units would be two-bedroom units. c) BLDG G and H -Both these buildings should eliminate the third floor units. This would eliminate 2 two-bedroom units and 2 one-bedroom units. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Sincerely, -/6/ltc»c~ {)Jj}es;__ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: PNW Holdings, Ray W. Lotto, William O'Neil/ Owner(s) Party(ies) of Record \ [Q) C: C [1!1!J 0 0 ~ ..... ·-..,., C: -~ 0 ('-.J = Cl) ·- 0 MJl a: 0 Ol M g .... C :z o ·c < MJJ ~c --, ...., ro (Qb ·-0... 0 I ,- / I I I 1 I / ________ _ ' I OPEN $FACE REQUIRED, O!"D~A,C[IIIEalllED(flfCl"ICtil+-l-19 l ~Ol"e:6"'M2. ..,.~IH'I PlilfVA11.0f8i:.,.AC;E,2'Clll'P'BI INT COfl::HGll"E'(t,J,Q. llltallli!J)(~ .f·l ··l, '8fl lJl•ltl!NTt . W.,lMtlfl te<I. ~A!tOl"f>l61'".w:2MQ.IIIIU>fee,;;;nc:,(,t.J •• .ll 1)et#x '6.l\Hlt • ."6},...e,<~ ~~~ITMAlPOMOl'~l'W'Y'AT? T"~Al'c;>AOC>ITICN.tl~IQ.l'f.CPG\"'8'4.,.ACZl"DI I.Nt~l!t:~ MIOP"!M.,.Aal6H.l00fnari fO H R:Q.RD "'1C:U\T c,:. GCtt01 i:.l)I 6'>.lriCI. 10!'.tilf"',Nnl, Cft),1.,..11(% ~(efCT1()4 4,.J.ali CO"f'Dlt:fff't ... Aai ... ,.fl'-P'1"il r,tW,IJ:Cf'C'joe,rg. ...,~ --~ OPEN SPACE PROVIDED, ~ 6,'TECa110,ICif911f"ACEtl.lr'111riPN1 illlJ'lfeQ.'1. m!l!D ,.,....,OECf'IEJr,!tJl>K:£1'n'ICAU.1'•'.l:ll!l"•M IOFTP'lJI~ P'llll'W'AtlCftlil~ACE !:t ttn«l'Qlll'lQIA~!'\.CIOIIII-AnOOlltAI\Pf"!Jt~otOC fl'IIYAtlQ1916P,1,Q!~,.e 1Q.l'T.a'6JINTtol,.WflQ.l"T. fOTJil..~J'EPOl"E)jll!-Aai~ l.n,1/F OPEN $FACE SUMMARY, TOl'Ai.D[K.H.ATB)Q"841f'ACZ~ ... &I fOIAi.1"9J'\1'1Qllll,'_,.ACI~ f'lXIC'fr Uil. nxie • .O.•fl'-(~JieOI,! HN.lliCOJMI)) RECREATION $FACE PROVIDED, ~TIO'il!M.PM;)A()cumoat;i#l!Ji, l.,»2i!IQ.~. ~ca,u. l,IIII06'1.ft. fQl'I.Qf, l@fQ..r!' TOl'AL., •"416Q.fT. = Cot1'10N OPEN $FACES <D l,9-a&a.FT. <Zl ~6'1.n. <Zl 2,W&c:r.f'T. @ ,4)1't&Q.FT. ® 1,1446Q.l"I'. @ D.e,w6r:l.FI. <l> l-:U6Gln. (i) l,,)»IQ.,r. <!> t.O'I IQ.FT. 0 ~6Q.,r. ® :1;meo:i.Ft. <Ill "°°6'1.fT. (.l)el'llnls Rlebe ARCH!TC.CT @ •JJIQ.FT. 0 ... ,.,, ~ IJU8Qn. 111 ·~ea.A'. 0, ,,.6Q.l'T. 3 l\i,16Q.l"f. a ~eQ.P'l'. M06C..FI. ~ 1.1»ea.n. 0 lJl2k:r.l'T. 10!'.4&,. lelntk/.1"". i ·t-, t1 r.iUU1UH~ J C Mr.i SE Jell! ST. ~11[ 115- MOf<D ls.JrlO, ·~''* Ml4I __L ARCMITECTuRE • PLAN!",.;ING 1123 MAPl.[ •VlNU[ SW -SUI I[ 278 RENTON. WASHINGTO'>i 960!17 PH (42!)}225-~JU r '-X: (425)226-5JH OIA!l: £MJ[8[0J,IS,•(COM / '""-' J CO: :JONS RCNTCf,. '"9ilr-Cl()I . . . . . . . . ' n .. ,ton ()fl •·O•' 2 ri LJ,; 0 ,i ' ·fl[L ~ fr)) NORJjl ~ xa ~ ~ ":. - D""-.:),1&-'ACE - 11:$1.JCI 1111&m rc!:'~T~ '-\.tli..lC l..?.e-1' ""' fG .Cv.t~ ?I~ D l .!lHU!JH~~~ .::.::.::.::.::.::.::~~~~~.:: ii ;!: '! ' I ' j!,j; ~i,!l ~ pi~;~ ·m1 jLi ii B ,, ' !I i il i ! __ ( ~~ ~ ,, ,, ~ 2~ ~ ,, n -1 ~ ~! ~ d ~ " 106TH A.eiue: SE: PNW HOLDINGS, LLC 9675 SE 36TH STREET SUITE 10!5 MERCER ISL.ANO, WA NCl40 (:i!Ofi)SM-1147 ' ' ----,-, - ' ' ' ' ---i J ' '' :-c-:"C":"C":~-'-- ' ,._,~_ FIELOBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUD '"""'""'" 17040 10ITH AVENUE SE RENTON, WA ---r--- ~ ------' , "-. \ \ . I I I I I i~J I 11 11 i i I ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I i i i .J / -- •I/ I/ . ' ,: I! ,: ,I I I 6":?'INI ~ m ~ ~ z 0 ~ ~ m m ~ • 1m 1,11 Im ; ~o •11'11 ,: I I /;I !11~ " PNW HOLDINGS, LLC 91175 S4! :MITH STREET SUITE 105 ~ ISV,NCI, w .. 9'040 (20&)518-11-'7 ii ~ATCHUNE ~SHE~ I FIEWBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUD GENERALIZED UTIUTIES PLAN, WEST 17040 1DITHAIIENUE SE RENT"ON,WA s J ' " -----\ 1 I I I I -~/ qn ; In ' . ! e ! -,,,a,, wi ...... ~ .... ,,,, ... -"·"-"'"'~ "' e 111111• PNW HOLDINGS, LLC FJELDBROOK COMMONS "lhli' PRELIMINARY PUO sl 9875 SE 36TH STREET SUITE 1~ GEHERALIZEO UTILITIES PLAN, CENTIW.. ' MERCER ISi.ANO, WI'. lill040 17040 1D8TH AVl:NIJE SE ~ (206] 581-1147 RENTON,WI'. I I -r -PNW HOLDINGS, LLC NT~ SE 36TH STREET SUITE 105 MERCER ISL.ANO, WA ill040 (200) IIN-1H7 FIELDBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUO GENEIW.JZEO UTl.lTIES Pl.AN, EAST 171).4(1108THAVENUE SE. "9<TON.w, • PNW HOLDINGS, LLC 111:175 SE 3S1M STREET SUITE lD5 MERCEl'I! ISi.ANO. WI\ "°'° (2(ld)588-11~7 FIELDBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUD GENEfW.IZEO UTlUTIES l'I..AN, SOUTH 1704() 108Tr!AVENUE S£ RENTON.WA " Jj ~ I ~ ij ~ ~ z C 'L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~,." _,. •ttoNo ,.,.~"" ""' 11,1L12 CN """"'"" .... ~ __ _:10~--~ s_, ____ ;._ __ _ a, I ' PNW HOLDINGS, LLC 11675 SE 361H STREET SUTE 10S MERCEl'I. ISLAND, WA ll8040 {206) 5119-11•1 1 (") "U C CJ FIELOBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUD CONCEPTUI\L GRADING PLAN, WEST 17l)IO 10ITH AVEHJE SE l'lcNTON, WA M.(TCHUNE I' ___ ._ I SEE SHEET p 6 ~ "' \ I I I ~· ,1i:1 (<~~ -z- "i r;. . ' ,~a,,~--""" 01',(,_,.~--"'"' ! ( 0 ) " . ---"U .. C 0 ----------- [] ~; ! I I i PNW HOLDINGS, LLC FIELDBROOK PRELIMINARCOMMONS YPUD CCNOO>nW. GRADING PLAN, CENTRAL 17040 108TH A.VENUE SE RENTON, WA I -t----~- I I I .,------ ,,,.,, ,,_,_"1:£'\NO"""""" 11.1 .. 12 CTY""*-"1' E\] ' . I l I ! • . ' ' . ~ PNW HOLDINGS, LLC 111175 SE lflTH STREET SUITE 1o::; ~ACEAISLANO, WA99040 (206)5"-1147 ) FIEWBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUD CONCEPTUIJ.. 13RADING Pl.AH, EAST 17040 1IJITH "VENUE SE AENTON,W" D~ ~ l ! ~ i ! PNW HOLDINGS, LLC lilSTS SE 36Tli STREET SUITE 105 t.lERCER lsu.NO, WA 1111040 (20&) 51&-11.(7 FIELDBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUD CONCEPrl.W.. GRADING Pl.AN, SOUTH 17040 fOITHAVENUE SE REl'ITON,WA ---:r--------------,o,n; AVE SE r ----- ~-~~Jl""'1.6."'<' -----I """ I ,.5 '-''\ ""I !ii. 1111 II I ! \ \ i -, I I i I i I I I I I I I I ! I I --1 j I i I ) / - I I/ j/ ' " ' ,: Ii ,: II ~ ~ ~ ~ z 0 ~ ~ Iii ~ • ll!!l!!I I PNWHOLOINGS,LLC 111·11 ~ " I I ~--1 f 91'.17~ SE 36TH STREET SUITE 10S -MERCER ISLAND, WA 980,!0 (20fl)!IM-1147 ll' 1: I tATO<UNE ,-.---S(E SHEET P11 I I FIELDBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUD DRAINAGE CCIITTROL P\.N,I, WEST 17040 10ITH AVENUE SE REWTON. WA , I M.A;TCHUNE jJ ----...... SEE SHEET P10 , 11 "" \ I I I ~ I I I . I . . -;~ - f ~ -:.,,~·z-•· ; g ' PNW HOLDINGS, LLC 9675 SE36T1-I STREET SUTE 105 MERCER ISI..NtD, WA 9!1DCO (206) 518-1 l.ot.7 FIELDBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUD 170ol0 1D8TH AVENUE SE RENTON,WA VM 'NOJJ,131::1 3S3nN3AVH.lllOL °"1£1 lSV3 'N't'ld lrnl.lNO::) 3e>VNIVl:Kl and AWNIWl13Hd SNOWWO::> >400~Sa13J:I 0 ::::, a.. >- "' 0::: "'<( wz "'- t5~ z_ ,ii .....J zW ::l 0::: o_Q_ ~U) !z :o N~ g~ ~o ,t (.) ;:;~ "'.O ~o "' 0::: Zea 0 .....J w u. ~ L)'!\'ff&(oot} Ot088 '!IM 'CJNV'ISI ¥31:>lll!ffi 90L 3.J..ll'lS LUlilS Hae 3SSttll :>11 'S9NIQ10H MNd 11 I, !! ! ! ' ~, !I !,ii 11nm ' . .... """"".w, "'rn <=-.JWON•l:,,,........,.LL;tTl - ~ ~ ·1 --z-1:1i ------------ .-.--.... r.::} 0 -·,::· {} 00·· c· 'I 0 c 0 {:}' -'{0 0 0 {'~ g {} 0 {} % o J {} 0 0 0 0 c,? 0 o, ··;{6-?oogo{}o0:::-o?o-.·:::-~} {} {} {} 0 {} 0 0 g {} .::-0 ;c _{} g:::, g {} {} g {} g {:} {:} g {:} t' {:}' ",o {:}{} {} 0 {:} {:}? {:} {} {:} {:} {:} {? {:} gogoggogr}ggs:}gJgg<}o{}ef' . og000?goo0 {}goo,:::,ogr,OoD6f' ~gogggoogqgg0ggggog1}ggo {:} {:} {:} / {} {'., {:,\ {} {} {} {} {:} {} {:} {} {:} {} {:} {} {:} {:} 6 {:} {} {} ,:::, {} -G• {:} {} . '.} g {} {:} J {:} g{} {:} g? g {} Q g {:} g {} {} {:} {:} g {} {:} g {:} g {:} {} g {:} iong{{jn{.,gngoo0ogo · ,ggng.f-pgng ' 0 o0 o 0 o'>o0 0 ° o Do0 {'.,? o O · · 0 ,-, ? d • \} -eD. o oo o c"} o , {} "{}{}{}D {}OD{}/•;,{}{}{}' _ %ogo<?gog0{}g,:::-g,:::-od ? 0og,_:.o0c,goo0,:::-g o''t} _. ,\ 7 } 0 {:} ,:::, {:} 0 {} 0 o {:} ,:i 0 D 0 ' o {} o c, {} o o{} o {} o o } o· , o {-,o~o {}o o• o{}, .. o· :}.{}{:} -~ {:} '"{:}{} {:} {} ~ {} ' {:} '{}' , 1 h' O .r-1.,-fl, 01-.r:--cO r> {" .~,,_, vO {4--w;::O c,<-"'<>f.:,h{:} sf°{' · ·' } . .<>I<>"!<1,<=>r ~->'--·i't:H{:'> .tM \ :" I) _ _,> \._( ·: z-1 'J-f{~ >. ,...> .(.['\ J,1- ,-~·~ ----+-- "'-i I I I I I I . I I . I I I l I~ lli==· .. ! ~ ~ [ n I'! i :ii~ !L~ f ------t~~~~~~ I Id !DHS 3JS --3NnH:)l'l'l't i~ ;a!; ~i i; rE ii 1; i, !, 'i ,, ;~ I ,!.1;!_z-;I I ' PNW HOLDINGS, LLC "575 SE 36TH STREET SUITE 10!i MEACEI\ ISVJ(), WA 9fl040 (20fl)S91-1l•7 FIELDBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUD 17040 10l1H AVENUE SE FIENTON, WA ' ! I ; ! _..,_ ' CITY OF RENTON REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIM. LANDSCAPE PLAN -WEST Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD PNW Holdln~. LtC l711JO f:llock of IDSlll ... v;:nuc: S[; R~alo•, )(loll Cu"nty. \\',', .. I I !i ii i '! i ' i ' ! ' l ' l ' I i ! i / i j -· C. :1, ' I ' _ '¥,I ·f { I • I I I 0 \ \ ' ' ',_ J.)_.~. ·"" 0 ' CITY OF RENTON REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIM. IANDSCAPE PIAN -MID. Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD PNW Holdin,p, UC moo Blod or 108th 1\venuc SE. Renton, l.'.1ng Coonty. WA ) j ' ) I J l ' i ) • J I • : ] ' • . ) I l ) l ) ) • ) i J . ) l ) • "ti .., (D 3 ::I m ~ r m ::I C. "' 0 m "C (D "ti -m ::I m m "' - --,-,ti/~,-'_:~-'~_>_•····-·.. ,J ·': ; ~·ill MATC,:t~~. --7~:-,.,---________ ""'!' __ _ / o'· \ \\ • , , . . ' , \; ,7?0 ' '.. c~ee Sh·~:~-2 [ 0 () 0 0 0 ·o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 ,,_.. ()' ' (5 ' ' ' ' ' ,i!' ' ' ' ' ' '. ' ' ' ' ' ''· ' · : : : ·I : : : : : : L : : : : : > <, 0 }~1... @ 0 0 0 cP 0 0 ·-o. .. -----'· .... (~'O C(GJ * 0 0 0 ,0 0 ~ () 0 0 0 ! :o' *o 0 () (' 0 ,'0 C j: --...... CITY OF RENTON REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIM. LANDSCAPE PLAN -EAST Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD Pt.W Hold!ng.,;, UC 17100 Block of l08ib A\1:nuo SI, Ren Ion. Kins Coun\)', WA ) ! ) 1 l l ' I ) l ] . ] ' ' - ) I I ) l ) ) ' ) I l - "ti ., (I) - 3 :I ll) '< r ll) :I a. t/1 0 ll) "C (I) "D -ll) :I CJ) 0 C: -:::r ) I :1! -ii!• ' ' l I l ' l ~ l'. ~ H " 'l t ~ !'' ii' ,, H ! 'J ' ! ill " d~ ! 0 I ' I ~i i i ~ H I· n~ ',! I '' '. ! CITY OF RENTON REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIM. LANDSCAPE PLAN -SO Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD PNW Holding.~, LLC 17100 &loci; of IOB!h Avenue SE, Rcntun. King Coun\l', WA ' ' ' : I : I ...... I I -="c -'<f :!1 I • :( r·· I I I ,I 1, I PLANTING SCHEDULE & DETAILS Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD PNW Holdin~ !.LC 17100 Block of I08Ll1 !w<n11C SE, Rcn1ot1, King C<Hrn\Y, Wl\ "O ;:J m C .: z ! "O !j;: :::i VI 0 :c m C C: r m "ti ; --· 3 :, Q) '< -I ; (I) :, < (I) :, -0 '< "ti -Q) :, I :1, ' . I '· ' -----·-----···---····-- -.__ ----.. ··-----·--;. __ --- CITY OF RENTON REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIM. TREE INVENTORY PLAN -W. Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD PNW Holdings, UC 17100 Bkd or IOSthAvenuc SE. Remo•. King C,,1m\)', WA I I ! . I,· i I L. i . i .. >1 1, 3 -· -::I < (I) ::I -0 -< "t1 -DI ::I I .. ~ --------------- CITY OF RENTON REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RELIM. TREE INVENTORY PLAN -Ml Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD PNW Holdlng.,;. llC 17100 Olock of IMlh ... \'0'1Ut 5E. Rrrilon. Kins Couo\)'. WA ATCffllNE- e Sheet TR-1 ' ;.;,~~t/11--. ~ -\ --·- "'D .., CD 3 :::I QI '< -t .., CD CD -:::I < CD :::I -0 '< ) "'D -• QI l :::I I >m 1 QI 1 !!?.. I ' f ) ' l I • : l • ' . ) f 1 ) l ) ) ' ) f l / ' RELIM. TREE INVENTORY PIAN-EAS Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD PNW Holdings, UC 17100 Bloc~ of 108th AnnllC SE. Renton, King Co1m\)". WA I "'D !. -· 3 -· :::, D> '< -1\, a CD en 0 C: -:::T '· --i f . :,:, ' r ,,j., ' . · REE INVENTORY PLAN PREUM. T Preliminary PUD Fieldbrook Commons PNW Holdin,9. lLC Renton, Kins Coun!)'. WA 17100 Dlod of IDSth AYcnue SE, ·-----·~ . / -s . / / D ! . §9"' :i;r~ -, "' 1 " """; I 1 ' .. S wjw w W ........... . : ... -1-·i.i-: i] . . ::··!:11: . . ' .. .. ............... .. ..... :· -i£_i t;j " ... ---.. !ill -~ . .. .. •·"-<i!§ . . ......... ... ... ~i z .. "'-1" Ill! ,, ... w ..... ~~ t;) . .. ,1,i ~ lj!u-.:-.:[:,j.,., -'. ""1"'"'" ,IJ1 . ' llf i "' : ~·~ : ,~l i ! ! I i ! ! i I f g I J :1 I I I ! I ' ' 11 '! t "r ' ' ' ' ' I! ' ' I I _T ____ _ i ' ' ' ' t t t t t t I t ' ' ' ' ' !11 jii • ,., ;•ii !< ,11 , r· ;I j ! I t li,! t .... 8 .~ Bj H~a ·"' sa: ~~ i,11 .:.m uil ,z 111 '() r'f 1' r ,, h, a (l> -~~,-I' mm "' () z ii C .... () ill ~5 i~ -,, G\~ r jl ~ ill ~ m r m :< • ~-------------------------',, ' ' ' ' ' h! n. ... t _L, sF ' , ,: : '7f. !i ' ' , , 11 HS" , ' ' , , r1 ?< I ~ ' " , Fe " .! ;!! ' , , ' ' I • , ' ' lj i i I , ; • ' dz: , ' ·-:l ·-·-· ,, ---- , , , ··- S:) ' , ' , , ; ' , it ___ ------------------- ~ ~---- i-:;-i~~ L:JLJc:.J '"""'"' .... "''"'°'""''\' Cl) >------= )_ --------;-, /' , ' , ' , , ' , ' ,{ ' \ : ' ' ' ' ' 11 :, :1 " ill :1 ) i I ' ' ' ' ' I\', ' ' ' I ', r ' ' ' ' --' ' ----~ FIELDBROOK COMMONS L ,, ) ' I • ' I -"'~ l ' ! ! •• ! ,il ~~ ·1 ! ' : -----------! i ;r ! ·11 :---' I ; ! ' ! ' i •• ' ' "" ! ! ' ! i ! ' I ' L __ ----------~ \J.) ; 11 ::i: ]> F '15,, ~ Q ~ ~ ~ -- ' • ~ ('" ... r diji •§i s'r ~ : '7f. • ~~ m r m ~ .... 2 \ "-'- RIEBE & ASSDCIATES,INC, ARCHITECTURE• PLANNING 11)J ~I.F'lE AIOIUE SW -SUITE :!le AENTON, WASHINGTON 116057 !'lt(425)226-S3'" FAX:(425)226-~l~ EWJ~ £0Rl£BElll~.caij •• q~, ... ,,_,, - I I I I I I 1·Tr I\ " " 0 . ' ~ . '' . ···, ...... I/ . ' I II I I I I I ~ I/ I/ • I ! II I I I '• ,, I ! Ii • I I I II ' PN11' HOLDINGS, LL! 96755E:l6thS1.SUITEJl.5 IIERCO! l!UHD, WI.Sfl!NCTl)j 99114\! E.Donnl• Rlobo ARCHIT(C! ,1~ ' " ' i!< .. I ~~r:=:l ul.JL.Jc:J ,.,,, ... ., ._,., .. FIELDBROOK COWONS HIEBE & ASSOCIATES,INC. ARCHITECTURE• PLANNING 112J )IIJ1.£ A\OIUE SW -sum: 27~ RENTON, WASH!~CTON 98057 PH.(42~)216-5:144 r.o.x,(m)226-5J4-4 ,~1~ mR-~_co~ PNT HOLDINGS, UC 9675 SE 36th ST. ~m: 115 MCIICER rst.lMI. ~Gm-I ia&III E.De~~I~ ~le~~ AACHJTE:CT --· ·----· ·-- 6UILDING,e, 6 AND E • TI-IIF:D FL.OOR FLAN I~ n --· ·-- =r n --· ·-- I L' r=t: ~;s: ~'v~ c-w, Q Ill~ I::, v ~ ~ ~ NJ·/ .?. '--' i :: i. ' ,--~ nl J --· ·--'v ~ 1~ll~"'u~~~ 9 --· :«=-11 ,_Hr F'=3' 1k~81[ Lotilv~II ~r: --· , __ r=-= ;----i --· ·--" ra_<~ V, t~ --- r 1 6UILDJt.ts:5o 6 AND E 5Ecct,ID FLOOR_FLAN --· , __ l L._____,l !I _I ,~I i II " ,-------, --· ·-- le=! is- If~ ~ ---~ f'JE; ~ --· ·--" F r-= --11,.J;;;;;,~~'o{]o [] ii --· --· , __ , __ BUILDINGS, El AND E 14 UNITS l eLIILDING8: B AND E !=JRST _ELOOR PLAN l J L____J,------1-~ E,D•,...,15 RloDO ~RCH!TO'.:T IPN11' HOIDINGS, W::: 96'' sr J61:1i ST. sum: 111!> IIBICEll!SW«l,ll,Sll!NCl(ll9BIMII RIEBE & ASSOCIATES.INC. ARCHITECTURE• PLANNING 112~ MAf'LE A\'ENUE SW -~Jl[ 270 RENTON, WASHHICTml 96057 PH:(425)226-5344 FAX:(425)226-5J!i E~A[l: EDRIE8El'IMSN.CO~ FIELDBROOK COWONS mum. WASH!ltCTtll "'"'"'"' @EJ' 5 ""E F22 : eLJILOMi FUN& • ; .._ ___ _. I :-------1_ _____ 1 r---------------, 1 -----~-------: I I I I I I I L _______ l ! ~-------1 _______ J L_ I I 1 L __ J I --· ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I 1-,INI .,,J--===r=-1! "------, ,--I 1µ1 --· II II ' L------, I I ,__,llff ' ' t_ ________ J ':':!~tg,-~ CM.I, Drev, G, H -THIRD FLOOR FLA'I BUILD ING5, Crev, D rev, G, ~ 13 UNIT5 G HOLDINGS, W Rm SE J61h ST. Stll.TE 1e E.P..,ris Rlrt>• !Sl.Nl').W~JNCTON9111141l A~C~ITECT i~ L:· v --· ,_,INII aJILDIN:i&: Crev, Drsv, G, H -SECOND FLOOR FLA'I --- - 6UILDN'.l5, Crsv, Drev, G, H -Fl~T FL.DOR FL.A.N RIEBE & ASSOCIATES,INC. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING 1123 MAPLE ~\OWE SW -SUITE 270 RENTON. WASHINGTON 9B057 PH:(425)226-0~4~ FAX'.(425)226-5344 E~AIL.o £0RlEA£111,1SN.GO~ F!ELDBROOK OIII.DJN06, COMMONS C rwv, D rw, Ci, M REM~. WA!if!NCTtl:I WILDN:11 Pl.AN& [l --· :;;J. I dJ J ,._. 10111112 .. -·-EJ --· ·-- --· ·-- BU!LOING: J -Tl-{IRD !=LOOR A.AN O<J<JO>r,r..,. --· ·-- Li --- BU!LDIN&, J -FIRST FLOOR PLAN. PN1I' HOLDINGS, I.LC lft7~ SE ~llh ST. StJrn: 1115 E.Oonnl• Rlot,o AAOilTECT tru!CD! ISLANO. 11/iSHINGTl)I ~~ --· ·-- --· --· ·-- --· ·-- , elJILDI~, J -5ECCND FLOOR PLAN RIEBE & ASSOCIATES,INC. ARCHITECTURE• PLANNING 1123 M.'J'l[ A\IENUE SW -SUITE 270 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057 PH:(425)225-~ FAX:(425)226-5344 EMAIL: EORI£DECll,ISN.C0M FIELDBROOK COMMONS ROHUN,\11.SHIIICTDN BUllPING, J 11 UNITS ~~r::l L_JLJOLJi --· ·-- --· ·----· ·-- BUILDINGS K, L rsv, M, N • Tl-llR:D FLOOR PLAN. I I n II ii 11---i --· ·-- ·--·-· D --· ·-- --· ·----· ·-- 9675 SE Jetli ST. sum: 11r, IOCER l~D, IIASHINCJQI ~- - --· ·-- -- L ___ _ --· ·-- --· --· ·-- n .. ll_____.'..__.. BUILDINGS K, L rsv, M, N • SECOND Fl.pOR PLAN BU!LDIJ.65 K. L rsv, M, N • FIRST FLOOR PLAN BUil-DiNGS, K, L REV, M, N 14 UNIT5 RIEBE & ASSOCIATES.INC. ARCHITECTURE• PLANNING 1123 WAPlI Al{NUE SIi -sum: 27~ ~ENTON, WASHINGTON 9B057 Pll·(425}226-5JH fA~:(425]226---5344 E~AIL.: EDR!l:SEOMSN.00\I FIELDBROOK COIOIONll REIITON.-N(;l!II ~~al L_JOLJ P2.B l DJlIHJ~~ •q~,~ •r,~•l"] ! ; ' = , i!l-0Ufll1JNIHS¥/l,'IJHYlS!4 ~ec mrr, ·.1.5 'll!/1: 35 1;1.96 , :JTI 'Sf!NIIl'IOH Jl.Nd . I r ... ~OJ NSN0'81~1D llV~C HSS-SU:(Si:1');:,;yJ ttl".-~U::si1')h 1qs6 NOON!HSVM 'NOlN3~ 0a ]J.I0S -II!; ],1NlM I"OV~ rt,1 o]N!r--''-J\lld • 3.:,n.;,_::i:cLLIH:J~'=' ·JNJ's:,J}IIJOSSV 'I' 3H3IH "' ii!! II' (0) CjJ ili ~ 1w1 11----rr- II II II II II II ll[~i • II ~ 1: t±J I :: 1, II Io € [ij ~ II I~ ~ II I ._ D I II II II II II «> G G 1, 0] I ,1 I "' "' ~ u: [ill CTI L_ ~« I ~-I ... ..• • • JO> >:: !ii "' .. DD n II w II II I II I l II ii I I I ,. II"' II~ I II I II I 0 0 l2 Cl ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,0 II'• ~! 1, i ! " ,! ~« J ~~~ LJLJc:..J """""'""•'"'" FIELDBROOK COMMONS RIEBE & ASSOCIATES,INC. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNINO 1173 MAPLE A\o£NJE S'/j -sum 2711 RE'ITO,O., WASHli'IGTON 98051 f'tl:[4l5)226-53-1-4 FI.X:(m)226-5~H EijAll: IDR!E8EIIISH.COM ',:) PNW HOLDINGS, UC 9m S£ 361:11 sr. sum 21• IIERCVI I51.AN1l, WASH~G'IOI 981iM8 E.Lrnnl• RIPl>P ARCHITEC( j !,: I rn 0 I~ Hi ' • a:; n In @ I!! , IS !i i i • n m ; • m r m " , ~ 11!! ,6 t i!i n a ~ 2 • • RIEBE & ASSOCIATES,INC. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING 112~ WAPU: A~E SW -SIJ!lE m RENTDN, WASHINGTON 98057 PH 1425)226-5™ F.O.X:[425)ZIB-SJ4-I EM.I.It: EDIHl:a"Cll,ISN.COI,! PN1f' HOLDINGS, I.LC ,, 't G E.D~~~I$ 'lleb~ ARDUHCT ., ; lil~l=l L£JUOCJ "'""'"' ..... , """ Jl'IELDBROOK COMMONS d e RIEBE & ASSOCIATES,INC. ARCHITECTURE , PL.ANNINO 112J M.o.PLt: A'IE.'IUE !,II -S.lil[ 17i RENTON. WASHtNGTO~ 96057 Pct(42!>)225-~ f~X:(4Z:.)226-5Jl-4 El!AIL.: EDRJEBECl,IS'!.CO~ PNW HOLDDlGS, I.LC [I]~r:=:l LJc:.J '""'"" .... '"'"" FIELDBROOK COlOION5 RIEBE & ASSOCIATES.INC. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING 112:1 Mm.t: A'f.Jf.JE SW -SUITE 27~ RENTON, WAS!1INGTON 98057 PH:(~25)226-~ fi.1.:(42.1]22S-~344 (W/Jl EDRIEB!'CIM~CCII PNlr HOLDINGS, W 11~1'! ~ tlb • i!i i!i r,:S I! ':;; m; i2 !i! I I I I I ~ie-==1 ~ti· ''" FIELDBROOK COKMONS ! !l'l l i!i ~ r,:S iE . ~ :; f /;;" . ~ =I m!i! ~ 2 RIEBE & ASSOCIATES.me. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING 112.l MAPU A~U[ SY/ -Sl.111[ 170 RENTOf\J, W~SHlNGTON Q5057 PH:(425)m-~ FJ.1.:.(<Z.)226-5344 E~I.Il.: EORl~IM~.CCI! e PNW HOWINGS, UC g&J~ SE Jll~ ST. SUITE 1115 WEJiO"R !SLAHll. 1™ill!NGTOI i&-18 E.Dennf5 Rle~e ARCHITECT I~ ' " ' sl 3 . z ; cc I" ~ 1=' ,;, 1 .. "l I" ~ =! ,;, I ill I L·-·_' .... "."' .... :.._-...... ~ """'=~=,.:"':"' .. "'OK=.:!I \)' L_J Ii R91'1ffi, 'IIA9IINGTl)I ,,,,.....,, ... , ... ,, !~ ! " • sl 3 z ~ m i;; ~ Ii>! ,b l sl 3 . z "l m i;; i RIEBE & ASSOC!ATES,!NC. ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING 112.l MAPLE ~ID;U[ SW -SUJT'E 170 REtlTON, WASHINGTON 116~~7 Pft(425)226-534-4 fM.(425)226-5344 EW.ll.: [l)RJf;!!Ell.l~CaM IPN11 HOIJ>!NGS. LLC 11675 51: .56111 ST. 9.111£ I~ ll!llCDl~0.~(;11)1,jg-E.DeMIS Rl~N IIR'Cl<[TECT l . ! ' ! I ill 'n ' ill ". 2 ~ b ii< ra m In ~l 21 ' ~ I I El I I -~ 'l ' 1 ' ~J 11 ,1 et I i' I ,! i I I@ t I ' ! ' ll I ' I i i FIEIDBROOK COMMONS [' ;~--. ! ,., :::;-:1l' ~ '' ,., . ~ ' ! , I VI I ~ ~I ill l 1 ' : ~ ' ' ' ". ' e, 2 ' ~ b ii< l a m r i l ! ill l ~ 2 ~ b ii< m ~ m ftcE:!, I;! '·• r m ~ 2 ,j1 I I-~ ,~: ! 'J~!I ~ ~ : I ! ill rr, , !~ ~ !!'a 5 i!< l ff ff jffii· ~ , e § ii Ii 1111 1h ,, ii II 111 111 I i1il ! nil 1! ! !!1! I : ! ' l "'' RIEBE & ASSOCIATES,INC. PH ROWINGS, LLC ARCHITECTURE , F'L...ANNING 111J MAPlE A\IIJ',1.1[ SW -SUI1£ 110 .~ENTCJIII. WASHIIIIGTON 96057 PH:(~25):.l:16-~ f!.X.(425)2.26-SJ+ol C~lill.: Ell~JESElll,ISN.CO~ 9e75 SE l6tli ST. 9.JHE 1es IOCE!l lllMD. wat:INGml 9BM8 l:.D•nnl~ RIP~P AllCHLTECT . " ,~ -· I \r~-~----~;,------\, :/ I '.I. ~ ', I I:, ' I .c:_ '' i\ '--', \ \ ' •. -~~.,..- ' ~~-------/ ', ',<;. '/ _ _;~: r e!---.J - =~~ i;: Iii!. J.1.1.1~ __ ,_ .. _._ --+ --,- SEE SHEET 2 OF~ FOR CONllNUAllO>I PNW HOLDINGS, LLC J Ji 1,?~ I __:_ _____ -::-::-:::-1~-;;::;;;;;:;;;;;;---111•·!,;! ~~ I--17040j()IJmAVENU£SE II la 967S SE 36THSTRE£T, SUr!E rre Rf£11'!!;'NG' ~':1}';1!,~TON !, l ~ MERCER /St.AND, WA 98040 ,.., ....,u,.,, O •• 206--588-1147 TAXPARC£lNO'S.2923059188, I • 2923(}5!)()22 & 2923059023 ---~ FIELDBROOKCOMMONS ~,, i I I [j . I I ,/ ! ' ' ·, ' ' ' ? ' ' ' ' ' ' /,;/ ,,,.-' ' ' --,.J SEE SjjE[T J OF~ FO~ CONTINU~llO~ / \ ' ' ' ~ ,' / / '' I/ I ,, I! ,. ' SEE SHEET :I OF 4 FOR CON1TNUATION 0 [ -------·-- 1 ''ii ,n ~ PNW HOLDINGS, LLC ''''I I o,,r ':: 0, 'J ~ %$ ~ 'q • I -961S SE 36TH STREET, SUITE 105 ij ~ i § MERCER /S!Al,ID, WA 98()4{) 20fJ-=t14T ' I I l Q I ii 1 .; ----- 6 .0 0 :ch· FTELDBROOK COMMONS f?NG f08TIIAVENVE SE RENTON. WASHINGTON K/NGCOUNIY TAX PARCEL I/O'S. 2923G5/J151l, 2923()59022 & 2"2305{!()23 ! ' ! 1 I I I ,111~ 11; " ·1 ~ '!.11~ ' I ' I· I I I ·r_ ' ' ' ;j ' ~ r ~ ~ h ::; ::-- ' I m " 0 0 0 er, ii HJ · 111 ' f++J-J-j+I---.~ ~ C, -,.-,_-,.-, ,· i ,j ::,.1~ :,·_ •I', 1: ·_; :~· +~ ! ''( I yz •M ~ s i: s ? ,- 0 cc\ 0 "'!': ""' -f5 ' e , 0 ' • 0 • 0 ~' ri t \,), , l1! ,o t r;' ~ ' C ~ z ;,, cu '" en 0 I '" 0 C ' '" Ii ' '- .i ':? , I I' J 0 1/c ' I II 111 II ,, I', 11 11 _,, --i' Ii _J / I' -, I II II ,, 11 ;' ' I/ ' II ;1 I' ,, -' FIELDBROCK C:JMMONS ILlUMINATION PlAN ' I Ii I (I ,'/ 11 I.' !I ii II II " ' ii ',', i: " ,, -::::-:::::... . -,1 ii ii ',I I/ ',I ,, /'/_ - __ II ·:, I I S '= ~~;"t , I;_; j -!,:.~·-.. --' i-j ~lr L( )~.:-i L -11 ~. I ~-· ,-1~-:_ C' I' ;;; I '> L_ ,' I ' ~1 ._..,., ... i _I . ' -7r------~_. ' ' ' ' ' ' , I ' = ' -' ~ I-:_; JI _, C' ('JT'I 01-' IU'.\TO.\ ',i ( (!~,,~ ! !7 " I ' -----.!:.~ r------ ' ; i I I I I ~~ nELD8ROOK COMMONS ILLUMINATlml DETAILS ' ·1 ' _ _l__ 11 · 1 ,u , I =:\'_::----- -_·----"1·'' ; 1··· ~-~ . I., ~ r ------,--1"" j; I ·~ ~- (Tl''l' 0}_' b:E\Tll\ 1: . ,,-H UH ,--1 1,; ~ij~ 0 -" ~· { i, "\JI . '--~ , I !SI :; f. ii I "~_I I~{__ I ' I FIELDBROCK CO~MONS ILLUMINATION UETAILS t [ ' ' 1, '' ' ' .• · .• ~' ;; i .~ '-oj ' 1~ ,-~ ~l~- R-8 I~ t ' ~ ~ ~ 1 --L CA -- 1 400 0 c,tofR c____.enton. W~slungl<ln R-8 -! CA "-,, J'< ... 14 R-14 SE 17.Zmis, •' / ... ;1 /c, I I 200 00 NEIGHBORHOOD MAP Privare Rd 1,111&1 I. II II \ 11~- R-14 ___ _/ / I JI 1 ~ l I I I ~/ ,....,">i1;,,,, .... /,.///'/// '/./.-//-, ~1 .. ;;;-~'. //// > -77 <·/ /'///// ,_....,.,.:,..:. . · .. /, ///:./,.///~~ ;,;::1 ~ // /',,///· ... /,. .. / ,./,//'/;,~/>-' '' .· ,• ./.·.-,-,,.,.->?"/'-,-----:-~ . •/ / . / . /. . . .. . .. // / / / ,,-·/ / ,-~ , / ,,-/ / / / / / / . // / / / / / .// ~ /'///'/; .·/·/·//~· / /.~ / .. / / ... / ./ .. ~////. /, // •// /// //0////// .. ·;,,;.//.. / //////////, ///-·'///•//·"'· // / . / .· / _ .. · / .· // / / / / / / / . / / . / 4CO O Feet .·. l · 1 · ~(//~~~;:/;:::;/,. ' Ji''-~ . /.% //>·::.-/j ~ '\ L·/// ~;~~ r--1 r----T-·:>:-:>:-1 R-14 ;/// .,/// //>. //.//i -1 I I ' .. _01 -4 ~1 ~ ~ IJt!,,.J'O""L>a,., ".r 4 Pi:,, •"lrl(d R-14 I -8 R-10 .-10 r----1 R-14 T~is map i> a u:;erger>er. ,sror, ted st.1~cou1pul r,om u0 l~lerool mapping ~ite an~ if ere rice only Da1.a.1.a,•rs \llal ap;rn.ar on 11\,s map ma¥ or ma¥ not b~ arnual~. c,rrr<,nl . .-,rnlh<'rw<S~ rel,abl~ THIS MAP IS J-ICTTO BE USED FOR NAVIGA1l0N Lakes and Rivers 0 Parcels Zoning Rom:,-ce Ce>n'"""""" Re"lenll>J t OJa, KosKl,nl1.!l4Uu/ac Ro>,don.,I a dWac Rosl<l<'flUINlnrul>Cl\lr<><I ~"' RM<tan,.allacwoc Ros><lenl<ll14CUIOC R••do-lMul>·Famr~ Re,.......,all.1,jl-F""'"I' Trao~cnal Ro,oJ<nual'm'l>FomC1 ua,on Coo ConuwV,logo Coor•, Oow,.owo UrbanC•a,ar-.~ortsl U~Conl0<-~0"'1~ c:arrmorc""o11,corRosi"""'"' Con'.moa:talM,rial Commooc1.00n= :.:1 c,mmor<illl Ho,gt,borliood lr,ju>lf<a' • L'llc, lr>lu1lno--Mod0Jm '°""'"'a,·H•a·.y Street Names Rights or Way Streets Roads Jurisdtetions Bolowo D0sM0"1o, l..aquati K,111 K,"\lCO""'l' 1,'~--ce, i,l;ar,J -·· Ri;ITTON s,,T,e s,amo '"""''" 2.400 @11" X 17" Notes Enter M.ip Jem,p1'on 0 -4--EIBE..ACCES SE 172ND STLOOKING EAST 3 SCALE SCA.[ D< '" REC CENTER @ CU L DE SAC I 2 I BL DG M'N FROM ADJ. LOT .! ""'-' "'' "'"' "' c] grouparchitect 11n_....,......., ........... semle.~96 102 rit.l0'.36S llll f '20f,J65 IRS7 ·--w-- """"' FIELDBROOK COMMONS ~.,oc,~ 171XX 108TH AVE SE. RE NTON WA """' PNW flOLDINGS, LLC --..... )fS•M:i(W "''"""" 'l:T.'X• """"" (:: ""'"""' 1l00'2Cl1 356l9 F "'"'" ,~ D COOD :;,e,c, -- """"'"' ""'"" PERSPECTIVES -~-........... ,_ ,m ,o DR 1.10 OPEN SPACE FROM SE 172ND ST ""'' i ~ -3- "' _.u_, !~ CENTER PARKING -LOO KING WEST l_J SITE PLAN SC>rl.£ r ~ IK"ll' 11 "' ' cl grou parchitect l21J~p~-'lt scatdc.WW11'1!'D'19el02 td0636512JO ~ '20t, V..'i IR'\7 e::rlro'.'~mm wwwwpf'U"(h,xvn """" FIELDBROOK COMMON S ""'lR':T ~ 171XX 108TH AVE SE, REN TON WA "'"" PNW HOLDINGS, LLC B;U_ c>[S'G~~w: U,,,T[MU .D 1i•L"XJ 1l'X.'2Cl11.1>S! 13 r -O CO'lD Ct,eo """"~ PER SPECTIVE S ~---,::; •• :·;~':=;' '""" DR 1.11 6XON NW CO RNER ~WC ~ grouparchitect Jll}f'::il<rlll,:p~•ffl'II: ~ -st.y;Di 98101 p· 106 365 I DO t Xlfi ll,,', 11!..~7 ·-W-WWW~((ffl """"' FIELDBROOK COMMO NS fW..}[l_l ~ 171XX 108TH AVE SE, RENTON WA """' PNW HOLDINGS, LL C ""' "'""""' Ol'.SiGNF!( .. .,_ ~ l'\_(JT(\,O,T(-12,'lllml1J&8~7i CN..'N-t ldl O l OU> """"'"' AXON NW COR NER ~............00-........ ~,- DR 1.01 AXON SE COR NER '°""' c1 grouparchitect Jl7'Nsmir<";l'W'f'W;PIW;t 1&,.~~9810'2 p:l06.36S.ll30 'xw.w lft57 c:~o.oin:ha:rn wwww- ~-..., FIELDBROOK COMMO NS """"'"""" 171XX 108TH AVE SE, RENTON WA PNW HOLDINGS, LL C OC:SGNR£llll oo.1t$.CD ·mz, tt= ftorOO.TC 12,'.3G"20111~._., =-O<<>ID CIIK.I, M:lfl:'IN-. AXON SE CO RNER ,._ .. , ... ,_,, .... , ........... ~ DR 1.03 AXON SW CORNER .st:.,,LE il grouparchitect l212~@J ~f'Mt 5~~':18102 D. 206365.ll)J I ,0,:, l/,.~ J8S7 ~'*1"~com wwww-, """" FIELDBR OOK COMMON S ""'"""""" 1J1XX 108TH AVE SE. RENTON WA PNW HOLDINGS, LLC <SIU "'"""'° XS<",N i:lfW ·= c:: t2'X.1Cl1 ~ 4e\l.4: CAAW'>t GJ( :;, a-mm """""' ,mm. AXON SW CORNER ......... ~ ......... ''"'"° DR 1.00 AXO N NE COR NER 5(;.U ~ grouparchitect :in, """1:m1r,._.,..,,. ""'~ 1f2~w..\.~<J8ID2 p; 206.36.S 12):) f 20F,)&51RS7 c.~d\.o:Jrfl wwww- """"" --~ FIELDBROOK COMMONS """"""'°"' 171XX 108TH AVE SE, RENTON WA PNW HOLDINGS, LL C OCS~Fl[W ()l.ltl!&.CP 'n),'20 """"" t+= KtlrQill.ll 1:w;)"f.1113'9101 AqOCY N,:, AXON NE COR NER ... """ -..-. ..... 1.,1 &)" DR 1.02 .--;LWffltJ._ \ I ... _________......l~fl ·.· { = ~:~ :t~= ~ = ~:~: ~: ~:~ = ~= ~{:~ ~:~ r:-·· ~ -1<:f-~ Planning Di•11sion REVISED Doto <,?ACJJ.11=c __ .... Note: Base map provided by D.R Strong based upon survey of Sft'al1 Wetland Consulting wetland Delinealion. .w.111----"Vil FILDBROOK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, LLC WETLAND DELINEA TIDN MAP JOBI 11-121 ll41'e l,IQ;.,&,1111 MIUWIW. ES srwe ,~-,oo' ~-·~TS~- I 11: C 1· I Cl !-.]/, t:J L-1-Uil.f.}!f"·:,:·, L, Ci/ i -w-~111o. --27641 Covington Wny SEl/1 ~WA ..... 253-859-0515 Fax 253-852-4732 e~o:o:g ™ + + + + + + + + + + -=-=-=-=~=-=-= 1-------J ~ 25,430SF ~CREATION 9303 SF~FH.L 4,781 SF BUFFER AVERAGING ·ADDITION 2,134 SF BUFFER AVERAGING· SUBTRACTION 4,688 SF BUFFER RESTORATION FOR TEMPORARY IMPACTS .. ~-""1 ... ij1 -i,;l;:'-::m:c~,( ~--~r:t1J /~~ t····>"'t\ '''\ • j -... ' --:. .. - l '.'"?:·· ··. I -I , , I I I .· ' I ··~I ~~-S{e0}=- J-..;.;:..,.)....._£.:._ Note, Bue map provided by D.R. Suoog bucd upon smvey of Sewall Welland Comulting Wetland DeJiDcoticm. FILDBROOK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, LLC CONCEPT OELINEA T/ON MAP JOBI 11-121 OIWIN/IY'._______f§_ ~ 111re. SCNF-1•-100• DBIIIOIEltTS ) '-,.. ,:I ----. :•! ·Jfb .:;1:1 ~-: \ '! 1 '! !.ii 1,1/ __ ; :,;1.;::; ( !i•.', llonllW---2764 L Covington Way SF.#2 ~WA!NIOCZ 253-859-05!5 .Fax 253-852-4732 April 2, 2013 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) § ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 2nd day of April, 2013, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision in the Fieldbrook Commons, LUA-12- 001, ECF, PPUD Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 2nd 9PY of April, 2013. / (; !'.:.~ 'i ' ··. 'r <.--;".~•;... ,-, '. Cynthi ya Notary Public and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® Katrina Garrison 17032 110th Place SE Renton, \NA 98055 VVilliam O'Neil Executor of Viola T. O'Neil Estate 215 N 56th Avenue, #36 Yakima, \NA 98908 Robert B. Lyon 10817 SE 170th Street Renton, \NA 98055 Timothy 5. Bell 11004 SE 173rd Street Renton,VVA 98055-5927 Terestia Tamayao 10813 SE 172nd Street, #2C Renton, \NA 98055 D. Bruce & Nancy Stanley 10825 SE 172nd Street, #5-B Renton,VVA 98055-5969 'Nilliam Barry 17033 110th Place SE Renton, \NA 98055 Scott Riegel 1805 136th Pl NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, \NA 98005 Vincent Geglia 11410 NE 124'h St #590 Kirkland, \NA 98034 Joel Mezistrano PNVV Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, #105 Mercer Island, IN A 98040 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® ' ' ' .. I ' I j ' Bend along line to l expose Pop-up Edge™ j, Jo. -Feed Paper - Justin Lagers PN\N Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, #105 Mercer Island, \NA 98040 Richard Niemi 17022 108th Avenue SE Renton, \NA 98055 Linda & Jesse Hurtado PO Box 59743 Renton, \NA 98058 Sylvia Coppock 10813 SE 172nd Street, #2A Renton, \NA 98055 Dan Miles 10813 SE 172nd Street, #lB Renton,VVA 98055 Laura L. Smith 10841 SE 172nd Street, #9A Renton, \NA 98055 Yoshio Piediscalzi 10604 NE 35th Pl #232 Kirkland, IN A 98034 Mike Simons 221 \Neils Av 5 Renton, \NA 98057 Ed Sewell 27641 Covington \Nay SE #2 Covington, \NA 98042 Rob Gladstein PNVV Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, #105 Mercer Island, \NA 98040 ... Repliez a la hachure afin de l Sens de reveler le rebord Pop-upMC l chargement @ AVERY® 5160® l Ray Lotto Trustee of Marjorie L. Lotto 1250 Jones Street, #1701 San Francisco, CA 94109 Steve Cuspard 17515 110th Lane SE Renton, \NA 98055 Patrick Creager 10833 SE 173rd Street Renton, \NA 98055 Donna Hart 10813 SE 172nd Street, #2B Renton, \NA 98055 Dan Russell 829 5 31st Street Renton, \NA 98055 David Hoffman 10824 SE 170th Street #A201 Renton, \NA 98055 Maher Jondi 10604 NE 38'h Place #232 Kirkland, \NA 98033 Kathleen Reader Bradley Design Group 4330 N Lexington St. Tacoma, IN A 98497 Katrina Garrison 17032 110th Place SE Renton, IN A 98055 Michael Gladstein PNVV Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, #105 Mercer Island, \NA 98040 www.avery.com 1-800-GO·AVERY I ' I ! Denis Law Mayor April 2, 2013 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9725 SE 26'h Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA98040 Re: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision r . t\_..._, Field brook Commons, LUA-12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers: City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Attached is your copy of tll_e Hearing Examiner's Decision dated March 29, 2013, in the above- referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enc. cc: Hearing Examiner Larry Warren, City Attorney Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Karen Kittrick, CED Bob MacOnie, CED Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record (29) 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 I Fax (425) 430-6516, rentonwa.gov I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary Planned Urban Development ) ) ) FINAL DECISION ) ) ) ) LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD ) _______________ ) SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development ("PUD") for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units. The application is approved subject to conditions. TESTIMONY 19 Vanessa Dolbee, senior planner, summarized the staff report, stating that the Fieldbrook Commons 20 project is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three vacant parcels, totaling I 0. 77 acres. The site is located in the residential medium density comprehensive plan land-use designation. 21 The applicant is requesting SEP A Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the 22 Residential 14 (R-14) units per acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 18 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 13 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 183,795 square feet. The 23 24 proposal includes I, 2, and 3-bedroom units. Building sizes would range from 10,000 to l 8,500sq ft. 25 26 Building heights would range from 23 ft to 36'9" ft. Parking has been proposed for 210 vehicles. The site can be accessed via 3 points along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. Additionally, the subject site contains six wetlands and a moderate-risk sinkhole area ( a coal mine hazard). The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 area along the eastern portion of the site [areas shown in orange in exhibit 19] and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands [ areas shown in blue in exhibit 19] and protecting 31 existing trees. A created wetland has been proposed as a form of mitigation. This wetland will be approximately 25,430 sq ft. The site has 786 trees, and an arborist report determined 227 of the trees were dead, diseased, and/or dangerous. An environmental review was conducted on the project, and, on January 7, a determination of non-significant, mitigated was issued with 10 mitigation measures. There were no appeals filed during the 14-day appeal period. Staff received comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Department of Ecology, and the public regarding the project. Toe DOE and Tribe comments were related to the wetland filling. Public comments covered a range of issues, including traffic, flooding, wetlands, tree removal, and habitat. Ms. Dolbee noted that PUD applications permit modifications from the city's development standards with the exception of uses allowed in the zone and density. The R-14 zone allows a density range of 10-14 dwelling units per acre, except an applicant can ask for a bonus density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has asked for this bonus density. Additionally, the applicant requested a modification to the number of units per building. Toe applicant asked to have up to 17 units per building, rather than six. Also, the applicant requested a maximum height increase to 36'9.25 ft. (which is 6 ft. over the maximum height). The applicant also asked for permission to remove trees in the wetland buffers and modify the frontage improvements along 108th Avenue SE to have a 5ft sidewalk and 8ft planter strip. Ms. Dolbee added that Renton staff has requested modifications to the development standards based on review of the application. First, staff asked for a reduction of the parking stall requirement from 208 to 200 stalls. Second, staff requested the perimeter landscaping be accepted as is from the submitted landscaping plan. Finally, staff asked that the garden beds be allowed to remain at 4x8ft instead of lOxlO. According to Ms. Dolbee, PUD projects are required to demonstrate superiority in design. This project demonstrates superiority in that (1) it has a recreation center that would be open to the public (2) a covered school bus shelter has been proposed at the corner of 108th Ave and 172nd Street (3) building orientation and consolidation provides opportunities to increase the common open space (4) consolidated units allows for greater preservation of mature trees (5) and a public wetland trail is being provided. Toe total open space area proposed is approximately 111,000sq ft which is above the 97,300 sq ft requirement. Toe architecture• design includes modulation and variation in building materials. Toe project meets all the comprehensive plan and zoning standards if the conditions listed in the staff report are complied with by the applicant. In regard to parking, Ms. Dolbee testified that the large number of surface spaces detracts from the overall aesthetics of the project. 78 percent of the site is surface parking. There are two options (1) reduce the parking requirement to allow space for landscaping or (2) reduce the density requirement to reduce the parking requirement. Toe applicant has indicated there is sufficient parking to meet the demand created by the development if the first option is adopted. In regard to landscaping, the applicant submitted a detailed landscaping plan with the application. Toe plan notes that street trees will be planted along I 08th Ave and 172nd Street along with a 1 Oft wide landscaping strip along all frontages. In regard to wetland impacts, the applicant submitted a wetland creation and mitigation PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 plan. The cumulative impacts to the wetlands should be taken into consideration when evaluating approval of the project. In regard to density, the applicant has requested approval for bonus density. To meet the requirements for bonus density, the applicant has proposed to complete (I) a 2400sq ft recreation center (2) no more than six stalls with a minimum of 15ft of landscaping in between. The PUD and bonus density requests must be evaluated together. The main issue of conflict, in staff's view, is the parking conflict. The applicant has proposed mitigation measures to add landscaping to these parking areas, but it remains unclear to staff if the applicant can meet the parking landscape standards while also achieving a superior design. Ms. Dolbee stated that staff has created three recommendations for the project: (I) approval of the PUD subject to 31 conditions; however, bonus density should only be approved if the surface parking lot presence can be reduced while the open space square footage remains as proposed or (2) approval of partial bonus density; however, the surface parking lot presence should still be reduced or (3) approval of the PUD subject to 31 conditions provided the recreation center remains part of the development. The applicant can reduce the surface parking Jot presence by changing the number of units or adding parking spaces to garages. If the unit configurations remain as are, staff does not recommend reducing the parking requirement below 200 stalls. Staff believes, if planned appropriately, 200 stalls could meet the design standards. In regard to the Department of Ecology comments, Ms. Dolbee referred to the environmental review report (page 10 footnote) to distinguish between the city's and DO E's categorization of wetlands. DOE category three wetlands equal city of Renton category two. DOE was consulted on the final mitigation plan and submitted an email stating that the department was comfortable with the current proposal. Kayren Kittrick, Development and Engineering Supervisor, stated that a limited traffic study was required, as opposed to a full traffic study, because the city already had information on most of the adjoining roads. The city only needed the applicant to provide the number of additional trips that would be created by the project, so the city could to apply these numbers to information already on record. Applicant Testimony Dennis Riebe, architect for the project, testified that the applicant agrees with the 31 conditions of approval outlined in the staff report. In regard to parking and bonus density, staff has indicated that the applicant can reduce the parking spot quantity to 200 stalls. This reduction allows the applicant to break up clusters of parking areas with landscaping. The clusters of parking stalls are noted in exhibit 8. Mr. Riebe has created a solution to the cluster-parking, utilizing landscape islands. This solution demonstrates that the parking condition can be met without having a significant impact to the project. The landscape islands ensure that no cluster of parking spaces is greater than seven stalls, which meets condition of approval number 11. The parking stall count reduces from 210 to 204 stalls with this new plan. Mr. Riebe submitted his parking solution as exhibit 22. In regard to roadway widths, he noted that the applicant believes they can meet all roadway width standards without any significant PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 impact to the site. By moving huilding B, the driveway aisle can be increased, thus the roadway width standard will be met. Mr. Riebe marked the wetlands that will be filled on exhibit 22. Public Comments Timothy Bell stated he lives on I 73rd Street at the south-end of the Fieldbrook property. The site plan notes a community trash deposit adjacent to Mr. Bell's property. He asked if this is still the planned location. Additionally, the moderate-risk sinkhole area abuts his property. He requested more infonnation on mitigation measures being required for the sinkhole area. Finally, he noted that there is no buffer planned between his home and the new apartment buildings. He does not wish to look out his backyard onto high buildings. Katrina Garrison testified that she owns property to the south of the Fieldbrook project. She is concerned with parking overflow onto the streets. Recently, several new apartment complexes have been built in the area. These complexes have resulted in parking overflow onto city streets. The overflow creates dangerous driving conditions because the roads are not wide enough. Additionally, when Ms. Garrison questioned the city as to why traffic studies were waived for the project, city staff responded that this had been overlooked due to staff being overworked. Ms. Garrison noted that traffic is already a problem in the area, and she has experienced traffic conditions that resulted in it taking 30 minutes to travel two miles. Also, she is worried about water flow. Currently, there is standing water in her backyard, and she believes the project will increase the problem. Finally, she noted that she is also concerned with the heights of the new buildings. Staff Rebuttal Vanessa Dolbee stated that, in regard to Mr. Bell's trash concerns, the refuse and recycling has been relocated ( exhihit 22). The code requires that refuse and recycling be a minimum of 50ft from bordering residential properties. Additionally, the facility is required to be screened. In regard to the coal mine hazard, there is a mitigation measure as part of the SEP A that requires additional analysis of the area. She is unaware if these environmental studies have been completed as of yet. In regard to overflow parking, Ms. Dolbee noted that no parking study was submitted with the application, but there was a limited traffic study completed. Cunently, the city is planning traffic improvements along 515 and Carr Road. This project is fully funded and should begin in 2014. The parking proposed with the project is for the residents. The code requires a little over 1 space per unit. The project would have additional street parking after frontage improvements are completed. In regard to the heights of the building, the Bell and Garrison properties would abut buildings that asked for a height increase above the maximum standard. In regard to stormwater, improvements on the project should mitigate any off-site impacts, and the planned improvements are compliant with 2009 King County Stormwater Code. Kayren Kittrick noted that she does not helieve the city's parking design standards are intended to prevent overflow parking. The city has methods of controlling the overflow, however. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -4 2 3 Applicant Rebuttal Dennis Riebe stated that, in regard to the trash enclosure, the recycling and refuse area has been moved to meet the 50ft minimum requirement of the city. In regard to the coal mine hazard area, there is a mitigation requirement in SEP A and studies will be conducted before construction. In 4 regard to stormwater, the project's discharge area will be south of the Ganison property. The new discharge point will be part of one of the wetlands created for the project. All of the stormwater mitigation will be underground. The applicant sited the higher buildings of the project to the east of the property to create a larger buffer area for neighbors. The property on the eastside of the project is coal-mine tailings area which is open space. This eastern property belongs to an existing apartment 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 project. Ms. Dolbee read condition 31 ( exhibit 20) into the record. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-18, identified at page 3 of the staff report, were admitted during the hearing. In addition the following exhibits were admitted during the hearing and dming a written comment period after close of the verbal portion of the hearing: 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 26. 27. 28. 28. 29/ Staff power point presentation. Order Quieting Title; King County Superior Court 11-2-30314-4 KNT 2/11/13 email from Katrina Ganison to Vanessa Dolby Open Space Recreation Public Benefit Diagram February 14, 2013 letter to Examiner from Vanessa Dolbee regarding Ex. 22 February 15, 2013 letter to examiner from applicant requesting extension of record to February 22, 2013. February 15, 2013 letter from Kayren Kittrick to examiner. February 20, 2013 email from applicant requesting extension of record to March 15, 2013. 2/23/13 email from examiner to parties. 2/26/13 letter from Vanessa Dolbee to examiner. 2/28/13 letter from applicant to examiner 3/7 /13 email from examiner to parties 3/7 /13 email from applicant to examiner FINDINGS OF FACT 24 Procedural: 25 26 1. Applicant. PNW Holdings, LLC. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -5 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on February 12, 2013 at I 0:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. At the request of the applicant the record was left open through March 15, 2013 in order to provide time for the applicant to comment on staff recommendations regarding modifications submitted by the applicant during the February 12, 2013 hearing. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units on a 10.8 acre parcel at 17040 I 08th Ave SE. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a 8 density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of I 08th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 31 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approximately 17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill to be balanced across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along I 08th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,526 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. The following provides more detailed bulk and dimensional information on each proposed building: BLDG.# Total Footprint Total Area BLDG Height Total Units A 5,152 10,251 27'-2 1/4" 9 B 7,002 16,098 30' -8 1/4" 14 C 5,955 14,050 32'-3 3/8" 13 D 5,955 14,050 · 28' -4 1/2" 13 E 7,002 16,098 28' -8 3/8" 14 G 5,955 14,050 23' -111/8" 13 H 5,955 14,050 27'-0 3/8" 13 J 5,955 18,507 31' -8 3/8" 17 K 5,152 15,345 33' -7 3/8" 14 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ----- L 5,152 15,345 36' -9 1/4" 14 M 5,152 15,345 34' -10" 14 --- N 5,152 15,345 34'-111/4" 14 -- Recreation 2,400 2,400 19' -3 7 /8" N/A BLDG. The applicant has requested the following modifications through the PUD process: REQ.UESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMC) RMC# Reg_uired eer RMC Requested Modifjcation RMC 4-2-llOA: No more than six (6) dwelling To provide buildings with up to Maximum Number of units per building. 17 units per building as Units per Building detailed in the preceding table. ~- RMC 4-2-llOA: Residential and Civic Uses: 30 To allow up to 36 feet 9 1/4 Maximum Building ft. inches in height, as identified Height, except for uses in the preceding table. having a "Public Suffix" (P) designation and public water system facilities RMC 4-4-130D.3: 3. Restrictions for Critical Tree removal in wetland Restrictions for Critical Areas -General: Unless buffers to be permitted. Areas exempted by critical areas, RMC 4-3-0SOCS or Shoreline Master Program Regulations, RMC 4-3-090, no tree removal, or land clearing, or ground cover management is permitted: a. On portions of property with protected critical habitats, per RMC 4-3-0SOK; streams and lakes, per RMC 4- 3-0SOL; Shorelines of the State, per RMC 4-3-090, Renton Shoreline Master PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-6-060F.2. Minimum Design Standards for Public Streets and Alleys Program Regulations; and wetlands, per RMC 4-3-050M; and their associated buffers; Frontage improvements on 108th Ave SE shall include 8' sidewalks and 8' planter strips per the current code. Frontage improvements on SE 172nd St shall include 32 feet of pavement from the south to the north then an 8' planter strip and (working to the north) a 5' sidewalk. th Frontage of 108 Ave. SE to include a S' sidewalk and an 8' planter strip. *RMC 4-4-080F.10.e. Attached dwellings in RM-U, The applicant has proposed to Parking Spaces Required RM-T, RM-F, R-14 and R-10 provide 56 one bedroom units, Based on Land Use Zones: A minimum and 88 two bedroom units, and 18 maximum of 1.6 spaces per 3 three bedroom units, resulting bedroom or large dwelling in a requirement to provide unit; 1.4 spaces per 2 208 parking stalls. Request is bedroom dwelling unit; and to provide 200 parking stalls. 1.0 spaces per 1 bedroom or *RMC 4-4-070H.4. Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping. studio dwelling unit is required. Such landscaping shall be at Perimeter Parking Lot least ten feet (10') in width as Landscaping be approved as measured from the street right-of-way. Standards for planting shall be as follows: a. Trees shall be two inches (2") in diameter at breast height (dbh) for multi-family, commercial, and industrial uses at an average minimum rate of one tree per thirty (30) lineal feet of street frontage. b. Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per twenty (20) square feet of landscaped area. Up to fifty percent (50%) of shrubs may be deciduous. proposed in the provided conceptual landscape plan SEPA Exhibit 11. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ------------~------------~ c. Ground cover in sufficient quantities to provide at least ninety percent (90%) coverage of the landscaped area within three (3) years of installation. *RMC 4-2-llSF.2. Open Standards for Common Open Raised beds 4 ft. x 8 ft. and a Space Space: Pea-patches shall be at fence height of 6 ft. 10 in. least one thousand (1,000) square feet in size with individual plots that measure ten feet by ten feet (10' x 10'). Additionally, the pea-patch shall include a tool shed and a common area with space for compost bins. Water shall be provided to the pea-patch. Fencing that meets the standards for front yard fencing shall surround the pea-patch with a one foot (1') landscape area on the outside of the fence. This area is to be landscaped with flowers, plants, and/or shrubs. -~--··-----------'-'-----'-~-------~------------~ 18 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be provided by Soos Creek Water District. The applicant has proposed to connect to existing Soos Creek facilities located in 108th Ave. SE and SE 172nd St. A water and sewer availability certificate would be required to be submitted with the construction permit application. With a water and sewer availability certificate, the provided utilities plans and the existing infrastructure in the area, the development would be provided with sufficient water and sewer services. B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be proyided by the City of Renton Fire Department. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City's stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all significant drainage impacts. New impervious surfaces would result in surface water runoff increases. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report ("drainage report") and Addendum with the project application (Exhibit 2). The drainage report assures that project design adequately accommodates needed drainage facilities and more detailed engineering review and final construction or bonding will be completed prior to final PUD approval. Some public comments expressed concern about stormwater impacts. The City's stormwater standards require that pre-development off-site flows be maintained by the project, which means that neighboring property owners should not encounter increased stormwater flows as a result of the project. D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. The applicant has provided a variety ofrecreation and open space throughout the development. As proposed the development would contain a large number of open space/recreation areas as shown in Exhibit 3. These areas total 111,018 1 SF in area which is above the R-14 requirement of 97,300 SF (common open space= 350 SF x 162 units= 56,700 SF and private open space 250 SF x 162 units= 40,600 SF, for a total of97,300 SF requirement). Amenities throughout the development in the open space/recreation areas ( excluding those areas allocated to bonus density) include community garden space, a recreation center that will be made available to the general public, a pickle ball court, three play structures, picnic table, BBQ, benches, open lawn play area, passive park space with arbor, and a soft surface trail through the wetland buffers. The provided open space areas are scattered throughout the development and would provide a variety of recreation options to the community. All open spaces are accessed via a pedestrian sidewalk and/or trail directly from the uni ts and from the street. In addition to the provided recreation space, the proposed trail through the wetland includes interpretive signage/information kiosk at the trail entrance and a second located near the "dog leg" parcel. Information was not provided with the application identifying what would be included on the information kiosk. However, providing the public with 1 9,720 square feet of the provide 111,018 square feet of open space is provide in the form of private open space as 23 either ground floor patios or upper floor decks. Based on the information in Exhibit 3, each private space is approximately 60 square feet. However, staff's analysis of the provide floor plans, the decks more typically scale at 24 6 x 8 feet which is 48 square feel If one used a conservative estimate, and reduced the private open space to 48 square feet per unit the overall open space in the development would be reduced to 109,074 square feet, which still 25 exceeds the minimum requirement. In a 2/28/13 post-hearing letter the applicant asserts that the total amount of open space is actually 113,172 square feet. The relevant point from the different amounts presented is that the 26 proposed open space significantly exceeds that required by the underlying RS-14 zone. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-10 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 information about the critical areas and the mitigation project would be an important role for the kiosk to convey. This information may help to preserve the mitigation project and protect the critical areas in the future. As such, a condition of approval requires that the kiosk design and signage be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. Additionally the wetland trail should be open for the general public so the neighborhood can take advantage of the amenity. The expansion of the trail to public use, results in an increase in public benefit as a result of the overall project. In order to achieve public access, signage shall be provided and an easement shall be recorded memorializing the public access to the wetland trail. Furthermore, comments were received from the City of Renton Community Services Department recommending the trail through the wetland is looped. Typically, public trails are designed to loop if possible, as looped trails are more attractive to the public and more commonly used. Based on the Park's department recommendation; the conditions require that the trail be re-designed to create a loop at the end similar to a "lasso" shape to provide a turnaround that acts like a loop. A full loop is not available at this location due to the presence of wetlands. E. Pedestrian Circulation. The PUD provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation system. The applicant is proposing to provide street improvements which would include the extension of public sidewalks along both 108th Ave. SE and SE 172nd St. Once off the public sidewalks pedestrian sidewalks continue throughout the development along the internal "street" system and through the open space areas. Pedestrian connections are provided throughout the development including cross walks and connections to the refuse and recycling, parking areas and site amenities. With compliance with the conditions of approval, the pedestrian circulation system throughout the development would be well designed and would encourage walkability throughout the neighborhood, potentially reducing vehicular traffic and impacts on the neighboring community. Based on the provided Traffic Impact Analysis, no safety concerns were identified (Exhibit 14). The applicant has avoided many potential safety issues by providing pedestrian crossings throughout the development and alternative routes for pedestrians by providing for separation of vehicles and pedestrians throughout the site. However, many sections of the sidewalk proposed in areas near garages would be constructed at grade with the internal drive aisle. This type of construction would not provide for sufficient separation of vehicles from pedestrians. In fact this type of design may result in conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Furthermore, by not providing a clear delineation as to where the driveway/tandem parking area ends and the pedestrian sidewalks vehicles could end up blocking the intended pedestrian walkway resulting in pushing the pedestrians out PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 into the road. As such, the proposed design would not provide a safe environment for pedestrians. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that all sidewalks and cross walks in the development be built with a different material than the roadways, drive aisles and driveways. The different materials would provide a clear delineation as to where the parking stall ends and the pedestrian pathway begins. In addition to different materials, the projects bylaws or CC & R's should restrict parking across the pedestrian pathways throughout the development. lbe street frontage improvements along SE 172nd Street, I 08th Ave. SE and internal to the site provide a pedestrian connection to the commercial development located southwest of the site along Benson Dr. SE. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed to provide a covered bus stop for the school bus which would be connect to the proposed development and surrounding neighborhood by the new street frontage improvements. South of the site along SE 176th St. or SE Petrovitsky Rd., is multiple Metro transit stops providing public transit to the development and access to the greater community. F. Interior Vehicle Circulation. The PUD provides for an appropriate interior vehicle circulation system. An internal vehicular street system is proposed to provide vehicular access to each unit. As shown in the Environmental Review Report, subsection 5. Transportation (Exhibit 2) incoiporated herein by reference, the project would provide sufficient vehicle access for the proposed development and the proposed public and private streets could accommodate emergency vehicles and the traffic demand created by the development. G. Off-Site Traffic Improvements. Off-site impacts are adequately addressed by proposed frontage improvements and required traffic impact fees. A limited scope traffic impact analysis was prepared for the project, Ex. 14. The analysis concluded that the level of service standards required for affected intersections would not be lowered below adopted City of Renton standards (LOS D). The study concluded that no off-site mitigation is necessary beyond payment of Renton's traffic impact fees and frontage improvements. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. As shown in the Environmental Review Report, subsection 5. Transportation (Exhibit 2) incoiporated herein by reference, the project would provide sufficient vehicle access for the proposed development and the proposed public and private streets could accommodate emergency vehicles and the traffic demand created by the development. Frontage improvements are proposed along I 08th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,525.51 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. As noted in the environmental review committee report, several members of PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the public expressed concern over off~site traffic impacts, but the traffic analysis completed for the project establishes that traffic generation levels will be within the levels found acceptable under adopted level of service standards. H. Parking. For multi-family developments in the R-14 district a minimum and maximum of 1.6 parking spaces per 3 bedroom or large dwelling unit; 1.4 spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; and 1.0 spaces per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit is required. The applicant has proposed to provide 56 one bedroom units, 88 two bedroom units, and 18 three bedroom units, resulting in a requirement to provide 208 parking stalls. Based on the provided site plan, 39 spaces would be provided in garages, 8 in ADA Accessible garages, 46 tandem spaces in the driveways and 117 surface parking stalls for a total of 210 parking stalls. Twenty two percent of the provided parking stalls would be located in garages and therefore screened by the structure. However, the remaining 78 percent would be outside surface parking stalls. Overall, the excessive amount of surface parking stalls scattered throughout the development detracts from the aesthetics of the overall development and the quality architectural design and landscaping proposed throughout the development. Some section of surface parking stalls are separated by landscaped areas and are 7 stalls or less. However, some sections of surface parking stalls contain long rows without landscaping. The conditions of approval require that the long rows or parking be broken up by landscaped areas to reduce the visual impact of surface parking throughout the development. Furthermore, a reduced number of parking stalls to 200 stalls from 208 stalls is approved to achieve the necessary parking lot landscaping. Overall the development is over-parked by two stalls, with the reduction of stalls a significant amount of new landscaping could be provided, however sufficient parking would still need to be provided at the subject site to achieve the demand created by the development. The provided parking is located in groups near the buildings it would serve. The proposed development does not have shared parking facilities nor the opportunity to conduct shared parking as the entire development is residential. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Wetlands. Six wetlands have been identified and delineated on the subject site. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands. The applicant has also proposed buffer averaging. The proposed wetland modifications have been thoroughly assessed against the City's critical area regulations in the environmental review committee report, which involved significant work by wetland consultants who were subjected to peer PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 review. A set of alterations and mitigation has been approved through the mitigation measures of a determination of non-significance that has not been appealed. Since the proposed wetland filling and mitigation approved in the DNS has not been appealed, the issue cannot be revisited by the examiner. See, Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904 (2002). The Washington State Department of Ecology engaged in back and forth communications on the proposed wetlands alterations and ultimately approved of the staffs final recommendations. B. Coal Mine Hazards. The coal mine hazard was identified as a Moderate Risk Sinkhole Hazard Area.· A geotechnical report assessed the coal mine hazard and recommends a setback to the hazard area. This setback area will be included in the conditions of approval. The SEP A mitigation measures also require that additional study of the coal mining hazard be conducted prior to final PUD approval. C. Wildlife. Public comments express a concern over impacts to wildlife. A habitat study was completed for the project and no protected species have been identified at the project site. Public comments note that eagles have been seen resting in the trees, but no assertion has been made that these areas are used for eagle nests. The filling of wetlands will result in the loss of wildlife habitat, but the applicant is replacing that lost habitat with new wetlands that significantly exceed the area of those filled. The open space of the proposal is also significantly more than that required for multi-family development in the R-14 zoning district. D. Compatibility. The proposed project provides for aggregated units which in turn provides for increased opportunities for open space throughout the overall development. All units either face onto a public street and/or an open space green area or park space. Furthermore, the reduction in buildings provides the opportunity to preserve existing mature trees within the development. The preservation of some of the existing tree canopy will increase the compatibility of the development within the surrounding community. The development would not be fenced which would provide for community connection, further enhancing a sense of community in the neighborhood. Pursuant to code, the applicant could fence the entire development walling it off from the neighborhood degrading the sense of community. Without a fence, the project allows for neighborly interaction and opens up the development as if it is part of the overall community instead of a separate private area. The architectural design of the proposed buildings varies from building to building, however common themes persist throughout all the proposed structures. The applicant has proposed a variety of siding materials including cultured stone veneer, hard shingle siding, smooth lap siding, and hard panel smooth siding. In addition to wood corbels and knee braces, wood vents with wood trim, prominent entry features, and detailed balconies railings are proposed. See Exhibit 6 for details of each separate building design. However, a few portions of the overall design could enhance the street presence of the internal "street" system. Particularly the ground floor garage doors could provide additional detailing such as windows and the PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 sides of the buildings facing the public streets and internal "streets" should include an increased "front door or front porch" presence. As such, a condition of approval requires that the garage doors provide additional details and all sides of the building facing the public street and/or internal "street" provide a front door or front porch presence, if this is not achievable an approved landscape screen would be required between the sidewalk and the building. Furthermore, the proposed buildings contain horizontal and vertical modulation, reducing the bulk of the overall structures. The residential buildings are both two and three stories in height. The changes in height provide for additional building modulation increasing the variety in the overall architectural components of the development. In addition, the site abuts single-family residential development to the north and along the southwest side of the "dog leg" portion of the site. The buildings proposed along the north property line (BLDG.CD G and H) are proposed to be two stories in height along the north side. By placing the two story buildings adjacent to the north property line bulk and scale impacts are reduced for the neighbors to the north. It should be noted along the south side of BLDG. C D G and H a portion of the buildings are proposed to be three stories in height. BLDG. M and N located in the "dog leg" are both three stories in height; however the development is setback from the property line approximately 42 feet at the closest point. This setback reduces the impact on the single-family home located adjacent to the site at this location. Located in the center of the project is BLDG. J, which is proposed to be three stories high. This building faces SE 172nd St. across an open space area. The building would be screened from the street by a grouping of preserved existing trees and new landscaping, however the scale of the building appears to be larger than anticipated by the zone and the other buildings in the development. Building J is the largest of all the proposed building at 18,507 SF and 17 units; however it is not the tallest building. The west elevation of BLDG. J provides a variety of materials and architectural details such as balconies and entry features to break up the fa9ade and reduce the overall bulk of the structure. However, the east elevation is primarily sided with wide smooth lap siding and visually appears to be a typical large apartment building. The east elevation of BLDG. J could be improved with additional variety in materials and vertical modulation, similar to that of BLDG C and D, to break up the bulk of the structure. As such, a condition of approval requires that BLDG J be re-designed to reduce the overall appearance of bulk with vertical modulation and provide additional variety in siding materials and color. The proposed landscaping along the north side of the development would provide screening for the single-family development to the north and southwest edges of the site. The screening landscaping includes the construction of a 6 foot wood fence. The applicant did not provide details of roof mounted equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment. As such, a condition of approval requires that the applicant provide a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment, if proposed. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Screening landscaping and fencing is required around refuse and recycling facilities. Based on the provided landscape plan all but one facility would be screened with landscaping. The refuse and recycling area near BLDG. E only provides landscape screening along two of the three sides. A condition of approval will require that all refuse and recycling facilities be screened with landscaping on a minimum of three sides. 6. Superiority in Design. The development of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than would result by the strict application of the Development Standards for the following reasons: first, the applicant has proposed a recreation center. Second, the applicant has included a covered school bus shelter. Third, the overall building orientation and consolidation of the units provides opportunities to increase the amount of common open space or green space throughout the development significantly beyond that required for the R~l 4 zoning district as outlined in FOF No. 4(D). This open space area provides a large variety of recreational opportunities of both passive and active recreation. Furthermore, the concentration of the units allows for preservation of additional mature trees to provide retention of more than 10 percent of the trees on the site. Finally, the project provides a wetland trail system which would include interpretive signage. The PUD modifications requested by the applicant and identified in FOF No. 3 make this superior design possible by providing added space for the amenities and making the improvements more economically feasible. The project's ability to demonstrate superior design is undermined to a certain extent by the extensive amount of parking required for the proposal in order to accommodate the applicant's request for a bonus density. Parking is comprised of 78 percent surface parking. The proposed site plan, as shown in SEPA Exhibit 3, utilizes an excess amount of area in order to accommodate vehicle parking necessitated by the high density of the project, which creates adverse aesthetic impacts that nullify the aesthetic benefits of the substantial open space proposed for the site. These parking spaces in some cases contain surrounding landscape areas and in some cases do not. Superior design could be maintained with the requested bonus density if the excessive amount of unmitigated surface parking could be minimized and the additional open space could be maintained as proposed. This could be accomplished in a number of different ways including additional landscaping and/or more parking garages. However, it is unclear if the applicant can meet all the required parking lot landscaping standards and the bonus density standards and at the same time achieve both a superior design and credit for the bonus density. At the February 12, 2013 hearing the applicant presented a parking plan, Ex. 22, they believed would sufficiently mitigate the aesthetic impacts of the parking while maintaining the amount of proposed open space and the proposed 18/du density. Ex. 22 depicted a series of landscape islands that prevented the clustering of any more than seven parking stalls at a time. Ex. 22 actually provided for a 1,022 square foot reduction in open space, but the applicant asserts this reduction resulted from increasing driveway width as required by staff recommended conditions of approval as opposed to improving the parking. Staff's only specific concern with Ex. 22 was that it still provided for clustering of seven parking stalls while the bonus density criteria authorize no more than six clustered PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 parking stalls at a time. The applicant's response to this concern was that Ex. 22 was only "conceptual" and that it would be further refined prior to final PUD approval. The staffs concern of a "parking lot feel" of the project is certainly legitimate. It is difficult to legitimate the proposal as a PUD with "superior design" when a large portion of the project is comprised of a parking lot. However, regulating by standards such a "parking Jot feel" is disturbingly close to the design regulations invalidated in Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993), where the Court of Appeals noted that "in attempting to interpret and apply this [ design] code, the Commissioners charged with that task were left with only their own individual, subjective 'feelings' about the 'image of Issaquah' and as to whether this project was 'compatible' or 'interesting."' 70 Wn. App. at 76-77. In order to avoid the vagaries of an Issaqual1 design review paradigm, Renton's PUD regulations should be applied using concrete regulatory benchmarks whenever possible. The staff report's focus upon maintaining the open space at the area that served as the justification for a finding of "superior design" is a good starting point. The bonus density requirement that clustering be limited to six lots is another specific and objective design standard. Further, reducing the number of parking stalls by removing units from the top of the tallest proposed buildings, to bring them in conformance with the RS-14 building height is another concrete standard. Employing these standards, the conditions will give the applicant another opportunity to meet the superior design requirements of the PUD in its parking spaces while also qualifying for the full 4/du density bonus. 7. Public Benefit. Added public benefit is provided by the project is provided by making the bus shelter and wetlands interpretative trail identified in FOF No. 6 open for public use. Further, the added open space of the proposal and enhanced tree retention serves as a public benefit by enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the development to neighboring properties. Note that the availability of the recreation center to the public is not factored in as a public benefit, because this amenity will be used to support the applicant's request for a density bonus. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 22 I. Authority. RMC 4-9-l 50(F)(8) authorizes the Examiner to conduct hearings and make final 23 24 25 26 decisions on PUD applications. Substantive: 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project is zoned R-14. The comprehensive plan map land use designation for the property is Residential Medium Density. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -17 1 3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-150 governs PUD criteria. Applicable standards are quoted below 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions oflaw. RMC 4-9-lSO(B): 2. Code Provisions That May Be Modified: a. In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of chapter 4- 2 RMC, chapter 4-4 RMC, RMC 4-6-060 and chapter 4-7 RMC, except as listed in subsection B3 of this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development 3. Code Provisions Restricted from Modification e. Specific Limitations: The City may not modify any provision of RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, 4-4-130, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing, 4-4-060, Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations, chapter 4-5 RMC, or RMC 4-6- 010 to 4-6-050 and 4-6-070 through 4-6-110 related to utilities and concurrency, except that provisions may be altered for these codes by alternates, modification, conditional use, or variance as specifically allowed in the referenced Chapter or Section. Such alternates, modification, conditional use, or variance applications may be merged with the consideration of a planned urban development per RMC 4-9-l 50H. 14 4. As shown in Table A of the Staff Report, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations 15 16 17 18 identified in the regulation quoted above, except that the restriction on removing trees from critical area buffers, RMC 4-4-130, may not he waived. It is unclear from the record whether any trees will in fact be removed from critical area buffers by operation of PUD waiver standards. The conditions of approval will prohibit this from occurring. Of course, trees may still be removed by operation of other regulations that authorize their removal. RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approye a planned urban development only if it finds that the 19 following requirements are met. 20 21 22 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicant must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. 23 24 25 26 5. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150, are to preserve and protect the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity in development of residential uses. The extensive filling of wetlands involved with this proposal certainly does not further this purpose. However, the extensive open space and other public amenities, coupled with the PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -18 2 3 4 5 extensive mitigation for the wetland alterations, arguably makes up for this deficiency. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined at p. 33-35 of the staff report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. As detennined in FOF No. 6, the proposal is superior in design than that would be required without the PUD. As detennined in FOF No. 4 and No. 5, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal so it will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 6 following requirements are met. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicant shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development; or b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or ... e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development. A superior design may include the following: ... 18 6. As determined in FOF No. 7, the proposal provides for public benefits in its overall design 19 20 21 and amenities that exceed what would be required of a proposal outside PUD requirements. Further, as determined in FOF No. 4 and 5 there are no significant adverse impact associated with the proposal. The criterion is met. RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 22 following requirements are met .... 23 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: 24 25 26 a. Building and Site Design: PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -19 1 2 3 4 5 6 i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(D), the proposal has been designed in size, scale, mass, building material and design for compatibility with adjoining uses. The staff report does not identify whether building materials have been reviewed for reducing light and glare and this will be made a condition of approval. RMC 4-9-ISO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 7 following requirements are met. 8 9 10 11 12 13 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design: ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single 14 family, townhouses, flats, etc. 15 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(D), the proposed buildings have been designed to be 16 built in a coordinated fashion, utilizing a consistent set of materials yet at the same time each building with a unique design. Furthermore, the site is designed to promote open space providing visual and physical access from each unit to a shared common area. The applicant has indicated that the project would provide a rich color palette that would be coordinated throughout the project to unify and tie the neighborhood together in an organized manner. 17 18 19 RMC 4-9-ISO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 20 following requirements are met. 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria b. Circulation: i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -20 1 2 3 4 proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. 9. The criterion above is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E)-(G). RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 5 following requirements are met. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria b. Circulation: ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difjicult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. 14 10. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the criterion above is met. 15 RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 16 following requirements are met. 17 18 19 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 20 b. Circulation: 21 22 23 24 iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. 11. The criterion is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E). 25 RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 26 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-21 I 2 3 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 4 b. Circulation: 5 6 7 iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. 12. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(F) and (G), the proposal has sufficient emergency 8 vehicle access. 9 RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the ] O following requirements are met. 11 12 13 14 15 16 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal is served by sufficient public infrastructure and services. 17 RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. 14. As determined in FOF No. 4, the proposal significantly exceeds open space requirements. The site is also designed specifically to increase the access and opportunity for open space. The multiple open spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of recreational opportunities PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -22 1 both passive and active. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 With the application, the applicant submitted a preliminary landscape plan (SEP A Exhibit 11 ). The preliminary landscape plan included a preliminary planting schedule, which included types of trees, shrubs and ground cover but did not identify exactly where what type of tree, shrub, and or ground cover would be planted and at what spacing or interval such plants would be planted. The conditions of approval require that the applicant provide a final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Conceptually, the provided landscape plan identifies screening landscaping bordering the properties to the north and to the west of the "dog leg" portion of the development and screening landscaping around the perimeter of the refuse and recycling areas. 1n addition, the plan identifies street trees would be planted along both SE 172nd St. and 108th Ave. SE. However, comments were received from the City's urban forester requesting that Tulip and Red Maple trees are not used as street trees. As such, a condition of approval prohibits the use of Tulip or Red Maple trees as street trees. Overall, the applicant has proposed to landscape all areas not proposed to be impervious surface with a combination of both evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and ground cover. Aggregating the units into a smaller number of buildings and providing for stacked units, as proposed, the overall project has less impervious surface than otherwise would be expected. Based on the provided TIR the site would contain approximately 42.5% impervious surfaces for the overall site. This would include building areas, associated walkways, driveways, parking and drive aisles and would total approximately 200,000 square feet of area. The remainder of the site would consist of residential landscaping and other pervious surfaces. 15 RMC 4-9-150(0): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 16 following requirements are met. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -23 I 2 3 4 5 6 15. The proposed development would be designed to building code standards for multi-family construction. Each unit would have a separate interior entrance with insulated walls separating the units. All units would have access to light and air, as each unit contains a balcony and windows. BLDG. K and L along the east end of the property would also have views of the protected critical area and wetlands and BULD. J, E, and B would have views of the large common open space areas. The applicant has indicated the placement of the buildings, oriented to open space, provides separation and privacy for the residents while maintaining a communal atmosphere. As noted in FOF No. 5(D), landscaping and fencing will be used to screen residential development to the north. RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 7 following requirements are met. 8 9 10 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 11 f Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views Ji-om within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. 12 13 14 15 16 16. The subject site is relatively flat and does not have a view corridor to Mt. Rainer and/or over a valley etc. However, small more localized view opportunities exist on site. BLDG.Kand L along the east end of the property would have views of the protected critical area and wetlands and BLDG. J, E, and B would have views of the large common open space areas. The overall orientation of the project enhances local views taking advantage of the site's features. RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 17 following requirements are met. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate. 17. The criterion is met as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4(H). PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -24 1 RMC 4-9-150(]))(4): Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the 2 development standards contained in subsection R of this Section, the underlying zone, and any overlay districts; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested 3 pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC 4-9-1 SO(E). All requested development standard modifications requested through the PUD process identified in FOF No. 3 are approved by this decision except for the requirement to retain trees in critical areas. P. 7 of the staff report notes that except for the requested PUD modifications all RS-14 zoning standards are met by the proposal and there is no evidence or reasonable inference to the contrary. RMC 4-9-ISO(E)(l): Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below. a. Residential: For residential developments open space must equal at least ten percent (10%) of the development site's gross land area. i. Open space may include, but is not limited to, the following: 14 (a) A trail that allows opportunity/or passive recreation within a critical area buffer (only the square footage of the trail shall be included in the open space area calculation), or 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (b) A sidewalk and its associated landscape strip, when abutting the edge of a critical area buffer and when a part of a new public or private road, or (c) A similar proposal as approved by the reviewing official. ii. Additionally, a minimum area equal to fifi.y (50) square feet per unit of common space or recreation area shall be provided in a concentrated space as illustrated in Figure I. 19. The proposed project is located in the R-14 zone, which requires more common open space than required by the PUD regulations. Pursuant to RMC 4-2-l 15(D), where there are conflicts between the design regulations and other sections of RMC the regulations of RMC 4-2-115 shall prevail. In addition, in times of conflict the more restrictive standard shall prevail. In both these circumstances the standards of 4-2-115 prevail. Therefore the above standards would not be applicable to the subject development proposal. RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development 26 shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -25 1 for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least fifieen feet (] 5') in every dimension (decks on upper floors can substitute for the required private open space). For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5'). 20. As mentioned in the preceding COL, R-14 standards are more restrictive than the PUD standards therefore the requirements located in RMC section 4-2-115 shall prevail and the above standards would not be applicable to the subject development. Pursuant to 4-2-115 Private Yards, developments of attached dwelling units (other than townhomes) that do not provide private yards, an additional 250 square feet per unit of open space shall be provided and this standard has been met as determined in FOF No. 4(0). In addition, the applicant identifies that 9,720 square feet of the open space is provided in the form of private open space as either ground floor patios or upper floor decks. Based on this information, each private space is approximately 60 square feet. However, staff's analysis of the provide floor plans, the decks more typically scale at 6 x 8 feet which is 48 square feet. If one used a conservative estimate, and reduced the private open space to 48 square feet per unit the overall open space in the development would still exceed the minimum requirement. RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the Applicant and approved by the City; provided, that common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division. b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070. 23 21. As Conditioned. 24 25 26 RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -26 I 2 3 developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060 ... 22. As Conditioned. 4 RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. 23. As conditioned. RMC 4-9-065 [A bonus density of up to 4 du/acre may be allowed in the R-14 district if the following criteria are met]: To qualify for the density bonus, the applicant shall provide either: (i) Alley and/or rear access and parking for 50% of detached or townhouse units, or (ii) Civic uses such as a community meeting hall, senior center, recreation center, or other similar uses as determined by the Administrator, or (iii) A minimum of 2 units of affordable housing per net developable acre (fractional results shall 17 be rounded up to the next whole number) to qualify for a density bonus. 18 In addition, in order to qualify for a bonus, l 9 features described below: developments shall also incorporate at least I of the 20 (i) Active common recreation amenities such as sports courts, recreation center, pool, spa/jacuzzi. 21 22 23 24 25 26 (ii) Surface parking lots containing not more than 6 parking stalls separated from other parking areas by landscaping with a minimum width of 15 feet. 24. The applicant has requested the maximum bonus density of 4/du per acre. The applicant has partially met this requirement by providing for a recreational center that is available for public use. The conditions of approval grant the applicant's request for the maximum density bonus to the extent that the parking requirements of the criterion above can be met. DECISION PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The proposed preliminary PUD as identified in the application materials admitted as exhibits and described in this decision is Approved, subject to the conditions below: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The 4 du/acre density bonus requested by the applicant is granted to the extent that the applicant can maintain the amount of open space proposed in the Open Space Recreation Public Benefit Program, Ex. 3 and also, as determined by staff, comply with the parking lot clustering and landscape requirements of RMC 4-9-065 in addition to any other requirements applicable to the project. If it is not possible to maintain the proposed open space, the applicant shall reduce the number of parking stalls by reducing the number of dwelling units to the extent necessary to achieve compliance. Units shall first be removed from the tallest buildings of the proposal. The amount of open space in Ex. 3 shall be based upon the correct area of space depicted as determined by staff, as opposed to the numbers listed in the document that both the applicant and City have claimed to be in error. The Applicant shall comply with the ten mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination ofNon-Significance Mitigated, dated January 7, 2013. The project shall comply with the recommendations of the geoteehnical reports prepared for the project, Ex. 12 and 13, specifically including the setbacks recommended for the coal mine hazard identified at p. 3 of Ex. 12, unless the additional geotechnical analysis required by the MONS recommends alternative mitigation. The Applicant shall submit a detailed and revised final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that the building materials will reduce the potential for light and glare as contemplated by RMC 4-9- l 50(D)(3)(a)(i). The interpretive kiosk design and signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. In order to achieve public access to the wetland trail, signage shall be provided and an easement shall be recorded memorializing the public access to the wetland trail. A signage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to final PUD approval. The required public trail easement shall be recorded on the property title prior to building permit final occupancy. The wetland trail shall be re-designed to create a loop at the end similar to a "lasso" to provide a turn around that acts like a loop. The updated trail design shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. All garage doors shall be designed with additional details, such as windows, and all side of the building facing the public street and/or internal "street" provide a front door or front porch presence, if this is not achievable an approved landscape screen would be required between the sidewalk and the building. These required design amendments shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10. BLDG J shall be re-designed to reduce the overall appearance of bulk with vertical modulation similar to BLDG C and D, and provide additional variety in siding materials and color. These required design amendments shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval 11. A water and sewer availability certificate would be required to be submitted with the construction permit application. 12. The use of Tulip or Red Maple trees as street trees is prohibited. A different street tree shall be proposed and included on the final landscape plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Urban Forester and the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to final PUD approval. 13. The applicant shall provide a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment, if proposed. TI1e screening plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to fmal PUD approval. 14. All refuse and recycling facilities shall be screened with landscaping on a minimum of three sides. The final landscape screening plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 15. The long rows or parking shall be broken up by landscaped areas every 6 or 72 stalls, to reduce the visual impact of surface parking throughout the development. The final parking area landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 16. All drive aisle widths shall meet the minimum width standards required by the Renton Municipal Code. 17. A detailed, colored coded, tree retention plan with associated retention worksheet and arborist report shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. This detailed plan shall clarify which trees are to be retained, dead and/or diseased, removed and eliminated as a part of the wetland mitigation project. Additionally a narrative should be submitted explaining what trees are included in the calculations and which trees are excluded and why, to verify compliance with the tree retention standards. 18. The applicant shall provide a bicycle parking plan consistent with RMC 4-4-080F. l 1.c to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to final PUD approval. 19. Areas within the development that result in more than 14 surface parking stalls (including surface tandem stalls) shall provide interior parking lot landscaping consistent with the requirements of RMC 4-4-070H.5 which would at a minimum require 15 square feet of landscaping per stall. The final parking area landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 2 Compliance with this standard is a PUD requirement separate from the bonus density requirement requiring 26 clustering of only up to six parking stalls. · PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20. The refuse and recycling stations in the south "dog leg" section and the facility located along the north property line by BLDG K shall be relocated to meet the minimum 50- foot separation standards. The new location shall be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager to ensure minimal impact on residents and neighbors and so they are not visible to the general public. An updated site plan identifying the new refuse and recycling plans shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 21. The applicant shall either relocate the refuse and recycling facility near BLDG M to meet the 200 foot maximum distance standards for all buildings or an additional facility within 200 feet of BLDG. M shall be provided. An updated site plan identifying the new refuse and recycling plans shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 22. The applicant shall provide a detailed utility screening plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 23. The proposed site plan shall be modified to eliminate the parking stalls located in the wetland buffers of Wetland A and Wetland B and be re-located outside the buffer areas. An updated site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 24. A split rail fence and critical area signage shall be provided along the edge of the wetland and a gate shall be located at the trail entrance. An updated site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 25. The final wetland creation plan shall include the placement of pieces of large wood within the wetland and buffer to increase the buffer complexity and to provide habitat features that currently do not exist within the area. The final wetland creation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 26. The wetlands and their buffers shall be placed in a Native Growth Protection Easement, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. The easement shall be recorded on the property title prior to building permit occupancy. 27. All pathways shall be made of concrete or other material approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Material shall be identified and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to final PUD approval. 28. The pathways in Common Space 2 and 21, as identified in Exhibit 3 shall be realigned and be provided at the edge of the green spaces to allow for a larger usable green area in the center. An updated site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 29. Door materials shall be provided with the building permit application and be made of either wood, fiberglass, metal, or glass and trimmed with 3 Y, " minimum head and jamb trim. Door design and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -30 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 30. The following buildings have sliding glass doors along a frontage elevation or an elevation. BLDG. A, west elevation, BLDG. E, east elevation, BLDG. J, east elevation, BLDG. K & L, west and east elevations, and BLDG. M, west elevation. The sliding glass doors on the building elevations listed above shall be replaced with either a French door or another door approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Updated elevations shall be provided for review and approval prior to final PUD approval. 31. The applicant would be required to demonstrate multiple colors on buildings. A color palette shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 32. All sidewalks and cross walks in the development shall be constructed with a different material than the roadways, drive aisles and driveways. Material proposals shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 33. The applicant shall create bylaws or CC & R's that restrict parking across the pedestrian pathways throughout the development. Final bylaws shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager, prior to building permit final occupancy. 34. The applicant shall comply with the court order admitted as Exhibit 20, and as amended in the future. Compliance shall be identified on plan sets for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to Final PUD approval. 35. All requested PUD development standard modifications identified in FOF No. 3 are approved except for the tree cutting and land clearing requirements of RMC 4-4-130 as identified in COL No. 4. 36. All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the Applicant and approved by the City. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division. Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements ofRMC 4-4-070. 37. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions ofRMC 4-9-060. 38. All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -31 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. DATED this 29th day of March, 2013. Isl Phil Olbrechts (Signed original in official file) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(9) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-l!O(E)(S) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, ( 425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change m valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -32 ., Cynthia Moya From: Bonnie Walton Sent: To: Monday, February 25, 2013 8:51 AM Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Fieldbrook Commons Question For the file. bw From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 8:08 AM To: Bonnie Walton Cc: Chip Vincent; Jennifer T. Henning Subject: FW: Fieldbrook Commons Question F.Y.I. From: Phil Olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:19 AM To: 'Justin Lagers'; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Fieldbrook Commons Question I've listened to the recording of the hearing. I left the record open to allow staff to respond to the Applicant's revisions made in response to staff concerns regarding parking. Consequently, any comments submitted after the close of the verbal portion of the hearing are limited to the project revisions submitted by the Applicant during the hearing. Staff comments may extend beyond parking to the extent that the Applicant's revisions extended beyond parking. Given this clarification I'll give Ms. Dolbee until 5:00 pm, 2/26/13 to identify which of her 2/14/13 comments were responsive to the project revisions submitted by the Applicant during the verbal portion of the hearing. The Applicant will have until 2/28/13, 5:00 pm to respond to Ms. Dolbee and Ms. Doblee shall have until 3/1/13, 5:00 pm to reply. If the Applicant objects to the comments submitted by Kayren Kittrick on 2/15/13 I'll address those comments as well. From: justin@americanclassichomes.com [mailto:justin@americanclassichomes.com] On Behalf Of Justin Lagers Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:32 PM To: Phil Olbrechts Subject: Re: Fieldbrook Commons Question Thank you. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote: The extension to March 15, 2013 is granted. I do not currently have access to the recording of the hearing to answer your question on the scope of additional permit comment. I should be able to respond by early next week. From: justin@americanclassichomes.com [mailto:justin@americanclassichomes.com] On Behalf Of Justin Lagers Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:34 PM To: Phil Olbrechts Cc: V1111essa Dolbee; Hoda Mezistrano Subject: Re: Fieldbrook Commons Question 1 ' Understood. We met with City staff today and received some further clarification to some of our questions which was helpful. We would like to formally request at most three additional weeks from Friday, so the 15th of March. One of our lead consultants will be gone all next week, our land use attorney is out until the 26th and we are awaiting some additional information from an outside agency. One point of clarification that may be helpful for us is if you could pinpoint what elements of the hearing are currently left open for further comment and discussion. In our mind the hearing was left open in regards to parking only. However as l mentioned in my previous letter, staff is now revising its recommendation and provided several comments regarding density, building design and impacts to neighboring property owners. Can you please go back to the record and clarify this for the parties. On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote: All communications between you and I need to be in the public record and Ms. Dolbee must be a part of them. I'm not allowed any ex parte communications during the pendency of a land use application. From: justin@americanclassichomes.com [mailto:justin@americanclassichomes.com] On Behalf Of Justin Lagers Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:05 PM To: Phil Olbrechts Subject: Re: Fieldbrook Commons Question ls this email going into the public record? On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote: How much time do you need? From: justin@americanclassichomes.com [mailto:justin@americanclassichomes.coml On Behalf Of Justin Lagers Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1: 17 PM To: Phil Olbrechts Subject: Fieldbrook Commons Question Mr. Olbrechts, l writing to inquire what the proper method would be to request a continuance of the hearing for a time frame TBD. ls it possible to have a short discussion on the phone or is that not allowed? Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 2 Dir,:t:tt,rufl_and \u.-1ui,i1i11r1 t\. Dnll(lprl:t'nt 1:r-05 '>L :;.r,ti~ '-L ..;_ll.<=' 1,;,~ I ·11:!,:.;: 206-588-J ]47 r ·c II. 253-405-5587 l.!!.."il_m@pn~\'.hu ldj_n_g;;_.c_om Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC Director of Land Acqui~ition & Ucwlopmcnt %~5 Si'. 3(,ih '.St '.-,u:tL' l\:~ '.\-k:·,:cr bLi:,,i. \\-_.\ -1::,:(,4(; Otris:;;· 206-588-1147 ( ell: 253-405-5587 )ustin@pn~'.l:!_Oldii;ig~_._c_9_m Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC Diri:-rtor of La11tl .\nJui,itio11 S. 0;:-n•lnpmt>llt ')(,-~ "l= >._,1b -.;, )rn:e 1:_1:-, .'.'.krcer 1~1..mcL \\ A ,;~(1.1,_1 Offi..:e· 206-588-1147 Cd!· 253-405-5587 Justin@pnwholdings.com Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC Din•ctlff of I.and .\cqui,i1io11 & Ue, e](lpment •11'-,/,'i -SJ..: 3f-,t:l St '.'suite 1,·15 \krL'L1. hbnJ. \\"A %•.i4[1 Ol"tiu.:: 211(,-."i~~ : 1--1":' l 'Lll. 2'.'3-4(1S-5.'>.'C Juc;tin(alpnwholdin2:s.com 3 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION & REGULAR MAIL HOLDINGS LLC -. ---------------- CliY OF RENTON FEB 2 8 2013 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE February 28, 2013 Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examiner /lt:tltl l}d,vel'eJ i2: j./ ,PIii· -,§1.d c/o Olbrechts and Associates 18833 NE 741h Street Granite Falls, WA 98252 SUBJECT: Applicants Response to City Staff's Clarification Letter to Hearing Examiner dated February 26, 2013 ("Staff Clarification Letter'') and City Staff's Letter to Hearing Examiner dated February 14, 2013 ("Staff Letter") Public Hearing -Field brook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD ("Public Hearing") Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner: This letter is in response to the Staff Clarification Letter and the Staff Letter referenced above relative to Exhibit 22 entitled "Open Space/Recreation Public Benefit Diagram", as presented at the Public Hearing. To. avoid confusion, Applicant is responding by point to the Staff Letter and shall incorporate the clarification comments made in the Staff Clarification Letter if said comments presented additional information which require a response. Staff Letter Page 1. Paragraph 2, Findings: 1. Open Space -Arithmetic Mistake. Acknowledged. The open space for the project under its original application has been recalculated and the correct area of total designed open space is 113,172 square feet. This is 15,872 square feet ( 14%) above the required open space; 2. Open Space -Exhibit 22 -Reduction of 1,020 SF. Acknowledged ; 3. Open Space -Exhibit 22 -Staff Non Supportive of Open Space Reduction in Areas 18 and 19 -The square footage in Area 19, as stated on Exhibit 22 was in error; no reduction in open space occurred. The reduction in Area 18 was the direct result of Applicant's compliance with Condition #12 and not the result of Applicant's attempt at compliance with the reduction of surface parking "presence". See objection to Condition #32 below; 4. Bonus Density Criteria -Parking Stalls and Intervening Landscaping -Acknowledged. 9675 SE 36th St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone 206-588-1147 Fax 206-588-0954 Page 2, Paragraph 1: Exhibit 22 does not accomplish the goof identified in the original recommendation to the Hearing Examiner which states "that staff only recommends approval of the bonus density to 18 du/ac if the surface parking lot presence can be reduced and at the same time the square footage and configuration of the open space remains as proposed." The Applicant explained at the Public Hearing and still maintains its position that the Open Space/Recreation Public Benefit Diagram (Exhibit 22) was merely a first attempt at "conceptually" showing compliance with Staffs recommendation relative to open space and parking stalls. Exhibit 22 was not meant to be a substitution for the PUD under review as it did not comply with a number of the Conditions in the Staff Report, nor was it meant to be reviewed by City Staff as such. The Applicant acknowledges it must submit a site plan for final PUD approval which complies with the Conditions set forth in the Hearing Examiner's Decision. Of Staff's original 30 recommendations to the Hearing Examiner, Condition #2-6, #8- 11, and #13-30 state an updated or revised site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Thus, there will be a revised site plan submitted by Applicant to City Staff showing compliance with the Conditions. The revised site plan would include the reduction of the surface parking "presence", although the Applicant notes no specific code section was cited nor guideline provided to Applicant to conform with aside from Condition #11 and #15 which relate to parking lot landscaping. Staff has indicated and the Applicant has agreed to a reduction down to 200 parking stalls based on a unit count of 162 units. However, the Applicant would prefer to maintain as many stalls as possible while complying with the Conditions of Approval as set forth. It is our assumption that this reduction in surface stalls and the compliance with Condition #11, #15 and #28 will meet the reduced parking presence that Staff is requesting and that the Applicant shall modify its design as necessary to comply with said Conditions. Page 2. Paragraph 2: Staff recommends Bonus Density be reduced to 16 du/acre-Parking/Open Space: The Applicant asserts that a reduction in the number of units does not necessarily correlate to a direct significant improvement to the surface parking presence and open space for the project as a whole which Staff has asserted by recommending a reduction to 16 du/acre. The Applicant would ask the Hearing Examiner to acknowledge that if the Applicant had to reduce the number of parking stalls below 200 to maintain the overall open space square footage and configuration for the project, but met the bonus density criteria of RMC 4-9-065(d) which allows up to 4 additional units per net acre if the bonus criteria are met, then the Applicant should only have to reduce the density incrementally to come into compliance with the parking requirement. In other words, the Applicant may need to decrease the project density, for example, to 17.5 du/ac to be in compliance with the parking requirement but should not be forced to decrease to 16 du/ac as Staff is asserting. 2 Page 2, Paragraph 2: continued Staff recommends Bonus Density reduction to 16 du/acre -New Condition #33/Building Height: The Applicant strongly objects to the introduction of Condition #33. There is no nexus between building height and bonus density. A reduction of the number of units would directly result in a reduction of the number of parking stalls required. However, this reduction in units could come from any building and/or any location within a building, i.e., end units of a building. As the Applicant stated at the Public Hearing, the buildings were all sited well in excess of the required setbacks when adjacent to single-family developments. In addition, Applicant agrees with Staff's Conclusion #4, page 35 of the Staff Report, that "the proiect would not be detrimental to the surrounding property owners. if all Conditions of Approval are met." The additional heights allow for fewer buildings on the overall site thereby allowing for greater open space and hence greater public benefit to not only the future project residents but the surrounding community as a whole. As to the heights of Buildings G, H, J, K, L, M and N and impacts to the surrounding single-family developments, Applicant's response is as follows: 3 • Buildings G and Hare below the 30 foot height limit for the zone. • The building pad for Building J is at elevation 426.25 feet with our current grading concept. The base of the large stand of trees to the south of Building J being retained as a buffer to neighboring properties are at elevations 434 feet and 436 feet and are 65-100 feet tall. Additionally, the stand of trees to the southwest of Building J are at elevation 426 feet and are 50-70 feet tall. Both of these stands, as well as the additional landscape trees shown on SEPA Exhibit ll(L-2), will serve to buffer this building from the neighbors to the south. • The neighbor to the northeast of Building K previously stated her concern with the size of Buildings K and Lat the Public Hearing. With regard to the height of the building as it affects her house, Building K is 105 feet at the closest point to her true property line with her house being set back an additional 20 feet from the property line. A portion of Building Kand most of L will be significantly screened by the existing wetland buffer canopy. The distance of her home from the buildings, as well as fencing proposed along the common property line, will diminish the height and scale of the buildings. • Building M is located 85 feet to the west of the nearest single family property. Significant perimeter and parking lot landscaping, as well as the distance from the common property line will greatly diminish the scale of the Building M. • The neighbor to the south of Building N asked at the hearing about the scale of buildings as seen from his home. Building N is a distance of 80 feet from the common property line. This distance, along with the perimeter landscape buffer we will be providing will diminish the scale of the building. Page 3, Paragraph 1: New Condition #32 -Tandem Parking shall not be permitted in the alleyway between Buildings A and 8. The Applicant strongly objects to the addition of Condition #32 because: (1) it is in direct conflict with existing Condition #12; and (2) the Condition is unduly burdensome to the Applicant's best efforts to insure suitable parking for the residents in Buildings A and Bas it removes six (6) stalls from the immediate area. The reduction in open space in Area 18, as addressed previously, is the result of Applicant's compliance with Condition #12 and not the result of Applicant's attempt at compliance with the surface parking presence. Furthermore, the Applicant does not believe the reduction in open space in Area 18 is a significant alteration to the configuration of the project's open space if the overall open space square footage for the project remains unchanged. The Applicant notes Condition #12 of the Staff Report states: "All drive aisle widths shall meet the minimum width standards required by the Renton Municipal Code." Furthermore, the Staff Report (pg. 19) under Adequacy states that in the location between Buildings A and B, the aisle is required to be 24 feet to allow adequate back-out space. Neither Condition #12 nor the Staff Report narrative infers that this requirement is subject to preserving open space. Building B must be moved 12 additional feet to the west to accommodate the 24 foot width requirement. The open space in Area 18 will need to decrease with this shift, however the open space in Area 16 (on the west side of Building B) would increase. In closing, the Applicant apologizes if the intent of Exhibit 22 was not clearly stated at the Public Hearing and for any confusion this has caused the Staff and the Hearing Examiner. Based upon Applicant's responses herein, the Applicant requests the Hearing Examiner find the following: 1. Approve Staffs original Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner and the approval of the bonus density up to 18 du/acre if the surface parking lot presence can be reduced and at the same time the square footage and configuration of open space remains as proposed. Applicant shall be afforded every opportunity to comply with the final Conditions of Approval as set forth by the Hearing Examiner's Decision; and 2. Deny the introduction of Conditions #32 and #33 by Staff based upon Applicant's objections contained herein. With regard to Ms. Kittrick's February 15, 2013 submission of the Carr Road / Benson Road Intersection Exhibit, the Applicant does not object to the entering the Exhibit only to the extent that it corroborates her testimony at the Public Hearing that the Applicant was only required to provide a limited scope traffic impact analysis due the pending intersection improvements under the TIP #10 Project. ~~--- Justin R. Lagers Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings, LLC cc: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, City of Renton/via hand delivery 4 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator CITY OF RENTON cJ" or.:o Phil Olbrechts Olbrechts and Associates 18833 NE 74th Street Granite Falls, WA 98252 SUBJECT: Clarification to February 14, 2013 letter, Public Hearing Fieldbrook Commons/ LUAlZ-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Examiner FEB 2 6 2013 cJ!II RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter is in response to the February 23, 2013 e-mail in which you requested that staff provide clarification regarding which comments in the February 14, 2013 response letter to the project revisions submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 22) during the verbal testimony portion of the public hearing. It should be noted that modifications made to site plans, particularly parking and landscaping amendments, impact other aspects of the site plan that cannot be looked at independently of each other. It is staff's understanding that the applicant submitted Exhibit 22 into the record to respond to staff's recommendation (included in the report to the Hearing Examiner) to a "reduced surface parking lot presence" and to demonstrate compliance with the bonus density requirements. Staff's February 14, 2013 letter addresses the changes provided in Exhibit 22 as follows: 1. In the second paragraph, items 1-3 address site plan impacts due to modifications made by the applicant to accommodate parking stall back out-room. These modifications impacted site open space, which was clarified and evaluated in this section. Item 4 specifically addresses the parking stall landscaping modifications intended to meet the bonus density requirements. 2. The third paragraph, beginning on page 2 of 3, specifically addresses the proposed modifications to surface parking as it relates to Staff's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner (included in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner). 3. Paragraph 4 through the end of the letter is an effort by Staff to clarify the City's concerns about surface parking lot presence, as identified in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner and requested by the Examiner in the verbal testimony portion of the hearing. This section of the letter provides specific recommendations that would result in a "reduced surface parking lot presence". This section was intentionally included because Exhibit 22 confirmed to staff that the goal of "reducing surface parking lot presence", as recommended, could not be met with development of 18 du/ac. This section of the letter provides specific surface parking lot reduction recommendations (24 parking stalls) that would result in a "reduced parking lot presence". However, in order for staff to recommend a reduction in parking, a corresponding reduction in units Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Phil Olbrechts Page 2 of 2 February 26, 2013 would be required for the project to provide sufficient parking. Therefore, this section includes a recommendation of unit reduction to 16 du/ac; as this reduction would achieve the desired reduction in parking by 24 parking stalls. This section was included in the letter to provide a clear picture of what would be required to comply with staff's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner ("if the surface parking lot presence can be reduced and at the same time the square footage and configuration of the open space remains as proposed"). Staff believes that our February 14, 2013 letter responds to the revisions provided in Exhibit 22, specifically as it relates to surface parking lot presence. The expanded evaluation of units and open space are a direct result of changes made or needed to meet the intent of staff's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. Sincerely, Vanessa Doi bee Senior Planner cc: PNW Holdings, Ray W. Lotto, William O'Neil/ Owner(s) Party(ies) of Record . . Denis Law Mayor February 18, 2013 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC . th . . . 9725 SE 26 Street, Suite 214 fl/lerce-r Island, WA 98040 Re: Additional Submissions to the Hearing Examiner Fieldbrook Commons, LUA-12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. lagers: Attached is yo·ur copy of the following: City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton .1. City of Renton's Carr Road/Benson Road Intersection Exhibit; and 2. PNW Holdings, LLC's Request for Extended Response Period. · If lean provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enc.: cc: . Hearing Exarri.iner . Larry Warren, City Attorney ·· Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner · Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Karen Kittrick, CED Bob MacOnie, CED - Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record (27) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 •· (425) 43()-{;510 / Fax (425) 4.3()-{;516 • reritonwa.gciv ' February 18, 2013 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) § ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 18th day of February, 2013, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record the additional submissions to the Hearing Examiner in the Fieldbrook Commons, LUA-12-001, ECF, PPUD Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 18th day of February, 2013. \2\, z/~~~ Cynthia It Moya Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 ,\ r. I Denis Law Mayor r t - City of 1 r1lJll)ll Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator February 15, 2013 Phil Olbrcchts Olbrechts and Associates 18833 NE 74'" Street Granite Falls, WA 98252 CITY OF RENTON ~.sJr- FEB 1 5 2013 J/1 . C Subject: Fieldbrook Commons/ LUAI2-001, ECF, PPUD Carr Road/Benson Road Intersection Exhibit Dear Mr. Examiner, RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Following the public hearing, the record was left open for staff to submit additional infonnation. One of the questions on the record regarded the limited traffic study for the proposed Fieldbrook Commons project. I made the statement the City of Renton has a fully funded project for the Benson road/Carr Road intersection. Titled Carr Road Improvements, the project is TIP #10 and is currently funded, being designed and slated for construction in 2014 unless there are legal issues with obtaining the additional rights-of-way that may be needed. Even if there is delay in obtaining the rights-ot~way, construction is expected to begin no later than 2015. Attached is: 1. The grant documentation undated but labeled "2011 City Safety Program" explaining the basis of the current design to implement traffic and pedestrian safety features, widening the road and coordinating the traffic signals to serve and provide better flow for the 53, I 00 trips per day along the corridor. 2. The Transportation Systems Division 2013-2018 Transportation Improvement Program page 5-10 regarding the funding of TIP Project #10, Carr Road Improvements; and 3. By reference, there is a 250-page document titled Carr Road Improvement Project dated 10/20/2003 from King County with reference to the many studies, recommendations and conclusions on what is needed to improve this travel corridor. This may be found on file or may be provided electronically with the City of Renton Transportation Division in the Department of Public Works. This infonnation is being provided to clarify and substantiate the statements made on the record and for reference. If you have need of hard copy, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, t\0-.v~ ¥'i-~~\(,Iv ~dyre~"i< Kittrick Development Engineering Supervisor Development Services CC: Vanessa Dolbee, Sr. Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Agency Contact: Chris Barnes Title: Transportation Operations Manager Phone Number: 425-430-7220 Email: cbames@rentonwa.gov 2011 City Safety Program Application for the Corridor Subprogram The SW 43rd St/SE Carr Rd/SE 176th St/SE Petrovitsky Rd Corridor is federally classified as a principal arterial, with two lanes of traffic on each direction, with intermittent two-way-left- turn-lanes (lWL Tl), and. carrying 53,100 vehicles per day. Posted speed is 35 mph. This is a major east-west corridor connecting Tukwila (S 18oth Street) to unincorporated King County and extending to SR-18 (Maple Valley). The corridor crosses over SR-167, providing access through on-off ramps. The traffic signals along this corridor are operated in a cooperative manner with WSDOT, King County and Tukwila as part of the Trans Valley Corridor Project. The corridor provides major access to the Valley Medical Center in Renton, which is the largest nonprofit healthcare between Seattle and Tacoma. The Valley Medical Center in Renton is a destination hospital in Southeast King County, operating full-service hospital, emergency room and trauma center. The corridor is also a major access for emergency services as Fire Station No. 13 is located just south of the intersection with SR-515. The City of Renton reviewed the collision data provided by WSDOT and proposes Adaptive Signal Control System and safety improvements on SE 176th St to address fatal and serious injury collisions in the City along the SW 43rd St/SE Carr Rd/SE 176th St Corridor/SE Petrovitsky Rd -Corridor. The corridor has a high number of injury accidents. From 2004 to 2010, there were 191 injury accidents at the corridor's intersections or intersection related; of which 7 of them were serious injuries, 33 evident injuries and 151 possible injuries. Installation of Adaptive Signal Control System (ASCS). Wrthin the City of Renton limits the corridor is 3.5-mile long, with 11 signalized intersections. This proposal to improve safety along the corridor includes the Adaptive Signal Control System in all 11 signalized intersections within the City. Adaptive Signal Control System technology coordinates traffic signals across a signal network, adjusting the lengths of signal phases based on current traffic conditions, demand and system capacity. 1 The system improves coordination and reduces the number of stops, which decreases rear- end crashes. With the adaptive signal control, the intersecting roadway at the intersections along the corridor will also benefit from the traffic signal coordination system. The grant request includes: a) the process of developing systems engineering documents for assessment and selection of adaptive signal control technology system; and b) implementation of the selected adaptive control system. a) Legislative District: 11 Congressional District: 9 b) The Schedule for the Adaptive Signal Control System is: Begin System Engineering: Mi3figff1[2, . ··········· .. ···. System Engineering/Bid Package/Environmental Documents Approved: Q~§,@01@ Right-of-Way Approved:NIA Contract Adve~i~~d:}c1~_gpJ3 Implemented: Q§R:~PJ~ c) Cost estimate for the Adaptive Signal Control System is: System Engineering/Bid Package/Environmental: $$p,oqti Right-of-Way: NIA Construction: $550;QbQ Benson Road SE (SR515) at Carr Road SE Intersection Improvement Existing Conditions Every day 52,400 vehicles drive through the intersection of SR 515 and Carr Road SE. The intersection has been identified as a high accident location (HAL) and is included in the PSRC's Transportation 2040 plan. The route is also a major freight corridor and is classified as a T-1. The level of service (LOS) for the intersection is poor throughout most of the day. For the westbound movement on Carr Road the volume of right turning vehicles causes blockage of the curb lane effectively reducing the capacity of this movement by at least 50%. This existing heavy westbound right turn traffic contributes to rear-end and sideswipe accidents, as through traffic moves into the inside through lane to avoid right turning traffic. WSDOT recently completed 1--405 stage II improvements which include a new SR 515/1--405 interchange two miles to the north of this intersection. This has resulted in an increase in right-tum volume on Carr Road and is forecasted to further increase as traffic from nearby Benson Hill and the Soos Creek Plateau continues to be attracted to the 1--405 interchange. The intersection is a pivotal point along two major corridors that provide access to the Kent Valley (one of the largest warehousing district in North America), Ikea and SouthCenter Shopping areas, Valley Medical Center in Renton, which is the largest nonprofit healthcare center between Seattle and Tacoma. The SR-515 corridor also provides one of the main south accesses into our regionally designated growth center and the site of the Boeing 737 and 737 MAX plant. Improvements The project will widen the Carr Road approach at the intersection to provide a free flowing westbound right tum lane and widening of SR 515 to provide a merge lane for the right tum movement (see attached drawing). The project also includes bike lane, new sidewalk 2 separated from the roadway by a planter strip (Renton's Complete Street Standard} on the north side on Carr Road and along the east side of SR-515, drainage, illumination, traffic signal adjustments and upgrade, and landscaping. These project improvements will improve safety and mobility for general traffic, freight and non-motorized modes along the Carr Road and SR 515 corridors. By investing in these improvements the traveling public will benefit from reduced intersection delay, a reduction in traffic accidents and improved air quality. These investments will also assist the city in meeting its State GMA requirements for LOS and concurrency as our center grows and Boeing expands the jobs base for the aerospace industiy in our region and within Washington State. a) Legislative District: 11 Congressional District: 9 b) The project Schedule for the roadway improvements is: Begin design: May 2012 Design/Bid Package/Environmental Documents Approved: Dec 2013 Right-of-Way Approved: N/A Contract Advertised: Jan 2014 Implemented: Dec 2014 d) Cost estimate for the roadway improvement at SE 1761h St is: Design/Bid Package/Environmental: $155,000 Right-of-Way: $1,440,000 Construction: $986,000 The total corridor project (ASCT and improvements on SE 1761h St) cost is $K)8};ppp and the requested amount is $~)$j;OQP. We anticipate that the corridor project as requested (ASCT combined with the improvements on Carr Road) will significantly improve the safety of the corridor. However if grant funding is limited, the City's first priority is the ASCT system. 3 Denis-Law Mayor 1£ 1~Mfu~1S · February 15, .2013. ... Department of Community and Economic Development. CE. 'Chip"Vincent, Administrator Phil Olbrechts Olbrechts and Associates 18833 NE 74th Street .. Granite Falls, WA 98252 · S11i>ject: Fieldbrook Commons /LUA12-001; ECF, PPUD ·Can Road/Benson Road lntersectioµ. Exhibit _·:n~ar:_Mr.· E~amin~f, . Following the public hearmg;the record wasleft open for statiio submit additional information. One of.· the questions on the recoi:d regarded the limited traffic study for the proposed FieldbrookCommoiJ.s project. · · · · · · 1:rnade the statement theCity of Renton has a fully.funded projectf~r the Benson ~oad/Carr Road intersection. Tiiled Carr Road Irriprovements, the project is TIP #10 and is currently funded, being designed and slated for-construction in 2014 unless. there ardegal issues with obtaining the additional. rights-of-wayihat n1ay be needed. Even if there is delay fa obtai'ning the rights-of-way, construction is· expected to begin no later than 2015. · · Attached is: . I: Tbe ·grant.documentation undated but labeled "2011 City Safety Program" explaining the basi~ of the current design to impleinenttraffic and pedestrian safety features, widening the road and coordinating the traffic signals to·serve and provide better flowfor the 53.,100 trips per day along the corridor. . . · . · · . · · · · . : · · · · · · · · 2. The Transportation Systems Division 2QI3-2Cll8 Transportation Improvement Program page . 5-1 O regarding the funding of TIP Project #10, Carr Road lmprnvements; and 3. By reference, there is a 250-page document titled Carr Road lmprov~ment ProJect dated . I 0/20/200:ffrom King County With.refqence to the many studies, .recommendations and . conelusions on. wha\ is needed io in1prove this !rave; corridor. This m_ay be found on file or may· be provided eiectronica!ly· with the City of Rentori Transportation Division in the Department o.f · .Public:Works. · · · · ·. · . 'This iriformatioiJ. is being provided to clarify and substantiate the statements. made on the record arid for ·. · reference: If you have need ofhard copy, please _do not hesitate to contact me. · · Sincerely, . ·. ·. ..• . . . . t\<4~ ~.'-\,;~\(I;_, ~eit'K: Kittnck. · Development Engineering Silperv.isor Dev¢lopment Services · 'CC:· Vanessa Oolbee; Sr. Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton:washington 98057 • rent-0nwa.gov · 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ,~Pk' 0 2 2[11 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary Planned Urban Development LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD ) ) ) FINAL DECISION ) ) ) ) ) SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development ("PUD") for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units. The application is approved subject to conditions. TESTIMONY Vanessa Dolbee, senior planner, summarized the staff report, stating that the Fieldbrook Commons project is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three vacant parcels, totaling 10.77 acres. The site is located in the residential medium density comprehensive plan land-use designation. The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the 22 Residential 14 (R-14) units per acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 18 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 13 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 183,795 square feet. The 23 24 proposal includes I, 2, and 3-bedroom units. Building sizes would range from I 0,000 to 18,500sq ft. 25 26 Building heights would range from 23 ft to 36'9" ft. Parking has been proposed for 210 vehicles. The site can be accessed via 3 points along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of I 08th Avenue SE. Additionally, the subject site contains six wetlands and a moderate-risk sinkhole area (a coal mine hazard). The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 area along the eastern portion of the site [ areas shown in orange in exhibit 19] and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands [ areas shown in blue in exhibit 19] and protecting 31 existing trees. A created wetland has been proposed as a form of mitigation. This wetland will be approximately 25,430 sq ft. The site has 786 trees, and an arborist report determined 227 of the trees were dead, diseased, and/or dangerous. An environmental review was conducted on the project, and, on January 7, a determination of non-significant, mitigated was issued with JO mitigation measures. There were no appeals filed during the 14-day appeal period. Staff received comments from the Muck.leshoot Indian Tribe, the Department of Ecology, and the public regarding the project. The DOE and Tribe comments were related to the wetland filling. Public comments covered a range of issues, including traffic, flooding, wetlands, tree removal, and habitat. Ms. Dolbee noted that PUD applications permit modifications from the city's development standards with the exception of uses allowed in the zone and density. The R-14 zone allows a density range of I 0-14 dwelling units per acre, except an applicant can ask for a bonus density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has asked for this bonus density. Additionally, the applicant requested a modification to the number of units per building. The applicant asked to have up to 17 units per building, rather than six. Also, the applicant requested a maximum height increase to 36'9.25 ft. (which is 6 ft. over the maximum height). The applicant also asked for permission to remove trees in the wetland buffers and modify the frontage improvements along I 08th Avenue SE to have a 5ft sidewalk and 8ft planter strip. Ms. Dolbee added that Renton staff has requested modifications to the development standards based on review of the application. First, staff asked for a reduction of the parking stall requirement from 208 to 200 stalls. Second, staff requested the perimeter landscaping be accepted as is from the submitted landscaping plan. Finally, staff asked that the garden beds be allowed to remain at 4x8ft instead of 1 Ox I 0. According to Ms. Dolbee, PUD projects are required to demonstrate superiority in desib'll. This project demonstrates superiority in that (1) it has a recreation center that would be open to the public (2) a covered school bus shelter has been proposed at the corner of 108th Ave and 172nd Street (3) building orientation and consolidation provides opportunities to increase the common open space (4) consolidated units allows for greater preservation of mature trees (5) and a public wetland trail is being provided. The total open space area proposed is approximately 111,000sq ft which is above the 97,300 sq ft requirement. The architecture design includes modulation and variation in building materials. The project meets all the comprehensive plan and zoning standards if the conditions listed in the staff report are complied with by the applicant. In regard to parking, Ms. Dolbee testified that the large number of surface spaces detracts from the overall aesthetics of the project. 78 percent of the site is surface parking. There are two options (I) reduce the parking requirement to allow space for landscaping or (2) reduce the density requirement to reduce the parking requirement. The applicant has indicated there is sufficient parking to meet the demand created by the development if the first option is adopted. In regard to landscaping, the applicant submitted a detailed landscaping plan with the application. The plan notes that street trees will be planted along I 08th Ave and 172nd Street along with a I Oft wide landscaping strip along all frontages. In regard to wetland impacts, the applicant submitted a wetland creation and mitigation PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 plan. The cumulative impacts to the wetlands should be taken into consideration when evaluating approval of the project. In regard to density, the applicant has requested approval for bonus density. To meet the requirements for bonus density, the applicant has proposed to complete (I) a 2400sq ft recreation center (2) no more than six stalls with a minimum of 15ft oflandscaping in between. The PUD and bonus density requests must be evaluated together. The main issue of conflict, in staff's view, is the parking conflict. The applicant has proposed mitigation measures to add landscaping to these parking areas, but it remains unclear to staff if the applicant can meet the parking landscape standards while also achieving a superior design. Ms. Dolbee stated that staff has created three recommendations for the project: (I) approval of the PUD subject to 31 conditions; however, bonus density should only be approved if the surface parking lot presence can be reduced while the open space square footage remains as proposed or (2) approval of partial bonus density; however, the surface parking lot presence should still be reduced or (3) approval of the PUD subject to 31 conditions provided the recreation center remains part of the development. The applicant can reduce the surface parking lot presence by changing the number of units or adding parking spaces to garages. If the unit configurations remain as are, staff does not recommend reducing the parking requirement below 200 stalls. Staff believes, if planned appropriately, 200 stalls could meet the design standards. In regard to the Department of Ecology comments, Ms. Dolbee referred to the environmental review report (page 10 footnote) to distinguish between the city's and DOE's categorization of wetlands. DOE category three wetlands equal city of Renton category two. DOE was consulted on the final mitigation plan and submitted an email stating that the department was comfortable with the current proposal. Kayren Kittrick, Development and Engineering Supervisor, stated that a limited traflic study was required, as opposed to a full traflic study, because the city already had information on most of the adjoining roads. The city only needed the applicant to provide the number of additional trips that would be created by the project, so the city could to apply these numbers to information already on record. Applicant Testimony Dennis Riebe, architect for the project, testified that the applicant agrees with the 31 conditions of approval outlined in the staff report. In regard to parking and bonus density, staff has indicated that the applicant can reduce the parking spot quantity to 200 stalls. This reduction allows the applicant to break up clusters of parking areas with landscaping. The clusters of parking stalls are noted in exhibit 8. Mr. Riebe has created a solution to the cluster-parking, utilizing landscape islands. This solution demonstrates that the parking condition can be met without having a significant impact to the project. The landscape islands ensure that no cluster of parking spaces is greater than seven stalls, which meets condition of approval number 11. The parking stall count reduces from 210 to 204 stalls with this new plan. Mr. Riebe submitted his parking solution as exhibit 22. In regard to roadway widths, he noted that the applicant believes they can meet all roadway width standards without any significant PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -3 I impact to the site. By moving building B, the driveway aisle can be increased, thus the roadway width standard will be met. Mr. Riebe marked the wetlands that will be filled on exhibit 22. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Public Comments Timothy Bell stated he lives on 173rd Street at the south-end of the Fieldbrook property. The site plan notes a community trash deposit adjacent to Mr. Bell's property. He asked if this is still the planned location. Additionally, the moderate-risk sinkhole area abuts his property. He requested more information on mitigation measures being required for the sinkhole area. Finally, he noted that there is no buffer planned between his home and the new apartment buildings. He does not wish to look out his backyard onto high buildings. Katrina Garrison testified that she owns property to the south of the Fieldbrook project. She is concerned with parking overflow onto the streets. Recently, several new apartment complexes have been built in the area. These complexes have resulted in parking overflow onto city streets. The overflow creates dangerous driving conditions because the roads are not wide enough. Additionally, when Ms. Garrison questioned the city as to why traffic studies were waived for the project, city staff responded that this had been overlooked due to staff being overworked. Ms. Garrison noted that traffic is already a problem in the area, and she has experienced traffic conditions that resulted in it taking 30 minutes to travel two miles. Also, she is worried about water flow. Currently, there is standing water in her backyard, and she believes the project will increase the problem. Finally, she noted that she is also concerned with the heights of the new buildings. Staff Rebuttal Vanessa Dolbee stated that, in regard to Mr. Bell's trash concerns, the refuse and recycling has been relocated ( exhibit 22). The code requires that refuse and recycling be a minimum of 50ft from bordering residential properties. Additionally, the facility is required to be screened. In regard to the coal mine hazard, there is a mitigation measure as part of the SEPA that requires additional analysis of the area. She is unaware if these environmental studies have been completed as of yet. In regard to overflow parking, Ms. Dolbee noted that no parking study was submitted with the application, but there was a limited traffic study completed. Currently, the city is planning traffic improvements along 515 and Carr Road. This project is fully funded and should begin in 2014. The parking proposed with the project is for the residents. The code requires a little over 1 space per unit. The project would have additional street parking after frontage improvements are completed. In regard to the heights of the building, the Bell and Garrison properties would abut buildings that asked for a height increase above the maximum standard. In regard to stormwater, improvements on the project should mitigate any off-site impacts, and the planned improvements are compliant with 2009 King County Stormwater Code. Kayren Kittrick noted that she does not believe the city's parking desi!,'11 standards are intended to prevent overflow parking. The city has methods of controlling the overflow, however. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -4 2 3 Applicant Rebuttal Dennis Riebe stated that, in regard to the trash enclosure, the recycling and refuse area has been moved to meet the 50ft minimum requirement of the city. In regard to the coal mine hazard area, there is a mitigation requirement in SEPA and studies will be conducted before construction. In 4 regard to stormwater, the project's discharge area will be south of the Garrison property. The new discharge point will be part of one of the wetlands created for the project. All of the stormwater mitigation will be underground. The applicant sited the higher buildings of the project to the east of 6 the property to create a larger buffer area for neighbors. The property on the eastside of the project is 5 coal-mine tailings area which is open space. This eastern property belongs to an existing apartment 7 project. 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ms. Dolbee read condition 31 ( exhibit 20) into the record. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-18, identified at page 3 of the staff report, were admitted during the hearing. In addition the following exhibits were admitted during the hearing and during a written comment period after close of the verbal portion of the hearing: 19. 20. Staff power point presentation. 14 21. Order Quieting Title; King County Superior Court 11-2-30314-4 KNT 2/11/13 email from Katrina Garrison to Vanessa Dolby 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 26. 27. 28. 28. 29/ Open Space Recreation Public Benefit Diagram February 14, 2013 letter to Examiner from Vanessa Dolbee regarding Ex. 22 February 15, 2013 letter to examiner from applicant requesting extension of record to February 22, 2013. February 15, 2013 letter from Kayren Kittrick to examiner. February 20, 2013 email from applicant requesting extension of record to March 15, 2013. 2/23/13 email from examiner to parties. 2/26/13 letter from Vanessa Dolbee to examiner. 2/28/13 letter from applicant to examiner 3/7 /13 email from examiner to parties 3/7 /13 email from applicant to examiner 23 FINDINGS OF FACT 24 Procedural: 25 26 I. Applicant. PNW Holdings, LLC. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on February 12, 2013 at 10:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. At the request of the applicant the record was left open through March 15, 2013 in order to provide time for the applicant to comment on staff recommendations regarding modifications submitted by the applicant during the February 12, 2013 hearing. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units on a 10.8 acre parcel at 17040 108 1 h Ave SE. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one Io emergency vehicle only access off of I 08th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and 11 J 2 protecting 31 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approximately 17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill to be balanced across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along I 08th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,526 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. The following provides more detailed bulk and dimensional information on each proposed building: BLDG.# Total Footprint Total Area BLDG Height Total Units A 5,152 10,251 27'-2 1/4" 9 B 7,002 16,098 30'-8 1/4" 14 C 5,955 14,050 32'-3 3/8" 13 D 5,955 14,050 28' -4 1/2" 13 E 7,002 16,098 28'-8 3/8" 14 G 5,955 14,050 23' -11 1/8" 13 H 5,955 14,050 27'-0 3/8" 13 J 5,955 18,507 31' -8 3/8" 17 K 5,152 15,345 33'-7 3/8" 14 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 L 5,152 15,345 36' -9 1/4" 14 M 5,152 15,345 34' -10" 14 N 5,152 15,345 34'-111/4" 14 Recreation 2,400 2,400 19' -3 7 /8" N/A BLDG. The applicant has requested the following modifications through the PUD process: .. R~QUESTED MODIFH;ATIQ!'i:i EBQM BINTO!':t M!.!NICIPAL COD~ (RMCI · RMC# Reguired 12.er RMC Reguested Modification RMC 4-2-llOA: No more than six (6) dwelling To provide buildings with up to Maximum Number of units per building. 17 units per building as Units per Building detailed in the preceding table. RMC 4-2-llOA: Residential and Civic Uses: 30 To allow up to 36 feet 9 1/4 Maximum Building ft. inches in height, as identified Height, except for uses in the preceding table. having a "Public Suffix" (P) designation and public water system facilities RMC 4-4-130D.3: 3. Restrictions for Critical Tree removal in wetland Restrictions for Critical Areas -General: Unless buffers to be permitted. Areas exempted by critical areas, RMC 4-3-0SOCS or Shoreline Master Program Regulations, RMC 4-3-090, no tree removal, or land clearing, or ground cover management is permitted: a. On portions of property with protected critical habitats, per RMC 4-3-0SOK; streams and lakes, per RMC 4- 3-0SOL; Shorelines of the State, per RMC 4-3-090, Renton Shoreline Master PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-6-060F.2. Minimum Design Standards for Public Streets and Alleys *RMC 4-4-080F.10.e. Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use *RMC 4-4-070H.4. Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping. Program Regulations; and wetlands, per RMC 4-3-0SOM; and their associated buffers; Frontage improvements on Frontage of 1081h Ave. SE to 108th Ave SE shall include 8' include a 5' sidewalk and an 8' sidewalks and 8' planter strips planter strip. per the current code. Frontage improvements on SE 172nd St shall include 32 feet of pavement from the south to the north then an 8' planter strip and (working to the north) a S' sidewalk. Attached dwellings in RM-U, RM-T, RM-F, R-14 and R-10 Zones: A minimum and maximum of 1.6 spaces per 3 bedroom or large dwelling unit; 1.4 spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; and 1.0 spaces per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit is required. Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the street right-of-way. Standards for planting shall be as follows: a. Trees shall be two inches (2") in diameter at breast height (dbh) for multi-family, commercial, and industrial uses at an average minimum rate of one tree per thirty {30) lineal feet of street frontage. b. Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per twenty (20) square feet of landscaped area. Up to fifty percent (50%) of shrubs may be deciduous. The applicant has proposed to provide 56 one bedroom units, 88 two bedroom units, and 18 three bedroom units, resulting in a requirement to provide 208 parking stalls. Request is to provide 200 parking stalls. Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping be approved as proposed in the provided conceptual landscape plan SEPA Exhibit 11. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 c. Ground cover in sufficient quantities to provide at least ninety percent (90%) coverage of the landscaped area within three (3) years of installation. *RMC 4-2-llSF.2. Open Standards for Common Open Raised beds 4 ft. x 8 ft. and a Space Space: Pea-patches shall be at fence height of 6 ft. 10 in. least one thousand (1,000) square feet in size with individual plots that measure ten feet by ten feet (10' x 10'). Additionally, the pea-patch shall include a tool shed and a common area with space for compost bins. Water shall be provided to the pea-patch. Fencing that meets the standards for front yard fencing shall surround the pea-patch with a one foot (1 ') landscape area on the outside of the fence. This area is to be landscaped with flowers, plants, and/or shrubs. 18 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be provided by Soos Creek Water District. The applicant has proposed to connect to existing Soos Creek facilities located in I 08th Ave. SE and SE 172nd St. A water and sewer availability certificate would be reqnired to be submitted with the construction permit application. With a water and sewer availability certificate, the provided utilities plans and the existing infrastructure in the area, the development would be provided with sufficient water and sewer services. B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City's stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all significant drainage impacts. New impervious surfaces would result in surface water runoff increases. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report ("drainage report") and Addendum with the project application (Exhibit 2). The drainage report assures that project design adequately accommodates needed drainage facilities and more detailed engineering review and final construction or bonding will be completed prior to final PUD approval. Some public comments expressed concern about stormwater impacts. The City's stormwater standards require that pre-development off-site flows be maintained by the project, which means that neighboring property owners should not encounter increased storm water flows as a result of the project. D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. The applicant has provided a variety of recreation and open space throughout the development. As proposed the development would contain a large number of open space/recreation areas as shown in Exhibit 3. These areas total 111,018 1 SF in area which is above the R-14 requirement of 97,300 SF (common open space= 350 SF x 162 units= 56,700 SF and private open space 250 SF x 162 units= 40,600 SF, for a total of97,300 SF requirement). Amenities throughout the development in the open space/recreation areas ( excluding those areas allocated to bonus density) include community garden space, a recreation center that will be made available to the general public, a pickle ball court, three play structures, picnic table, BBQ, benches, open lawn play area, passive park space with arbor, and a soft surface trail through the wetland buffers. The provided open space areas are scattered throughout the development and would provide a variety of recreation options to the community. All open spaces are accessed via a pedestrian sidewalk and/or trail directly from the uni ts and from the street. In addition to the provided recreation space, the proposed trail through the wetland includes interpretive signage/information kiosk at the trail entrance and a second located near the "dog leg" parcel. Information was not provided with the application identifying what would be included on the information kiosk. However, providing the public with 1 9,720 square feet of the provide l l l ,O 18 square feet of open space is provide in the form of private open space as 23 either ground floor patios or upper floor decks. Based on the information in Exhibit 3, each private space is approximately 60 square feet. However, staff's analysis of the provide floor plans, the decks more typically scale at 24 6 x 8 feet which is 48 square feet. If one used a conservative estimate, and reduced the private open space to 48 square feet per unit the overall open space in the development would be reduced to 109,074 square feet, which still 25 exceeds the minimum requirement. In a 2/28/13 post-hearing letter the applicant asserts that the total amount of open space is actually l 13, l 72 square feet. The relevant point from the different amounts presented is that the 26 proposed open space significantly exceeds that required by the underlying RS-14 zone. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 information about the critical areas and the mitigation project would be an important role for the kiosk to convey. This information may help to preserve the mitigation project and protect the critical areas in the future. As such, a condition of approval requires that the kiosk design and signage be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. Additionally the wetland trail should be open for the general public so the neighborhood can take advantage of the amenity. The expansion of the trail to public use, results in an increase in public benefit as a result of the overall project. In order to achieve public access, signage shall be provided and an easement shall be recorded memorializing the public access to the wetland trail. Furthermore, comments were received from the City of Renton Community Services Department recommending the trail through the wetland is looped. Typically, public trails are designed to loop if possible, as looped trails are more attractive to the public and more commonly used. Based on the Park's department recommendation; the conditions require that the trail be re-designed to create a loop at the end similar to a "lasso" shape to provide a turnaround that acts like a loop. A full loop is not available at this location due to the presence of wetlands. E. Pedestrian Circulation. The PUD provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation system. The applicant is proposing to provide street improvements which would include the extension of public sidewalks along both I 08th Ave. SE and SE 172nd St. Once off the public sidewalks pedestrian sidewalks continue throughout the development along the internal "street" system and through the open space areas. Pedestrian connections are provided throughout the development including cross walks and connections to the refuse and recycling, parking areas and site amenities. With compliance with the conditions of approval, the pedestrian circulation system throughout the development would be well designed and would encourage walkability throughout the neighborhood, potentially reducing vehicular traffic and impacts on the neighboring community. Based on the provided Traffic Impact Analysis, no safety concerns were identified (Exhibit 14). The applicant has avoided many potential safety issues by providing pedestrian crossings throughout the development and alternative routes for pedestrians by providing for separation of vehicles and pedestrians throughout the site. However, many sections of the sidewalk proposed in areas near garages would be constructed at grade with the internal drive aisle. This type of construction would not provide for sufficient separation of vehicles from pedestrians. In fact this type of design may result in conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Furthermore, by not providing a clear delineation as to where the driveway/tandem parking area ends and the pedestrian sidewalks vehicles could end up blocking the intended pedestrian walkway resulting in pushing the pedestrians out PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 into the road. As such, the proposed design would not provide a safe environment for pedestrians. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that all sidewalks and cross walks in the development be built with a different material than the roadways, drive aisles and driveways. The different materials would provide a clear delineation as to where the parking stall ends and the pedestrian pathway begins. In addition to different materials, the projects bylaws or CC & R's should restrict parking across the pedestrian pathways throughout the development. The street frontage improvements along SE 172nd Street, 108th Ave. SE and internal to the site provide a pedestrian connection to the commercial development located southwest of the site along Benson Dr. SE. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed to provide a covered bus stop for the school bus which would be connect to the proposed development and surrounding neighborhood by the new street frontage improvements. South of the site along SE 176th St. or SE Petrovitsky Rd., is multiple Metro transit stops providing public transit to the development and access to the greater community. F. Interior Vehicle Circulation. The PUD provides for an appropriate interior vehicle circulation system. An internal vehicular street system is proposed to provide vehicular access to each unit. As shown in the Environmental Review Report, subsection 5. Transportation (Exhibit 2) incorporated herein by reference, the project would provide sufficient vehicle access for the proposed development and the proposed public and private streets could accommodate emergency vehicles and the traffic demand created by the development. G. Off-Site Traffic Improvements. Off-site impacts are adequately addressed by proposed frontage improvements and required traffic impact fees. A limited scope traffic impact analysis was prepared for the project, Ex. 14. The analysis concluded that the level of service standards required for affected intersections would not be lowered below adopted City of Renton standards (LOS D). The study concluded that no off-site mitigation is necessary beyond payment of Renton's traffic impact fees and frontage improvements. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th A venue SE. As shown in the Environmental Review Report, subsection 5. Transportation (Exhibit 2) incorporated herein by reference, the project would provide sufficient vehicle access for the proposed development and the proposed public and private streets could accommodate emergency vehicles and the traffic demand created by the development. Frontage improvements are proposed along I 08th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,525.51 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. As noted in the environmental review committee report, several members of PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 review. A set of alterations and m1t1gation has been approved through the mitigation measures of a determination of non-significance that has not been appealed. Since the proposed wetland filling and mitigation approved in the DNS has not been appealed, the issue cannot be revisited by the examiner. See, Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904 (2002). The Washington State Department of Ecology engaged in back and forth communications on the proposed wetlands alterations and ultimately approved of the staff's final recommendations. B. Coal Mine Hazards. The coal mine hazard was identified as a Moderate Risk Sinkhole Hazard Area. A geotechnical report assessed the coal mine hazard and recommends a setback to the hazard area. This setback area will be included in the conditions of approval. The SEPA mitigation measures also require that additional study of the coal mining hazard be conducted prior to final PUD approval. C. Wildlife. Public comments express a concern over impacts to wildlife. A habitat study was completed for the project and no protected species have been identified at the project site. Public comments note that eagles have been seen resting in the trees, but no assertion has been made that these areas are used for eagle nests. The filling of wetlands will result in the loss of wildlife habitat, but the applicant is replacing that lost habitat with new wetlands that significantly exceed the area of those filled. The open space of the proposal is also significantly more than that required for multi-family development in the R-14 zoning district. D. Compatibility. The proposed project provides for aggregated units which in tum provides for increased opportunities for open space throughout the overall development. All units either face onto a public street and/or an open space green area or park space. Furthermore, the reduction in buildings provides the opportunity to preserve existing mature trees within the development. The preservation of some of the existing tree canopy will increase the compatibility of the development within the surrounding community. The development would not be fenced which would provide for community connection, further enhancing a sense of community in the neighborhood. Pursuant to code, the applicant could fence the entire development walling it off from the neighborhood degrading the sense of community. Without a fence, the project allows for neighborly interaction and opens up the development as ifit is part of the overall community instead ofa separate private area. The architectural design of the proposed buildings varies from building to building, however common themes persist throughout all the proposed structures. The applicant has proposed a variety of siding materials including cultured stone veneer, hard shingle siding, smooth lap siding, and hard panel smooth siding. In addition to wood corbels and knee braces, wood vents with wood trim, prominent entry features, and detailed balconies railings are proposed. See Exhibit 6 for details of each separate building design. However, a few portions of the overall design could enhance the street presence of the internal "street" system. Particularly the ground floor garage doors could provide additional detailing such as windows and the PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the public expressed concern over oft:site traffic impacts, but the traffic analysis completed for the project establishes that traffic generation levels will be within the levels found acceptable under adopted level of service standards. H. Parking. For multi-family developments in the R-14 district a minimum and maximum of 1.6 parking spaces per 3 bedroom or large dwelling unit; 1.4 spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; and 1.0 spaces per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit is required. The applicant has proposed to provide 56 one bedroom units, 88 two bedroom units, and 18 three bedroom units, resulting in a requirement to provide 208 parking stalls. Based on the provided site plan, 39 spaces would be provided in garages, 8 in ADA Accessible garages, 46 tandem spaces in the driveways and 117 surface parking stalls for a total of 210 parking stalls. Twenty two percent of the provided parking stalls would be located in garages and therefore screened by the structure. However, the remaining 78 percent would be outside surface parking stalls. Overall, the excessive amount of surface parking stalls scattered throughout the development detracts from the aesthetics of the overall development and the quality architectural design and landscaping proposed throughout the development. Some section of surface parking stalls are separated by landscaped areas and are 7 stalls or less. However, some sections of surface parking stalls contain long rows without landscaping. The conditions of approval require that the long rows or parking be broken up by landscaped areas to reduce the visual impact of surface parking throughout the development. Furthermore, a reduced number of parking stalls to 200 stalls from 208 stalls is approved to achieve the necessary parking lot landscaping. Overall the development is over-parked by two stalls, with the reduction of stalls a significant amount of new landscaping could be provided, however sufficient parking would still need to be provided at the subject site to achieve the demand created by the development. The provided parking is located in groups near the buildings it would serve. The proposed development does not have shared parking facilities nor the opportunity to conduct shared parking as the entire development is residential. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Wetlands. Six wetlands have been identified and delineated on the subject site. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands. The applicant has also proposed buffer averaging. The proposed wetland modifications have been thoroughly assessed against the City's critical area regulations in the environmental review committee report, which involved significant work by wetland consultants who were subjected to peer PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 sides of the buildings facing the public streets and internal "streets" should include an increased "front door or front porch" presence. As such, a condition of approval requires that the garage doors provide additional details and all sides of the building facing the public street and/or internal "street" provide a front door or front porch presence, if this is not achievable an approved landscape screen would be required between the sidewalk and the building. Furthermore, the proposed buildings contain horizontal and vertical modulation, reducing the bulk of the overall structures. The residential buildings are both two and three stories in height. The changes in height provide for additional building modulation increasing the variety in the overall architectural components of the development. In addition, the site abuts single-family residential development to the north and along the southwest side of the "dog leg" portion of the site. The buildings proposed along the north property line (BLDG. C D G and H) are proposed to be two stories in height along the north side. By placing the two story buildings adjacent to the north property line bulk and scale impacts are reduced for the neighbors to the north. It should be noted along the south side of BLDG. C D G and H a portion of the buildings are proposed to be three stories in height. BLDG. M and N located in the "dog leg" are both three stories in height; however the development is setback from the property line approximately 42 feet at the closest point. This setback reduces the impact on the single-family home located adjacent to the site at this location. Located in the center of the project is BLDG. J, which is proposed to be three stories high. This building faces SE 172nd St. across an open space area. The building would be screened from the street by a grouping of preserved existing trees and new landscaping, however the scale of the building appears to be larger than anticipated by the zone and the other buildings in the development. Building J is the largest of all the proposed building at 18,507 SF and 17 units; however it is not the tallest building. The west elevation of BLDG. J provides a variety of materials and architectural details such as balconies and entry features to break up the fac;ade and reduce the overall bulk of the structure. However, the east elevation is primarily sided with wide smooth lap siding and visually appears to be a typical large apartment building. The east elevation of BLDG. J could be improved with additional variety in materials and vertical modulation, similar to that of BLDG C and D, to break up the bulk of the structure. As such, a condition of approval requires that BLDG J be re-designed to reduce the overall appearance of bulk with vertical modulation and provide additional variety in siding materials and color. The proposed landscaping along the north side of the development would provide screening for the single-family development to the north and southwest edges of the site. The screening landscaping includes the construction of a 6 foot wood fence. The applicant did not provide details of roof mounted equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment. As such, a condition of approval requires that the applicant provide a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment, if proposed. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Screening landscaping and fencing is required around refuse and recycling facilities. Based on the provided landscape plan all but one facility would be screened with landscaping. The refuse and recycling area near BLDG. E only provides landscape screening along two of the three sides. A condition of approval will require that all refuse and recycling facilities be screened with landscaping on a minimum of three sides. 6. Superiority in Design. The development of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than would result by the strict application of the Development Standards for the following reasons: first, the applicant has proposed a recreation center. Second, the applicant has included a covered school bus shelter. Third, the overall building orientation and consolidation of the units provides opportunities to increase the amount of common open space or green space throughout the development significantly beyond that required for the R-14 zoning district as outlined in FOF No. 4(0). This open space area provides a large variety of recreational opportunities of both passive and active recreation. Furthermore, the concentration of the units allows for preservation of additional mature trees to provide retention of more than 10 percent of the trees on the site. Finally, the project provides a wetland trail system which would include interpretive signage. The PUD modifications requested by the applicant and identified in FOF No. 3 make this superior design possible by providing added space for the amenities and making the improvements more economically feasible. The project's ability to demonstrate superior design is undermined to a certain extent by the extensive amount of parking required for the proposal in order to accommodate the applicant's request for a bonus density. Parking is comprised of 78 percent surface parking. The proposed site plan, as shown in SEPA Exhibit 3, utilizes an excess amount of area in order to accommodate vehicle parking necessitated by the high density of the project, which creates adverse aesthetic impacts that nullify the aesthetic benefits of the substantial open space proposed for the site. These parking spaces in some cases contain surrounding landscape areas and in some cases do not. Superior design could be maintained with the requested bonus density if the excessive amount of unmitigated surface parking could be minimized and the additional open space could be maintained as proposed. This could be accomplished in a number of different ways including additional landscaping and/or more parking garages. However, it is unclear if the applicant can meet all the required parking lot landscaping standards and the bonus density standards and at the same time achieve both a superior design and credit for the bonus density. At the February 12, 2013 hearing the applicant presented a parking plan, Ex. 22, they believed would sufficiently mitigate the aesthetic impacts of the parking while maintaining the amount of proposed open space and the proposed 18/du density. Ex. 22 depicted a series of landscape islands that prevented the clustering of any more than seven parking stalls at a time. Ex. 22 actually provided for a 1,022 square foot reduction in open space, but the applicant asserts this reduction resulted from increasing driveway width as required by staff recommended conditions of approval as opposed to improving the parking. Staff's only specific concern with Ex. 22 was that it still provided for clustering of seven parking stalls while the bonus density criteria authorize no more than six clustered PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 parking stalls at a time. The applicant's response to this concern was that Ex. 22 was only "conceptual" and that it would be further refined prior to final PUD approval. The staffs concern of a "parking lot feel" of the project is certainly legitimate. It is difficult to legitimate the proposal as a PUD with "superior design" when a large portion of the project is comprised of a parking lot. However, regulating by standards such a "parking lot feel" is disturbingly close to the design regulations invalidated in Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993), where the Court of Appeals noted that "in attempting to interpret and apply this [design] code, the Commissioners charged with that task were left with only their own individual, subjective Jeelings' about the 'image oflssaquah' and as to whether this project was 'compatible' or 'interesting."' 70 Wn. App. at 76-77. In order to avoid the vagaries of an Issaquah design review paradigm, Renton's PUD regulations should be applied using concrete regulatory benchmarks whenever possible. The staff report's focus upon maintaining the open space at the area that served as the justification for a finding of "superior design" is a good starting point. The bonus density requirement that clustering be limited to six lots is another specific and objective design standard. Further, reducing the number of parking stalls by removing units from the top of the tallest proposed buildings, to bring them in conformance with the RS-14 building height is another concrete standard. Employing these standards, the conditions will give the applicant another opportunity to meet the superior design requirements of the PUD in its parking spaces while also qualifying for the full 4/du density bonus. 7. Public Benefit. Added public benefit is provided by the project is provided by making the bus shelter and wetlands interpretative trail identified in FOF No. 6 open for public use. Further, the added open space of the proposal and enhanced tree retention serves as a public benefit by enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the development to neighboring properties. Note that the availability of the recreation center to the public is not factored in as a public benefit, because this amenity will be used to support the applicant's request for a density bonus. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 22 I. Authority. RMC 4-9-150(F)(8) authorizes the Examiner to conduct hearings and make final 23 24 25 26 decisions on PUD applications. Substantive: 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project is zoned R-14. The comprehensive plan map land use designation for the property is Residential Medium Density. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -17 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 \ 3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-150 governs PUD criteria. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-9-150(8): 2. Code Provisions That May Be Modified: a. In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of chapter 4- 2 RMC, chapter 4-4 RMC, RMC 4-6-060 and chapter 4-7 RMC, except as listed in subsection BJ of this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development 3. Code Provisions Restricted from Modification e. Specific Limitations: The City may not modify any provision of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations, 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, 4-4-130, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing, 4-4-060, Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations, chapter 4-5 RMC, or RMC 4-6- 010 to 4-6-050 and 4-6-070 through 4-6-1 IO related to utilities and concurrency, except that provisions may be altered for these codes by alternates, modification, conditional use, or variance as specifically allowed in the referenced Chapter or Section. Such alternates, modification, conditional use, or variance applications may be merged with the consideration of a planned urban development per RMC 4-9-!50H 14 4. As shown in Table A of the Staff Report, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations 15 16 17 18 identified in the regulation quoted above, except that the restriction on removing trees from critical area buffers, RMC 4-4-130, may not be waived. It is unclear from the record whether any trees will in fact be removed from critical area buffers by operation of PUD waiver standards. The conditions of approval will prohibit this from occurring. Of course, trees may still be removed by operation of other regulations that authorize their removal. RMC 4-9-150(0): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 19 following requirements are met. 20 21 22 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicant must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. 23 24 5. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150, are to preserve and protect 25 26 the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity in development of residential uses. The extensive filling of wetlands involved with this proposal certainly does not further this purpose. However, the extensive open space and other public amenities, coupled with the PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -18 2 3 4 5 extensive mitigation for the wetland alterations, arguably makes up for this deficiency. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined at p. 33-35 of the staff report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. As determined in FOF No. 6, the proposal is superior in design than that would be required without the PUD. As determined in FOF No. 4 and No. 5, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal so it will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 6 following requirements are met. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicant shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development; or b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or ... e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development. A superior design may include the following: ... 18 6. As determined in FOF No. 7, the proposal provides for public benefits in its overall design 19 20 21 and amenities that exceed what would be required of a proposal outside PUD requirements. Further, as determined in FOF No. 4 and 5 there are no significant adverse impact associated with the proposal. The criterion is met. RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if if.finds that the 22 following requirements are met .... 23 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: 24 25 26 a. Building and Site Design: PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -19 2 3 4 5 6 i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abulting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(0), the proposal has been designed in size, scale, mass, building material and design for compatibility with adjoining uses. The staff report does not identify whether building materials have been reviewed for reducing light and glare and this will be made a condition of approval. RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 7 following requirements are met. 8 9 10 11 12 13 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design: ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single 14 family, townhouses, flats, etc. 15 16 17 18 19 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. S(D), the proposed buildings have been designed to be built in a coordinated fashion, utilizing a consistent set of materials yet at the same time each building with a unique design. Furthermore, the site is designed to promote open space providing visual and physical access from each unit to a shared common area. The applicant has indicated that the project would provide a rich color palette that would be coordinated throughout the project to unify and tie the neighborhood together in an organized manner. RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 20 following requirements are met. 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria b. Circulation: i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -20 1 2 3 4 proposed developmenl. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental Jo adjacent areas. 9. The criterion above is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E)-(G). RMC 4-9-150(0): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 5 following requirements are met. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria b. Circulation: ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning pallerns, and minimization of steep gradients. 14 10. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the criterion above is met. 15 RMC 4-9-150(0): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 16 following requirements are met. 17 18 19 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 20 b. Circulation: 21 22 23 24 iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. 11. The criterion is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E). 25 RMC 4-9-150(0): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 26 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-21 l 2 3 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 4 b. Circulation: 5 6 7 8 9 iv. Provides sqfe, efficient accessfor emergency vehicles. 12. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(F) and (G), the proposal has sufficient emergency vehicle access. RMC 4-9-ISO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the ] o following requirements are met. 11 12 13 14 15 16 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewedfor consistency with all of the following criteria c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal is served by sufficient public infrastructure and services. 17 RMC 4-9-ISO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. 14. As determined in FOF No. 4, the proposal significantly exceeds open space requirements. The site is also designed specifically to increase the access and opportunity for open space. The multiple open spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of recreational opportunities PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 both passive and active. With the application, the applicant submitted a preliminary landscape plan (SEP A Exhibit 11 ). The preliminary landscape plan included a preliminary planting schedule, which included types of trees, shrubs and !,>round cover but did not identify exactly where what type of tree, shrub, and or ground cover would be planted and at what spacing or interval such plants would be planted. The conditions of approval require that the applicant provide a final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Conceptually, the provided landscape plan identifies screening landscaping bordering the properties to the north and to the west of the "dog leg" portion of the development and screening landscaping around the perimeter of the refuse and recycling areas. In addition, the plan identifies street trees would be planted along both SE 172nd St. and 108th Ave. SE. However, comments were received from the City's urban forester requesting that Tulip and Red Maple trees are not used as street trees. As such, a condition of approval prohibits the use of Tulip or Red Maple trees as street trees. Overall, the applicant has proposed to landscape all areas not proposed to be impervious surface with a combination of both evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and ground cover. Aggregating the units into a smaller number of buildings and providing for stacked units, as proposed, the overall project has less impervious surface than otherwise would be expected. Based on the provided TIR the site would contain approximately 42.5% impervious surfaces for the overall site. This would include building areas, associated walkways, driveways, parking and drive aisles and would total approximately 200,000 square feet of area. The remainder of the site would consist of residential landscaping and other pervious surfaces. 15 RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 16 following requirements are met. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also he reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -23 2 3 4 5 6 15. The proposed development would be designed to building code standards for multi-family construction. Each unit would have a separate interior entrance with insulated walls separating the units. All units would have access to light and air, as each unit contains a balcony and windows. BLDG.Kand L along the east end of the property would also have views of the protected critical area and wetlands and BULD. J, E, and B would have views of the large common open space areas. The applicant has indicated the placement of the buildings, oriented to open space, provides separation and privacy for the residents while maintaining a communal atmosphere. As noted in FOF No. 5(0), landscaping and fencing will be used to screen residential development to the north. RMC 4-9-lSO(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 7 following requirements are met. 8 9 10 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 11 f Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking 12 advantage of topography, building location and style. 13 14 15 16 16. The subject site is relatively flat and does not have a view corridor to Mt. Rainer and/or over a valley etc. However, small more localized view opportunities exist on site. BLDG. Kand L along the east end of the property would have views of the protected critical area and wetlands and BLDG. J, E, and B would have views of the large common open space areas. The overall orientation of the project enhances local views taking advantage of the site's features. RMC 4-9-150(0): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it_finds that the 17 following requirements are met. 18 19 20 21 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 22 g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and 23 each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate. 24 25 26 17. The criterion is met as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4(H). PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -24 2 RMC 4-9-150(0)(4): Each planned urban developmenl shall demonstrate compliance wilh the development standards contained in subsection E of this Section, the underlying zone, and any overlay districls; unless a modification for a spec/fie development standard has been requested 3 pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC 4-9-150(E). All requested development standard modifications requested through the PUD process identified in FOF No. 3 are approved by this decision except for the requirement to retain trees in critical areas. P. 7 of the staff report notes that except for the requested PUD modifications all RS-14 zoning standards are met by the proposal and there is no evidence or reasonable inference to the contrary. RMC 4-9-lSO(E)(l): Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below. a. Residential: For residential developments open space must equal at least ten percent (10%) of the development site's gross land area. i. Open ;pace may include, but is not limited to, the following: 14 (a) A trail that allows opportunity for passive recreation within a critical area buffer (only the square footage of the trail shall be included in the open space area calculation), or 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (b) A sidewalk and its associated landscape strip, when abutting the edge of a critical area buffer and when a part of a new public or private road, or (c) A similar proposal as approved by the reviewing official. ii. Additionally, a minimum area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit of common space or recreation area shall be provided in a concentrated space as illustrated in Figure 1. 19. The proposed project is located in the R-14 zone, which requires more common open space than required by the PUD regulations. Pursuant to RMC 4-2-I l 5(0), where there are conflicts between the design regulations and other sections of RMC the regulations of RMC 4-2-115 shall prevail. In addition, in times of conflict the more restrictive standard shall prevail. In both these circumstances the standards of 4-2-115 prevail. Therefore the above standards would not be applicable to the subject development proposal. 25 RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development 26 shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -25 l for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet (15') in every dimension (decks on upper floors can substitute for the required private open ,pace). For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5 '). 20. As mentioned in the preceding COL, R-14 standards are more restrictive than the PUD standards therefore the requirements located in RMC section 4-2-115 shall prevail and the above standards would not be applicable to the subject development. Pursuant to 4-2-115 Private Yards, developments of attached dwelling units (other than townhomes) that do not provide private yards, an additional 250 square feet per unit of open space shall be provided and this standard has been met as determined in FOF No. 4(0). In addition, the applicant identifies that 9,720 square feet of the open space is provided in the form of private open space as either ground floor patios or upper floor decks. Based on this information, each private space is approximately 60 square feet. However, staffs analysis of the provide floor plans, the decks more typically scale at 6 x 8 feet which is 48 square feet. If one used a conservative estimate, and reduced the private open space to 48 square feet per unit the overall open space in the development would still exceed the minimum requirement. RMC 4-9-1SO(E)(3): installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the Applicant and approved by the City; provided, that common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall he kept on file with the Development Services Division. b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070. 23 21. As Conditioned. 24 25 26 RMC 4-9-ISO(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: a. installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -26 1 2 3 developer or, if deferred by !he Planning/Building/Public Works Adminislralor or his/her designee, assured through a security device to !he Cily equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060 ... 22. As Conditioned. 4 RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance o/Common Facilities: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the Cily shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. 23. As conditioned. RMC 4-9-065 [A bonus density of up to 4 du/acre may be allowed in the R-14 district if the following criteria are met]: To qualify for the density bonus, the applicant shall provide either: (i) Alley and/or rear access and parking/or 50% of detached or townhouse units, or (ii) Civic uses such as a community meeting hall, senior center, recreation center, or other similar uses as determined by the Administrator, or (iii) A minimum of 2 units of affordable housing per net developable acre (fractional results shall 17 be rounded up to the next whole number) to qualify for a density bonus. 18 In addition, in order to qualify for a bonus, I 9 features described below: developments shall also incorporate at least I of the 20 21 22 (i) Active common recreation amenities such as sports courts, recreation center, pool, spa/jacuzzi. (ii) Surface parking lots containing not more than 6 parking stalls separated.from other parking areas by landscaping with a minimum width of 15 feet. 23 24. The applicant has requested the maximum bonus density of 4/du per acre. The applicant has 24 25 26 partially met this requirement by providing for a recreational center that is available for public use. The conditions of approval grant the applicant's request for the maximum density bonus to the extent that the parking requirements of the criterion above can be met. DECISION PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The proposed preliminary PUD as identified in the application materials admitted as exhibits and described in this decision is Approved, subject to the conditions below: I. The 4 du/acre density bonus requested by the applicant is granted to the extent that the applicant can maintain the amount of open space proposed in the Open Space Recreation Public Benefit Program, Ex. 3 and also, as determined by staff, comply with the parking lot clustering and landscape requirements of RMC 4-9-065 in addition to any other requirements applicable to the project. If it is not possible to maintain the proposed open space, the applicant shall reduce the number of parking stalls by reducing the number of dwelling units to the extent necessary to achieve compliance. Units shall first be removed from the tallest buildings of the proposal. The amount of open space in Ex. 3 shall be based upon the correct area of space depicted as determined by staff, as opposed to the numbers listed in the document that both the applicant and City have claimed to be in error. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the ten mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated January 7, 2013. 3. The project shall comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical reports prepared for the project, Ex. 12 and 13, specifically including the setbacks recommended for the coal mine hazard identified at p. 3 of Ex. 12, unless the additional geotechnical analysis required by the MONS recommends alternative mitigation. 4. The Applicant shall submit a detailed and revised final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 5. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that the building materials will reduce the potential for light and glare as contemplated by RMC 4-9- 150(D)(3)(a)(i). 6. The interpretive kiosk design and signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 7. In order to achieve public access to the wetland trail, signage shall be provided and an easement shall be recorded memorializing the public access to the wetland trail. A signage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to final PUD approval. The required public trail easement shall be recorded on the property title prior to building permit final occupancy. 8. The wetland trail shall be re-designed to create a loop at the end similar to a "lasso" to provide a tum around that acts like a loop. The updated trail design shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 9. All garage doors shall be designed with additional details, such as windows, and all side of the building facing the public street and/or internal "street" provide a front door or front porch presence, if this is not achievable an approved landscape screen would be required between the sidewalk and the building. These required design amendments shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -28 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 0. BLDG J shall be re-designed to reduce the overall appearance of bulk with vertical modulation similar to BLDG C and D, and provide additional variety in siding materials and color. These required design amendments shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval 11. A water and sewer availability certificate would be required to be submitted with the construction permit application. 12. The use of Tulip or Red Maple trees as street trees is prohibited. A different street tree shall be proposed and included on the final landscape plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Urban Forester and the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to final PUD approval. 13. The applicant shall provide a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment, if proposed. The screening plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 14. All refuse and recycling facilities shall be screened with landscaping on a minimum of three sides. The final landscape screening plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 15. The long rows or parking shall be broken up by landscaped areas every 6 or i stalls, to reduce the visual impact of surface parking throughout the development. The final parking area landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 16. All drive aisle widths shall meet the minimum width standards required by the Renton Municipal Code. 17. A detailed, colored coded, tree retention plan with associated retention worksheet and arborist report shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. This detailed plan shall clarify which trees are to be retained, dead and/or diseased, removed and eliminated as a part of the wetland mitigation project. Additionally a narrative should be submitted explaining what trees are included in the calculations and which trees are excluded and why, to verify compliance with the tree retention standards. 18. The applicant shall provide a bicycle parking plan consistent with RMC 4-4-080F.11.c to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to final PUD approval. 19. Areas within the development that result in more than 14 surface parking stalls (including surface tandem stalls) shall provide interior parking lot landscaping consistent with the requirements of RMC 4-4-070H.5 which would at a minimum require 15 square feet of landscaping per stall. The final parking area landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 2 Compliance with this standard is a PUD requirement separate from the bonus density requirement requiring 26 clustering of only up to six parking stalls. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20. The refuse and recycling stations in the south "dog leg" section and the facility located along the north property line by BLDG K shall be relocated to meet the minimum 50- foot separation standards. The new location shall be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager to ensure minimal impact on residents and neighbors and so they are not visible to the general public. An updated site plan identifying the new refuse and recycling plans shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 21. The applicant shall either relocate the refuse and recycling facility near BLDG M to meet the 200 foot maximum distance standards for all buildings or an additional facility within 200 feet of BLDG. M shall be provided. An updated site plan identifying the new refuse and recycling plans shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 22. The applicant shall provide a detailed utility screening plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 23. The proposed site plan shall be modified to eliminate the parking stalls located in the wetland buffers of Wetland A and Wetland B and be re-located outside the buffer areas. An updated site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 24. A split rail fence and critical area signage shall be provided along the edge of the wetland and a gate shall be located at the trail entrance. An updated site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 25. The final wetland creation plan shall include the placement of pieces of large wood within the wetland and buffer to increase the buffer complexity and to provide habitat features that currently do not exist within the area. The final wetland creation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 26. The wetlands and their buffers shall be placed in a Native Growth Protection Easement, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. The easement shall be recorded on the property title prior to building permit occupancy. 27. All pathways shall be made of concrete or other material approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Material shall be identified and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to final PUD approval. 28. The pathways in Common Space 2 and 21, as identified in Exhibit 3 shall be realigned and be provided at the edge of the green spaces to allow for a larger usable green area in the center. An updated site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 29. Door materials shall be provided with the building permit application and be made of either wood, fiberglass, metal, or glass and trimmed with 3 Y, " minimum head and jamb trim. Door design and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 30. The following buildings have sliding glass doors along a frontage elevation or an elevation. BLDG. A, west elevation, BLDG. E, east elevation, BLDG. J, cast elevation, BLDG. K & L, west and east elevations, and BLDG. M, west elevation. The sliding glass doors on the building elevations listed above shall be replaced with either a French door or another door approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Updated elevations shall be provided for review and approval prior to final PUD approval. 31. The applicant would be required to demonstrate multiple colors on buildings. A color palette shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 32. All sidewalks and cross walks in the development shall be constructed with a different material than the roadways, drive aisles and driveways. Material proposals shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 33. The applicant shall create bylaws or CC & R's that restrict parking across the pedestrian pathways throughout the development. Final bylaws shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager, prior to building permit final occupancy. 34. The applicant shall comply with the court order admitted as Exhibit 20, and as amended in the future. Compliance shall be identified on plan sets for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to Final PUD approval. 35. All requested PUD development standard modifications identified in FOF No. 3 are approved except for the tree cutting and land clearing requirements of RMC 4-4-130 as identified in COL No. 4. 36. All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the Applicant and approved by the City. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division. Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements ofRMC 4-4-070. 37. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. 38. All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -31 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. DATED this 29th day of March, 2013. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-11 O(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-l lO(E)(9) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen ( 14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-l lO(E)(S) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change m valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -32 Denis Law Mayor February 15, 2013 Phil Olbrechts Olbrechts and Associates 18833 NE 74'h Street Granite Falls, WA 98252 • r . t\ ,__. ·-....;i~~~..;;,, Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: Fieldbrook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Carr Road/Benson Road Intersection Exhibit Dear Mr. Examiner, CITY OF RENTON -,,s:Jr, FEB 1 5 2013cfi'1 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE · Following the public hearing, the record was left open for staff to submit additional information. One of the questions on thnecord regarded the limited traffic study for the proposed Fieldbrook Commons .project. I made the statement the City of Renton has a fully funded project for the Benson road/Carr Road intersection. Titled Carr Road Improvements, the project is TIP #JO and is currently funded, being designed and slated for construction in 2014 unless there are legal issues with obtaining the additional rights-of-way that may be needed. Even if there is delay in obtaining the rights-of-way, construction is expected to begin no later than 2015. Attached is: 1. The grant documentation undated but labeled "2011 City Safety Program" explaining the basis of the current design to implement traffic and pedestrian safety features, widening the road and coordinating the traffic signals to serve and provide better flow for the 53,100 trips per day along the corridor. 2. The Transportation Systems Division 2013-2018 Transportation Improvement Program page 5-10 regarding the funding of TIP Project #10, Carr Road Improvements; and 3. By reference, there is a 250-page document titled Carr Road Improvement Project dated I 0/20/2003 from King County with reference to the many studies, recommendations and conclusions on what is needed to improve this travel corridor. This may be found on fiie or may be provided electronically with the City of Renton Transportation Division in the Department of Public Works .. This information is being provided to clarify and substantiate the statements made on the record and for reference. If you have need of hard copy, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, i:~tr:-~~~L Development Engineering Supervisor Development Services CC: Vanessa Dolbee, Sr. Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Agency Contact: Chris Barnes City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Title: Transportation Operations Manager Phone Number: 425-430-7220 Email: cbarnes@rentonwa.gov 2011 City Safety Program Application for the Corridor Subprogram The SW 43rd St/SE Carr Rd/SE 176th St/SE Petrovitsky Rd Corridor is federally classified as a principal arterial, with two lanes of traffic on each direction, with intermittent two-way-left- turn-lanes (TWL TL), and carrying 53,100 vehicles per day. Posted speed is 35 mph. This is a major east-west corridor connecting Tukwila (S 18oth Street) to unincorporated King County and extending to SR-18 (Maple Valley). The corridor crosses over SR-167, providing access through on-off ramps. The traffic signals along this corridor are operated in a cooperative manner with WSDOT, King County and Tukwila as part of the TransValley Corridor Project. The corridor provides major access to the Valley Medical Center in Renton, which is the largest nonprofit healthcare between Seattle and Tacoma. The Valley Medical Center in Renton is a destination hospital in Southeast King County, operating full-service hospital, emergency room and trauma center. The corridor is also a major access for emergency services as Fire Station No. 13 is located just south of the intersection with SR-515. The City of Renton reviewed the collision data provided by WSDOT and proposes Adaptive Signal Control System and safety improvements on SE 176th St to address fatal and serious injury collisions in the City along the SW 43rd St/SE Carr Rd/SE 176th St Corridor/SE Petrovitsky Rd -Corridor. The corridor has a high number of injwy accidents. From 2004 to 2010, there were 191 injury accidents at the corridor's intersections or intersection related; of which 7 of them were serious injuries, 33 evident injuries and 151 possible injuries. Installation of Adaptive Signal Control System (ASCS). Within the City of Renton limits the corridor is 3.5-mile long, with 11 signalized intersections. This proposal to improve safety along the corridor includes the Adaptive Signal Control System in all 11 signalized intersections within the City. Adaptive Signal Control System technology coordinates traffic signals across a signal network, adjusting the lengths of signal phases based on current traffic conditions, demand and system capacity. 1 The system improves coordination and reduces the number of stops, which decreases rear- end crashes. With the adaptive signal control, the intersecting roadway at the intersections along the corridor will also benefit from the traffic signal coordination system. The grant request includes: a) the process of developing systems engineering documents for assessment and selection of adaptive signal control technology system; and b) implementation of the selected adaptive control system. a) Legislative District: 11 Congressional District 9 b) The Schedule for the Adaptive Signal Control System is: Begin System Engineering: Mif!gf)},t System Engineering/Bid Package/Environmental Documents Approved: R~i;?QXg Right-of-Way Approved: N/A Contract Advertised: tl~i\"2013 Implemented: Q~]~g,f{f · •· c) Cost estimate for the Adaptive Signal Control System is: System Engineering/Bid Package/Environmental: ~$'Q,\QQQ Right-of-Way: N/A Construction: ~~50lQQ~ Benson Road SE (SR515) at Carr Road SE Intersection Improvement Existing Conditions Every day 52,400 vehicles drive through the intersection of SR 515 and Carr Road SE. The intersection has been identified as a high accident location (HAL) and is included in the PSRC's Transportation 2040 plan. The route is also a major freight corridor and is classified as a T-1. The level of service (LOS) for the intersection is poor throughout most of the day. For the westbound movement on Carr Road the volume of right turning vehicles causes blockage of the curb lane effectively reducing the capacity of this movement by at least 50%. This existing heavy westbound right turn traffic contributes to rear-end and sideswipe accidents, as through traffic moves into the inside through lane to avoid right turning traffic. WSDOT recently completed 1-405 stage II improvements which include a new SR 515/1-405 interchange two miles to the north of this intersection. This has resulted in an increase in right-tum volume on Carr Road and is forecasted to further increase as traffic from nearby Benson Hill and the Soos Creek Plateau continues to be attracted to the 1-405 interchange. The intersection is a pivotal point along two major corridors that provide access to the Kent Valley (one of the largest warehousing district in North America), Ikea and SouthCenter Shopping areas, Valley Medical Center in Renton, which is the largest nonprofit healthcare center between Seattle and Tacoma. The SR-515 corridor also provides one of the main south accesses into our regionally designated growth center and the site of the Boeing 737 and 737 MAX plant. Improvements The project will widen the Carr Road approach at the intersection to provide a free flowing westbound right tum lane and widening of SR 515 to provide a merge lane for the right tum movement (see attached drawing). The project also includes bike lane, new sidewalk 2 separated from the roadway by a planter strip (Renton's Complete Street Standard) on the north side on Carr Road and along the east side of SR-515, drainage, illumination, traffic signal adjustments and upgrade, and landscaping. These project improvements will improve safety and mobility for general traffic, freight and non-motorized modes along the Carr Road and SR 515 corridors. By investing in these improvements the traveling public will benefit from reduced intersection delay, a reduction in traffic accidents and improved air quality. These investments will also assist the city in meeting its State GMA requirements for LOS and concurrency as our center grows and Boeing expands the jobs base for the aerospace industry in our region and within Washington State. a) Legislative District: 11 Congressional District: 9 b) The project Schedule for the roadway improvements is: Begin design: May 2012 Design/Bid Package/Environmental Documents Approved: Dec 2013 Right-of-Way Approved: N/A Contract Advertised: Jan 2014 Implemented: Dec 2014 d) Cost estimate for the roadway improvement at SE 1761h St is: Design/Bid Package/Environmental: $155,000 Right-of-Way: $1,440,000 Construction: $986,000 The total corridor project (ASCT and improvement s on SE 1761h St) cost is $;3;;18,)fQQQ and the requested amount is $R.\)$'J;QQl:i'. We anticipate that the corridor project as requested (ASCT combined with the improvements on Carr Road) will significantly improve the safety of the corridor. However if grant funding is limited, the City's first priority is the ASCT system. 3 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2013_-2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM . Carr Road Improvements Functional Classlflcatlon: Me.Pf' Arterial Fund: 317 Pro). Length: Pro): 122920 Communltv Plannlnu Area: Talbot & Benson TIP No. 10 CONTACT; Jlrr, Seitz 425.430. 7245 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Includes new pavement, curb, gutter. sidewalk, street light!, traffic slgnals from Benson Rd South (108th Roadway Improvement options Including spot sarety improvemanls, roadwey widening an Ave SE) to Talbot Rd So. Pot~tl~I Improvements vary from roadway realignment/widening at several roadway o.n new ellgntnent have previously beien Investigated by King County. Funding locallons to address geometric deficiencies, widening to 5-lane roadway (2 lenes westbound, 3 lanes proposed In 2015 Is for iinanzeUon of Improvements scope, cost and schedule. Corridor eastbound), to a new 4-5 lane roadway on new allQ'Omen.t. This project lnclude6 Intersection Improvements wm be developed In phases. The total project cost is estimated as $72M. Improvements at Carr Road and Benson Rd S { 108th Ave SE). JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Ce:tr Roa.d wa!i recently annexed to the City of Renton and Is ciassiffed es a prlncrpal arterial. lt has rour The City was awarded a Safety grant for signal Urning improvements along SW 43rd St/SE lanes of traffic with raft-turn Janas at intersections. Klng County has identified the need for Improvements Carr Rd/SE 176th SVSE Petrovitsky Rd Corridor. The grentarso Includes widening of th& to enhance. vehicle traffic capacity and safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians on this major easi--SE Carr Rd/Benson Dr S (SR 515) lnteniectlon. The grant amount Is for $3,241,000 end west transportation corridor. no match Is required . .. IF d: ,. " Protect Totals Proorammed Pre .. 2013 SJx .. Year ProOram ITEM Proarammed Snent Pre-2fl12 2012 Total 2013 2014 2015 ' 2016 2017 2018 EXP S: Plannlnn 200 000 200 000 200 000 Prellmlnarv Enc:: lneerlna 215 000 215-000 150 000 65000 R-0-W 1lncludes Adrnln1 1 440-000 1 440-000 900 000 540 000 Construction . 1 466 000 1 486 000 1486000 Construction Services. 100 000 100 000 100.000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 3 441 000 3.441.000 1.0501000 2.191.000 200.000 S• 111M"1: .. uf F OS: Vehicle Fuel Tax Business L!cense Fee 30 000 30 000 30000 Pronosed Fund Balance . . . Grenta In-Hand tFIKleral Safe"'' 3 241 000 3 241 000 1.050.000 2.191 000 , .. rants rn-Hand t2\ .. Mitiaalfon In-Hand .· Other In-Hand 11, other In-Hand 12) .. 1 'ndeterrnined--QI!! .. 170 000 170 000 . 170 000 llJIAI !",,lll 3,a.a.1,000 ;1.-1.000 1.050,0m 2 191.000 200000 ~-~ 11111t/N11 l:HPt.l 5 -10 Final ···········'·c·;··:·,····· ••• , •• ·····•·•••tee, •••.•••••••• Carr Road Improvement Project FINAL Design Memorandum Prepared for: King County Road Services Division 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, Washington 98104-3856 Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff 999 Third Avenue Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98104-4020 October 20, 2003 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1-1 CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 2-1 CHAPTER 3 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................. 3-1 Purpose of the Project.. .................................................................................................. 3-1 Need for the Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 3-1 CHAPTER 4 EXISTING GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS .................................................. 4-1 Transit and Traffic Characteristics ................................................................................ 4-2 Transit Service ......................................................................................................... 4-2 Vehicle Occupancy ................................................................................................... 4-4 Vehicle Classification .............................................................................................. .4-4 Agency Programs/Projects ....................................................................................... 4-5 CHAPTER 5 SCREENING PROCESS .............................................................................. 5-1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................... 5-1 First Level Screening Criteria ......................................................................................... 5-3 Meets Purpose and Need ......................................................................................... 5-3 lmpacts ..................................................................................................................... 5-3 Implementability ....................................................................................................... 5-4 Benefit ...................................................................................................................... 5-5 Second Level Screening Criteria .................................................................................... 5-5 Meets Purpose and Need ......................................................................................... 5-6 Social lmpacts .......................................................................................................... 5-6 Natural Impacts ........................................................................................................ 5-7 Transportation lmpacts ............................................................................................. 5-8 other Impacts ........................................................................................................... 5-9 CHAPTER 6 COMPLETED STUDIES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................. 6-1 Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum................................... . ....... 6-1 Existing Conditions Traffic Report...................................................... . ................... 6-1 Public Involvement........................................................................... . ........ 6-1 CHAPTER 7 WEST CORRIDOR (LIND AVENUE SW TO TALBOT ROADS) ................ 7-1 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 7-1 Roadway Design ...................................................................................................... 7-1 Lane Configuration ................................................................................................... 7 -1 Traffic Conditions ..................................................................................................... 7-1 Natural Environment. ................................................................................................ 7-7 First Level Screening Process ....................................................................................... 7-8 Initial List of Alternatives ........................................................................................... 7-8 First Level Screening Results.... .. ..................................................... 7-27 Second Level Screening Process.... .. ...................................................... 7-32 No Action............................................... . ................................. 7-32 Additional Off-Ramp................................................... . ........................ 7-44 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension............................ ... 7-61 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension ........................................... 7-78 Selection Process Results ...................................................................................... 7-95 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Ca" Raad Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum CHAPTER 8 CENTRAL CORRIDOR (TALBOT ROAD S TO 106TH PLACE SE) .......... 8-1 Existing Conditions.................................. .. .......................................................... 8-1 Roadway Design .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. ..... .. . .. .... .. . .. .. ... . ............................................... 8-1 Lane Configuration........................................ . ............................... 8-1 Traffic Conditions......................................... .. ............................................. 8-2 Natural Environment ....... .......... ........... ........... ........ . .................... 8-6 First Level Screening Process .... .. .. ........ ........... .......... ....... .. ............... 8-8 Initial List of Alternatives ........................................ : .. ..... .. .............................. 8-8 First Level Screening Results ................................ _... .. ...................... 8-17 Second Level Screening Process....................... .. ...................... 8-19 No-Action . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. ... .. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. . ................................... 8-19 Proposed Improvements.......................................... . ........ 8-32 Alternative 1 .... .......... ........... .......... .......... ......... .. ...................... 8-32 Alternative 2 .. .. ...... .. .. .. .... . . .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .... 8-45 Alternative 3 . .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . ......................................................................... 8-60 Alternative 4 . .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. ............................................... _ .. 8-76 Central Corridor Selection Process Results .......................................................... 8-94 CHAPTER 9 EAST CORRIDOR (SR 515 TO 116TH AVENUE SE) ................................. 9-1 Existing Conditions .. . . . . .. ... .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. .... .. .. .. ................ 9-1 Roadway Design ................................................................... .. ............... 9-1 Lane Configuration ............................................................................. _______ ............. 9-1 Traffic Conditions.. ....................................................................... . ......... 9-1 Accident History.... ... ............ ........ .......... ........................ ........ . .......... 9-3 Existing Traffic Conditions Summary ..... .. ........... ............ ................. .. ......... 9-3 Natural Environment . . . ........... ......... .......... .............. .......... ........... ___ ........ 9-3 First Level Screening Process .... .. ..... ... .. ........... ............ ......... .. ... 9-6 Initial List of Alternatives .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ..... 9-6 First Level Screening Results .. ....... . ............................................... 9-19 Second Level Screening Process........ .. ........................................................... 9-20 No Action................................. .. ........................................................... 9-20 Additional Lane on 116th Avenue SE at Intersection ............................................. 9-29 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection .............................................. 9-39 East Corridor Selection Process Results ........................................... 9-50 CHAPTER 10 NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................... 10-1 Permits and Agreements....... . .. ........................................................................ ________ 10-1 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF ii Carr Raad Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum List of Figures Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map ............................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 2 Existing Transit Service ....................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 3 Benson Road SE Intersection Alternative 2 Channelization Details .................... 4-7 Figure 4 Existing AM Peak Hour Level of Service ............................................................. 7-3 Figure 5 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service ............................................................. 7-4 Figure 6 4-Year Accident History (1997-2000 Average Annual Rates) .............................. 7-6 Figure 7 West Corridor No Action Alternative .................................................................. 7-11 Figure 8 West Corridor Alternative W-6 Split Ramp ......................................................... 7-15 Figure 9 West Corridor Alternative W-6a Split Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension................... _________ 7-17 Figure 10 West Corridor Alternative W-7 Loop Ramp..... .. .... 7-19 Figure 11 West Corridor Alternative W-8 Outside Flyover ......... 7-23 Figure 12 West Corridor Alternative W-9 Inside Flyover.. _________ 7-25 Figure 13 West Corridor Alternative W-12 Half Split Diamond .... .. ... 7-29 Figure 14 First Level Screening Results .......... 7-31 Figure 15 West Corridor: No Action Intersection Approach Delay and LOS .................. 7-36 Figure 16 West Corridor: 2020 No Action AM Level of Service ................ 7-39 Figure 17 West Corridor: 2020 No Action PM Level of Service ...................................... 7-40 Figure 18 Additional Off-Ramp ......................................................................................... 7-45 Figure 19 Additional Off-Ramp (cont.) ............................................................................. 7-47 Figure 20 Additional Off-Ramp: Intersection Approach Delay and LOS .......................... 7-53 Figure 21 Additional Off-Ramp: AM Level of Service ....................................................... 7-55 Figure 22 Additional Off-Ramp: PM Level of Service........ .. ...... 7-56 Figure 23 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension ....... 7-63 Figure 24 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension (cont.) ...... 7-65 Figure 25 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: lntersectionApproach Delay and LOS .......................................................... 7-70 Figure 26 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: AM Level of Service ....................................................................................... 7-72 Figure 27 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: PM Level of Service ...................................................................................... 7-73 Figure 28 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension............ .. ........... 7-79 Figure 29 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension (cont.) ......................... 7-81 Figure 30 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Intersection Approach Delay and LOS .......................................................... 7-87 Figure 31 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: AM Level of Service ....................................................................................... 7-89 Figure 32 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: PM Level of Service ....................................................................................... 7-90 Figure 33 Level 2 Screening Results ............................................................................... 7-96 Figure 34 Existing AM Peak Hour Level of Service ........................................................... 8-3 Figure 35 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service ........................................................... 8-4 Figure 36 Central Corridor: 4-Year Accident History (1997-2000 Average Annual Rates) ............................................................... 8-5 Figure 37 Central Corridor Alternative C-1 No Action Alternative .................................... 8-11 Figure 38 Central Corridor Alternative C-2 Additional GP Lane ....................................... 8-13 Figure 39 Central Corridor Alternative C-3 EB Add'I (Climbing) Lane ............................. 8-15 Figure 40 First Level Screening Results .......................................................................... 8-18 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF iii Can Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum Figure 41 No Action Approach Delay and LOS ............................................................... 8-27 Figure 42 Central Corridor Alternative 1 .......................................................................... 8-33 Figure 43 Central Corridor Alternative 1 (cont.) ............................................................... 8-35 Figure 44 Alternative 1: Approach Delay and LOS ......................................................... 8-39 Figure 45 Central Corridor Alternative 2 .......................................................................... 8-47 Figure 46 Central Corridor Alternative 2 (cont.) ............................................................... 8-49 Figure 47 Alternative 2: Approach Delay and LOS ......................................................... 8-56 Figure 48 Central Corridor Alternative 3 .......................................................................... 8-61 Figure 49 Central Corridor Alternative 3 (cont.) ............................................................... 8-63 Figure 50 Alternative 3: Approach Delay and LOS ....................................................... 8-71 Figure 51 Central Corridor Alternative 4 ........................................................................ 8-79 Figure 52 Central Corridor Alternative 4 (cont.)........................ . ........ 8-81 Figure 53 Alternative 4: Approach Delay and LOS...... . ......... 8-88 Figure 54 Level 2 Screening Results............. . ......... 8-95 Figure 55 Existing AM Peak Hour Level of Service .... . ...... 9-2 Figure 56 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service .... . ...... 9-4 Figure 57 4-Year Accident History (1997-2000 Average Annual Rates) ........................... 9-5 Figure 58 East Corridor Alternative E-1 No Action ............................................................ 9-7 Figure 59 East Corridor Alternative E-3 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection ..... 9-11 Figure 60 East Corridor Alternative E-4 Full Improvements ............................................ 9-12 Figure 61 East Corridor Alternative E-8 Additional Thru Lanes on 116th Ave SE ........... 9-17 Figure 62 First Level Screening Results .......................................................................... 9-19 Figure 63 No Action Approach Delay and Level of Service ............................................. 9-25 Figure 64 East Corridor Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection .............................. 9-30 Figure 65 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Approach Delay and LOS ......... 9-35 Figure 66 East Corridor Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection ............................. 9-40 Figure 67 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Approach Delay and LOS ........ 9-45 Figure 68 Level 2 Screening Results... . .... 9-51 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF iv Can Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum List of Tables Table 1 Peak Period Vehicle Occupancy Summary .......................................................... 4-4 Table 2 Peak Period Vehicle Classification by Percent of Total ........................................ 4-5 Table 3 Existing Freeway Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Summary ..................... 7-5 Table 4 Existing Freeway Mainline Level of Service Summary ......................................... 7-5 Table 5 Existing Grade ..................................................................................................... 7-32 Table 6 Existing Vertical Stopping Sight Distance ........................................................... 7-33 Table 7 2020 No Action Arterial Level of Service ............................................................. 7-35 Table 8 2020 No Action 95th Percentile Queue (Ft) ........................................................ 7-37 Table 9 No Action: Significant Queues ........................................................ 7-38 Table 10 No Action: Socioeconomic Impacts .................................................................. 7-42 Table 11 No Action: Natural Environment Impacts .................................. 7-42 Table 12 No Action: Transportation Impacts... .. ................................ 7-42 Table 13 No Action: Other Impacts........ . ................................ 7-43 Table 14 Proposed SW 43rd Street Grade ................................. 7-44 Table 15 Additional Off-Ramp: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance ................................... 7-49 Table 16 Additional Off-Ramp: Right-Of-Way Requirements ......... 7-50 Table 17 Additional Off-Ramp: Arterial Level of Service ........... 7-52 Table 18 Additional Off-Ramp: Significant Queues.................. . .......... 7-52 Table 19 Additional Off-Ramp: Benefit-Cost ................................................................... 7-57 Table 20 Additional Off-Ramp: Socioeconomic Impacts ................................................. 7-58 Table 21 Additional Off-Ramp: Natural Environment Impacts ......................................... 7-59 Table 22 Additional Off-Ramp: Transportation Impacts ................................................... 7-59 Table 23 Additional Off-Ramp: other Impacts ............................................................... 7-60 Table 24 Proposed SW 43rd Street Grade ................................... 7-61 Table 25 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance ................. 7-62 Table 26 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Right-Of-Way Requirements ..................................................................... 7-67 Table 27 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Arterial Level of Service .............................................................................. 7 -69 Table 28 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Significant Queues ........................................................................... 7-69 Table 29 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Benefit-Cost ................ 7-74 Table 30 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Socioeconomic Impacts....................... .. ..................... 7-75 Table 31 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Natural Environment Impacts ... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. ... . ... 7-76 Table 32 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Transportation Impacts............................................... .................... ____ 7-76 Table 33 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Other Impacts ............. 7-77 Table 34 Existing SW 43rd Street Grade ......................................................................... 7-78 Table 35 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance ................................................................ 7-83 Table 36 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Right-Of-Way Requirements................................... .. ............. 7-84 Table 37 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Arterial Level of Service............................................ 7-86 Table 38 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Significant Queues ..... 7-86 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF V Carr Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum Table 39 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Benefit-Cost..... . .... 7-91 Table 40 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Socioeconomic Impacts........................................... ............ .. ........ 7-92 Table 41 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Natural Environment Impacts..................................... . ......... 7-93 Table 42 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Transportation Impacts.......................................................... . ........ 7-93 Table 43 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Other Impacts ............ 7-94 Table 44 Summary................. . ............................................................................... 7-95 Table 45 Existing Horizontal Curvatures and Superelevation .......................................... 8-20 Table 46 Existing Grade.............................. . ............................................ 8-20 Table 47 Existing Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance ........................................... 8-21 Table 48 Existing Vertical Stopping Sight Distance.. . .......................................... 8-21 Table 49 Existing Entering Sight Distances..... . .......................................... 8-21 Table 50 Existing Design Deviations.............. . ...................................................... 8-23 Table 51 No Action: Arterial LOS..................... . ......................................... 8-26 Table 52 No Action: 95th Percentile Queue (Ft) ............................. 8-28 Table 53 No Action: Significant Queues................................. .. ............... 8-28 Table 54 Accident History Data for Central Corridor......................... . ............. 8-29 Table 55 Central Corridor No Action: Socioeconomic Impacts........... . ........ 8-30 Table 56 Central Corridor No Action: Natural Environment Impacts...... . .............. 8-30 Table 57 Central Corridor No Action: Transportation Impacts ...................................... 8-31 Table 58 Central Corridor No Action: Other Impacts ....................................................... 8-31 Table 59 Alternative 1: Right-Of-Way Requirements................................ . .......... 8-37 Table 60 Alternative 1: Arterial LOS.......................................................... . ........... 8-38 Table 61 Alternative 1: Benefit-Cost............................................................. . ......... 8-41 Table 62 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Socioeconomic Impacts .................................. 8-42 Table 63 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Natural Environment Impacts .......................... 8-43 Table 64 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Transportation Impacts ................................... 8-43 Table 65 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Other lmpacts .................................................. 8-44 Table 66 Alternative 2: Horizontal Curvatures and Superelevation ................................ 8-45 Table 67 Alternative 2: Grade.................. . ............................................................ 8-46 Table 68 Alternative 2: Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance ........................................... 8-46 Table 69 Alternative 2: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance. . ............................... 8-46 Table 70 Alternative 2: Entering Sight Distances............. . ................................ 8-51 Table 71 Alternative 2: Design Deviations........................... . ...................... 8-52 Table 72 Alternative 2: Design Deviations (cont.)................ . ............................... 8-53 Table 73 Alternative 2: Right-Of-Way Requirements............. . ................... 8-53 Table 74 Alternative 2 Arterial LOS .................................................. . ................ 8-54 Table 75 Alternative 2: Benefit-Cost................................................. .. .. 8-57 Table 76 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Socioeconomic Impacts ................................. 8-58 Table 77 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Natural Environment Impacts .......................... 8-59 Table 78 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Transportation Impacts .................................... 8-59 Table 79 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Other Impacts.......... . ............. 8-59 Table 80 Alternative 3: Horizontal Curvatures and Superelevation .... . ............. 8-60 Table 81 Alternative 3: Grade............................................................. . ............... 8-65 Table 82 Alternative 3: Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance ........................................... 8-65 Table 83 Alternative 3: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance ................................................ 8-65 Table 84 Alternative 3: Entering Sight Distances ........................................................... 8-66 Table 85 Alternative 3: Design Deviations...... . ........................................... 8-68 Table 86 Alternative 3: Right-Of-Way Requirements. . ................................ 8-68 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF vi Ca" Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum Table 87 Alternative 3 Arterial LOS ................................................................................. 8-70 Table 88 Alternative 3: Benefit-Cost............................................. .. .. 8-72 Table 89 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Socioeconomic Impacts... .. ....... 8-73 Table 90 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Natural Environment Impacts... . ......... 8-74 Table 91 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Transportation Impacts.... .. ........ 8-74 Table 92 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Other Impacts..... . .................. 8-75 Table 93 Alternative 4: Horizontal Curvature and Superelevation.. .. ........ 8-76 Table 94 Alternative 4: Grade............ . ..................... 8-76 Table 95 Alternative 4: Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance. .. ...... 8-77 Table 96 Alternative 4: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance ................................................ 8-77 Table 97 Alternative 4: Entering Sight Distances ..................................................... 8-83 Table 98 Alternative 4: Design Deviations .................................................... 8-84 Table 99 Alternative 4: Right-Of-Way Requirements ...................................................... 8-85 Table 100 Alternative 4 Arterial LOS .................................................. 8-87 Table 101 Alternative 4: Benefit-Cost... .. ............................................... 8-90 Table 102 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Socioeconomic lmpacts ................................. 8-91 Table 103 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Natural Environment Impacts ........................ 8-92 Table 104 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Transportation lmpacts .................................. 8-92 Table 105 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Other Impacts ................................................ 8-93 Table 106 Summary ......................................................................................................... 8-94 Table 107 116th Avenue SE No Action: Existing Grade ................................................. 9-21 Table 108 116th Avenue SE No Action: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance .................... 9-21 Table 109 116th Avenue SE No Action: Design Deviations ............................................ 9-22 Table 110 No Action: Intersection LOS, Average Vehicle Delay and V/C ...................... 9-23 Table 111 No Action: 2020 95th Percentile Queue (Ft) ................................................... 9-24 Table 112 No Action: Significant Queues .......... . ....... 9-26 Table 113 No Action: Socioeconomic Impacts.... .. ................. 9-27 Table 114 No Action: Natural Environment Impacts ..................................................... 9-27 Table 115 No Action: Transportation Impacts ............................................................... 9-28 Table 116 No Action: Other Impacts ............................................................................... 9-28 Table 117 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Grade ....................................... 9-29 Table 118 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Table 119 Table 120 Table 121 Table 122 Table 123 Table 124 Table 125 Table 126 Table 127 Table 128 Table 129 Table 130 Table 131 Vertical Stopping Sight Distance ................................................................ 9-31 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Design Deviations ..................... 9-31 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Right-of-Way Requirements. .. .............................................. 9-32 Add'I Lane on 116th Avenue SE at Intersection: Arterial LOS ........................ 9-33 Add'I Lane on 116th Avenue SE at Intersection: 2020 95th Percentile Queue (Ft) ................................................................ 9-33 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Significant Queues ................... 9-33 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Benefit-Cost.. ............................ 9-34 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Socioeconomic Impacts ............ 9-36 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Natural Environment Impacts. .. .... 9-37 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Transportation Impacts ............ 9-37 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Other Impacts............. . .... 9-38 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Grade....................... . ..... 9-39 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance ............................................................... 9-41 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Design Deviations .................... 9-41 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF vii Ca" Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum Table 132 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Right-Of-Way Requirements ... . ............................................ 9-42 Table 133 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Arterial LOS................. . 9-44 Table 134 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: 2020 95th Percentile Queue (Ft)... . ......................................................... 9-44 Table 135 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Benefit-Cost.. .......................... 9-46 Table 136 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Socioeconomic Impacts .......... 9-47 Table 137 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Natural Environment Impacts .................................................................. 9-48 Table 138 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Transportation lmpacts ............ 9-48 Table 139 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Other lmpacts .......................... 9-49 Table 140 Summary ....................................................................................................... 9-50 Table 141 Probable Project Permit Requirements .......................................................... 10-1 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF viii Carr Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum Chapter 1 Executive Summary The purpose and need of this project is to develop solutions to the congestion problems that occur on the Carr Road corridor in order to satisfy concurrency requirements for development approvals over the next 20 years as defined by the State Growth Management Act. This design memorandum presents a summary of the design considerations, studies and reports prepared to formulate and define improvements necessary for concurrency compliance. The purpose of this memorandum is to document the selection of an alternative option and to discuss issues that are necessary for preliminary design of the preferred alternative. Carr Road is the name for a part of a larger principal arterial that extends from the City of SeaTac in the west to Maple Valley in the east. Along this route, beginning in the west, the arterial names transition from S 180th Street to SW 43rd Street to SE Carr Road to SE 176th Street and then SE Petrovitsky Road. The proposed project improvements, referred to collectively as the Carr Road improvements, are located in three jurisdictions: the southwestern portion of the project area is in the City of Kent, the western portion of the roadway in the City of Renton, and the central and eastern portions in unincorporated King County. The improvement study was initially scoped to evaluate three types of design improvements for the corridor: intersection improvements, capacity improvements (i.e. widening Carr Road), and major interchange modifications at SR 167. Very preliminary traffic analysis suggested that the Carr Road congestion problems could be grouped geographically into three areas: West Corridor (Lind Avenue SW to Talbot Road S), Central Corridor (Talbot Road S to SR 515), and East Corridor (SR 515 to I 16th Avenue SE). Analysis also pointed to the lack of sufficient intersection capacity rather than corridor capacity that is causing the traffic congestion. Evaluation and solution development of the SR 515 (I 08th Avenue SE)/SE Carr Road intersection is being pursued by another King County project. Selection of the preferred alternative was the result of a two level transportation alternatives analysis process in which many alternatives were developed, evaluated and screened. At the first level screening the alternatives were qualitatively evaluated based on their ability to potentially increase intersection capacity or corridor throughput to satisfy concurrency requirements. Each alternative was also evaluated for its environmental, social and economic impacts, its compatibility with plans and policies, costs, and constructability. Three alternatives from the west corridor, one from the central corridor and two from the east corridor areas were selected, along with the No Action alternative, for a more quantitative evaluation. A public meeting was held to inform the public of the project's intent, its progress, and to solicit input and feedback from the public. Selection of the preferred alternative followed using a weighted scoring system to determine the alternative's ranking. The evaluation criteria included social impacts such as displacements, impacts to sensitive land uses, historic/cultural resources, and business; natural impacts such as water quality/quantity, wetlands, fisheries/wildlife, vegetation, noise, and air quality; transportation impacts that included average timesavings, queuing/blocking, safety, and overall operations; PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 1-1 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum and other impacts such as compatibility with plans and policies, benefit-cost, costs, and constructability. In the west corridor area, the alternative that added another off-ramp to the SR 167 interchange along with the creation of a more direct north-south route by extending Lind Avenue SW to East Valley Highway was selected. The central corridor's preferred alternative is to provide three eastbound lanes, two westbound lanes, as well as bike lanes on an alignment located south of the existing Carr Road. The addition of one through lane in each direction on J J 6'h Avenue SE in the vicinity of the SE l 76'h Street (Carr Road) intersection is the preferred alternative for the east corridor. With the selection of the preferred alternatives, detailed environmental and engineering studies will be performed to enable preparation of a NEPA Environmental Assessment and a Design Report. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 1-2 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Chapter 2 Introduction This design memorandum presents a summary of the studies, reports, and design prepared for the Carr Road Improvement Project. The results of this work will culminate in a Design Report and a Draft Environmental Assessment of the proposed alternatives. The environmental assessment will meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Carr Road is a principal arterial in King County, Washington. The roadway corridor extends through three jurisdictions: the extreme western portion of the roadway is in the City of Kent with the majority of the roadway in unincorporated King County and the City of Renton. A project vicinity map is provided in Figure I. Carr Road is part of a larger principal arterial that extends from the City of SeaTac in the west to Maple Valley in the east. Along this route, beginning in the west, the arterial's name transitions from S 180th Street to SW 43rd Street to SE Carr Road to SE 176th Street and SE Petrovitsky Road. The proposed project improvements are referred to collectively as the Carr Road improvements, however, individual locations will be identified using the appropriate intersection designations. The proposed improvements are for an approximately two-mile portion of Carr Road. The project corridor encompasses Lind Avenue SW in the west and extends east to and includes 1161 h Avenue SE. The project corridor also includes the SR 167 on-and off-ramps, SW 41" Street/East Valley Road intersection to the north and a proposed intersection forrned by the extension of Lind Avenue SW with East Valley Highway S to the south. It should be noted that the proposed improvements and, therefore, the project study area does not forrn a continuous corridor between Lind Avenue SW and I 16th Avenue SE. The study of and proposed improvements for the I 08th A venue SE (SR 515)/Carr Road intersection were addressed in a separate study entitled Benson Road SE (SR 515) and SE Carr Road Intersection Improvements (Entranco, 2003, KC CIP# 400698) and was neither evaluated nor discussed here. Traffic forecast modeling and analyses were coordinated between the two projects to ensure that the proposed improvements from both projects are compatible with each other and were taken into consideration. After preliminary traffic analysis early in the project, it became apparent that the project corridor could be characterized and separated into three distinct sections by the traffic congestion problems encountered. The west corridor area includes Lind Avenue SW, East Valley Road, SR 167 northbound on-and off-ramp terrnini, and Talbot Road S intersections with Carr Road. It also includes the SW 41" Street/East Valley Road intersection, SR 167 southbound on-and off-ramps and a proposed Lind Avenue SW/East Valley Highway S intersection. The central corridor extends from just east of Talbot Road S through the I 08th Avenue SE (SR 515)/Carr Road intersection and includes the 98th Avenue SE/Smithers Avenue S, Mill Avenue SISE 103'd Place, SE 105th Place and SE 106th Place intersections. The east corridor area begins just east of I 08th Avenue SE (SR 515) and extends through the I I 61h Avenue SE intersection. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2-1 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum The east corridor study area initially included Carr Road just east of SR 515 (108th Avenue SE) through the signalized I 16th A venue SE intersection. However, analysis of the con~estion issues narrowed the focus of the proposed improvements to the intersection of 116' Avenue SE/SE l 76'h Street. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2-2 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum S 212th S! PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map SE 192 SE 200! ~ ~ E <~stn St 2-3 Legend ID RI £1t1ll'i Carr Road Study Corridor SPu etO Benson/Carr Project {Separate Study} ---.,,.-.~~:, " ~ '" ~~ Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Chapter3 Purpose and Need Purpose of the Project The purpose of this project is to address corridor and intersection operational issues along the Carr Road corridor in order to satisfy concurrency needs as defined in the State Growth Management Act (GMA). Need for the Proposed Action Carr Road is a major east-west corridor providing access between residential areas in unincorporated King County to the east with the cities of Tukwila, Renton and SeaTac, and SR 167 in the west. Traffic operations on the roadway are reflected, in part, by level of service standards. The Existing Conditions Traffic Report, September 20, 2002, reports some intersections along the Carr Road corridor already operate at a level of service (LOS) D, E and f indicating moderate to heavy congestion. By 2020, it is predicted the east and west ends of the corridor will operate at LOS f, creating significant bottlenecks. (Source: Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum, Parsons Brinckerhoff, October 6, 2003). Much of the existing congestion results from passenger cars and trucks which comprise approximately 98% of the vehicle mix using Carr Road. Buses, single-unit trucks, and semi- trucks make up 1.5% of the mix and constitute the main heavy vehicle usage on the roadway. Traffic operations analysis indicates that there are three primary areas of congestion within the project corridor. The intersection of Carr Road and East Valley Road operates at a failing Level of Service (LOS) at the west end of the corridor during both the morning and evening peak traffic hours. The SE Carr Road intersection with SR 515 operates at a marginally better LOS E during the same period. The SE Carr Road intersection with I 16th Avenue SE also operates at LOS E during morning and LOS D during the evening peak hours. During the evening peak hours, intersections near the SR 167 freeway ramps also experience congestion and delays. Another measure of roadway congestion is the average level of delay experienced along the corridor. Heavily congested movements, as indicated by large average delay times as well as high volume to capacity ratios, are currently experienced at each of the intersections identified above. Analysis of queuing lengths in the corridor has shown that a number of locations are experiencing excessive queue lengths (either exceeding available storage length or extending beyond 500 feet for through-mainline movements). Generally, queuing problems occur at the most congested intersections, however, excessive queuing was also found to occur on cross streets at intersections with less congestion, including the Carr Road intersections with Talbot Road S, I 06th Place SE, and Lind Avenue SW. Congested conditions are also reflected by the roadway's accident history. Data for the Carr Road corridor indicates that accidents have been particularly concentrated around the East Valley Road and SR 515 intersections. The Talbot Road S/Carr Road intersection also PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 3-1 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum shows a higher number of accidents than other sections of the corridor as well. Accidents along the corridor tend to be concentrated at high volume locations and at intersections where significant crossing volumes occur. The proposed roadway improvements considered in this document would provide a series of solutions within the corridor that, individually and collectively, would help resolve congested conditions and enhance traffic flow there. In addition to congestion relief, these improvements to the corridor and intersection operations are also necessary to ensure compliance with the state's Growth Management Act (GMA). A key component of the GMA is the concurrency requirement, which requires that services and facilities are in place or funded, prior to future development. King County's Transportation Concurrency Management Program (TCM) was developed to address this requirement. The TCM requires that transportation facilities must be available to carry the expected amount of traffic from a proposed development at County LOS standards. Without meeting this requirement, proposed development projects cannot be approved. Because the proposed improvements would result in reducing current levels of congestion at several key intersections, LOS ratings would be improved on the roadway allowing the County to remain in compliance with this important state requirement. These measures would help keep traffic flowing and meet state and local growth management objectives along this primary transportation corridor. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 3-2 Ca" Road lmpro11ement Project Design Memorandum Chapter4 Existing General Site Conditions The primary land uses along the west end of the corridor are commercial, office, and light industrial. Along the central corridor primary land uses are commercial and retail. Valley Medical Center and related medical offices are concentrated near the Talbot Road S intersection on the corridor. Single family and multi-family residential developments between 108th Avenue SE (SR 515) and I 16th Avenue SE characterize the land use of the east end of the corridor. The posted speed limit throughout the Carr Road corridor is 35 mph. The existing right-of- way limits are typically offset 20 feet from the existing back of sidewalk. Carr Road maintains two primary travel lanes in each direction throughout the corridor. West of the northbound SR 167 ramps, the roadway includes a center tum Jane. A six-lane section is maintained between SR 167 and Talbot Road S; four to five lanes are provided between Talbot Road S and I 06th Place SE; then five lanes through SR 515. Exclusive right tum lanes are provided westbound at the NB SR 167 ramps and eastbound at East Valley Highway S and Talbot Road S. The roadway is bounded by curb, gutter, and sidewalk throughout the study corridor. Signalized intersections are located along Carr Road at Lind Avenue SW, East Valley Road, NB SR 167 ramps, Talbot Road S, 98 1h Avenue SE (Smithers Avenue S), 106th Place SE, 108th Avenue SE (SR 515), and 1161h Avenue SE. Single left-tum lanes are provided at each intersection for eastbound and westbound movements. The intersection with I 08th Avenue SE (SR 515) includes dual left turns onto Carr Road from both the northbound and southbound directions. Dual left turns are allowed from northbound Talbot Road S to westbound Carr Road with the center lane being an optional left or through movement. At the west end of the corridor Carr Road follows a tangent alignment and relatively flat grade from Lind Ave SW to the East Valley Road intersection. At this intersection the grade increases (approaching 8%) in order to cross over SR 167. The alignment of the central corridor follows a curving, uphill grade east from Talbot Road S to I 08th Avenue SE (SR 515), reaching a maximum grade of 10% between 98th Avenue SE (Smithers Avenue S) and I 05th Place SE. Located throughout this section of the corridor are several private and commercial driveways. In most cases the entering sight distances for the driveways are limited by Carr Road's horizontal and vertical alignment. The alignment of the east end corridor is relatively flat and primarily tangent from I 08th Avenue SE (SR 515) to I 16th Avenue SE. Located throughout this section of the corridor are numerous side streets, private and commercial driveways. No entering sight distance issues are identified in this section of the corridor. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 4-1 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Transit and Traffic Characteristics Transit Service King County Metro is the primary provider of transit service throughout King County. Several Metro routes serve the study area. These routes are shown in Figure 2 and described below. • Route IO I: Select runs serve the Fairwood neighborhood east of Carr Road. (Most runs originate at the downtown Renton Transit Center). Route 101 provides service between downtown Seattle and the Fairwood neighborhood during peak-hours on weekdays only. • Route 148: Serves the northern portion of the study area, and residential areas east of Carr Road. This route provides connections to other regional and local transit services at the South Renton Park-and-Ride and downtown Renton Transit Center. Operates every 30 minutes, 5:30 AM to 9:30 PM, weekdays; and hourly from 8:00 AM to 7:30 PM Saturdays, and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM Sundays. • Route 155: Serves the entire study corridor, connecting Fairwood with Tukwila and the Tukwila shopping mall area. Operates hourly from 5:00 AM to 7:00 PM weekdays. • Route 160: Operates in the southern portion of the study corridor along S 212th St/S 208th St, serving Kent East Hill, Tukwila, and downtown Seattle with limited weekday service during peak periods in the peak direction (to Seattle in the AM, to Kent in the PM). • Route 163: Provides service between Kent's East Hill, Renton, Tukwila, and downtown Seattle, via Carr Road between SR 515 and Lind Ave SW. Operates limited service weekdays during peak periods in the peak direction (to Seattle in the AM, to Kent in the PM). • Route 169: Provides frequent service between downtown Kent and Renton, including to the Valley Medical Center. Operates on Carr Road between SR 515 and Talbot Road S. Service is provided every 30 minutes from 5:00 AM to 11 :30 PM weekdays; 30 to 60-minute service from 6:00 AM to midnight Saturdays, and hourly service between 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM Sundays. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 4-2 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum I I 'r-1--- I I ___/\ j / Not to Scale S 212th Si Source: ECTR, Fig.4 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 2 Existing Transit Service I L __ : I 4h1 St (Car 1 _,,i • ( "' .. %'"' 1111 I I I I I ·~ I ~ I ! S 208th St .-i I I I I I I I I jr I I '%\ -;: I ~, Legend Carr Road Study Corridor • • Carr Road Study Area Limits ' -0-Metro Bus Route SE 176m St \Carr Roi.) I ,--'-& I I tyJ ~, ~ I ~I u:i ..,, ! I :::1 I ~ I I ~ =s''--''"''2'cc'-".:st--lr:----•IL-._ +----- 1 I II/ -1 (51_5) / I ~---S~E~'°-°'~h"'St'--IJ- 4-3 1 I I I Can Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Vehicle Occupancy Vehicle occupancy counts were conducted on Thursday, January 18'\ 2001 along SE Carr Road between SR 167 and SR 515 in Renton. Counts were taken during the 2-hour peak periods from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Vehicle occupancy data is presented in Table I for the AM and PM peak periods for eastbound and westbound traffic along Carr Road. The eastbound direction showed balanced HOV use during both peak periods, with AM and PM HOV percentages of approximately 17% and 15%, respectively. Conversely, the westbound direction showed a considerable shift between AM and PM periods, with 7% in the AM and 21 % in the PM. The westbound AM HOV mode share indicates the large predominance of SOV travel by commuters traveling from the residential areas at the east end of the study area to employment sites elsewhere. The higher HOV mode share in the eastbound direction, during both the AM and PM peaks, are likely reflective of higher levels of HOV use for non-commute trips (shopping, school), and could also be influenced by HOV use at the Valley Medical Center, which has a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program. In summary, occupancy counts indicate that a large HOV commute market does not presently exist, with the possible exception of commute trips to the Valley Medical Center at the west end of the corridor. HOV use appears to be more predominant in non- commute uses, as evidenced by the higher HOV shares in the non-peak (non-commuting) direction. Table 1 Peak Period Vehicle Occupancy Summary Eastbound Westbound Occupancy AM PM AM PM One (1) Occupant 1253 3690 2879 2005 Two (2) Occupants 229 591 203 490 Three (3) Occupants 12 41 14 30 Four ( 4) or more Occupants 9 26 5 8 Avg. Vehicle Occupancy 1.20 1.18 108 1.23 % of 2+ HOVs 17% 15% 7% 21% Source: Carr Road Improvement Pro1ect, E:x1shng Condrtwns Traffic Memorandum (ECTR), Parsons Brinckerhoff. September 20, 2002, Table 1. Vehicle Classification Vehicle classification counts were conducted on SE Carr Road at a location between SR 167 and SR 515 on Thursday, January 18th, 200 I. All classification counts were conducted for the 2-hour peak periods from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The percentage shares of passenger cars, single-unit trucks, buses, and semi-trucks are presented in Table 2. Buses, single-unit trucks, and semi-trucks make up the total heavy vehicle percentage, which constitute less than 5% of the traffic stream for any period or direction. Passenger cars, SUVs and pick-up trucks make up approximately PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 96% to 99% of the vehicle mix on SE Carr Road, depending on the time of day, These results confirm that the corridor is predominately auto-oriented, with only occasional use by buses or truck traffic, Table 2 Peak Period Vehicle Classification by Percent of Total Eastbound Westbound Classification AM PM AM PM Motorcycles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Passenger Cars/SUVs/PU 95.8% 99.1% 98.1% 98.6% One Body Delivery Trucks 2.7% 0.6% 1.2% 1.0% Metro or School Buses 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.2% Multi-Segment Semi's 1.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% Heavy Vehicles 4.2% 0.9% 1.9% 1.4% Source: £CTR, Table 2. Agency Programs/Projects King County Benson Road SE (SR 515) at SE Carr Road Intersection As mentioned earlier in this memorandum, the county is also developing a project (CIP# 400698) to improve the intersection at I 08th Avenue SE (also known as SR 515 and Benson Road SE) and SE Carr Road. The project is currently in the environmental documentation/preliminary engineering phase and will be entering the plans, specifications and estimate (PS&E) phase in the near future. Coordination of the traffic analysis and proposed improvements has been ongoing between the I 08th Avenue SE intersection and the Carr Road projects from inception. Improvements examined for the I 08th Avenue SE intersection included the No-Action, Transportation Systems Management, widening, and Single Point Urban Interchange alternatives. The widening alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative which is comprised of widening the north approach to six lanes, the south and west approaches to seven lanes, and the east approach to eight lanes (please see Figure 3). These improvements extend approximately 500 feet to the west (to about 106th Place SE) and 800 feet to the east (to about 11 O'h Place SE) on Carr Road. Additional information for the Benson Road SE intersection project can be found in Technical Memorandum No. 2, Revised Transportation Alternatives Analysis, Entranco, June 2003. King County Carr Road/Trans-Valley Corridor Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) -CIP# 400400 Concurrently with the Carr Road corridor and the Benson Road SE intersection projects, the county is studying the use of ITS to address congestion through the Carr Road corridor. The ITS project area encompasses seven miles of the Carr Road PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 4-5 Carr Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum corridor from Southcenter Parkway in the west to SE 1841h Street in the east. ITS uses a combination of video cameras, variable message signs, traffic signal priority for buses, and centralized traffic signal monitoring and control to increase the efficiency of traffic flow, enhance transit speed and reliability, and improve safety and security for travelers. WSDOT SR 167 Widening The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is currently studying long-range plans for widening SR 167 to add general purpose lanes. One concept will add two lanes in each direction and will likely require reconfiguration of the S 1801h Street (SW 41st Street) interchange. In the near term, WSDOT's 1-405 project's proposed improvements at the SR 167/1-405 interchange would add an auxiliary lane in each direction up to the S 1801h Street interchange. Proposed improvements by the Carr Road project at the S 1801h Street interchange are not in conflict with WSDOT's proposed improvements. City of Renton The City of Renton, in conjunction with the City of Tukwila, is evaluating improvements to upgrade and link Strander Boulevard to SR 167 via SW 27th Street. The purpose of the project is to improve east-west mobility across the Green River valley with a proposed new interchange at the east end of SW 27th Street. The interchange would be located approximately half way between the 1-405 and the S 180th Street interchanges. Some discussion with the city has taken place to identify possible collaboration opportunities and conflicts. The proposed Carr Road project improvements are not likely to affect or be significantly affected by the city's proposal. City of Tukwila S 1 SO'h Street Grade Separation Project The City of Tukwila has recently completed construction of a grade separated crossing of the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe and Union Pacific rail lines on S J 80'h Street. The four-lane roadway currently serves as a local connector between SR 181 (West Valley Highway) and East Valley Road as well as access to SR 167. The underpass will reduce congestion and traffic delay caused by heavy train traffic traversing the corridor. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 4-6 Carr Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum c~~~, l ~ ...,. \ \ -~I ~ ~ -V ~ ~ / .' / / I -./ / / / / '1 / '\)I la'. / / / / / '• i~ / / / / / / / Figure 3 Benson Road SE lntcrsedion Alternative 2 Channelization Details ' '-... --/ l. i ')" ,-' ' \ r /· I \/' . I ---- . -'-... ·-.. 5e "~r1-1 ST "'=' =- "=I' "' -- : 1 v, I " '\. 1 •~~I ----+ CAM~ ri'il + ...,. ...,. ~,~~tt,-. --~ I I I I v CB ~---~-·- 1 LEGEND ·-----__ .,_. __ _ ~ R ~ SIGNAUIHJ ' ' INT ERSFCTION SoJufCe: Benson Road SE (SR 515) At Carr Road SE lntersechon. Tech.meal Memorandum No.2. Revised Transponation Al!cm,1;~., Analysis. l'nlra,-.;:o. March )l~ll PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF .. , Carr Road Jmproi,•m•nt ProJ•ot Oealgn Memorandum Chapters Screening Process Development of alternatives initiated a two-step screening process used to select the proposed Carr Road improvements. These conceptual alternatives were developed using the King County Road Standards and WSDOT's Design Manual and guided by the traffic analysis results. Design Criteria The following criteria from the King County Road Standards, 1993, were used to develop the build-alternatives' local road improvements: Roadway Classification: ................................ Principal Arterial Land Use Area: .............................................. Urban Speed Design: ..................................................... 45 mph Posted: ..................................................... .35 mph Design Vehicle ............................................... WB-40 Maximum Grade: ........................................... 9% Lane Cross Slope .......................................... .2% Maximum Superelevation Rate: .................... 6% Superelevation Transition .............................. Varies (from WSDOT Design Manual) Stopping Sight Distance: .............................. .400 ft(+ adjustment for downgrade) Entering Sight Distance: ................................ 620 ft Lane Width Through and Right Turn: ........................ .11 ft Left or Center Turn Lane: ........................ 12 ft Roadside Elements: ........................................ Vertical curb and gutter Sidewalk Width: ............................................. 5.0 ft (excluding curb) Intersection Angle: ......................................... Max. 5° from perpendicular Curb Radius: .................................................. 35 ft min. (KCRS-Para. 2.10.A.3.c.) WSDOT's Design Manual, M22-0l, was used to design the SR 167 interchange improvements. Design parameters are listed below: Design Class Principal Arterial, P-1, divided multi- lane, non-interstate freeway, (NHS route) Design Level .................................................. Full Land Use Area ............................................... Urban Terrain ............................................................ Level Ramp Design Speed ....................................... 25-60 mph PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5-1 Can Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Ramp Type ..................................................... Tapered Design Vehicle ............................................... WB-40 Ramp Maximum Grade .................................. 5-7% Lane Cross Slope ........................................... 2% Maximum Superelevation Rate ...................... I 0% Superelevation Transition .............................. Varies (from WSDOT Design Manual) Stopping Sight Distance ................................. Varies (155 ft to 570 ft) Ramp Width (Minimum) One lane .................................................. .15 ft Two lanes ................................................ .25 ft Paved Shoulder Width Left, Single Lane ...................................... 2 ft Left, Two Lanes ...................................... .4 ft Right.. ....................................................... 8 ft Intersection Angle: ......................................... Max. 15° from perpendicular Initial improvement alternatives were developed after a very rough preliminary traffic analysis. The analysis allowed some insight into the likely causes of the congestion problems and therefore possible resolutions. The alternatives were developed jointly by King County and Parsons Brinckerhoff staff and presented to the project's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The Carr Road Improvement Project's TAC is a group of representatives from various local agencies that have some interest or stake in the project. Agencies represented include King County, the cities of Kent and Renton, Washington State Department of Transportation, Puget Sound Regional Council, and the Transportation Improvement Board. The initial alternatives were supplemented by suggestions from the TAC members. The selection process involved the use of qualitative analyses at the first level. The alternatives were rated relative to the other alternatives within its respective corridor area. Screening criteria were developed to select up to three build-alternatives from each corridor that would be further developed and advanced into the second level of evaluations. These criteria were presented to the project's TAC for comment. Detailed discussion of the screening criteria and their measures of effectiveness may be found in the following section. The initial screening was performed by Parsons Brinckerhoff with results discussed with and approved by King County staff. Alternatives that were selected from the First Level Screening, along with the No Action alternatives, were then subjected to the Second Level Screening process. The purpose of the second level of screening was to select the project's preferred alternatives and conunence evaluation and documentation required for a NEPA Environmental Assessment. Detailed discussion of the second level screening criteria and their measures of effectiveness may be found in the following sections. The second level screening was performed jointly by King PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5-2 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum County and Parsons Brinckerhoff staff over the course of two days. Results of this final screening were then presented to the TAC. First Level Screening Criteria The criteria in the First Level Screening evaluation were used to determine if any of the associated improvements for each corridor contained a 'fatal flaw' that would eliminate it from further consideration as a future improvement. The No-Action alternative was included in all corridor areas and ranked against the build-alternatives but was carried into both screening processes even if it contained fatal flaws. The "Meets Purpose and Need", category stood as a yes or no category and served to eliminate non-applicable alternatives. The other categories used in the First Level Screening were: Impacts (Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses, Right-of-Way impacts, and Fisheries/WildlifeNegetation); Implementability (Compatibility with Plans and Policies, Costs, and Constructability); and Benefit (Addresses Identified Deficiencies and Traffic Operations). The categories were measured on a scale of 1 thru 5 for level of effectiveness and amount of impact. The measured scores for Impacts and Implementability for each alternative were given a weighted 25% and the measured Benefits score was given a weighted 50% and were combined for a final cumulative score for that alternative. This ensured that implications for the traffic operations aspect of the alternatives were given the greatest weight to reflect the problems being addressed. Following is a description of each First Level Screening criterion and its measurement: Meets Purpose and Need This measure evaluated whether or not the proposed alternative would potentially increase intersection and corridor capacity to satisfy concurrency plan requirements for development approvals over the next 20 years. Fatal flaw: Does not satisfy purpose and need. Impacts Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses This criterion evaluated alternatives against their potential impacts on adjacent land uses, in particular the relation to sensitive uses such as churches, schools, hospitals, libraries, parks and recreational resources, and historic/cultural buildings. The only known sensitive land uses identified along the corridor are the Valley Medical Hospital, the World Day Care Center (private), the New Horizon School (private). There is a ball field located on the southeast comer of 116th Avenue SE and SE 168th Street and was assumed to be a Section 4(f) property. Fatal flaw: Unavoidable impacts requiring closure of access to the hospital's emergency operation facilities or displacement of the private day care and school. Potential impact to Section 4(f) property. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5-3 ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Right-of-Way Impacts This criterion qualitatively evaluated an alternative's amount of right-of-way needs with regard to land use. Fatal flaw: Substantial commercial or residential right-of-way requirement. Alternatives were not fatally flawed due to the subjective nature of evaluating this criterion. All alternatives were subjected to right-of-way impact evaluation and rankings were assigned. Fisheries/WildlifeNegetation This criterion qualitatively assessed the estimated loss of adjacent wetland and/or potential likelihood to affect ESA species habitat caused by an alternative. In the west end, a large wetland (Panther Creek Wetland) is located north of Carr Road adjacent to the northbound lanes of SR 167. There are also roadside ditches along SR 167 and its ramps as well as the local streets serving as storrnwater conveyances that are likely to be classified as Class Ill wetlands. In the central corridor, Carr Road crosses Panther Creek and several of its tributaries. From a cursory check of the county's ESA habitat map it was assumed that Panther Creek, within the project area, was not an ESA species habitat. The quality of wetlands associated with Panther Creek and its tributaries were not known at that time. In the east end, a wetland is located north of Carr Road and west of I 16th Avenue SE and is the headwater for the Big Soos Creek. The creek crosses 116th Avenue SE north of Carr Road proceeding in a generally southeast direction. The quality of the wetland and the habitat value of the creek were unknown at the time. As a result, alternatives with potential to impact the wetland or creek were given a neutral score of "3". Fatal flaw: Potential for substantial impact on wetland and/or ESA species habitat. Implementability Compatibility with Plans and Policies This criterion assessed an alternative's potential compatibility with adopted plans in the project area. Plans considered included the transportation element of the King County Comprehensive Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, and City of Kent Comprehensive Plan; Puget sound Regional Council Metropolitan Transportation Plan; and Washington State Department of Transportation Highway System Plan that includes the 1-405 and SR 167 corridor improvement projects. Four areas within the comprehensive plans were assessed for compatibility: Concurrency, Mobility, Transit/HOV (multi-modal), and Cost Efficiency. None of the alternatives addressed/satisfied all issues so none were given a "5" ranking. The PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Carr Road lmpra11ement Project Design Memorandum assessment also assumed that WSDOT's current plans include ultimately adding two lanes in each direction to SR 167 in the project vicinity. Fatal flaw: Incompatibility with the transportation element of King County's Comprehensive Plan. Costs This measure qualitatively assessed an alternative's potential cost based on the estimated magnitude of proposed improvements including their associated cost for right-of-way acquisition and construction in relation to other proposed alternatives. Fatal flaw: None. Constructability This measure evaluated the relative likelihood that the alternative can be constructed. This was construed to include the relative degree of public acceptance or political support for the alternative. Also considered under other constraints was the impact to Section 4( f) property. Fatal flaw: Not constructible due to technological or legal constraint. Benefit Addresses Identified Deficiencies This measure evaluated each alternative's potential to address and correct deficiencies on the corridor identified at this time. Deficiencies include traffic operations as well as alignment geometry. Fatal flaw: None. Traffic Operations This measure looked at an alternative's anticipated impact on traffic operations in terms of the potential improvement to intersection LOS and reduction in travel delay along the corridor. Fatal flaw: Intersection LOS E or worse (with exceptions). Based on the limited intersection capacity analysis performed, some alternatives did not produce an LOS of D or better. However, due to the preliminary nature of the analysis, the alternatives were not "fatally flawed" as a result of their traffic operations shortcoming but were ranked and allowed to be screened using the rest of the criteria. Second Level Screening Criteria The Second Level Screening process was similar to the First Level in that the alternatives were evaluated by their geographical location in the corridor: west, central, and east. The build-alternatives selected for further evaluation as a result of the first level screening PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5-5 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum review were evaluated with the criteria below to choose the preferred build-alternative for each corridor area. The criteria were used to evaluate the improvements' benefits and impacts relative to each other within a given corridor area. The "Meets Purpose and Need" stood alone as a yes or no category and again served to prevent non-applicable build-alternatives from advancing through the selection process. The other categories were: Social impacts (compatibility with plans and policies, displacements, impacts to sensitive land uses); Natural impacts (water quantity/quality, wetlands, fisheries/wildlife/vegetation, noise and air quality); Transportation impacts ( corridor delay, queuing/blocking, safety, and overall corridor operation); and Other impacts (compatibility with plans and policies, benefit- cost, costs, and constructability). The categories were weighted giving Environmental Impacts (social and natural impacts) 25%, Transportation Benefits (transportation impacts) 50%, and Implementability (other impacts) the remaining 25%. This ensured that the traffic operations aspect of the alternatives was given the greatest weight to reflect the purpose of the project. Following is a description of each Second Level Screening criterion and its measurement: Meets Purpose and Need This measure again evaluated whether or not the proposed alternative would potentially increase intersection and corridor capacity to satisfy concurrency plan requirements for development approvals over the next 20 years. This criterion was retained from the First Level Screening process to ensure that revisions or refinements to the alternatives did not alter their primary purpose. Fatal flaw: Does not satisfy purpose and need. Social Impacts Displacements This criterion evaluated the alternatives based on a quantitative estimate of the number of residences, commercial buildings, and other structures that might be displaced by each alternative. The construction footprint for each alternative was used to determine where displacements could occur. This category did not measure the amount of right-of-way acquisition that is required for each alternative. Residential right-of-way acquisition is measured as a part of the alternative's construction cost in the cost category. Commercial property right-of-way acquisition is measured under Business Impacts. Fatal flaw: Excessive commercial or residential displacements. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5-6 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses This criterion evaluated alternatives against their potential impacts on adjacent land uses, in particular in relation to sensitive uses such as churches, schools, hospitals, and/or libraries. The level of impact was based on proximity to adjacent land uses. The only known sensitive land uses identified along the corridor is the Valley Medical Hospital, the Children's World Leaming Center, and the New Horizon School. There is a ball field located on the southeast comer of I 16th Ave SE and SE 168th Street that was assumed to be a Section 4(f) property but was outside of the project's area of influence. Fatal flaw: Unmitigatable impacts requiring closure of access to the hospital's Emergency Operations facilities. Historic/Cultural Resources This category evaluated the probability of impacts on documented historic and/or cultural sites along the proposed project corridor. Also included in this category was consideration of any parks or recreational resources that might be affected consistent with Section 4(f) impact analysis. Fatal flaw: Physical impact to Section I 06 or Section 4(f) properties. Business Impacts This criterion generally evaluated an alternative's impacts on local businesses based on the amount of right-of-way needs, potential access disruptions, and other proximity impacts on businesses. Fatal flaw: Substantial commercial or business disruptions. Natural Impacts Water Quality/Quantity This criterion evaluated potential impacts based on the estimated amount of total impervious surface associated with each proposed alternative. Proposed treatment facilities for stormwater runoff were not reviewed since specific treatment of the alternative's runoff could not be identified at that time. Fatal flaw: None. Wetlands This criterion was based on a general qualitative estimate of the number of wetland areas affected under each project alternative. The proposed alternative footprints were evaluated to determine the impact that may be associated with each alternative. Fatal flaw: None. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5-7 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Vegetation This criterion evaluated the potential likelihood to affect ESA species and/or habitat by an alternative. The primary consideration would be the alternative's potential impact on local streams in the proposed project area. Fatal flaw: Potential for substantial impact on ESA species or habitat. Noise This criterion evaluated each alternative's potential noise impacts based on the change in proximity of the roadway to the number of adjacent receptors. Fatal flaw: None. Air Quality This category evaluated potential impacts to air quality based on the change in congestion as defined by the change in level of service (LOS). Where congestion is expected to he high, more emissions would be expected, with corresponding negative impacts on air quality. Fatal flaw: None. Transportation Impacts Average Timesavings This category measured the average timesavings per vehicle as associated with alternative improvements. Timesavings are based on the Synchro output for average delay at each intersection for the improvement area for each of the alternative versus the no action scenario. Only intersections within the improvement area were evaluated. A weighted average based on volume for each intersection was used to develop the average timesavings for each alternative. Timesavings also captured the increase of delay associated with the addition of new intersections as seen in the west end alternatives. Fatal flaw: None. Queuing/Blocking Criteria for this category included the potential for traffic back-ups and blockages associated with the proposed alternative improvements. The measurement used for this category is the queuing penalty from Synchro output. Queuing penalty is a generalized measure that allows the comparison on overall queuing under various scenarios, measured by multiplying the vehicle volume affected by the blockage by the percent of time blocked. Use of the queuing penalty is not intended to determine where specific blocking problems exist, but rather generally determine the overall impacts of queuing on the network. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5-8 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Fatal flaw: None. Safety This category measured an alternative's potential to cause or reduce accidents along the study area corridor as an improvement in the roadway geometry. Other characteristics that may decrease safety are the potential for high vehicle delays and severe queuing. Since vehicle delay and generalized queuing are evaluated in separate criteria, they were not re-evaluated here. Safety, as associated with signalized intersections, is usually based on signal phasing, delay, and queuing. Since each alternative used similar signal phasing, and delay and queuing were not used for this evaluation, signalized intersections were assumed to have no change in safety unless otherwise noted. Fatal flaw: None. Overall Operations This category ranked alternatives according to the overall level of traffic operations within the improvement area. Criteria included operational aspects such as intersection level of service (HCM results) and average traffic speed. The individual level of service (LOS) results allow an intersections operating at a LOS F to be easily identified without being offset by an intersection operating at a better LOS. An average LOS was also given to facilitate comparison of alternatives. Average LOS was determined by assigning each LOS a numerical value then averaging the sum of LOS values. The average speed includes travel time on each link along Carr Rd including delay for both through and turning movements. Fatal flaw: None. Other Impacts Compatibility with Plans and Policies This criterion assessed an alternative's potential compatibility with adopted plans in the project area. Plans considered include the transportation element of the King County Comprehensive Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, and City of Kent Comprehensive Plan; Puget Sound Regional Council Metropolitan Transportation Plan; and Washington State Department of Transportation's State Highway System Plan that includes the 1-405 and SR 167 corridor improvement projects. Four areas within the comprehensive plans were assessed for compatibility: Concurrency, Mobility, Transit/HOV (multi-modal), and Cost Efficiency. None of the alternatives addressed/satisfied all issues so none were given a "5" ranking. The assessment also assumed that WSDOT's current plans include ultimately adding two lanes in each direction to SR 167 in the project vicinity. Fatal flaw: Incompatibility with the transportation element of King County's Comprehensive Plan. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5-9 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Benefit-Cost A benefit-cost analysis was performed on all build-alternatives. The primary benefit measured was vehicular timesavings as reported by Synchro analysis. The benefit was translated into a dollar value of timesaving using $12.25/hour over a 20-year span. Also included in the central corridor alternatives were anticipated safety benefits as a result of realignment of the corridor. These benefits were translated and interpreted from the accident history on the corridor and the probable reduction by the improvement. A real discount rate of 4% was used to determine present worth value. Comparison was made using cost information developed in the cost category. Net Present Value was also calculated to provide a means of identifying the alternative with the highest societal benefit among the alternatives. Fatal flaw: None. Costs This measure quantitatively assessed an alternative's potential cost impact based on the estimated magnitude of the proposed improvements' associated cost for design and construction, including right-of-way acquisition but not business revenue loss compensation. Fatal flaw: None. Constructability This measure evaluated the relative likelihood that the alternative can be constructed. This was construed to include the relative degree of public acceptance or political support for the alternative. Fatal flaw: Not constructible due to technological or other constraint. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5-10 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Chapter6 Completed Studies and Public Involvement As of this writing (July 2003) two technical memoranda have been completed; the Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum (Camp Dresser & McKee, May 2001) and the Existing Conditions Traffic Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff, September 20, 2002). Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum The Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum documented the beginning stage of the geotechnical investigation to identify any special conditions or constraints that would be relevant to the alternative selection process. A more detailed Geotechnical Report will be published as part of this project to document subsurface investigations undertaken specifically for the preferred build-alternatives. Existing Conditions Traffic Report The Existing Conditions Traffic Report documented the ex1stmg traffic conditions and established the basis for the improvements that were developed. Preliminary findings indicated that the cause of congestion on the corridor was the result of intersection capacity limitations rather than corridor capacity. The west corridor area in particular revealed several intersections that were operating near capacity contributing to the corridor's overall congested condition as opposed to SR 167 traffic backing onto the local roads. An Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum, Parsons Brinckerhoff, October 6, 2003, has been prepared and submitted for this project. The Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum documents the traffic analysis performed on the future no-build and proposed improvement alternatives. Public Involvement Public involvement on the project to date has included Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings, a public information meeting, and meetings with local agencies and private entities. A public information meeting was advertised via local newspaper and flyer mailing and held on October 8, 2002. The meeting sought to inform and receive input from the public on all county projects within the area. Other projects represented at the meeting included the Benson Road SE (SR 515) and SE Carr Road Intersection Improvements and the Trans- Valley ITS projects. A Technical Advisory Committee was formed at the outset of the project to elicit input from and to keep the local agencies involved and informed of the project's progress. Invitees to the committee included the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the cities of Renton and Kent, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the Transportation PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 6-1 Ca" Road lmpro11ement Project Design Memorandum Improvement Board (TIB), and county and consultant staff. Four TAC meetings were held at select milestones during the project's analyses and alternatives development phases. In addition to the TAC meetings, one-on-one meetings between the county and local agencies or private entities were promoted to provide additional opportunity to receive input and feedback. Meetings with WSDOT and the New Horizon School were held and meetings are currently scheduled with the TIB and the City of Renton. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 6-2 Ca" Raad lmpra11ement Project Design Memorandum Chapter 7 West Corridor (Lind Avenue SW to Talbot Road SJ This section of the Carr Road Improvement Project corridor is located primarily through commercial, office, and light industrial land (Green River Valley). East Valley Road/East Valley Highway Sand Talbot Road Sare primary north-south arterials crossing Carr Road. Carr Road is known as SW 43rd Street in this section of the corridor and will be used interchangeably here. The boundary between the cities of Renton and Kent is located at the southern edge of SW 43rd Street. Existing Conditions Roadway Design Carr Road is classified as a principal arterial. The posted speed limit throughout the Carr Road central corridor is 35 mph. The design speed per King County standards is 45 mph. The existing five-and six-lane roadway sections include curb and gutter with sidewalk. The existing right-of-way limits are typically offset 20 feet from the existing back of sidewalk. Lane Configuration Carr Road (SW 43rd Street) maintains a five-lane section including a center two-way left turn lane west of East Valley Road. Between East Valley Road and the SR 167 northbound ramps, Carr Road is 5-lanes wide with back-to-back left turn pockets. From the SR 167 northbound ramps to Talbot Road S, Carr Road is a six-lane roadway with localized widening to provide a left-tum pocket at Talbot Road S and right tum lanes at the SR 167 northbound on-ramp and southbound Talbot Road S. Signalized intersections are located along Carr Road at Lind Avenue SW, East Valley Road, SR 167 NB ramps, and Talbot Road S. Within the west corridor study area the intersection of East Valley Road/SW 41" Street/SR 167 southbound ramps is also signalized. Traffic Conditions Corridor and Intersections Figure 4 and Figure 5 depict existing intersection LOS for the Carr Road corridor and study area. AM Peak Hour Analysis of traffic operations during the AM peak reveals one primary area of congestion in the west corridor and is centered on the East Valley Road/SW 43rd St (Carr Road) intersection. As shown in Figure 4, the intersection at SW 43rd St and East Valley Road today operates at a failing LOS (F) while the three adjacent intersections operate at an acceptable, but somewhat congested LOS (D) for the PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-1 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum AM peak hour. Other west corridor intersections operate at good levels of service (C or better) during the AM peak. The arterial Level of Service shows an overall corridor LOS of B in the eastbound direction, and C in the westbound direction, with average arterial speeds of 21 mph eastbound and 15 mph westbound. PM Peak Hour Similar to the AM Peak, PM Peak traffic analysis revealed one primary area of congestion centered around the East Valley Road/SW 43rd St (Carr Road) intersection. As shown in Figure 5, SW 43rd St (Carr Road) and East Valley Road operates at a failing LOS (F), while the intersection at East Valley Road and the SR 167 southbound ramps operates at a marginal LOS (E) for the PM peak hour. The arterial Level of Service shows an overall corridor LOS of C m both directions, with average arterial speeds of 14 mph eastbound and 15 mph westbound. Freeway Mainline and Ramps Table 3 and Table 4 present freeway ramp and mainline volumes and LOS results. AM Peak Hour The mainline of SR 167 operates at LOS DIC in the southbound direction, and LOS E in the northbound direction during the AM peak hour. At the SW 43'd Street/S 1801h Street (Carr Road) interchange, no ramps are failing ( operating at LOS F) during the AM peak hour. However, the northbound SR 167 on-and off- ramps at Carr Road are operating at LOS E. PM Peak Hour The SR 167 mainline operates at LOS E in the southbound direction, and CID in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour. At the SW 43'd Street/S 180 Street (Carr Road) interchange, no ramps are failing ( operating at LOS F) during the AM peak hour. However, the southbound SR 167 on and off ramps at SW 43rd (Carr Road) are operating at LOSE. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-2 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Notto Scale S 212th St Source: ECTR, Fig.8 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Fi ure 4 Existin AM Peak Hour Level of Service I I I I I I I I] Ii I 1B 11t \i I I I I I 167 F SE 192nd St SE 200th St w ,,, • ~ w C Legend Carr Road Study Corridor -• Carr Road Study Area Limits [QI [§ Freeway LOS @ Intersection LOS I I I I I I I '\ I I --- ·-----.. 7-3 ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Notto Scale S 212th S1 Source: ECTR, Fig.9 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 5 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service 7-4 Legend Garr Road Study Corridor -a carr Road Study Area Limits [DJ [E] Freeway LOS @ Intersection LOS I ·---1 I I I SE 192nd St F)---------1------- SE 200th St !515'1 "' :v I I I - Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 3 Existing Freeway Ramp Mergeilliverge Level of Service Summary A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Ramp Location Type Ramp Mainline LOS Ramp Mainline Volume Volume Volume Volume SR 167 NB on-ramp from Carr Rd Merge 800 3215 E 910 2340 SR 167 NB off-ramp to Carr Rd Diverge 1110 3900 E 670 3005 SR 167 SB on-ramp from East Valley Merge 525 2170 C 1070 2870 Rd SR 167 SB off-ramp to East Valley Rd Diverge 915 3085 D 910 3780 Source: ECTR, Table 5. Table 4 Existing Freeway Mainline Level of Service Summary Freeway Segment SR 167 SB between S 180• St & S 212• St SR 167 NB between S 212• St & S 180• St SR 167 SB between 1-405 & S 180• St SR 167 NB between S 180• St & 1-405 Source: ECTR, Table 6. Accident History A.M. Peak Hour Volume LOS 2615 C 3900 E 3085 D 3825 E P.M. Peak Hour Volume LOS 3925 E 3005 C 3780 E 3240 D Accident data for the entire Carr Road corridor was collected from city, county, and WSDOT resources. Figure 6 summarizes this data. Accidents on the Carr Road corridor have been particularly concentrated around the SW 43rd St/East Valley Road intersection (and the segment to the west of the intersection). As expected, accidents on the corridor tend to be congregated at high volume locations, and intersections with significant crossing volumes. Existing Traffic Conditions Summary Congested conditions are present at the west end of the study corridor. The intersections of Carr Road (SW 43rd St)/East Valley Road and SW 41st St (SB SR 167 ramps)/East Valley Road exhibit the poorest levels-of-service. More moderate problems, restricted to particular movements or of a more moderate magnitude, are also seen at the Carr Road/NB SR 167 ramps intersection. Additionally, the proximity of intersections is problematic since the most heavily congested location, Carr Road (SW 43rd St)/East Valley Road, is surrounded on the north, east, and west sides by other high-volume intersections. The offset southbound ramps (located on SW 41st Street instead of Carr Road) compound the congested traffic conditions in that all traffic between SB SR 167 and EB Carr Road is required to make left turns onto both East Valley Road and Carr Road. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-5 Ca" Road lmFovement Project Design Memorandum LOS D D E E II? :!! :ii ~ (n ~o !II ~ ! ::r -;-< "' i ii' i:. .. !i i'] fi :I CD Q " .... Ill ,, :i .. IL ,2 § ! ~ • ~ "' r, ;;J s. :g i C') ~ Corridor 4-Year Average Annual Accident History, 1997-1000 (Total Accidents/Injury Accidents) @ Intersection 4· Year Average Annual Accident History, 1997 -1000 (Total Accidents/Injury Accidents) "' "O "' ·cl'! w "' J " "' ;2 IN 9 SE 176th St (Carr Road ) 6ii4J Notto Scale 416 · 12/4. llJ "' J tj w "' '" < Sources: St.1HOthS1I~ "" ioj King County City of Renton WSDOT :::, Note: Only a partial history of accidents is presented. Complete data for all corridor intersections and segments was not available. "!lj ,.;· = ;;i °' .... ' >< ~ ., > " " s: "' = ... = ~· ¢ ~ ~ -,., ,., ___, ~ = = = > .., "' ;:i "" "' > = = = e. ::,:, "' ;;- ~ Details of the existing condition traffic analysis and associated data can be found in the Existing Conditions Traffic Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff, September 20, 2002). Natural Environment A preliminary geotechnical investigation was performed for this project to aid in the development and evaluation of alternatives. The Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum, May 200 I, documented the findings of that investigation. The west end alignments are not within any areas designated as a 100-year floodplain and there are no erosion or steep slope hazards. No landslide hazard areas, seismic hazards or coal mine hazards are identified on the SAO map within this area. Wetlands and Streams In addition to the preliminary geotechnical investigation, wetland and other natural environment discipline reports are being prepared for this project. The Wetland Special Study Report, September 30, 2003, documents the results of the field investigations that have been performed. Wetlands have been identified within the project corridor using National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and King County Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) maps as well as through field reconnaissance by project team biologists. Within the western corridor area, wetlands are identified on the NWI map along Springbrook Creek and in the southwest comer of the SR 167 interchange. Additional wetlands were identified by project consultant staff along the western edge of 88'h Avenue S (Lind Avenue SW extension), adjacent to the southbound lanes of SR 167 and in the vacant parcel north of the Great Wall shopping mall (parcel no. 3123059014). The wetlands along 88th Avenue Sand SR 167 are associated with roadside drainage facilities. The Panther Creek wetlands are located on the east edge of SR 167 approximately 1,500 feet north of the Carr Road crossing. Springbrook Creek is located approximately Yi mile to the west of SR 167 and flows in a northerly direction to Green River. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-7 Ca" Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum First Level Screening Process Initial List of Alternatives Thirteen design alternatives were initially considered and evaluated under the First Level Screening Process (See Chapter 5 for additional information) to address the congestion problems identified by the traffic analysis. They are: W-1 No Action W-2 Intersection Improvements W-3 Corridor Improvements W-4 HOV Improvements W-5 Transit Improvements W-6 Split Ramp W-6a Split Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension W-7 Loop Ramp W-8 Outside Flyover W-9 Inside Flyover W-10 SPUI W-11 Grade Separate Carr Road /East Valley Road W-12 Half Split Diamond Following are descriptions of the alternatives along with discussion of the impacts, implementability, and benefits of each initial alternative. Figure 14 provides a summary of the alternatives and their respective rating in each category as well as its overall rating. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-8 Carr Raad lmpro11ement Project Design Memorandum W-1 No Action This alternative maintains the ex1stmg configuration of SW 43rd Street (Carr Road) and surrounding roadway network. Please see Figure 7 for the existing west corridor configuration. Meets Purpose and Need: No Impacts: This alternative did not impact the Valley Medical Center and does not produce any right-of-way, wetland or fish habitat impact. Implementability: This alternative does not comply with or support published plans and policies but does not incur any cost nor pose any constructability issues. Benefits: Provided least amount of benefit because it failed to neither address identified deficiencies nor improve traffic operations. W-2 Intersection Improvements Adds tum pockets at intersections as necessary to address heavily saturated or delayed movements. Addition of right tum pockets and dual left tum pockets was considered for each movement at each intersection in the study area where delay and V/C indicated that such improvements may potentially improve operations. Additional pockets were not considered where traffic operations analysis indicated that they would not be warranted. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes I Impacts: This alternative had average impact to sensitive land use due to some right-of-way acquisition from Valley Medical Center for additional tum pockets. It had no impact on fish habitat and minimal impact on wetlands. Implementability: This alternative ranked low on compatibility with plans and policies since it did not fully address congestions issues for concurrency. It rated well on cost and acceptability by the public. Benefits: Intersection improvements did little to alleviate the congestion problems faced in the west corridor and so fared poorly in benefits achieved. W-3 Corridor Improvements In addition to providing intersection tum pockets (W-2) as necessary, this alternative adds a through lane in each direction on Carr Road between Lind Avenue SW and Talbot Road S. This concept would require widening of the existing SR 167 overpass by two lanes. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-9 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Impacts: This alternative created more than average impact to the Valley Medical Center due to right-of-way acquisition to add through lanes on Carr Road. There were no impacts on fish habitat and impacts on wetlands were minimal. Implementability: This alternative did relatively well in this category due to its ability to satisfy most of the plans' goals while doing so with assumed acceptability by the public and relatively low cost. Benefits: Corridor improvements addressed only some of the congestion problems in the west corridor and had only average improvement on traffic operations. W-4 HOV Improvements Adds an HOV lane in each direction between Lind Avenue SW and Talbot Road S. This concept would require widening of the existing SR 167 overpass by two lanes. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative had similar impacts to Alternative W-3, Corridor Improvements. Implementability: HOV improvements fared slightly better than Corridor Improvements in this category by addressing the Transit/HOV aspect of the plans and policies. Benefits: HOV improvements did little to address the congestion problems in the corridor as evidenced by the fairly high percentage of single-occupant vehicles and perceived limited transit usage. W-5 Transit Improvements Adds queue jumps on Carr Road at Talbot Road S, SR 167 NB ramps, East Valley Road, and Lind Avenue SW. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: Queue jump improvements create minimal impact to Valley Medical Center and wetlands and no impact to fish habitat. Implementability: Transit improvements addressed only one area of the comprehensive plans and fared poorly. However, it is relatively inexpensive to implement and is believed to have fairly high public acceptability. Benefits: Transit improvements fared very poorly in this category due to the narrow focus of congestion improvement for this alternative. Bus patrons are served by existing bus service from the Soos Creek plateau to Seattle and points west but ridership numbers do not take advantage of the benefits achieved. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-10 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 0 z ~~~~!·\.~ fl -----I "=1=--=: . D I ii l A.! "Ti = t I 11 II 1, I f r ;"""' 11 I I I I 'I I 1, = = = W-6 Split Ramp In addition to Corridor Improvements (W-3), adds a second southbound SR 167 off- ramp that terminates on East Valley Highway S south of Carr Road. Traffic that is destined for locations south of Carr Road, as well as traffic destined for eastbound Carr Road, would use the new ramp. Traffic destined for Tukwila and the Green River valley would continue to use the existing off ramp. Left turns from the existing ramp onto East Valley Road would be prohibited. This concept requires reconstruction of the existing SR 167 overpass to accommodate additional lanes on the structure, as well as a new southbound two-lane collector-distributor (C-D) road parallel to SR 167 (connecting the existing and new off ramps). Please see Figure 8 for this alternative's configuration. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative created more than average impact to the Valley Medical Center due to right-of-way acquisition to add through lanes on Carr Road. There were more than average impacts to wetlands by the proposed improvements but no impacts to known fish habitat. Implementability: This alternative did not score well with plan compatibility because it only addressed half of the comprehensive plans' goals. Furthermore, moderately high cost and limited public acceptance anticipated due to construct impacts contributed to its fairly low score. Benefits: This alternative was deemed one of the best at addressing the identified problems and improving traffic operations. W-6a Split Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension In addition to the Split Ramp improvements (W-6), this alternative extends Lind Avenue SW south to connect with East Valley Highway S, forming a new, continuous north-south corridor. This concept would require reconstruction of the existing SR l 67 overpass to accommodate additional lanes on the structure, as well as a new southbound two-lane C-D road parallel to SR 167 (connecting the existing and new off ramps). Please see Figure 9 for this alternative's configuration. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative's impacts were similar to Alternative W-6, Split Ramp, with slightly greater impact to wetlands due to the extension of Lind Avenue SW. Implementability: Like Alternative W-6 this alternative was not rated highly for implementability. Benefits: Much like the previous alternative, the Split Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension scored highly for addressing the congestion issues in the western corridor area and improving traffic operations. It does provide better operations PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-13 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum than Alternative W-6 by providing a more convenient north-south route by bypassing the SW 43'd Street/East Valley Road intersection. W-7 Loop Ramp In addition to Corridor Improvements (W-3), this alternative adds a second southbound SR 167 off-ramp loop that connects with eastbound Carr Road. Traffic that is destined for eastbound Carr Road would use the new ramp, while all other traffic would continue to use the existing off-ramp. This concept would require reconstruction of the existing SR 167 overpass to accommodate additional lanes on the structure, as well as a new southbound 2-lane C-D road parallel to SR 167 (connecting the existing and new ramps). Please see Figure IO for this alternative's configuration. The improvement could also include extending Lind Avenue SW south to connect with East Valley Highway S, fonning a new, continuous north-south corridor. The Lind Avenue SW Extension was considered a potential option for this alternative, not a required integral piece, and therefore was not included in the assessment of this alternative. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: The loop ramp has similar impacts to the Split Ramp and Split Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension. Right-of-way impacts to developed property is higher with this alternative. Implementability: This alternative was also viewed to have similar implementability issues as the previous two alternatives. Benefits: This alternative has slightly lower benefits even though it provides a very efficient route for southbound traffic on the freeway to access the Soos Creek plateau because it does not effectively address other congestion areas. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-14 ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum C. 5 • "' ~,; = / .: "' ' ~"-= - -I~ ~/~~ I -~'~,, A.1 ·~1 . = t I = = 11 ti PARSONS BRINCKliRHOl'JI' Figure 9 West Corridor Alternative W-6a Split Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension ·•· Ill! 1·~ ~f.hl! tlli -r .!!-__ ...,! , 7-17 llllil I I// I 111 ~ I =1 ~1~ =l!f!L~ 1r-/M~ Carr 11-d lmprov.nNnt Project Design Memorandum PAR.ONS BRINCKERHOFF i.1'1•1 ~ ~ ,1, lillllllltl I --· Figure 10 West Corridor Altcrnath:e W-7 l,oop Ramp ·•· . ...... ._.. 7-19 1111;.1 I 11/ I I I I I //If = Carr Road lmpro.,•m•nt ProJ•ct Design Memorandum W-8 Outside Flyover In addition to Corridor Improvements (W-3), this alternative adds an additional southbound SR 167 flyover off-ramp that crosses over Carr Road before connecting with the eastbound lanes. Traffic that is destined for eastbound Carr Road would use the new ramp, while all other traffic would continue to use the existing off ramp. Please see Figure 11 for this alternative's configuration. The improvement could also include extending Lind Avenue SW south to connect with East Valley Highway S, forming a new, continuous north-south corridor. The Lind Avenue SW Extension was considered a potential option for this alternative, not a required integral piece, and therefore was not included in the assessment of this alternative. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes Impacts: The outside flyover alternative has similar impact to Valley Medical Center as all alternatives that widen Carr Road. It has less impact to the few wetlands located within the west corridor area but has significant right-of-way acquisition impacts to commercial property along East Valley Road. Implementability: Although compatibility with plans and policies are similar to the split ramp and loop ramp alternatives, the significantly higher costs to acquire right-of-way and to construct along with loss of tax base resulted in the lowest rating for this category. Benefits: The outside flyover rated slightly higher than the loop ramp since it had less impact to known wetlands and was perceived to have better traffic operations by eliminating the on-ramp/off-ramp weave along SR 167. W-9 Inside Flyover In addition to Corridor Improvements (W-3), this alternative adds an additional southbound SR 167 off-ramp that crosses over SR 167, connecting to Carr Road on the east side of the freeway adjacent to the northbound SR 167 ramps. Traffic that is destined for eastbound Carr Road would use the new ramp, while all other traffic would continue to use the existing off ramp. The intersection with Carr Road could be configured to operate like a partial Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) intersection, with the new southbound left turns running concurrently with the existing northbound left turns. This concept would require widening of the existing SR 167 overpass by two lanes. Please see Figure 12 for this alternative's configuration. Like the previous two alternatives, this alternative could also include extending Lind Avenue SW south to connect with East Valley Highway S, forming a new continuous north-south corridor. This option, however, was judged not to be required for this alternative and was therefore, not evaluated as an integral feature of this alternative Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: The Inside Flyover alternative, impacts Valley Medical Center as the others but avoids much of the privately owned right-of-way impact by limiting PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-21 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum construction to within WSDOT right-of-way. It also has minimal impact to the wetlands located adjacent to SR 167. Implementability: This alternative addressed only one of four plan goals adequately and with relatively high cost rated poorly in this category. Benefits: The inside flyover addresses identified deficiencies and improves traffic operations fairly well receiving a relatively high benefit rating. W-10 SPUI In addition to Corridor Improvements (W-3), this alternative reconfigures and consolidates the interchange as a Single Point Urban Interchange on Carr Road. All interchange movements would be accommodated on Carr Road at the new interchange. Left turns are all accommodated by a single, signalized intersection. The improvement would require a reconstructed bridge span with up to nine Janes and dual-lane ramps in all directions. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative has similar impacts to Alternative W-9 Inside Flyover. Implementability: The SPUI was rated higher than the inside flyover in this category because of its perceived ability to accommodate WSDOT' s planned widening on SR 167. Benefits: The SPUI did only moderately well in this category by improving traffic operations at the existing intersections but since the single intersection was taxed beyond its capacity it only moderately improved traffic operations. W-11 Grade Separate Carr Road/East Valley Road Partially grade separate Carr Road and East Valley Road so that through traffic on Carr Road is not controlled by a traffic signal. Traffic on East Valley Road, as well as all left turns, would still be signal controlled. Access to adjacent businesses would need to be revised, and the overpass over SR 167 reconstructed due to the change in grade. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative does not impact any sensitive land uses and only minimal impact to wetlands. Implementability: The grade separation alternative only marginally meets plan goals, and with its relatively high cost coupled with the loss of business access along SW 43rd Street, received a rating lower than the SPUI. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-22 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum PARSONS 8RINCK..RHOFF 1111 1,~ru11t1 1111 1 Figure 11 West Corrld or Alternative W-8 Outside Flyover ·•· 1/11, • 1-23 Ca" Road lmpro"ement Project Dea,gn Memorandum A.! ·T, = ' ' = = = = Benefits: The benefits gained by grade separation were very modest since it focuses on only the SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road intersection. Traffic operations elsewhere in the west corridor were not improved. W-12 Half Split Diamond In addition to Corridor Improvements (W-3), this alternative creates a split-diamond interchange on the west side of SR 167, while maintaining the existing diamond ramps on the east side of SR 167. A new on-ramp would connect East Valley Highway S to southbound SR 167 south of Carr Road (the existing on-ramp would be maintained to accommodate trips from the Green River Valley). East Valley Road/East Valley Highway S between SW 41 st St and the new on-ramp would be reconfigured as a one-way (southbound roadway). To accommodate through trips, Lind Avenue SW would be extended south to connect with East Valley Highway S, forming a new, continuous north-south corridor. This concept would require widening of the existing SR 167 overpass by two lanes. Please see Figure 13 for this alternative's configuration. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: The Half Split Diamond (additional on-ramp) impacts Valley Medical Center and requires right-of-way like the Split Ramp alternatives. But it has less wetland impacts than the Split Ramp alternatives since it does not require a C-D road. Implementability: This alternative was felt to better fulfill plan goals by addressing concurrency and mobility needs with a cost effective solution. It rated fairly highly in this category. Benefits: The Half Split Diamond did relatively well in addressing the congestion and improving traffic operations and was rated accordingly. First Level Screening Results Three build-alternatives were tied with the highest score: Alternatives W-6 Split Ramp, W-6a Split Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension, and W-12 Half Split Diamond. The split ramp alternatives were later renamed the Additional Off-Ramp and Additional Off- Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension and the Half Split Diamond was subsequently called the Additional On-Ramp alternative to make them easier to identify. All three alternatives, along with the No Action alternative were carried into the next phase for more detailed, quantitative evaluation and screening. Please see Figure 14 for a summary of the first level screening results. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-27 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 13 ,I.''' 1,~ ~~r 11111 West Corridor Alternative W-12 Half Split Diamond ·•· 111r..11 1/11 1// t ~~~---------~~------ / I \ \ \ 11/ I 1/1, 111 -I 7/IJ .~~ !jRJ:!!!l~ ,r-l~'f j _ __!_A~11~,P"____ ==-=--==--:===-=C•"R-~;r.:;~;;:~:..~:: 7-~" Figure 14 First Level Screening Results MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS RATING 1 0 2 ~ 3 () 4 ~ 5 • Least Effective/ Most Impact Most Effective/ Least Impact Alternative Description West Corridor (Interchange Area) W-2 Intersection Improvements W-3 Corridor Improvements W-4 HOV Improvements W-5 Transit Improvements W-7 Loop Ramp W-8 Outside Flyover W-9 Inside Flyover W-10 SPUI W-11 Grade Separate Carr/East Valley Sample calculation: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Environmental and Transportation Impacts y y y N y y y y y () ~ ~ () ~ ~ ~ ~ • Impacts (25%) () () () a ~ 0 () () () -Ill ·.::: ., .c: .!!! LL a a a a ~ () ~ ~ a (2+2+3)/3-2.33 ,2.33 ~ 25%, 7-31 Implementability (25%) "' ., :§ 0 D. "C C: "' "' C: .!!! D. .c: -"j -~ :c .: "' C. E 0 u ~ () a ~ ~ ~ 0 () ~ ! 0 u a () () a ~ 0 0 0 ~ a () () a 0 0 ~ ~ 0 (4+ 3+ 3)/3-3.33 ,3.33 ~ 25%, Benefit (50%) ~ () ~ ~ a a a () ~ "' C: 0 ~ ., C. 0 <) ii: f! I- 0 () ~ 0 a • a ~ 0 (4+4)/2-4.00 ,4.00 ~ 50% 2.4 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.3 2.2 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 0.58 + 0.83 + 2.00 3.4 Second Level Screening Process The No-Action and three build-alternatives selected from the First Level Screening process were subjected to a second, more detailed, quantitative evaluation. Please see Chapter 5 for a detailed description of the criteria and their measures of effectiveness. The following data was gathered to assist in the second level screening evaluation: No Action 1 Roadway Design Roadway Geometry The posted speed limit throughout Carr Road's west corridor area is 35 mph. The design speed per King County standards is 45 mph. SW 43'd Street (Carr Road) is on a tangent horizontal alignment through the west corridor. West of East Valley Road the grade is flat (<3%). From East Valley Road east, SW 43'd Street climbs over SR 167 at 7% as shown in Table 5. Several vertical curves are situated in the section between East Valley Road and Talbot Road S. Table 5 Existing Grade Location Maximum* Existing Notes -STA 22+50 to -STA 29+00 9% 7% Meets Standard *(1993 King County Road Standards, Sectwn 2. 02) The SR 167 interchange, located within the Carr Road west corridor study area, is a modified diamond interchange. Its northbound ramps form a conventional diamond configuration with SW 43'd Street on the east side of SR 167. The southbound ramps terminate at the SW 41" Street/East Valley Road intersection, approximately 1000 feet north of SW 43'd Street. The majority of the traffic accessing southbound SR 167 is forced to travel East Valley Road through the SW 43'd Street and SW 41'' Street intersections. To complicate matters further, East Valley Road is located 200 feet east of and parallel to SR 167 with the intervening land between SR 167 and East Valley Road fully developed with commercial and retail activities. Typical Roadway Sections SW 43rd Street (Carr Road) consists of a four I I-foot wide through-lanes and a 12-foot wide center two-way left tum lane west of East Valley Road. Curb, gutter and a five-foot sidewalk border both sides of the road. The four I I-foot through lanes continue between East Valley Road and the SR 167 northbound ramps with the 12-foot wide center two-way left tum lane becoming back-to-back left tum PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-32 Carr Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum 1 2 3 pockets. The sidewalk reduces to a five-foot walkway as the road crosses over SR 167. From the SR 167 northbound ramps to Talbot Road S, SW 43'd Street gains a right turn lane in both directions that terminate at the SR 167 on-ramp in the westbound direction and at Talbot Road S in the eastbound direction. A left- turn pocket is added at Talbot Road S to form a seven lane west approach to the intersection. East Valley Road, from SW 41" Street south, consists generally of four 11-foot through lanes and a 12-foot center two-way left turn lane. At intersection approaches the center two-way left turn lane gives way to left turn pockets. At the SW 41'' Street intersection, East Valley Road loses a northbound through lane to a right turn only entrance to the southbound SR 167 on-ramp. Sight Distance There are no stopping sight distance or entering sight distance issues as a result of Carr Road's horizontal alignment. Existing vertical stopping sight distances are summarized in Table 6 below. The non-standard sag curve at -Sta 19+90 also does not meet AASHTO's comfort criterion. The roadway where both sag curves are located is illuminated to mitigate the non-standard sight distance. Table 6 Existing Vertical Stopping Sight Distance Location Required• Existing Notes -STA 19+90 -468 feet 138 feet Non-standard. sag -STA 29+15 -468 feet 295 feet Non-standard. crest -STA 39+90 -481 feet 356 feet Non-standard, sag *(1993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1,for 45 mph design speed & Section 2.12) Right-of-way No right-of-way is required for the No Action alternative. Traffic Analysis No Action Volume Forecasting The first step undertaken to develop alternatives was to perform traffic volume forecasts for the no-build condition. The forecasted volumes could then be analyzed to determine the possible causes and solutions to the congestion problems on the corridor. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-33 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Traffic forecasts for the design year 2020 PM peak period were provided by Rao Associates and were developed from the City of Renton's travel forecasting model which is consistent with the PSRC model. 2020 AM no-build volumes were derived manually from the 2020 PM volumes by applying the PM growth factor, between 2000 and 2020 volumes, to the opposing movements at each intersection. This was done to capture the directional differences in growth patterns that shift between the AM and PM peaks. However, due to the complexity of the network in the vicinity of the SR 167 interchange, significant movement-specific adjustments were necessary. The final step in developing the AM volumes compared results with a version of the 2020 PSRC AM Peak Period model. Some additional manual adjustments were made based on this review. Arterial Operations Operational analysis of the arterial was performed using Synchro. Analysis of signalized intersections within the study area utilized Synchro's implementation of the 2000 HCM method for the calculation of Level of Service (LOS), average vehicle delay and volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. LOS is a standard delay-based measure of traffic operating conditions, which grades traffic conditions on a scale of "A" to "F." LOS A represents free-flow conditions, while LOS F represents "breakdown" conditions on a roadway. The level of service that may be considered acceptable is variable and highly dependant on local conditions and roadway function, though generally LOS D or higher is considered acceptable, while LOS E indicates highly congested, near breakdown conditions. It should be noted that the Synchro HCM Signals calculation does not allow for consideration of right turns on red, thus resulting in significantly degraded LOS for movements that have high volumes of right-on-red movements. In cases with exclusive right tum lanes and high right turning volumes, the difference can be significant. These situations were identified and compensated for in the development of proposed solutions. An arterial analysis, based on the 2000 HCM Chapter 11 procedures, was also prepared for the Carr Road corridor to give a general sense of the overall corridor performance in terms of corridor-wide LOS and average speed. Study area freeway operations were analyzed using the Highway Capacity software application. Freeway segments, weaves and ramps were analyzed using the HCM Chapter 23, 24 and 25 procedures. Details and software output data can be found in the Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum (Parsons Brinckerhoff, October 6, 2003). Table 7 presents the level of service, average vehicle delay and V/C ratios for each intersection within the west corridor for both AM and PM peak periods. Each intersection within the study corridor is further detailed in Figure 15 and PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-34 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 1 2 3 4 5 presents average vehicle delay and LOS by intersection approach to specifically identify the most congested direction of travel. Table 7 2020 No Action Arterial Level of Service AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM (sec.) Delay LOS V/C (sec.) Delay LOS V/C Ca" Road Co"idor SW 43" St & Lind Ave SW 150 37.3 D 0.96 150 48.7 D 0.89 SW 43"' St & East Valley Road 150 194.6 F 1.36 150 229.8 F 1.46 SW 43rd St & NB SR 167 On-ramp 150 51.6 D 1.05 150 21.9 C 0.9 SW 43rd St & Talbot Rd S 150 88.1 F 1.05 150 50.8 D 0.94 SW 41• St & East Valley Rd 150 86.8 F 1 150 272 F 1.65 Source: Carr Road Improvement ProJect, Alternative Analys1s Techmcal Memorandum (AATM), October 2, 2003, Table/. There are two intersections within the west corridor area that are consistently at LOS F in both the AM peak period and the PM peak period: SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road and SW 41st Street/East Valley Road. The intersection of SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road has an average vehicle delay greater than 150 seconds in both the AM and PM peak periods. Volumes at this intersection exceed capacity on all approaches during the PM peak, but only the westbound leg and northbound leg in the AM peak, which is consistent with the peak morning traffic flow. This intersection currently operates over capacity today, as identified in the Existing Conditions Traffic Report. The volumes at the intersection of SW 41 st Street/East Valley Road at the terminus to the SR 167 southbound ramps exceed capacity on the southbound leg and the westbound leg during the AM peak and all approaches during the PM peak. This illustrates the currently limited capacity of this intersection in conjunction with the heavily used southbound ramps and north/south route along East Valley Road into the City of Renton. In addition, the intersection of Carr Road/Talbot Road S operates at LOS F only in the AM while operating at LOS D in the PM. Both the northbound and southbound legs exceed capacity in the AM peak period. Talbot Road S serves a mix of medical offices and residential areas. The high volumes leaving Talbot Road S in the AM peak is an indication of the large commuting population utilizing this road. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7.35 Ca" Road lmpro11ement Project Design Memorandum .. :I 0 ::c Figure 15 West Corridor: No Action Intersection Approach Delay and LOS .. :I 0 ::c .., ~« .j I.. 3-+1"\.l.. 3 C9 ®_ ,r69 ' f-~« Source: Alternative Analysis Technical Memorandum (AATM), October 2, 2003, Fig.5. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-36 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Queuing Queuing issues have also been identified at most intersections along the study corridor. A summary on 95th percentile queue lengths reported by Synchro is presented in Table 8. All intersections within the corridor area are expected to have queues that exceed available storage capacity on at least one leg during one of the time periods by at least I 00 feet. Significant queues, those exceeding 1000 feet or the available space between intersections for through movements or 500 feet beyond available turn pocket storage for turn movements, have been identified in Table 9. Both the intersections of SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road and SW 41" Street/East Valley Road have significant queues that affect adjacent intersections or freeway operations. Table 8 2020 No Action 95th Percentile Queue (Ft) Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound AM Peak Hour Carr Rd & Lind Ave SW Left Thru Rt Left Thru Rt 67 m10 m62 Carr Rd & E Valley Rd 187 124 0 m103 m817 - Carr Rd & NB SR 167 Ramp m282 m278 .. -m772 mo Carr Rd & Talbot Rd S G 237 0 m32 603 - SW 41•st& E Valley Rd 48 110 28 I 763 798 57 Intersection Eastbound Westbound PM Peak Hour Carr Rd & Lind Ave SW 248 594 -m10 m52 Carr Rd & E Valley Rd m4()9 1196 m45 m356 1242 Carr Rd & NB SR 167 Ramp m283 m500 --664 Carr Rd & Talbot Rd S m451 685 m252 161 452 SW 41• St & E Valley Rd 113 1368 272 976 1034 Undertined-Queue on mainline (through movements) exceeds 500 feet. ~ -Queue exceeds available storage length by less than 100 feet. !Bold ltaliq -Queue exceeds available storage length by more than 100 feet. m -Queue metered by upstream signal. Source: AATM, Table 2. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7.37 - - 0 - 104 Left Thru Rt Left Thru Rt 31 45 58 53 31 m152 m254 -m224 m212 - m916 m913 mo --- 717 520 -191 135 G m281 m554 m82 149 72 - Northbound Southbound 31 38 -468 493 55 m114 m351 -m79S m760 - m151 m148 mo --- 248 200 -312 352 ~ m255 m691 I m234 793 655 - carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 9 No Action: Significant Queues AM Peak Direction Spillback Carr Rd/NB SR 167 NBL = 920' None Carr RdiT al bot Rd S NBL = 720' None SW 41 st St/E Valley Rd WBL = 760' WB onto SB SR 167 ramp PM Peak Carr Rd/E Valley Rd EBT=1200' EB into Carr Rd/Lind Ave SW WBT=1240' WB into NB SR 167 Ramp SBL = 800' SW 43'd St/Lind Ave SW SBL = 900' None SW 41 st St/E Valley Rd EBT=1370' EB into SW 41st St/Lind Ave SW WBL = 980' WB onto SB SR 167 ramp WBT=1030' WB onto SB SR 167 ramp SBL = 790' None Source: AATM. Table 3. Freeway Analysis The northbound off-ramp at the S 180th Street/SW 43'd Street (Carr Road) interchange on SR 167 operates at LOS F during the AM peak, and both southbound ramps operate at LOS F during the PM peak. Even though the southbound off-ramp operates at LOS D during the AM peak, a combination of the queue from the signalized terminus and the short ramp length result in a backup onto the highway, as identified in Table 9. This means that the southbound off-ramp effectively operated at LOS F for both AM and PM periods. Please see Figure 16 and Figure 17. Structures and Retaining Walls Two significant structures are located in the west corridor: the SR 167 overcrossing bridge and the Valley Medical Center's emergency vehicle underpass located between the northbound SR 167 ramps and Talbot Road S. Conceptual Cost Opinion There is no construction cost associated with the No Action alternative. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-38 carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 16 West Corridor: 2020 No Action AM Level of Service Notto Scale S 212th SI Source: AATM, Fig. 6. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF I Li I I I I I £1 w "' • ~ ,a ~ ~ Legend Carr Road Study Corridor -• Carr Road Study Area Limits : Di ·Ej Freeway LOS @ Intersection LOS I I I I I , I ,~1!!,I SE 200th SI F] ____ _ 7.39 I I .. Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 17 West Corridor: 2020 No Action PM Level of Service Not to Scale S 212fh St Source: AA.TA{, Fig. 7. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF I lr I I I F ] 7-40 Legend Carr Road Study Conidor -Ill Carr Road Study Area Limits _Q] ] F,eeway LOS I @ _____ '"_''_""_ctio~-~ SE 175th St (Carr oal F}--c=.---1 ·---1 I I I ~SE=1~9=''c:d..:St'-(IFHll----+-------1 SE 20oth St .J.1 (515\ "-_,..I JJ ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Benefit/Cost Benefit/Cost analysis is normally performed on the build-alternatives to assess their cost effectiveness. Construction (and other related type) and maintenance cost are typically used for the cost component. Benefits, usually in terms of travel time savings or accident cost reduction, are translated and quantified into dollars of savings to provide a common reference. The No Action alternative does not generate benefit as defined above and was therefore excluded from comparison in this category. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-41 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each screening category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings given to this and all other alternatives in the west corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Please see Figure 33. Meets Purpose and Need The No Action alternative does not meet the project's stated purpose and need. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 10 No Action: Socioeconomic Impacts Impacts to Sensitive Displacements Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts {schools, churches, Impacts hosoitalsl • None • None • None • None Natural Environment Impacts Table 11 No Action: Natural Environment Impacts Water Quality/ Fisheries/ Wetlands Wildlife/ Noise Air Quality Water Quantity Vegetation • No additional • None • None • No Increase in • LOS F impervious proximity surface Transportation Impacts Table 12 No Action: Transportation Impacts Average Timesavings Queuing/Blocking Safety Overall Operations • Average Time Savings • Queuing Penalty • SB off-ramp queue ~ LOS: AM = D, F, D, per vehicle: AM =4,386 spills back onto SR F, F (Ave=E) No Build is the base or PM= 6.478 167 mainline by: PM = D, F, C, D, zero Total = 10,864 AM= 150', PM= 350' F (Ave=E) ~ Speed: AM = 11 MPH PM= 10 MPH Overall Operations LOS were obtained from Synchro analysis using HCM methodology. The LOS results reported in the table above may not coincide with tables in the Final Alternative Analysis Technical Memorandum (Parsons PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-42 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum • Brinckerhoff, October 2, 2003) due to revisions and corrections that were made to the data input tables since these results were used. Average speeds were requested directly from Synchro's summary network Memorandum of Effectiveness report. These results were then tailored to reflect the selection of specific intersections included within the project area. Other Impacts Table 13 No Action: Other Impacts Compatibility with Benefit-Cost Costs Constructability Plans and Policies Does not comply • Not applicable • None • None with concurrency requirements PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-43 Caw Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Additional Off-Ramp The Additional Off-Ramp alternative (Figure 18 and Figure 19) provides an additional southbound off-ramp terminating at East Valley Road south of SW 43rd Street. This additional off-ramp location enables vehicles traveling southbound on SR 16 7 with intentions to head east on Carr Road, to make a right tum onto East Valley Highway S and another right turn onto Carr Road, as opposed to the two left turns currently required. Existing left tum movements from the existing southbound off-ramp (at SW 41 st St) to East Valley Road will be prohibited. In addition to the new off-ramp, this alternative also includes: • a new signalized intersection at the new off-ramp terminus, • the addition of a southbound collector-distributor roadway on SR 167, • an additional northbound lane on East Valley Road from the ramp terminus to SW 4 3 ,d S tree!, • the addition of a third eastbound through lane on SW 43rd Street from Lind Avenue SW to East Valley Road, and • the addition of a right tum lane on SW 43rd Street from East Valley Road to Talbot Road S in both directions. Right tum pockets are proposed at SW 41" Street/East Valley Road, SW 43'd Street/East Valley Road, SW 43'd Street/Lind Avenue SW, and SW 43'd Street/Talbot Road S intersections. 1 Roadway Design Roadway Geometry SW 43rd Street's (Carr Road) vertical alignment was revised in order to provide the proper vertical clearance requirement over the new two-lane C-D road along SR 167. The SR 167 overcrossing structure will require reconstruction as a result. In order to maintain the existing East Valley Road intersection a steeper grade than existing was required and a fairly short sag vertical curve transition provided. Table 14 presents the grade information. Table 14 Proposed SW 43rd Street Grade Location Maximum* Proposed Notes -STA 22+90 to STA 24+75 9% 7.7% Meets Standard *(I 993 King County Road Standards, Section 2. 02) PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-44 Caff Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum I " r Q. .. s >-« "' .. ... ... I: ~. 0 .. • .. C :I ,§ ... ;; " ~ ~ J .., : < :!; • • , " ii: Ill 0 Cl ii! Ill 0 u ... = I-z .. u .. .. U) .. z It ::i i :c u .c I-2- 0 !! C I! ::Iii ii PARSONS BRINCKliRHOFF ... --•4"'1 ---~ O 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 19 Additional Off-Ramp (cont.) 88TH AVES s,t 1e,- 7-47 :1 ' .. :I ·~ '-•n ' .. ·= :i 1: LIND AVE SW ~ ... +"'',r. .~ ... '((;, Ca" R-d lmprov•m•nt Pro}IIH!t Dealgn Memorandum 1 2 3 Typical Roadway Sections SW 43rd Street (Carr Road) will be widened by the addition of an I I-foot wide eastbound through-lane on the south side of the existing roadway. Curb, gutter and the five-foot sidewalk will be reconstructed on the south side of the road. Six I I-foot through lanes will continue to be provided between East Valley Road and Talbot Road S with the existing 12-foot wide back-to-back left turn pockets remaining between East Valley Road and the SR 167 northbound ramps. A continuous five-foot sidewalk is provided on both sides of the road as SW 43'd Street crosses over SR 167. From the SR 167 northbound ramps to Talbot Road S, SW 43'd Street gains a right turn only lane in the westbound direction that terminates at the SR 167 on-ramp. The south approach to the Talbot Road S intersection gains a second left-tum only pocket to create a five-lane wide roadway. East Valley Road, from SW 41'1 Street to SW 43'd Street, retains its four I I -foot through lanes and a 12-foot center two-way left turn lane section and gains an I I -foot northbound right turn pocket at the SW 41 st Street intersection. Between the new off-ramp terminus and SW 43rd Street, East Valley Road gains a northbound right turn lane. The new two-lane collector-distributor road was designed to WSDOT standards with 25 feet of travel way, a six-foot inside shoulder, and an eight-foot outside shoulder. The existing southbound on-ramp was modified to accept two lanes of traffic from SW 41 st Street but tapers to a single 15-foot lane that becomes one of the C-D lanes. The new southbound off-ramp is a 15-foot wide lane with four- foot and eight-foot inside and outside shoulders, respectively. Sight Distance Sight distance issues on SW 43rd Street are related to vertical curvature in the roadway found between East Valley Road and Talbot Road Sand are presented in Table 15. The sag vertical curve located east of East Valley Road does not meet stopping sight distance standards but does meet AASHTO comfort criteria. Table 15 Additional Off-Ramp: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance Location Required• Proposed Notes -STA21+22 -481 feet 235 feet Non-standard, sag -STA 28+25 -481 feet 482 feet Meets standard, crest -STA 34+00 -481 feet 509 feet Meets standard, sag *(1993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1,for 45 mph design speed & Section 2. 12) PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-49 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Design Deviations A design deviation is required for the sag vertical curve located east of East Valley Road. No other design deviations are anticipated. Right-of-way Proposed right-of-way acqms1t10ns are the result of roadway widening. The following table lists the parcels and amounts of right-of-way required by the proposed alternative. The building size column indicates "no impact" if existing buildings or structures are not impacted by the proposed action. Addresses were obtained from King County's parcel viewer website and no attempt was made to correct that information. Table 16 Additional Off-Ramp: Right-Of-Way Requirements Land Use Parcel Number Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 3926800010 3123059097 3123059033 3123059167 3123059166 3123059118 3123059109 3123059114 3123059007 3123059079 3123059014 3123059082 3123059113 3123059105 3123059011 8857670030 3123059102 Area Building Address Required Size lsfl lsfl 4208 Lind Ave SW, Renton 512 No Impact 8815 S 1801h St, Kent 2,516 No Impact 18111 E Valley Hwy S, Kent 714 No Impact 8819 1801h St, Kent 956 No Impact 8829 180th St, Kent 929 No Impact 18015 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 2,919 No Impact 18010 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 5,641 No Impact 4242 East Valley Rd, Renton 38,740 10,000 City of Renton, see www.metrokc.gov/gis/ 692 No Impact maMortal/iMAP main.him 9021 S 180"' St, Kent 17,427 No Impact 4124 East Valley Rd, Renton 61,931 No Impact 18230 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 4,777 No Impact 18100 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 3,485 No Impact 18020 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 4,944 No Impact 4224 East Valley Rd, Renton 1,624 No Impact owner Public Hosp. Distr #1 KC 400 S 43"' St 9,722 No Impact 305 S 43"' St, Renton 1,444 No Impact 7-50 ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 16 Additional Off-Ramp: Right-Of-Way Requirements (cont.) Land Use Parcel Number Commercial 3123059078 Commercial 3123059040 Commercial 3123059135 Commercial 3123059025 Commercial 3123059134 Commercial 7616800010 Commercial 3926800040 Commercial 3123059032 Traffic Analysis Arterial Operations Address 401 S 43'' St, Renton 430 Talbot Rd S, Renton 17930 Talbot Rd S, Renton 17916 Talbot Rd S, Renton 17900 Talbot Rd S, Renton 17820 Talbot Rd S, Renton 101 SW 41 '' St, Renton 4020 East Valley Rd, Renton Area Building Size Required (sf) (sf) 3,074 No Impact 2,530 No Impact 2,765 No Impact 501 No Impact 139 No Impact 130 No Impact 2,395 No Impact 2,420 No Impact In the AM peak period, the Additional Off-Ramp alternative has one intersection operating at LOS F and three operating at LOS E. This is an improvement over the no-build condition, which has three LOS F intersections. In the PM peak period, the Additional Off-Ramp alternative has two intersections operating at LOS F, which is the same as the no-build condition. Please see Table 17. The intersections of SW 43'd Street/East Valley Road and SW 41" Street/East Valley Road tend to have the worst intersection level of service for all the west end alternatives. At the SW 43'd Street/East Valley Road intersection, the southbound and westbound movements are at LOS F in the PM. At the intersection of SW 41" Street/East Valley Road, both the northbound and southbound movements operate at LOS F in the PM. Please see Figure 20. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-51 ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 17 Additional Off-Ramp: Arterial Level of Service AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM (sec.) Delay LOS V/C (sec.) Delay LOS VIC Carr Road Corridor 1. SW 43,, St & Lind Ave SW 150 53.5 D 0.98 150 42.4 D 0.84 2. SW 43• St & East Valley Road 150 60.3 E 1.04 150 99.1 F 1.28 3. SW 43rd St & NB SR 167 On-ramp 150 56 E 1.08 150 24 C 0.92 4. SW 43rd St & Talbot Rd S 150 61.8 E 0.96 150 53.1 D 1.03 24. SW 41• St & East Valley Rd 150 83.5 F 0.78 150 83.8 F 102 Source: AATM, Tables 8 & 9. Queuing Queuing issues are present at all intersections for all of the alternatives. Significant queues, those exceeding I 000 feet or the available space between intersections for through movements or 500 feet beyond available tum pocket storage for tum movements, are identified in Table 18. For this alternative, the queues at Carr Road/East Valley are significant enough to affect the adjacent intersection of SW 41 st Street/East Valley Road. There are no significant effects on freeway operation as a result of the queues for this alternative. Table 18 Additional Off-Ramp: Significant Queues AM Peak Carr Rd/E Valley Rd Carr Rd/NB SR 167 Carr RdiT al bot Rd S SW 41•t SUE Valley Rd PM Peak Carr Rd./Lind Ave SW Carr Rd/E Valley Rd SW 41 stSUE Valley Rd ,\ource: AATM, Table 13. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Direction WBT = 1070' NBL = 880' NBL = 670' NBL = 650' SBL = 730' SBL = 1120' NBR = 1030' SBL = 760' 7-52 Spill back Possible WB into Carr Rd/ NB Ramps None None None None Possible SB into SW 41 st St' E Valley Rd None None ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum .. ::s 0 :c ..; '1/o .., I ® L3 .,... ,, ; t Source: AATM, Fig. 12. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 20 Additional Off-Ramp: Intersection Approach Delay and LOS ~< 3 -1®.L 3 ss-+::: ru ; ;- ~< .. ,,s o,'?.\.'01),: S peo~ 1oqie1 !Su .,J®! La .,... .. ; t ...; ~G:11 ' t: " ~< u -{ \. .L 3 w "' ,!-+ ® •" --; ;- ~< .. 7-53 Can Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Freeway Operations The ramp junctions and mainline operations remain fairly consistent with the no- build operations. The addition of the C-D roadway for the Additional Off-Ramp alternative moves any potential backup on the existing mainline onto the C-D roadway. The additional off-ramp also minimizes the queues at the signalized terminus eliminating the queue spillback onto SR 167 from the no-build conditions. Figure 21 and Figure 22 illustrate year 2020 LOS for both the freeway and corridor intersections during the AM and PM peak periods. Structures and Retaining Walls The existing SR 167 overcrossing structure will require reconstruction due to profile and section changes. The East Valley Medical Center emergency vehicle underpass will require lengthening to accommodate widening of SW 43rd Street. Retaining walls are proposed to mitigate right-of-way acquisition needs. A conceptual level estimate of retaining wall cost is provided in Appendix C. Conceptual Cost Opinion Right-of-way costs are based on King County assessed land and building values for 2003. The right-of-way subtotal includes land and building acquisition costs, but does not include business relocation costs. The Construction Cost subtotal includes a 20% contingency to account for the conceptual nature of the design that was translated into construction costs and I 0% mobilization costs. Miscellaneous Costs include Sales Tax at 8.80%, and Construction Engineering and Contingencies at 15%. A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for cost opinion details. Right-of-way $4,703,000 Construction Cost (Grading!Drainage/Strudures!Paving!Traffic/Utilffies!Mob.) $20,419,000 $3,066,000 Design Engineering and Administration Miscellaneous (Sales Tax/Constr. Eng. & Cont.) Total Cost Opinion PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Additional Off-Ramp 7-54 $5,129,000 $33,317,000 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Notto Scale S 212th SI Source: AA.TAJ, Fig. 15. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 21 Additional Off-Ramp: AM Level of Service 1 cr I I I I I [c :E Legend Carr Road Study Corridor --Carr Road Study Area Limits lQJ ]l Freeway LOS @ Intersection LOS . ~l@.c..----~F I a.t--,J.!:,) I • • • I I I I SE 192nd St F; ----- 7-55 I I - ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Not to Scale S 212th St Source: A.ATM, Fig. 16. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 22 Additional Off-Ramp: PM Level of Service I if I I I SE 192nd St SE 200th S! Legend Carr Road Study Corridor -• Carr Road Study Area Limits [Q ] Freeway LOS @ Intersection LOS SE 176th St {Carr oal F ·-I I I I /~• '515' "C_]I II -- ----JJ 7-56 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Benefit/Cost Analysis A benefit-cost analysis was performed using annualized time saving benefits and construction cost estimates over a 20-year period. The present worth values for benefits and costs were calculated using a 4 % net discount rate and are expressed in year 2002 dollars. The 20-year period begins at the assumed 2007 year-of-opening. The benefit-cost calculation worksheets may be found in Appendix A. A summary of those calculations is shown in the table below. Net Discount Rate 4% PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Table 19 Additional Off-Ramp: Benefit-Cost Total Time Savings Benefit !Year 2002 $1 $ 39,547,633 7-57 Construction Cost Benefit/Cost (Year 2002 $) Ratio $33,317,000 1.19 Ca" Road lmpro11ement Project Design Memorandum Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each screening category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings given to this and all other alternatives in the west corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Please see Figure 33. Meets Purpose and Need All build-alternatives meet the project's stated purpose and need. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 20 Additional Off-Ramp: Socioeconomic Impacts Displacements • Total no. of displacements: 1 • No. of residences: 0 • No. of comm. structures: • No. of other structures: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 1 0 Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts (schools, churches, Impacts hosoitalsl • Schools: None • No documented • One potential historical/ and or business cultural sites. displacement • Churches: None • Area is fairly well-• Access impacts on developed. adjacent driveways affect up to 10 businesses • Hospitals: Would • High probability of • Potential loss of require small, linear extant historic parking stalls at 5 portion of Valley buildings. businesses Medical Center lot area. Would likely require minor reconfiguration of two driveways for continued access to Carr Road. • No recorded archaeological sites but located within the Duwamish floodplain & the marshes of Springbrook Creek that has documented ethnographic significance. • Probability is high that terraces ( east of SR 167) may contain archaeological resources. 7-58 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Natural Environment Impacts Table 21 Additional Off-Ramp: Natural Environment Impacts Water Quality/ Wetlands Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Noise Air Quality Water Quantity Vegetation lo Total impervious: lo Impacts Wetlands • Low potential to • 0-3 dbA increase •LOSE 466,800SF C&D (near Great affect ESA to Hospital due to Wall shopping species & habitat proximity mall, parcel # increase 3123059014) lo Impacts Wetlands • Impacts habitat at • Slight E&F ( along SR Wetland D (Great improvement in 167) Wall shopping Air Quality over mall) NA due to Level of Service improvement lo Impacts Wetlands • Impacts habitat at 1N&72 (SW41'' Wetland F (along Street SR 167) intersection) lo No impact to • No impact to Wetlands A&B habitat at (along Lind Wetlands A&B Avenue SW) (along Lind Avenue SW) lo Impacts Wetland • Impacts habitat at BB (along East Wetland BB Valley Highway) (along East Vallev Hiahwavl Transportation Impacts Table 22 Additional Off-Ramp: Transportation Impacts Average Timesavings Queuing/Blocking Safety Overall Operations • Time Savings per • Queuing Penalty • No spill-back • LOS: AM= D, E, E, vehicle: AM= 3,432 E, F,A (D) AM = 20 sec saved PM= 3.870 PM= D, F, C, PM = 26 sec saved Total = 7,302 D,F,C (D) • Speed: AM = 14 MPH PM=15MPH PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-59 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Other Impacts Compatibility with Plans and Policies • Would not greatly contribute to mobility and concurrency objectives • Not directly related to transit • More cost efficient than larger improvements PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Table 23 Additional Off-Ramp: Other Im pacts Benefit-Cost Costs Constructability • 8/C: 1.19 • Total: $33.3M • Significant difficulty in replacing SR 167 bridge while maintaining traffic • NPV: $6,231,000 • Construction:$25.SM • Probability of project being funded: Very unlikely • R/W: $4.7M • Probability of acceptance by general public: Somewhat likely • Probability of acceptance by neighborhood: Unlikely • Severe impact to traveling public during construction 7-60 carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension The Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension alternative (Figure 23 and Figure 24) not only includes the improvements identified above for the Additional Off- Ramp alternative, but also includes the extension of Lind Avenue SW to East Valley Road. Currently the public road ends just south of the intersection of SW 43rd Street/Lind Avenue SW where it becomes a privately-owned industrial access. The extension of Lind Avenue SW will create a new north/south arterial providing a direct route into the City of Renton. This new route allows traffic to bypass the currently congested intersection of SW 43rd Street /East Valley Road and instead utilize the intersection of SW 43rd Street/Lind Avenue SW. 1 Roadway Design Roadway Geometry SW 43rd Street's (Carr Road) vertical alignment was revised in order to provide the proper vertical clearance requirement over the new two-lane C-D road along SR 167. The SR 167 overcrossing structure will require reconstruction as a result. In order to maintain the existing East Valley Road intersection a steeper grade than existing was required and a fairly short sag vertical curve transition provided. Table 24 presents the grade information. Table 24 Proposed SW 43rd Street Grade Location Maximum• Proposed Notes -STA+ 22+90 to -STA 24+25 9% 7.7% Meets Standard *(1993 King County Road Standard,. Section 2.02) Typical Roadway Sections The Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension contains the same improvements as the Additional Off-Ramp alternative with minor variations; the notable exception being the extension of Lind Avenue SW to East Valley Road with five lanes. The Lind Avenue SW Extension consists of four I I-foot through lanes with a 12-foot center two-way left turn lane bordered by gutter, curb and 6- foot sidewalk on both sides. The Lind Avenue SW/SW 43rd Street intersection will be improved with the addition of right turn pockets on all approaches. SW 43rd Street (Carr Road) will be widened on the south side of the road between Lind Avenue SW and East Valley Road but will not require an additional right turn pocket, as the Additional Off-Ramp does. The south approach to the SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road intersection converts the outside through lane in the Additional Off-Ramp alternative to an additional right turn lane, creating dual right turns for the northbound movement. This change allows greater throughput PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-61 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 1 2 3 for the heavy northbound right turn movement and is made possible by the diversion of north-south traffic to the Lind Avenue SW Extension. Sight Distance Sight distance issues are the same as the Additional Off-Ramp alternative and are presented in Table 25. The sag vertical curve located east of East Valley Road does not meet stopping sight distance standards but does meet AASHTO comfort criteria. Table 25 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance Location Required• Proposed Notes -STA 21+22 -481 feet 235 feet Non-standard, sag -STA 28+25 -481 feet 482 feet Meets standard, crest -STA 34+00 -481 feet 509 feet Meets standard, sag *(1993 King County Road Standnrds Table 2.1, for 45 mph design speed & Section 2.12) Design Deviations A design deviation is required for the sag vertical curve located east of East Valley Road. No other design deviations are anticipated. Right-of-Way Proposed right-of-way acquisitions are the result of roadway widening and the conversion of the Lind Avenue SW Extension from private property to public right-of-way. The following table lists the parcels and amounts of right-of-way required by the proposed alternative. The building size column indicates "no impact" if existing buildings or structures are not impacted by the proposed action. Addresses were obtained from King County's parcel viewer website and no attempt was made to correct that information. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-62 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum PARSONS BRINCKEIIHOFF " ,i " with Lind A\'enue SW Extension 1-63 - ----•4"'1 , .. , -.. 11111111 0 1 00 200 300 400 500 C•n Road lmpra118ment Project Design Memorandum PARSONS BRINCl(lilfHOFF .... .. .. -4"'1 ---~ 0 100 200 300 400 500 Figure 24 Additional Off-Ramp wit~ Lind Avenue SW Extension (cont.) 88TH AVES (LIND AVE SW EXTENSION) -------=--=------ ') 7-65 ,,111 I i != I~ '§ 'ill ,_ I LIND AVE SW ,, ,, .::~1'~~ ,,~+'·-'" \t' .. C•rr Ro•d lmprov-ement Praject Oe•lgn Memorandum Table 26 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Land Use Parcel Number Commercial 3123059013 Commercial 3123059161 Commercial 3123059121 Commercial 3123059151 Commercial 3926800010 Commercial 3123059097 Commercial 3123059033 Commercial 3123059167 Commercial 3123059166 Commercial 3123059118 Commercial 3123059109 Commercial 3123059114 Commercial 3123059007 Commercial 3123059079 Commercial 3123059014 Commercial 3123059082 Commercial 3123059113 Commercial 3123059105 Commercial 3123059011 Commercial 8857670030 Commercial 3123059102 Commercial 3123059078 Commercial 3123059040 Commercial 3123059135 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Right-Of-Way Requirements Area Required Building Address Size (sf) (sf) 18221 84'" Ave S, Kent 88,330 No Impact 18251 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 530 No Impact 8621 S 180'" St, Kent 10,933 No Impact City of Kent 88'" Ave S Riaht of Wav 15,264 No Impact 4208 Lind Ave SW, Renton 512 No Impact 8815 S 180th St, Kent 2,516 No Impact 18111 E Valley Hwy S, Kent 714 No Impact 8819 180th St, Kent 956 No Impact 8829 180th St, Kent 929 No Impact 18015 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 2,919 No Impact 18010 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 5,641 No Impact 4242 East Valley Rd, Renton 38,740 10,000 City of Renton see www.metrokc.gov/gisl 692 No Impact mannortal/iMAP main.him 9021 S 180'" St, Kent 17,427 No Impact 4124 East Valley Rd, Renton 61,931 No Impact 18230 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 4,777 No Impact 18100 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 3,485 No Impact 18020 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 4,944 No Impact 4224 East Valley Rd, Renton 1,624 No Impact owner Public Hosp. Distr #1 9,722 No Impact KC 3og~ ~1.r'sf.Renton 1,444 No Impact 401 S 43rd St, Renton 3,074 No Impact 430 Talbot Rd S, Renton 2,530 No Impact 17930 Talbot Rd S, Renton 2,765 No Impact 7-67 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 26 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Ri<ht-Of-Wav Renuirements (cont.) Area Required Building Land Use Parcel Number Address Size (sf) (sf) Commercial 3123059025 17916 Talbot Rd S, Renton 501 No Impact Commercial 3123059134 Commercial 7616800010 Commercial 3123059169 Commercial 3926800040 Commercial 3123059032 Traffic Analysis Arterial Operations 17900 Talbot Rd S, Renton 17820 Talbot Rd S, Renton see www.metrokc.gov/gis/ mannortal/iMAP main.him 101SW41stSt 4020 East Valley Rd 139 No Impact 130 No Impact 1,080 No Impact 2,395 No Impact 2,420 No Impact In the AM peak period, the Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension alternative has two intersections operating at LOS E and none at LOS F. This is a result of the Lind Avenue SW Extension, which creates an additional north/south route accessing the City of Renton and reduces the demand of the northbound movements at the SW 41 st Street/East Valley Road intersection during the AM peak period. In the PM peak period, the Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension alternative has two intersections operating at LOS E. Please see Table 27. In the PM peak period, the intersections of SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road and SW 41" Street/East Valley Road tend to have the worst intersection level of service for this alternative. At the SW 43'd Street/East Valley Road intersection, the southbound and westbound movements are at LOS F. With the Lind Avenue SW Extension (and additional off-ramp) only the southbound movement at the SW 41 st Street/East Valley Road operates at LOS F. The Lind Avenue SW Extension provides significant improvements across alternatives. Please see Figure 25. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-68 Caw Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 27 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Arterial Level of Service AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM (sec.) Delay LOS VIC (sec.) Delay LOS VIC Ca" Road Corridor 1. SW 43,0 St & Lind Ave SW 150 29.7 C 0.8 150 52.2 D 0.98 2. SW 43"' St & East Valley Road 150 32.1 C 0.84 150 77.6 E 1.19 3. SW 43rd St & NB SR 167 On-ramp 150 43.8 D 102 150 22 C 0.9 4. SW 43rd St & Talbot Rd S 150 76.9 E 0.89 150 49.8 D 1.03 24. SW 41• St & East Valley Rd 150 56.9 E 0.73 150 68.6 E 0.97 Source: AATM, Tables 8 & 9. Queuing In the PM peak period, the queue at SW 43rd Street/Talbot Road S spills back to the NB ramp intersection. There are no significant effects on freeway operations as a result of the queues for this alternative. Table 28 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: AM Peak Carr Rd/E Valley Rd Carr Rd/NB SR 167 Carr Rd/Talbot Rd S PM Peak Carr Rd/Lind Ave SW Carr Rd/E Valley Rd Carr Rd/Talbot Rd S SW 41 stStfE Valley Rd Source: A.A TM, Table 14. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Significant Queues Direction WBR=970' NBL = 940' NBL = 750' EBT = 1040' SBL = 1010' EBT = 1220' NBR = 790' SBL = 740' 7-69 Soillback None None None None None EB into Carr Rd/NB Ramps None None Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 25 Additional Off-Ramp with Liud Avenue SW Extension: Intersection Approach Delay and LOS iii L~=.·7-;::~::::w===---; / ~ m <J w "' ,1;':: ~-...._ r,l/},'t:~--; .., l. Source: AA.TM, Fig. 13. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-70 .. :I 0 ::c .. :c: 0 ol .II: ~.Q ca 0 GI z D. liE ... D. S' ~ 0 "' ~ m ~ iii S peo~ 1oq1e1 ..; ., l. •-&,-, n \f-J u Q N -"- .j l. .l... 3 ttl~ ~\-· 15 /i! :gw 3S••~ s,:m .lo ll\_ 3J @-si 99"T ;: r ' f-.; ~w ~ aJ @.\ -~ lV. \.5) tlZ ' ,. Ca" Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum Freeway Operations The ramp junctions and mainline operations remain fairly consistent with the no- build operations. The addition of the collector/distributor roadway for this alternative moves any potential backup on the existing mainline onto the C-D roadway. The additional off-ramp also minimizes the queue at the signalized terminus eliminating the queue spillback onto SR 167 noted in the no-build condition. Figure 26 and Figure 27 illustrate year 2020 LOS for both the freeway and corridor intersections during the AM and PM peak periods. Structures and Retaining Walls As in the Additional Off-Ramp alternative, the existing SR 167 overcrossing structure will require reconstruction due to profile and section changes. Retaining walls are proposed to mitigate right-of-way acquisition needs. A conceptual level estimate of retaining wall cost is provided in Appendix C. Conceptual Cost Opinion Right-of-way costs are based on King County assessed land and building values for 2003. The right-of-way subtotal includes land and building acquisition costs, but does not include business relocation costs. The Construction Cost subtotal includes a 20% contingency to account for the conceptual nature of the design that was translated into construction costs and I 0% mobilization costs. Miscellaneous Costs include Sales Tax at 8.80%, and Construction Engineering and Contingencies at 15%. A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for cost opinion details. Right-of-way Construction Cost (Grading/Drainage/Stn.1ctures/Paving(Traffic/Uti/ffies/Mob.) Design Engineering and Administration Miscellaneous (Sales Tax/Constr. Eng. & Cont.) Total Cost Opinion Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension $5,755,000 $ 23,715,000 $3,561,000 $ 5.957.000 $ 38.988,000 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-71 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 26 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Not to Scole S 21:Zth St Source: AATM, Fig. 17. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF AM Level of Service I :ci \i I I I £1---i.E:'-_-f,,) Legend Carr Ro.ad Study Corridor -• Carr Road Study Area limits [_Q] ~ Freeway LOS @ Intersection LOS SE 176:h St (Carr oal F}---.---1 ·---1 I I I w ~ SE 192nd St F fc J"I ,, ____ _ 7-72 I I - Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 27 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Notto Scale S 212th St Source: AATM, Fig. 18. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF PM Level of Service I I I Legend Carr Road Study Corridor -• Carr Road Study Area Limits [Q] l.§ Freeway LOS @ Intersection LOS ~----------···----~, SE 176th St (Carr oal . F I ·---• I I I SE 192nd St F ---- 7-73 I I - Ca" Road lmpro11ement Project Design Memorandum Benefit/Cost Analysis A benefit-cost analysis was performed using annualized time saving benefits and construction cost estimates over a 20-year period. The present worth values for benefits and costs were calculated using a 4% net discount rate and are expressed in year 2002 dollars. The 20-year period begins at the assumed 2007 year-of-opening. The benefit-cost calculation worksheets may be found in Appendix A. A summary of those calculations is shown in the table below. Table 29 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Net Discount Rate 4% PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Benefit-Cost Total Time Savings Benefit (Year 2002 $1 $ 38,987,390 7.74 Construction Cost Benefit/Cost (Year 2002 $) Ratio $ 38,988,000 1.00 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each screening category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings given to this and all other alternatives in the central corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Please see Figure 33. Meets Purpose and Need All build-alternatives meet the project's stated purpose and need. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 30 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Displacements • Total no. of displacements: • No. of residences: • No. of comm. structures: • No. of other structures: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 1 0 1 0 Socioeconomic Impacts Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts (schools, churches, Impacts hosoitalsl • Schools: None • No documented • Two potential historical/ and or business cultural sites. displacements • Churches: None • Area is fairly well-• Access impacts on developed. adjacent driveways affect up to 15 businesses • Hospitals: Would • High probability of • Potential loss of require small, linear extant historic parking stalls at 3 portion of Valley buildings. businesses Medical Center lot area. Would likely require minor reconfiguration of two driveways for continued access to Carr Road. • No recorded archaeological sites but located within the Duwamish fioodplain & the marshes of Springbrook Creek that has documented ethnographic significance. • Probability is high that terraces (east of SR 167) may contain archaeological resources. 7-75 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Natural Environment Impacts Table 31 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Water Quality/ Water Quantity Natural Environment Impacts Wetlands Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Vegetation Noise Air Quality • Total impervious: • Impacts Wetlands• Low potential to • 0-3 dbA increase "' LOS D 657,300SF C&D (near Great affect ESA to Hospital due to Wall shopping species & habitat proximity mall, parcel # increase 3123059014) "' Impacts Wetlands• Impacts habitat at E&F (along SR Wetland D (near 167) Great Wall shopping mall, parcel# 3123059014) • Impacts Wetlands• Impacts habitat at 1N&72 (SW 41" Wetland F (along St intersection) SR 167) • Impacts Wetlands, Impacts habitat at A&B (along Lind Wetlands A&B Avenue SW) (along Lind • Impacts Wetland BB (along East Valley Highway) Transportation Impacts Avenue SW) • Impacts habitat at Wetland BB (along East Vallev Hiahwavl • Improvement in Air Quality over No Action due to Level of Service improvement Table 32 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Average Timesavings • Time Savings per vehicle: AM = 23 sec saved PM = 23 sec saved PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Transportation Impacts Queuing/Blocking • Queuing Penalty AM=2,418 PM= 2 955 Total = 5,373 Safety Overall Operations • No spill-back • LOS: AM = C, C, D, 7-76 E, E, A, D (D) PM= D, E, C, D, E, B, C (D) • Speed: AM= 15 MPH PM=15MPH Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Other Impacts Table 33 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Compatibility with Plans and Policies • Would meet mobility and concurrency objectives • Not directly related to transit • Would cost more than off-ramp only approach PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Other Impacts Benefit-Cost Costs Constructability • B/C: 1.00 • Total: $39.0 • Significant difficulty in replacing SR 167 bridge while maintaining traffic • NPV: -$610 • Construction: $29. 7M • Probability of project • R/W: 7-77 being funded: Very unlikely $5.8M • Probability of acceptance by general public: Somewhat likely • Probability of acceptance by neighborhood: Unlikely • Severe impact to traveling public during construction ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension The Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension alternative (Figure 28 and Figure 29) includes the addition of a new southbound on-ramp as well as the extension of Lind Avenue SW discussed in the Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension alternative above. This southbound on-ramp is located south of Carr Road in approximately the same location as the proposed off-ramp for the other alternatives. This alternative does not include a collector-distributor on SR 167, but leaves the existing ramp configuration as is. East Valley Road between SW 41 51 Street and the new on-ramp would be reconfigured as a one-way southbound roadway. This would reduce the number of signal phases, therefore improve operations, at both the SW 41 st Street/East Valley Road and SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road intersections. 1 Roadway Design No change to SW 43rd Street's horizontal or vertical alignment is proposed. Table 34 presents the grade information. Table 34 Existing SW 43n1 Street Grade Location Maximum* Existing Notes -STA 22+50 to -STA 29+00 9% 7% Meets Standard *(1993 King County Road Standards, Section 2.02) Typical Roadway Sections SW 43rd Street (Carr Road) will be widened to seven lanes, three I I-foot through-lanes in each direction and a 12-foot center two-way left tum lane, between Lind Avenue SW and East Valley Road. The roadway itself will be widened to 90 feet from curb to curb at the west approach to the SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road intersection to accommodate the double left tum from westbound SW 43rd Street to southbound East Valley Road. Curb, gutter and five-foot sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the road. Six I I-foot through lanes will be provided between East Valley Road and Talbot Road S with the existing 12-foot wide back-to-back left tum pockets remaining between East Valley Road and the SR 167 northbound ramps. As noted above, the east approach to the SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road intersection will consist of three 11-foot through lanes in each direction and a two 12-foot left tum lanes. A continuous five-foot sidewalk is provided on both sides of the road as SW 43rd Street crosses over SR 167. Improvements to SW 43rd Street east of the NB SR 167 ramp intersection are identical to the other alternatives. East Valley Road, from SW 41 51 Street to the newly formed intersection with Lind Avenue SW , is significantly altered. Between SW 41 51 Street and the new PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-78 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum "' )I l',ii " ,, " ,,, 'Ii " " ,, ii' "//!' II 11 •11111 " "H,!'l·. !I " PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 28 Additional On•Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension .::: --·--::.: EAST VALLEY RD ii SR 187 7.79 ii ..----~ -~ .. lmll 0 l 00 200 300 -400 500 Carr Raad lmprovema1tt Pro}ect Design Af•morandum Figure 29 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Annue SW Extension (cont.) 88TH AVES (LIND A.VE SW EXTENSION) ~ ' ~8 ~~o--~~~~~ ...---•4"'1 ---1111111 o 100 200 300 400 soo PARSONS BRIHCKIERHOFF S1t 767 7•81 LIND AVE SW "111 rl 1, " " ,, " r, '11 " " " " " I " ,, t. " " "' " " " ,, " !!l " " n ::r I 11 I' .. I II .!! " ,1 . C. "\JI IY..ll'"'+i:- ~t-"'c; C..rr Road lmp,.overtutnt Project Design MBmor.andum 1 2 3 southbound on-ramp terminus, East Valley Road will be a one-way southbound road consisting of three I I-foot lanes. The north approach to the SW 43'd Street intersection will be four lanes wide to accommodate two 12-foot left tum lanes (to eastbound SW 43'd Street), an I !-foot through lane, and an ! I-foot shared through/right lane. South of SW 43'd Street, the inside southbound lane of East Valley Road becomes a left tum only lane to the new on-ramp. South of the new unsignalized on-ramp intersection, East Valley Road is four lanes wide: two I !- foot southbound through lanes, a 12-foot center two-way left tum lane, and an I!- foot northbound lane that terminates at the on-ramp entrance. The new single lane taper-type on-ramp was designed to WSDOT standards with 15 feet of travel way, a four-foot inside shoulder, and an eight-foot outside shoulder. The Lind Avenue SW Extension is a five lane roadway with four I I-foot through lanes and a 12-foot center two-way left tum lane. The Lind Avenue SW approaches to the SW 43'd Street intersection are further widened to accommodate double left turns from southbound Lind Avenue SW to eastbound SW 43'd Street as well as right tum pockets for both approaches. Sight Distance Sight distance issues on SW 43'd Street are related to vertical curvature in the roadway found between East Valley Road and Talbot Road Sand are presented in Table 35. Changes to the existing vertical alignment of SW 43'd Street are not proposed. Table 35 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance Location Required• Existing Notes -STA 19+90 -468 feet 138 feet Non-standard, sag -STA 29+15 -468 feet 295 feet Non-standard, crest -STA 39+90 -481 feet 356 feet Non-standard, sag *(1993 Kmg County Road Standards Tahle 2.1.for 45 mph design speed & Sectwn 2. I 2) Design Deviations Design deviations for all three vertical stopping sight distance deficiencies will be necessary. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-83 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Right-of-Way Proposed right-of-way acquisitions are the result of roadway widening and the conversion of the Lind Avenue SW Extension from private property to public right-of-way. Relinquishment of right-of-way as a result of the narrower East Valley Road footprint was not considered nor calculated. The following table lists the parcels and amounts of right-of-way required by the proposed alternative. The building size column indicates "no impact" if existing buildings or structures are not impacted by the proposed action. Addresses were obtained from King County's parcel viewer website and no attempt was made to correct that information. Table 36 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Land Use Parcel Number Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 3123059013 3123059161 3123059121 3123059151 3926800010 3123059097 3926800020 3123059033 3123059167 3123059166 3123059118 3926800030 3123059109 3123059114 3123059007 3123059079 3123059014 Right-Of-Way Requirements Address 18221 84th Ave S, Kent 18251 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 8621 S 180th St, Kent owner City of Kent 881 " Ave S Right of Way 4208 Lind Ave SW, Renton 8815S 180'" St, Kent 302 SW 43"' St, Renton 18111 E Valley Hwy S, Kent 8819 18oth St, Kent 8829 18oth St, Kent 18015 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 4201 East Valley Rd, Renton 18010 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 4242 East Valley Rd, Renton owner City of Renton, see www.metrokc.gov/gis/ mannortal/iMAP main. htm 9021 S 180th St, Kent 4124 East Valley Rd, Renton 7-84 Area Building Required Size (sfl (sfl 88,330 No Impact 530 No Impact 14,904 No Impact 15,264 No Impact 5,394 No Impact 3,663 No Impact 1,745 No Impact 714 No Impact 956 No Impact 929 No Impact 1,777 No Impact 2,956 No Impact 5,641 No Impact 38,740 10,000 692 No Impact 3,387 No Impact 59,369 No Impact Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 36 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Right-Of-Way Requirements (cont.) Land Use Parcel Number Commercial 3123059082 Commercial 3123059113 Commercial 3123059105 Commercial 3123059011 Commercial 8857670030 Commercial 3123059102 Commercial 3123059078 Commercial 3123059040 Commercial 3123059135 Commercial 3123059025 Commercial 3123059134 Commercial 7616800010 Commercial 3123059169 Commercial 3926800080 Commercial 3123059015 Commercial 3926800040 Traffic Analysis Arterial Operations Address 18230 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 18100 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 18020 East Valley Hwy S, Kent 4224 East Valley Rd, Renton owner Public Hosp. Distr #1 KC, 400 S 43"' St 305 S 43rd St, Renton 401 S 43rd St, Renton 430 Talbot Rd S, Renton 17930 Talbot Rd S, Renton 17916 Talbot Rd S, Renton 17900 Talbot Rd S, Renton 17820 Talbot Rd S, Renton see www.metrokc.gov/gis/ mannortal/iMAP main. him 4150 Lind Ave SW, Renton 18250 E Valley Hwy S, Kent 101 SW 41 st St, Renton Area Building Required Size lsfl lsfl 30,672 No Impact 3,485 No Impact 4,944 No Impact 1,624 No Impact 13,097 No Impact 2,019 No Impact 3,837 No Impact 2,530 No Impact 2,765 No Impact 501 No Impact 139 No Impact 130 No Impact 1,521 No Impact 1,024 No Impact 2,669 No Impact 2,395 No Impact In the AM peak period, the Additional On-Ramp alternative has only one intersection operating at LOS E and none at LOS F. In the PM peak period, the Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension has one at LOS E and one at LOS F. Please see Table 37. In the PM peak, the intersections of SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road and SW 43rd Street/Lind Avenue SW tend to have the worst intersection level of service for this alternative. The southbound and westbound movements at the SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road intersection operate at LOS F. With the Lind A venue SW Extension and additional on-ramp, the LOS at SW 41 st Street and East Valley PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-85 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 1. 2. 3. 4. 24. Road is improved to a D, as a result of the one-way operation. The Lind Avenue SW Extension provides significant improvements across alternatives. Please see Figure 30. Table 37 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Arterial Level of Service AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM (sec.) Delay LOS V/C (sec.) Delay LOS V/C Carr Road Corridor SW 43• St & Lind Ave SW 150 33.4 C 1.02 150 62.5 E 1.06 SW 43" St & East Valley Road 150 19.4 B 0.8 150 111.7 F 1.26 SW 43rd St & NB SR 167 On-ramp 150 38.5 D 0.98 150 19.8 B 0.82 SW 43rd St & Talbot Rd S 150 68.6 E 0.92 150 54.3 D 1.03 SW 41" St & East Valley Rd 150 39.3 D 0.33 150 53.8 D 0.95 Source: A.ATM, Tables 8 &. 9. Queuing The queues at SW 43rd Street/East Valley Road are significant enough in this alternative to affect the adjacent intersection of SW 41st Street/East Valley Road. There are no significant effects on freeway operation as a result of the queues for this alternative. Table 38 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Significant Queues AM Peak Direction Spillback Carr Rd/NB SR 167 NBL = 890' None Carr Rd/Talbot Rd S NBL = 670' None PM Peak Carr Rd/E Valley Rd SBL = 1350' *SB into SW 41,1 St/E Valley Rd * this spillback has 1he potential to impact the SB off-ramp operations, potentially creating spillback onto SR 167. Source: AATM, Table 15. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-86 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum -~ i~ :Iii i !ll In ~ ::r ';" ... .... t> ~ :ii i' l • i 'O '11 ::i a I:; I ! 0 :, .... I~ Q. .!! i l g, • ~ "-"- -~ ::, ~ -"' "' u .-----.. 24. J. ~ (515) ;I w ~ IXI 0:: ··---- AM Peak Hour 1. ""' I... '°1 L J-4e 1....36 _'g lJ.J ,J~26 JBJ"iu'ro 31J@-o ffl t.r.t 4 -'1!v-,...c ~ c--I-'-" a., D t r D t i'"i r o;t F ilr ... a 'O IN Notto Scale 1. ~o ..,. A s. ~ ~o ~ ....j.l. W28.in <( U) r-W 62J@~S1 t ,i '-. 60. ~Q .j :;@ v@ ,1 M " ~ :;c 24. 2. ::lo .j '-. 20 -18 ..... ®r. ~ u.. E"T ro <I'. J...112 -i '-' 1 r = 62 J©n ,J....4 :gw Cb E"""i"" t... '""' 14JQD\--A ~ """Ir· ~LL B"T t... ~I.I. 5. + ,, -mw ~8 ;:w ~aa + 9J~rA JI'-J .!.., • ..,. 108J .l..25 1 @,A 't' F-{fil),c A "T "'I r°" ,:!: w ',r ~ LL U) " w 44 J Approach Average Delay (SecondsNehicle) X Approach LOS @ Intersection Average O.lay (SecondsNehlcle) ~ J, 16 ' c· --PM Peak Hour .j ,._ -i ~.L ~ (!;_15) 69 J ~26 45 J~ 60 t..29 _g E"'\~-rc ~re 1sJ@-c - 1 o+ e-~ IN ' ,. ,i ,. Not to Scole -F ~w ""Ill 60. SI c -i 14J QB) •• ,I ic;u J • i::w ..i I... m 26. ~ 2. ~ Jt I -~1" =-" V'-=-'I F"T~-o 4. O:u J I '- J .J,..31 "-@,c '-. ' r mw low +.1..1 3J®·· • ..,. 'r i,w li'! 67J@~54 t .T t SE It E-Y I ,D .,: .!..125 ,.,---'--...:,1 ., .!.. ., ,. "' 63 J@ ~ 12J@ 5 ;zw ~ E-y . n ,-.u.. 8 ,. rA ..-"'\J+ + -ir ~Cl gJ~13 ti;LL A"T 48 .,.. :,!W 44 J Approach Average Delay (Seconds/Vehicle) X Approach LOS @ Intersection Average Delay (SecoridsNehicle) "'l (IQ. = ;,i "' = > .... §: = -· ...... fl> -· ;i g ~ ~ e. o 0 = = ' >~ "" ., "" i3 a "" ., ::i; "' -· i:r ... i::, i:r fl> t"" ;-=· '< p.. ., > = < p.. .. t"" = o; "' "' ~ l:"l "' ;-= ., s· = Freeway Operations Ramp junctions and mainline operations remain fairly consistent with the no- build operations. Figure 31 and Figure 32 illustrate year 2020 LOS for both the freeway and corridor intersections during the AM and PM peak periods. Structures and Retaining Walls The existing SR 167 overcrossing structure will require widening to accommodate the additional lanes on SW 43'd Street. Reconstruction is not required at this time although future WSDOT plans for SR 167 will ultimately require it. The Valley Medical Center emergency vehicle underpass will require lengthening to accommodate widening of SW 43'd Street. Retaining walls are proposed to mitigate right-of-way acqms11Ion needs. A conceptual level estimate ofretaining wall cost is provided in Appendix C. Conceptual Cost Opinion Right-of-way costs are based on King County assessed land and building values for 2003. The right-of-way subtotal includes land and building acquisition costs, but does not include business relocation costs. The Construction Cost subtotal includes a 20% contingency to account for the conceptual nature of the design that was translated into construction costs and l 0% mobilization costs. Miscellaneous Costs include Sales Tax at 8.80%, and Construction Engineering and Contingencies at 15%. A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for cost opinion details. Right-of-way Construction Cost (Grading/Drainage!Structures/Paving!Traffic!Utilities/Mob.) Design Engineering and Administration Miscellaneous (Sales Tax!Constr. Eng. & Cont.) Total Cost Opinion Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension $6,224,000 $15,532,000 $2,332,000 $3,902.000 $27,990,000 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7-88 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 31 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: [N Not to Scale S 212th St Source: AATM, Fig. 19. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF AM Level of Service I [ff~ I I I I " I '" C :El 7-89 SE 192nd St SE 20oth St --[QI ii ® Legend Carr Road Study Corridor Carr Road Study Area Limits Freeway LOS Intersection LOS '------------------------------ SE 1i6th St \Carr oal F I ·---• I I I .. w "' Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 32 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Notto Scale S 212th St Source: AATM, Fig. 20. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7 I I I I I E I., PM Level of Service I if m I I I -1! D Legend Carr Road Study Corridor -B Carr Road Study Area Limits ! ~ 11 Freeway LOS '® Intersection LOS ·---1 I I I '515)1 "--. w "' SE 200th S! 7-90 I I .. Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Benefit/Cost Analysis A benefit-cost analysis was performed using annualized time saving benefits and construction cost estimates over a 20-year period. The present worth values for benefits and costs were calculated using a 4% net discount rate and are expressed in year 2002 dollars. The 20-year period begins at the assumed 2007 year-of-opening. The benefit-cost calculation worksheets may be found in Appendix A. A summary of those calculations is shown in the table below. Table 39 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Net Discount Rate 4% PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Benefit-Cost Total Time Savings Benefit IYear 2002 $1 $ 36,478,054 7-91 Construction Cost Benefit/Cost (Year 2002 $) Ratio $ 27,990,000 1.30 Caff Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each screening category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings given to this and all other alternatives in the central corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Please see Figure 33. Meets Purpose and Need All build-alternatives meet the project's stated purpose and need. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 40 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Displacements • Total no. of displacements: 1 • No. of residences: O • No. of comm. structures: • No. of other structures: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 1 0 Socioeconomic Impacts Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts (schools, churches, Impacts hospitals) • Schools: None • No documented • Two potential historical/ and or business cultural sites. displacements • Churches: None • Area is fairly well-• Access impacts on developed. adjacent driveways affect up to 15 businesses • Hospitals: Would • High probability of • Potential loss of require small, linear extant historic parking stalls at 1 portion of Valley buildings. business Medical Center lot area. Would likely require minor reconfiguration of two driveways for continued access to Carr Road. • No recorded archaeological sites but located within the Duwamish floodplain & the marshes of Springbrook Creek that has documented ethnographic significance. • Probability is high that terraces (east of SR 167) may contain archaeological resources. 7-92 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Natural Environment Impacts Table 41 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Natural Environment Impacts Water Quality/ Wetlands Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Noise Air Quality Water Quantity Vegetation • Total impervious: • Greater impact to • Low potential to • 0-3 dbA increase •LOSE 688,400SF Wetland D (near affect ESA to Hospital due to Great Wall species & habitat proximity shopping mall, increase parcel# 3123059014) • No impact to • Greater impact to • Slight Wetlands E&F habitat at improvement in (along SR 167) Wetland D (near Air Quality over Great Wall NA due to Level shopping mall, of Service parcel# improvement 3123059014) • No impact to • No impact to Wetlands 1 N& 72 habttat at ( SW 41 " Street Wetland F (along intersection) SR 167) • Impacts Wetlands • Impacts habitat at A&B (along Lind Wetlands A&B Avenue SW) (along Lind Avenue SW) • Impacts Wetland • Impacts habitat at BB (along East Wetland BB Valley Highway) (along East Vallev Hiahwavl Transportation Impacts Table 42 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Average Timesavings • Time Savings per vehicle: AM = 26 sec saved PM= 16 sec saved PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Transportation Im pacts Queuing/Blocking • Queuing Penalty AM= 2,213 PM= 4 782 Total = 6,995 Safety Overall Operations • SB off-ramp queue • LOS: AM =C, B, D, spills back onto SR E, D, C (D) 167 mainline by: PM= E, F, B, AM= O', PM= 50' D, D, C (D) • Speed: AM= 17 MPH PM= 14 MPH 7-93 Caff Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Other Impacts Table 43 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Compatibility with Plans and Policies • Would meet mobility and concurrency objectives • Not directly related to transit • Would cost more than off-ramp only approach PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Other Impacts Benefit-Cost Costs Constructability • B/C: 1.30 • Total: $28.0M • No technical constraints • NPV: $8,595,000 • Construction: $19.4M • Probability of project • R/W: 7-94 being funded: Very unlikely $6.2M • Probability of acceptance by general public: Unlikely • Probability of acceptance by neighborhood: Very unlikely • Significant impact to traveling public during construction carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Selection Process Results The Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension was selected as the preferred build-alternative for the west corridor. As can be seen in Figure 33 its total score of 3.24 was gained by having the highest rating in the transportation impacts category and was supported by relatively strong ratings in the other categories. Table 44 Summary Alternative B/C Ratio Net Present Cost Value IB-Cl Additional Off-Ramp 1. 19 $6,230,633 $33.3M Additional Off-Ramp with Lind 1.0 -$610 $39.0M Avenue SW Extension Additional On-Ramp with Lind 1.30 $8,595,054 $28.0M Avenue SW Extension Preferred West Corridor Alternative The Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension was selected as the preferred build-alternative by its score in the Level 2 Screening process. It scored highest in the transportation impacts category and scored as well as the other alternatives in the other categories. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 7.95 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Alternative Description MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS al .. RATING z "' C .. 1 2 3 4 5 .. .. Least Effective/ Most Effective/ &. ~ Most Impact Least Impact :, "- i! :IE West Corridor 9 No Action, No Additional Improvements N 10 Additional Off-Ramp y 11 Add'I Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension y 12 Add'I On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension y Sample calculation: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 33 Level 2 Screening Results Environmental Impacts 25% Social and Natural Environment Economic Impacts Impacts .. _ C :i: .!!! .. 'i .. ::, !I ~ ~ -c ·a 1il :, .. Ii 8 0 en !l 1l C xi .. ~ C ..J .c .. :, .. .. . "' Q. 0 .. -~ E > .. I! .§ z, "' ~ .. .; :ell C .. .. .. .. :, " .. " ,2 .. :ra 'ii '6 ·o 0 .. C ~ i5. .. :, .. :, ~ z "' .c :, C 0 ~ ~ . !!! " ~ 'in C s In :, ~ -'C m j xi !l 0 i 'C " 0 .. .. .c .c Q. " ::c .. .5 ..!!-u: 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 1 5 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 2 5 4 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 4 4 1 3 3 3 4 2 (5+4+4+) + 3+3+3+4+2)'9 ~ 3.22 X 25% 0.8056 + 7-96 Transpo,tation Benefit 50% Transportation Impacts C 0 .. ~ en en C C .. -~ 32 Q. " 0 xi 0 I ~ E iii 0 ;:: 0, "' 'C C "' ~ .. '5 0 en u f! .. .. :, .; > 0 ~ <( .. 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 2 3 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 ()+2+2+3)'4 ~2,5 X 50% l.2500 - Implementability 25% --Other e===== .. ,!!! ,!,! 0 "- "' C .. ~ .. .; C 0 :s .. '.i ~ .l!! 0:: J!i " .c ii 0 2 0 -u .; I-'i C .. C z, m 0 u :s ii Q. E 0 u e===== ~ 1 1 5 5 2.28 ~ 3 3 3 2 2.95 ~ 3 3 2 2 3.24 ~ 3 3 3 1 2.68 (3+ 3+ 3+ I Y4 ~2.s x 25% + 6250 2.68 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum ChapterB Central Corridor (Talbot Road S to 106th Place SE) The central corridor section of Carr Road Improvement Project is defined as the section of Carr Road east of Talbot Road S up to and including the SR 515 (108th Avenue SE) intersection. However, as mentioned previously, the Carr Road/SR 515 and the 106th Place SE intersections are currently under study by a separate project (CIP 400698). For the purposes of this project, the study area of the central corridor section is defined as the section east of Talbot Road S up to the 106th Place SE intersection. Occasional references to the SR 515 intersection will be made in this memorandum to put perspective into this project's scope of study. The section of Carr Road between Talbot Road Sand 103rd Avenue SE is located within the City of Renton. From I 03'd Avenue SE east, Carr Road is located in unincorporated King County. Carr Road is the primary arterial connecting the residential areas of Fairwood and Soos Creek at the east end of the corridor with commercial, office, and light industrial land uses located at the west end (Green River Valley). SR 515 and Talbot Road Sare primary north-south arterials crossing Carr Road east of SR 167. The primary land uses along the central corridor are commercial and residential. The Valley Medical Center and related medical offices are concentrated near the Talbot Road S intersection. Multi-family residential developments are between Mill Ave S and 106th Place SE, and stand-alone retail and shopping center development is located at SR 515. Existing Conditions Roadway Design Carr Road is classified as a principal arterial. The posted speed limit throughout the Carr Road central corridor is 35 mph. The design speed per King County standards is 45 mph. The central corridor area of Carr Road slopes uphill from west to east with the steepest grades at 9% and 10%. The existing five-and six-lane roadway sections include curb and gutter with sidewalk. The existing right-of-way limits are typically offset 20 feet from the existing back of sidewalk. Lane Configuration Carr Road maintains a four-lane section between Talbot Road S and 106th Place SE, with localized widening to provide left-tum pockets at Talbot Road S, 98th Avenue SE (Smithers Avenue S), and 106th Place SE. Carr Road becomes a five-lane road east of 1061 h Place SE. The center lane alternates from left-tum pockets at intersections to a center left-tum lane mid-block. Signalized intersections are relocated along Carr Road at Talbot Road S, 98th Avenue SE, 106th Place SE, and SR 515. A separate eastbound right-tum pocket is provided at Talbot Road S. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-1 ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Traffic Conditions Corridor and Intersections Figure 34 and Figure 35 present intersection LOS for the Carr Road Corridor and study area. AM Peak Hour Analysis of traffic operations during the AM peak reveals one primary area of congestion in the study corridor centered on the SR 515/Carr Road intersection. As shown in Figure 34, the SE Carr Road/SR 515 (I 08th Avenue SE) intersection operates at a marginal LOS (E). Other study corridor intersections operate at good levels of service (C or better) during the AM peak. The arterial has an overall corridor LOS of B in the eastbound direction, and C in the westbound direction, with average arterial speeds of21 mph eastbound and 15 mph westbound. PM Peak Hour Similar to the AM Peak, PM Peak traffic analysis revealed one primary area of congestion centered on the SR 515/SE Carr Road intersection. As shown in Figure 35, the SE Carr Road and SR 515 (108th Avenue SE) intersection operates at a marginal LOS (E) for the PM peak hour. The arterial has an overall corridor LOS of C in both directions, with average arterial speeds of 14 mph eastbound and 15 mph westbound. Accident History A detailed accident history for the vicinity of Carr Road and SR 515 is presented in Entranco 's Benson Road SE (SR 515) at Carr Road Intersection Technical Memorandum No. 1, Existing Conditions Report (January 20, 2000). According to the referenced report, Carr Road/SR 515 was identified as a High Accident location (HAL) by WSDOT in 1998, and a High Accident Roadway Segment (HARS) by King County in 1999. Accident data for the entire Carr Road corridor was also collected. Figure 36 summarizes this data. Accidents on the central corridor have been particularly concentrated around the SE Carr Road/SR 515 intersection. A higher number of accidents than other sections of the corridor have been recorded at the Talbot Rd SISE Carr Rd intersection (and the segment to the east of the intersection). As expected, accidents on the corridor tend to be congregated at high volume locations, and intersections with significant crossing volumes. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-2 Catt Raad fmpro1tement Project Design Memorandum Figure 34 Existing AM Peak Hour Level of Service Notto Scale S 212!h St Source: ECTR, Fig. 8 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF I I IJ..3 SE 180tt>St A SE 200th St Legend Carr Road Study Corridor -• Carr Road Study Area limits IQ][§ F,..wayLOS @ Intersection LOS ' I E I ·---• I I I 8th St .. carr Road lmpro11ement Project Design Memorandum Notto Scale S 212th St Source: ECTR, Fig.9 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 35 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service ----- 8-4 --IQ][§ ® Legend Carr Road Study Corridor Carr Road Study Area Limits Freeway LOS Intersection LOS I 1--- 1 I I I - Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum I? i :ii ~1 !ll VI ! ::: 'i" "' i :ii i' ! '" ;, ... i ! a fl ; I 0 " ii1 .. ::a~ Q, ,5! § t I g, ~ i'i _,;j t ~ i r, I l1fill Corridor 4-Year Average Annual Accident History, 1997-2000 (Total Accidents/Injury Accidents) @ Intersection 4-Year Average Annual Accident History, 1997-2000 (Total Accidents/Injury Accidents) ~ ~ SW 43¢4r{~ ~L ,./.._ (/) "' .. I~ :x ~! " SE 180th St .. > <( ~ 0 ~ IN f" t ., ~ a: ,. a ..., = ll<i" Notto Scale ------' 214"--------· = "' ., 8" ,. w V, .. > <( "" ~i Sources: King County City of Renlon WSDOT ---"' °' (;; ("') ~,. ..... = ' ... N., <::> IO =-Note: Only a partial his1ory C n of accidents is presented. Complete > ~ da!a for all corridor inlersections ~ ::::!. and segments was no1 available. ""'I Q,, IO Q "' ., ,. .. > = = = !::. 1.l' ... il Existing Traffic Conditions Summary In general, the corridor functions acceptably throughout its central portion. The Carr Road/SR 515 ( 108th Ave SE) intersection exhibits the poorest level-of-service. At the Carr Road/SR 5 I 5 intersection, the proximity of 106th Pl SE complicates traffic movements (particularly for left turning vehicles on eastbound Carr Road), and limits available storage length. Details of the existing condition traffic analysis and associated data can be found in the Existing Conditions Traffic Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff, September 20, 2002). Natural Environment A preliminary geotechnical investigation was performed for this project to aid in the development and evaluation of alternatives. The Preliminary Geotechnical llfemorandum, May 2001, documented the findings of that investigation. The central corridor alignments are not within an area designated as a JOO-year flood plain. No landslide hazard areas, seismic hazards or coal mine hazards are identified on the SAO map within the central area. Wetlands and Streams In addition to the preliminary geotechnical investigation, wetland and other natural environment discipline reports are being prepared for this project. The Wetland Special Study Report, September 30, 2003, documents the results of the field investigations that have been performed. Wetlands have been identified within the project corridor using National Wetland Inventory (NW!) and King County Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) maps as well as through field reconnaissance by project team biologists. Within the central corridor area, the NW! map identifies wetlands associated with Panther Creek and its tributaries. Wetlands are also located southwest of the Panther Creek crossing of Carr Road. Panther Creek crosses Carr Road approximately 300 feet east of the Smithers Avenue S/98th Avenue SE intersection with Carr Road. The SAO map identifies a wetland at the northwest comer of the intersection of Carr Road and Mill Avenue S. Erosion Hazard There a two erosion hazard areas identified within the central corridor. The first is associated with the Panther Creek ravine with slopes of approximately 40 to 60 percent and is identified on the SAO map. The second area is the ravine on the north side of Carr Road east of Mill Avenue S associated with the Panther Creek tributary that crosses Carr Road near the 105th Place SE intersection. The second erosion hazard area is not shown on the SAO map but is considered due to its 60 percent slope. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-6 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Steep Slope Hazard Steep slope hazards, slopes with an inclination greater than 40 percent and a vertical change greater than 20 feet, can be found in the central corridor area. Two of these slopes are associated with the ravines created by Panther Creek and its tributary. The other steep slope is located along the south side of Carr Road between Mill A venue S and 105 1h Place SE. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-7 Ca" Road lmpro11ement Project Design Memorandum First Level Screening Process Initial List of Alternatives This project examined central corridor alignment alternatives between Talbot Road S and I 06th Place SE (-Sta 56+00). The segment of Carr Road between 106th Place SE and SR 515 (I 08'h Ave SE) is part of the SR 515/SE Carr Road intersection improvements project (CIP 400698) and is not included in this study. Six design alternatives were initially considered and evaluated under the First Level Screening Process (See Chapter 5 for additional information) to address capacity issues along the central corridor. They are: C-1 No Action C-2 Additional GP Lane C-3 EB Additional (Climbing) Lane C-4 HOV Lanes C-5 Trans it Queue Jumps C-6 Two Way Left Turn Lane at Mill Avenue S Below are descriptions of the alternatives along with discussion of the impacts, implementability, and benefits of each initial alternative. Figure 40 provides a summary of the alternatives and their respective rating in each category as well as its overall rating. C-1 No Action This alternative maintains the existing configuration on the central corridor. Please see figure 37 for the existing configuration of the central corridor. Meets Purpose and Need: No. Impacts: This alternative did not impact any sensitive land uses, wetlands or fish habitat nor did it require any additional right-of-way. Implementability: The No Action alternative does not incur any cost and is not likely to draw public objection. However, it does not fulfill any goals of the published plans and policies. Benefits: This alternative does not address any identified deficiencies however, since there are few operational deficiencies within the central corridor study area, it scores well under traffic operations. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-8 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum C-2 Additional GP Lane This alternative adds a through lane in each direction on Carr Road, creating a 6/7 lane arterial. Please see Figure 38 for the proposed alternative's configuration. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative was not thought to impact any sensitive land uses but does require significant right-of-way needs and is likely to impact identified wetlands and Panther Creek. Implementability: Due to the relatively high cost and likely negative public reaction, this alternative scored poorly in cost and constructability. The additional general purpose lanes did little to fulfill comprehensive plan goals. Benefits: The additional lanes improved traffic operations but did not address the perceived need to accommodate heavy (slow) vehicles traveling uphill. C-3 EB Additional (Climbing) Lane This alternative adds a through lane in the eastbound direction to create a third climbing lane uphill. The lane would start at Talbot Road S, and continue eastbound, tying in with the SE Carr Rd/SR 515 improvements. Please see Figure 39 for the proposed alternative's configuration. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative does not impact sensitive land uses and scores better than the Additional GP Lane in right-of-way needs and Panther Creek and wetland impact. Implementability: This alternative was thought to best address concurrency needs by promoting mobility in the eastbound direction with a cost effective solution. Cost was relatively high and public acceptance was thought to be less than overwhelming resulting in an average score for this category. Benefits: The climbing lane improves traffic operations and does so by providing better mobility for heavy vehicles. C-4 HOV lanes This alternative adds an arterial HOV lane in each direction. The lane could be reserved for HOV use during peak-periods only or all day. Inside or outside placement could be explored. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative is not likely to impact sensitive land uses but will require right-of-way and therefore likely impact Panther Creek and identified wetlands. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-9 carr Road lmprovament Project Design Memorandum Implementability: HOV lanes address some plan goals but due to low HOV participation on the corridor is not likely to generate much support. Along with relatively high cost, this alternative did not rate well in this category. Benefits: HOV lanes do little to address the identified deficiencies but were thought to be able to somewhat improve traffic operations. C-5 Transit Queue Jump This alternative adds transit queue jumps on Carr Road at 98th Ave SE and I 06th Pl SE. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: Transit queue jumps will not impact sensitive land uses and will require only minimal right-of-way. Therefore, it is not likely to cause much impact to Panther Creek or the wetlands. Implementability: Transit queue jumps may promote transit use with relatively little cost and thus is compatible with the comprehensive plans. Transit queue jumps require relatively little right-of-way and is likely to not generate much public opposition. This resulted in this alternative scoring well in this category. Benefits: The transit queue jumps do not address the central corridor deficiencies but was thought to improve traffic operation at the intersections. C-6 Two-way Left Turn Lane at Mill Avenue S This alternative adds a two-way center left tum lane on Carr Road in the vicinity of Mill Ave S to accommodate turns to and from Mill Ave Sand the school on the south side of Carr Road. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative's changes are narrowly focused and are likely to generate only minimal impact to nearby wetlands. Implementability: This alternative does little to satisfy comprehensive plan goals but is relatively inexpensive and will likely generate little opposition. Benefits: The two-way left tum lane does not correct any deficiencies but will improve the Mill A venue S traffic operation. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-10 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Q z • • • j ' ; • • ' § = • 1 I ! kf ~ -"=~--, :: :;__ I I • I First Level Screening Results One build-alternative, C-3 Eastbound Additional (Climbing) Lane had the highest score of 3.5. Alternative W-1 No Action was second with 3.4. The high score for the No Action alternative is not all surprising considering that the central corridor, excluding the SR 515/SE Carr Road intersection, did not have many operational deficiencies. The Eastbound Additional (Climbing) Lane alternative, along with the No Action alternative, was carried into the next phase for more detailed, quantitative evaluation and screening. Please see Figure 40 for a summary of the first level screening results. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-17 Caff Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 40 First Level Screening Results Environmental and Transportation Impacts MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS RATING 0 Least Effective/ Most Impact 0 • Most Effective/ Least Impact Alternative Description Central Corridor (Talbot -SR 515) C-4 C-5 C-<l HOV lanes Trans~ Queue Jump Two way left turn lane @ Mill Avenue S ,::, .. .. z ,::, C: .. .. .. 0 C. ~ ::, c.. l!l .. .. :!: y N y Impacts (25%) ,,,_ .. .!!l "' .. ::J :!: "' ,::, C. u C: ., .. 0 .. -.c: C. ... .E > .. :ei >, .. ., " ;: C: ~ a, ::, ' ., .c: -0 " 0 -. .!. l!l .!!l .c: "' " 0 ii: .. 0 C. .c: E iil -- • 0 • • () For sample calculation of total score, see Figure 14. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-18 C: 0 ~ ,l!l .. "' a, > a, ~ :!i §: .. .. ·;: .. .c: "' ii: 0 () Implementability Benefit (25%) (50%) "' .!!! "' .!1 .. 0 ·;:; c.. C: .. ,::, ·;:; C: "' "' .. f "' C: .. 0 0 C: ~ .. .c ,::, .. l!l .. .. ~ a: -.. "' .. " "' C. -.c: 0 ::, ~ 0 0 -0 ~ C: I-"i -a, .. " C: :!:! ii: ~ 0 "' .. u ~ a, I-:.c ., ~ ., .. e C. ,::, E ,::, 0 <( 0 () 0 0 () 2.3 () () 0 3.1 0 3.1 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Second Level Screening Process 1be No-Action and the EB Additional (Climbing) Lane selected from the First Level Screening process were then subjected to a more detailed, quantitative evaluation. The build-alternative was subsequently renamed the EB Additional Lane to reflect the desire not to establish additional lane solely as a truck climbing lane. Several alignments were developed for the Eastbound Additional Lane alternative to address geometric deficiencies located in this section of the corridor. Although these alignments are in reality variations of the build-alternative selected in the First Level Screening process, they have been designated as alternatives in order to subject them to the same selection process as the alternatives in other sections of the corridor. The No-Action and the resulting four build-alternatives selected from the First Level Screening process were then subjected to a second, more detailed, quantitative evaluation. Please see Chapter 5 for a detailed description of the criteria and their measures of effectiveness. The following data was gathered to assist in the second level screening evaluation: No-Action Roadway Design Roadway Geometry The posted speed limit throughout the Carr Road central corridor is 35 mph. The design speed per King County standards is 45 mph. The existing four-lane roadway section includes curb and gutter with sidewalk on both sides. The existing right-of-way limits are typically offset 20 feet from the existing back of sidewalk. The Carr Road alignment follows an uphill grade eastbound from Talbot Road S to SR 515, with the steepest portion located between Talbot Road S and 106th Place SE (a 10% grade). Several private and commercial driveway approaches are located throughout the central corridor. In most cases, the entering sight distances for the driveway approaches are limited by the roadway's horizontal curvature and several crest vertical curves. The following tables summarize the existing roadway design elements and values along with the King County design requirements. The following tables indicate Carr Road's existing design deficiencies and their locations. The existing data is based on information obtained from Carr Road construction plans and field observations. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-19 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 45 Existing Horizontal Curvatures and Superelevation Location Required• Existing Notes -STA 20+90 656 feet min. Curvature: 6% superelev. Non-standard 1 radius, 6% 555 feet superelev. -STA27+40 656 feet min. Curvature: 6% superelev. Non-standard 2 radius, 6% 568 feet superelev. -STA 31+20 5% superelev. Curvature: 4% superelev. Non-standard 3 1432 feet -STA 39+80 656 feet min. Curvature: 6% superelev. Non-standard 4 radius, 6% 573 feet superelev. -STA 52+40 4% superelev. Curvature: 4% superelev. Meets 5 1921 feet Standard *(1993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1.for 45 mph design speed and WSDOT DM Fig. 640- 11 b, February 2002) Table 46 Existing Grade Location Maximum* Existing Notes 1 -STA 36+00 to 45+50 9% 10% Non- standard *(1993 King. County Road Standards, Section 2. 02) Typical Roadway Sections The existing central corridor section consists of two through I I-foot lanes in each direction. The roadway widens locally at the Talbot Road S, 98th Avenue SE (Smithers Avenue S), I 05th Place SE, and l061h Place SE intersections. Curb, gutter and five-foot sidewalks are located on both sides of the road. Sight Distance Sight distance on the existing alignment is hampered by both horizontal and vertical curves. The following tables summarize the stopping sight distances that are available at the various curve locations. The Entering Sight Distance table also provides information on the sight distances available at the many intersections and driveways found in the central corridor. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-20 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 47 Existing Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance Location Required* Existing Notes 1 -STA20+90 400 feet 250 feet Non-standard 2 -STA 27+40 400 feet 250 feet Non-standard 3 -STA 31+20 440 feet 400 feet Non-standard 4 -STA 39+80 470 feet 250 feet Non-standard 5 -STA 52+40 440 feet 460 feet Meets standard *(1993 Kmg County Road Standards Table 2. I) Table 48 Existing Vertical Stopping Sight Distance Location Required• Existing Notes 1 -STA20+00 -445 feet 200 feet Non-standard, crest 2 -STA24+00 -435 feet 449 feet Meets standard, sag 3 -STA 30+00 -455 feet >>455 feet Meets standard, sag 4 -STA 35+00 -495 feet 555 feet Meets standard, sag 5 -STA47+50 -590 feet 423 feet Non-standard, crest 6 -STA 51+50 -545 feet 450 feet Non-standard, crest 7 -STA 55+00 -455 feet >>455 feet Meets standard, sag *(1993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1,for 45 mph design speed & Section 2.12) Table 49 Existing Entering Sight Distances Location Required* Meets Right Turn Left Required? Turn 1 -STA 20+00, Lt 620 feet No 170 feet 360 feet North side driveway, east of Talbot Rd S 2 -STA 20+90, Rt 620 feet No 90 feet >620 feet South side driveway PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-21 Can Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 49 Existing Entering Sight Distances (cont.) Location 3 -STA 21+00, Rt South side driveway 4 -STA 22+00, Rt South side driveway, 5 -STA 27+50, Lt (98'" Ave SE) 6 -STA 27 +50, Rt (Smithers Ave S) 7 -STA 31+50, Lt North side (Walton Tires) drivewav 8 -STA 32+50, Lt North side driveway 9 -STA 34+00, Rt South side (new house) driveway 10 -STA 37+50, Rt South side (red barn) driveway 11 -STA 38+50, Lt North side (white house} drivewav 12 -STA 40+50, Rt South side (New Horizon School) drivewav 13 -STA 42+00, Rt (Mill Ave S) 14 -STA 42+00, Lt 103"' Ave SE 15 -STA 46+00, Rt Southside driveway 16 -STA 50+50, Rt South side (KFC) driveway 17 -STA 52+50, Lt North side (Premiere Mortgage) drivewav 18 -STA 53+00, Rt 105'" PL SE 19 -STA 53+50, Lt North side (Allstate) drivewav 20 -STA 54+50, Rt South side (Tesoro gas station) drivewav 21 -STA 56+00, Lt north leg 106'" Pl SE PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Required* 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 620 feet 8-22 Meets Right Turn Left Required? Turn No 420 feet >620 feet Yes >620 feet NIA right turn only Yes >620 feet NIA signalized intersection No 140 feet NIA Signalized signalized intersection intersection No >620 feet 540 feet No 545 feet 610 feet No 300 feet 560 feet No 600 feet 430 feet No 200 feet 350 feet Yes 620 feet >620 feet No 480 feet 595 feet No 470 feet 180 feet No >620 feet 370 feet No 180 feet NIA right turn only Yes >620 feet >620 feet No 310 feet 480 feet Yes >620 feet >620 feet No 250 feet 480 feet No 530 feet N/A signalized intersection Can Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 49 Existing Entering Sight Distances (cont.) Location Required* Meets Right Turn Left Required? Turn 22 -STA 56+00, Rt 620 feet No 330 feet NIA south leg 106'" Pl SE signalized (Shonnina Center) intersection *(1993 Kmg County Road Standards Table 2. I.for 45 mph design speed) Design Deviations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The following table lists the design deviations associated with the No Action alternative. Annotations have been made to help identify deviations that may be mitigated. Table 50 Existing Design Deviations Location Design Standard Notes -STA 20+00, Lt Entering Sight Distance, LT: Signalized intersection North side driveway LT and RT (Talbot Rd S) within 250 feet -STA 20+90, Rt Entering Sight Distance, RT: Signalized intersection South side driveway RT (Talbot Rd S) within 400 feet -STA 21+00, Rt Entering Sight Distance, RT: Signalized intersection South side driveway RT (Talbot Rd S) within 400 feet -STA 27+50, Rt Entering Sight Distance, No Right Turn on Red@ (Smithers Ave S) RT signalized intersection -STA 31+50, Lt Entering Sight Distance, North side (Walton Tires) LT driveway -STA 32+50, Lt Entering Sight Distance, North side (Abandoned RTandLT House) driveway -STA 34+00, Rt Entering Sight Distance, South side (new house) RT and LT driveway -STA 37+50, Rt Entering Sight Distance, LT: 610+ feet possible with South side (red barn) RT and LT sight line easement driveway -STA 38+50, Lt Entering Sight Distance, LT >620 feet possible by North side (white house) RT and LT trimming vegetation within drivewav property -STA 42+00, Rt Entering Sight Distance, (Mill Ave S) RT and LT PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-23 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 50 Existing Design Deviations (cont.) Location 11 -STA 42+00, Lt 103"' Ave SE 12 -STA 46+00, Rt South side driveway 13 -STA 50+50, Rt South side (KFC) driveway 14 -STA 53+00, Rt 105"' Pl SE 15 -STA 54+50, Rt South side (Tesoro gas station) driveway 16 -STA 56+00, Lt north leg 106'" Pl SE 17 -STA 56+00, Rt south leg 1061h Pl SE (Shoppina Center) 18 -STA20+92 19 -STA 27+43 20 -STA39+84 21 -STA20+90 22 -STA 27+40 23 -STA 31+20 24 -STA 39+80 25 -ST A 36+00 to 45+50 26 -STA20+00 27 -STA 47+50 28 -STA51+50 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Design Standard Notes Entering Sight Distance, LT: 460 feet possible with RTandLT sight line easement Entering Sight Distance, LT Entering Sight Distance, Right tum only RT Entering Sight Distance, LT: Signalized intersection RT and LT (106"') within 350 feet Entering Sight Distance, RT: Relocate Tesoro sign RT and LT LT: Signalized intersection (106"') within 200 feet Entering Sight Distance, Signalized intersection RT Entering Sight Distance, Signalized intersection RT Horizontal Curvature and Superelevation Horizontal Curvature and Superelevation Horizontal Curvature and S uperelevation Horizontal Stopping 21-foot sight line easement Sight Distance required; Mitigate with advance signal beacon? Horizontal Stopping 21-foot sight line easement Sight Distance required Horizontal Stopping 1-foot sight line easement Sight Distance required Horizontal Stopping 33-foot sight line easement Sight Distance required Grade Vertical Stopping Sight Distance -Crest Vertical Stopping Sight Distance -Crest Vertical Stopping Sight Distance -Crest 8-24 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Traffic Analysis No Action Volume Forecasting The first step undertaken to develop alternatives was to perform traffic volume forecasts for the no-build condition. The forecasted volumes could then be analyzed to determine the possible causes and solutions to the congestion problems on the corridor. Traffic forecasts for the design year 2020 PM peak period were provided by Rao Associates and were developed from the City of Renton's travel forecasting model which is consistent with the PSRC model. 2020 AM no-build volumes were derived manually from the 2020 PM volumes by applying the PM growth factor, between 2000 and 2020 volumes, to the opposing movements at each intersection. This was done to capture the directional differences in growth patterns that shift between the AM and PM peaks. However, due to the complexity of the network in the vicinity of the SR I 67 interchange, significant movement-specific adjustments were necessary The final step in developing the AM volumes compared results with a version of the 2020 PSRC AM Peak Period model. Some additional manual adjustments were made based on this review. Arterial Operations Operational analysis of the arterial was performed using Synchro. Analysis of signalized intersections within the study area utilized Synchro's implementation of the 2000 HCM method for the calculation of Level of Service (LOS), average vehicle delay and volume-to-capacity (V /C) ratio. LOS is a standard delay-based measure of traffic operating conditions, which grades traffic conditions on a scale of "A" to "F." LOS A represents free-flow conditions, while LOS F represents "breakdown" conditions on a roadway. The level of service that may be considered acceptable is variable and highly dependant on local conditions and roadway function, though generally LOS D or higher is considered acceptable, while LOS E indicates highly congested, near breakdown conditions. It should be noted that the Synchro HCM Signals calculation does not allow for consideration of right turns on red, thus resulting in significantly degraded LOS for movements that have high volumes of right-on-red movements. In cases with exclusive right tum lanes and high right turning volumes, the difference can be significant. These situations were identified and compensated for in the development of proposed solutions. An arterial analysis, based on the 2000 HCM Chapter I I procedures, was also prepared for the Carr Road corridor to give a general sense of the overall corridor performance in terms of corridor-wide LOS and average speed. The unsignalized intersection at Carr Road and Mill Avenue S was analyzed using Synchro's implementation of the 2000 HCM Chapter 17 procedures for unsignalized PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-25 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 5 6 7 8 intersections. Details and software output data can be found in the Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum (Parsons Brinckerhoff, October 6, 2003). Table 51 presents the level of service, average vehicle delay and V/C ratios for each intersection within the study area for both AM and PM peak periods. Each intersection within the study corridor is further detailed in Figure 41 and presents average vehicle delay and LOS by intersection approach to specifically identify the most congested direction of travel. The intersection of Mill Avenue Sand SE Carr Road was assumed to be signalized by the year 2020. Table 51 No Action: Arterial LOS AM Peak PM Peak Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM Intersection (sec.) Delay LOS VIC (sec.) Delay LOS VIC Carr Road Corridor SE Carr Rd & 98• Ave SE 150 6.2 A 0.66 150 16.4 B 0.96 SE Carr Rd & Mill Ave S 150 82.9 F 0.84 150 43.7 D 0.98 SE Carr Rd & 106• Pl SE 150 18.4 B 0.58 150 28.4 C 0.94 SE Carr Rd & SR 515 150 52 D 0.98 150 64.4 E 0.99 Source: AATM, Tables 23 & 24. There is one intersection within the central corridor that is consistently at LOS F in both the AM peak period and the PM peak period: Carr Road/SR 515. The intersection of Carr Road/SR 515 is addressed in the Benson Road SE (SR 5 I 5) and SE Carr Road Intersection project (CIP 400698). Calculations indicate that the intersection of Carr Road/Mill A venue S appears to operate at LOS F in the AM peak. This is a result of the Synchro's HCM calculation not accounting for right-tum-on-reds. Based on Synchro's methodology for calculating average delay and LOS, this intersection actually operates at LOS A in the AM peak period and LOS B in the PM peak period. For evaluation purposes this intersection will not be treated as operating at LOS F. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-26 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Ill : :!! :II :a: Ill ~o "' :a: :II Ill ~ ~ z "" t> :i ~ i' ~ !!!.j I a r1 .... ! 1 ti· :I !l r i::. ~ 50. 24. ,. i .s·· 15.~.. AM Peak Hour :!m go ti_ (. ) I -1'--···-l cJiJL12 43L@.;:.s2 39J@;.:;1 ~ tu 1;-------N --· r B D t E o-~ (J) ·:.O • ~ ;1 ~ I\ 1 :: ! 'i;, 8 . 0 SE 176th St (Carr Road) F Not to Sc':"'_ ' -·· $ . p:: . ', ..... Eli /rr "--8. :\ C \,.....__~ 11 ; tP. (F( -,, ..jl.. ~26 ..... ·-J It 1 ·· 1. S6f~ L31 a, r-w ~ b: --1---------· ,,., ~,~43J::/.;t/~ nl'loadl SECarrRoad\ . lo~ E,\/~rc.;, -jl..L118 ~-C C D E SE -j l. '1 I, .c 65 J@,-0 / ~6f/ / r ,. Ill 1eJ(i_BJ~ ! :;:,w ;,; E, ;;F ,-----, ,----~--, . .-5 r-+u.. B + t-~ LL 60. ~ 1. ,. < · fll w '1 r - ,nw ~w 3w ,-..m + J,,.--;---_.1...7 <c»w -1 '--1 '--1 1-IJ l. .L 4 ,11J.1r A ~ '-r,; J J .L 2 Jr.,-; • A• , 2sJ@ 61~@_.r::B ._Q 30_@:::17 74_rf7f' 18 A-r'-6.:9rA ~ I c+ El rA ct · rs e 1 ~rs ~r ~w i f i f I \ff \ r -w 44 ..J Approach Average Deley (SecondsNehicle) ~c ~u :;;:w &J:U.. ,._ X ApproacllLOS -@ Intersection Average Delay (SecondsNehicle) 50. 24 3 i , -·,~-PM Peak Hour ::>mJ . ~~ ' ~ l-~15) -jl. -,.. l @j) L 20 49 L@l) ..'.:::58 17 J (E]);.:~2 ~ iM 1* -----N r a ot e 8 -f-.". ,(I ~ l ~ ~ I'. 1 ~ ! f\\ _ C E SE 176th St{Carr Road) F_;---~:ole _____ _ ~--J ] '\ Ell ~ "--,. $ w \,.....__~ ~ J ~ ro{ i I\ ~ ~ ~ 26. :J •-ct 1 \ 'l 7. N 6QJ@~54 ~ ]LL ·----1----------. ~,,43' .>t IC rr !Wad.I SE Carr Road . I"~ E• · rD « "'4.L120 ---0 E ·. C D SE -jl. -i!r £ 66J@ /.• Yef6'i//T • 'I' 1sJ@l¢:! :,:w f E,"_,{F r,----,.---~C...., ~<~-~-f S r-LL 8+'" r-Ll,,I 60. 1, 2 4 . 1.1 + '1 f-~ ~C lif;tu. . !I:,.,_ , f3w lw J ..i..10 lt:ILL -1 l. -1 I. '' ., I I. .,-. .L 17 ®ire ~ L J~,,-J .L J.....,; 12 B, 17J@ 63 J '52......:=9 C 101 ,,,~43 32 ,-,.a,, 34 14 '1'Yr• 't-a+ . E-=:;;~-rA F-,J~rrD C-~+C B""1" t... inw I 1 • ' .,, ~ '"2._ u ), [; '""'\ f ~ i r ~ w 44 .J Approach Average Delay (Second&Nehicle) <',I <',I ~ LL ~ LL.. X Approach LOS (@ lnlersectlon Average Delay (SecoridsNehlcle) "'l ~-= ;;i .... ... z 0 ~ -::;· = > "O "O cl "' " ::- 1:1 " ~ "' = 0. t"' 0 00 Queuing Queuing issues are identified in both the eastbound and westbound directions for the no-build scenarios at the intersections of SE Carr Road/98th A venue SE, SE Carr Road/103'd Avenue SE and SE Carr Road/106th Place SE. Queues for the no-build alternative are presented in Table 52. The eastbound queues for no-build are significant enough to affect the adjacent intersections as seen in Table 53. Table 52 No Action: 95th Percentile Queue (Ft) Intersection AM Peak Hour Carr Rd & 98• Ave S Carr Rd & 103" Ave SE Carr Rd & 106" Pl SE PM Peak Hour Carr Rd & 98• Ave S Carr Rd & 103'' Ave SE Carr Rd & 106" Pl SE Eastbound Left Thru m1 36 m51 G m65 239 m4 m1508 I m197 ~ m21 645 Westbound Rt Left Thru Rt ml 114 m21 I ZJQ I m94 68 m156 32 m18 802 m157 m57 UndeOined Queue on mainline (through movements) exceeds 500 feet. ~ -Queue exceeds available storage length by less than 100 feel. jsold l!aliq -Queue exceeds available storage length by more than 100 feet m -Queue metered by upstream signal. Source: AATM. Table 25. Northbound Southbound Left Thru Rt Left Thru Rt 28 149 34 24 0 G 53 -G 49 128 72 95 34 0 G 230 G 88 Table 53 No Action: Significant Queues PM Peak Carr Rd/98111 Ave S Carr Rd/103rd Ave SE Source: AATM, Table 28. Accident History Direction EBT = 1510' EBT= 1410' Spillback EB into Carr Rd/Talbot Rd S EB into Carr Rd/98th Ave S The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) identified the intersection of Carr Road and SR 515 as a High Accident location (HAL) in 1998, and King County identified it as a High Accident Roadway Segment (HARS) in 1999. The accident history for the central corridor from 1997 through 2000 was obtained from WSDOT, King County, and the City of Renton. The table below shows the number and type of collisions that have occurred at intersections PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-28 Carr Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum located within the central corridor during this period. Specific details identifying the cause and circumstance for each collision occurrence are not available. For this study, it was assumed that modifications to the existing horizontal alignment would potentially reduce the occurrence of these collisions. The average rate shown in the table below is the total number of each type of collision divided by the four-year time period. The average rate is used in the benefit-cost analysis developed for the alternatives, which are assumed to provide safety improvements. For more detail, see the Benefit/Cost section included in the discussion of each alternative. Table 54 Accident History Data for Central Corridor Collision Type Number Time Period in Years Fatality 1 4 Disabling Injury 0 4 Evident Injury 71 4 Possible Injury 0 4 Property Damage Only 73 4 *(References: City of Renton, Kmg County and WSDOI: 1997-2000) Source: £CTR, Appendix C Structures and Retaining Walls = = = = = Average Rate (No./ Year) 0.25 0.00 17.75 0.00 18.25 There are no bridges or underpasses located in the central corridor. Due to the sloping terrain in this part of the project corridor, there are several retaining walls adjacent to the roadway located on private property. Conceptual Cost Opinion There is no construction cost associated with the No Action alternative. Benefit/Cost Benefit/Cost analysis is normally performed on the build-alternatives to assess their cost effectiveness. Construction (and other related type) and maintenance cost are typically used for the cost component. Benefits, usually in terms of travel time savings or accident cost reduction, are translated and quantified into dollars of savings to provide a common reference. The No Action alternative does not generate benefit as defined above and was therefore excluded from comparison in this category. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-29 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each screening category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings given to this and all other alternatives in the west corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Please see Figure 54. Meets Purpose and Need The No Action alternative does not meet the project's stated purpose and need. It was carried into this final level of screening to satisfy environmental documentation requirements. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 55 Central Corridor No Action: Socioeconomic Im pacts Impacts to Sensitive Displacements Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts (schools, churches, Impacts hosoitalsl • None • None • None • None Natural Environment Impacts Water Quality/ Water Quantity • No additional impervious surface PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Table 56 Central Corridor No Action: Natural Environment Impacts Wetlands Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Vegetation • None • None 8-30 Noise Air Quality • No increase in • LOS D proximity Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Transportation Impacts Table 57 Central Corridor No Action: Transportation Impacts Average Timesavings Queuing/Blocking Safety Overall Operations • Average Time • Queuing Penalty • No improvements • LOS: AM= A, F, B, Savings per vehicle: AM= 388 D (Ave= C) No Build is the base PM= 2.457 PM= B, D, C, or zero Total = 2,845 E (Ave= C/D) • Speed: AM= 19 MPH PM= 15 MPH Overall Operations LOS were obtained from Synchro analysis using HCM methodology. The LOS results reported in the table above may not coincide with tables in the Final Alternative Analysis Technical Memorandum (Parsons Brinckerhoff, October 2, 2003) due to revisions and corrections that were made to the data input tables since these results were used. Average speeds were requested directly from Synchro's summary network Memorandum of Effectiveness report. These results were then tailored to reflect the selection of specific intersections included within the project area. Other Impacts Table 58 Central Corridor No Action: Other Impacts Compatibility with Benefit-Cost Costs Constructability Plans and Policies • Would not support • None • None • None concurrencv aoals PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-31 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Proposed Improvements The proposed edge of roadway treatment for Carr Road, typical for each of the five alternatives, is curb and gutter with sidewalk. The roadway section includes four through-lanes, bike paths in both directions, and left-tum lanes at the intersections of Talbot Road S, 98th Avenue SE (Smithers Avenue S), Mill Avenue S, 105th Place SE and I 06th Place SE. The design speed for each alternative is 45 mph with a posted speed of 35 mph. Alternative 1 This alignment provides transportation improvements only and serves as the baseline for comparison with Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 (see Figure 42 and Figure 43). The proposed modifications focus primarily on increasing roadway capacity but do not attempt to correct the existing geometric design deficiencies listed in Table 45 through Table 50 nor address the traffic collision data listed in Table 54. Roadway Design Roadway Geometry Alternative I maintains the existing horizontal alignment and profile. Typical Roadway Sections Alternative 1 provides an additional eastbound general-purpose lane and adds westbound and eastbound bike paths to the existing alignment, widening Carr Road by 22 feet. The roadway is further widened by 12-feet at the 98 1h Street SE (Smithers Avenue S), Mill Avenue S, 105th Place SE and 106 1h Place SE intersections to provide for left tum pockets. Sight Distance The entering sight distances for the ex1stmg driveway approaches and cross streets remain unchanged from existing for this alternative. Design Deviations Design deviations for Alternative 1 are identical to the No Action alternative. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-32 Caff Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum ~ • E .el ::; -0 .,, ·.: -= u ] = • u ~o ~ ~" ,._c; ' .,... \ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a, •, ., •, ~I •' ., I I I I I I I I I ' ' I I ' I ' I I I ' 0 0 .. 0 0 N 0 MATCHLINE -SEE WEST CORRIDOR Right-of-Way The proposed right-of-way acquisitions occur in areas where the existing right-of- way limits are less than the typical 20 feet offset from the back of sidewalk. The following table lists the parcels and amounts of right-of-way that are required by this alignment's proposed roadway section. The building size column indicates "no impact" if existing buildings or structures are not impacted by the proposed roadway. Addresses were obtained from King County's parcel viewer website and no attempt was made to correct that information. Table 59 Alternative 1: Right-Of-Way Requirements Parcel Land Use Number Commercial 3123059040 Commercial 3123059111 Commercial 3123059006 Single Family 3223059086 Residential Single Family 3223059019 Residential Commercial 3223059079 Commercial 3223059237 Commercial 7616800220 Commercial 7616800230 Single Family 7616800420 Residential Single Family 3223059155 Residential Single Family 3223059155 Residential Commercial 3223059020 Multi-Family 8858250000 Residential Traffic Analysis Arterial Operations Area Building Address Required fsfl Size 4300 Talbot Rd S, Renton 3485 No Impact 4300 Talbot Rd S, Renton 1040 No Impact 601 S Carr Rd, Renton 5370 No Impact 851 S Carr Rd, Renton 1275 No Impact 10101 SE Carr Rd, Renton 2335 No Impact 10043 SE Carr Rd, Renton 635 No Impact 10545 SE Carr Rd, KC 2515 No Impact 9656 S Carr Rd, KC 460 No Impact 9662 S Carr Rd, KC 190 No Impact 9822 S Carr Rd, KC 895 No Impact 17648 103rd Ave SE, KC 150 No Impact 17648 103rd Ave SE, KC 1190 No Impact 18100 107th PL SE, KC 165 No Impact 4200 Smithers Ave S, Renton 2670 No Impact The arterial operations for alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are the same since the lane configurations and intersections are consistent. Figure 44 shows the average vehicle delay and LOS by approach for the study corridor intersections. The no- build and build scenarios include improvements at the Carr Road/SR 515 and PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-37 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 5 6 7 8 Carr Road/106th Place SE intersections as proposed in the Benson Road SE (SR 515) at SE Carr Road intersection project (CIP 400698). In the AM peak period, all build-alternatives' intersection operations remain unchanged from no-build operations. The HCM calculations report Mill Avenue S at a LOS F, however this is a result of a relatively high volume of right-tum-on-red vehicles that the calculation does not account for. The Synchro analysis reports this intersection at a LOS A. In the PM peak period, both intersections at Carr Road/98th Avenue SE and Carr Road/Mill Avenue S improve by one LOS for the build alternatives to an A and C respectively. Table 60 Alternative 1: Arterial LOS AM Peak PM Peak Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM Intersection (sec.) Delay LOS VIC (sec.) Delay LOS VIC Ca" Road Corridor SE Carr Rd & 98• Ave SE 150 6 A 0.66 150 9.3 A 0.7 SE Carr Rd & Mill Ave S 150 82.6 F 0.83 150 26.7 C 0.79 SE Carr Rd & 106• Pl SE 150 18.7 B 0.58 150 27.7 C 0.94 SE Carr Rd & SR 515 150 52.3 D 0.98 150 64 E 0.99 Source: A.ATM, Tables 23 & 24. Queuing Significant queues are avoided by the build alternatives. Corridor Operations The corridor operations analysis results show that the corridor operations are only slightly modified with the improvements to the central corridor alone. However, the true benefits of the additional eastbound lane are not reflected in Synchro's corridor operational analysis. Structures and Retaining Walls Retaining walls are proposed for this alignment at locations along the roadway, to reduce impacts to frontage properties with significant elevation differences from the proposed top of sidewalk. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-38 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum ID : g-, ~a ~ "' 58. 24. ,. "O ---~ AM P-k Hou, "~ :So "' '515.i ~ C) :::: I .j l.. '-62 ii . -·· I ti J ---·-t.....32 15 ~--~ @'-12 43JC,<!)-E 1,• _ct,JJ-c .,, "'.,--N I .-• o--;§ 't( ~ SE 176th St (Carr Rnarl\ Not to Score ! ~ .. I-i r- ::i ~~ &lw :gw "' "' "' T~. 12// I I\ I ~· :i!c > "'l <i: .j l.. w 26. 5~ J~y):= i2 "' i!!w .,;· > .j l.. = ..,. I.-64 Jiftfl).1.-110 .. .. r-"' i!!w E ru. rF .. 60. 1. . 11>7Y , . ill '!JC~•Jl,A ..,. r .. :l<o !&w ~~ .. 1~ ,. + .., r--1 l.. ., I c.. '· 4. fljw -=::: '-1 .'fw :c ~ + .,__, 3 J @l>.1.-7 ::lw "J@]) "J o~;=. c.. ., I c.. -A""'r rA "' Cl .. E°"'1'" -D J ..1-18 72J J,....17 1Jrj~ •• + .. -.1 ., r,-'d-Q,"JJ.-• E @,B Al --= .. I-;cw ., ::10 :qo t '-.Ir-• ., r -,: w 44..J Movement Average Delay (Seconds/Vehicle) ~-i:,w ~~ @.]) Intersection Average Delay (SecondsNehicle) "' -i:: I ... > u, PM Peak Hour 'O "' '515) 'O 58. 24, ,. "' .. ~~ al~ 0 0 I "' .j l.. '-ss 0 IN ., J<j.-.._,, UJ .-~----- ,., Cf.,}) '-" 49J~+-E .,, :r 17 22:.ID-c ;§ Ur ~ I .-• 0 --8 ---fl.I ~ i:, .. I-i r-> (} Not to Scale "' ti "~ 18w "0 ~ C -----~---;-'& A "" :i __ , .. ____________ _, __ "' --'i< 0 8. > -:Sw ., :a <t .j l.. = 0 :L C. II 68 J@:= 54 r; 7. N -1 l.. I:"" m -----~ E -r rD 6~ J('g,~f' 0 SF .j l.. .. , r- .1.-5 'JJ ~. 'II 14J(PJ), A :&.. .... ,. '§ a 60. 1. ,. ,. 0 g:~ '· BT 1 :,;w fi -1 l.. ., I c.. 2. ; LL 4. :;lw .. r- '-• :e w + .1.-7 6 .J f2iti J... 10 ::1~ 10J~ 51 J (5UJ7"A -1 l.. ., I '-A\= 1 A .. -e• ----C 101J ..L.43 39-' .J....as e-'Gl\-A + ~ a -. , -. tr-,-®,o D (!o]),o ... ., r w~ § 1 :,;u :,;u •-, Ir-• ., r ,., :e w 44J Movement Average Delay (SecondsNehicle) g.l ic w ; .... (@ lntersecllon Average Delay (SecondsNehlcle) :I .. Conceptual Cost Opinion A conceptual cost opinion was developed for Alternative I for comparison with the other alignments. Right-of-way costs are based on King County assessed land and building values for 2003. The right-of-way subtotal includes land and building acquisition costs, but does not include business relocation costs. The Construction Cost subtotal includes a 25% contingency to account for the conceptual nature of the design that was translated into construction costs and 10% mobilization costs. Miscellaneous Costs include Construction Engineering and Contingencies at 15%. A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for cost opinion details. Right-of-way $239,000 Construction Cost (Grading!Drainage!Structures!Pavingffraffic!Utilffies!Mob.) $7,502,000 $1,035,000 Design Engineering and Administration Miscellaneous (Constr. Eng. & Cont.) Total Cost Opinion Alternative 1 Benefit/Cost $1,125,000 $9,901,000 A benefit-cost analysis was performed using annualized time saving benefits and construction cost estimates over a 20-year period. The present worth values for benefits and costs were calculated using a 4% net discount rate and are expressed in year 2002 dollars. The 20-year period begins at the assumed 2007 year-of-opening. The benefit-cost analysis for alternatives in the central corridor applies dollar benefits to travel time savings as well as reductions in collisions. The savings due to collision reductions is based on the average collision rate (Table 54) less the estimated reduction associated with the improvements proposed for the alignment. The accident reduction benefit is being applied to these alternatives, unlike the west and east corridor alternatives, because of the conscious effort to improve the alignment in the central corridor. Predicted amounts of accident reduction for a given type of improvement are provided in a table accompanying the WSDOT benefit-cost analysis spreadsheet (please see Appendix A). The benefit-cost (B/C) ratio is based on the present worth dollar benefits divided by the present worth project cost. Typically, for an alternative to be considered cost effective, the benefit-cost analysis should yield a B/C ratio equal to or greater than 1. The very low B/C ratios found here point to the lack of congestion in the central corridor. The proposed improvement did not significantly affect the level of service on the corridor. Additionally, the benefit-cost analysis developed for this alternative assumed that widening the existing alignment would not result in a reduction in the number of occurrences of the type of collisions listed in Table 54. The benefit-cost PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum analysis for this alternative is summarized in the table below. Worksheets for the benefit-cost analysis may be found in Appendix A. Net Discount Rate 4% PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Table 61 Alternative 1: Benefit-Cost Total Time Total Accident Savings Benefit Reduction Benefit (Year 2002 $) ( Year 2002 $) $ 2.369,589 $0 8-41 Construction Benefit/Cos Cost (Year 2002 $) t Ratio $9,901,000 0.24 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each screening category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings (Figure 54) given to this and all other alternatives in the central corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Meets Purpose and Need All build-alternatives meet the project's stated purpose and need. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 62 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Socioeconomic Impacts Displacements • Total no. of displacements: • No. of residences: • No. of comm. structures: • No. of other structures: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 0 0 0 0 Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts (schools, churches, Impacts hosoitalsl • Schools: Minor • No impact to extant • Minor proximity access impacts to building >50 yrs old 01 impacts to adjacent New Horizons landscape. businesses School. May require portion of New World Daycare lot. • Churches: None • No recorded archaeological sites. • Hospitals: None • High probability of archaeological resources due to Panther Creek's ethnographic significance but low impact. 8-42 Ca" Road Improvement Projecr Design Memorandum Natural Environment Impacts Table 63 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Natural Environment Impacts Water Quality/ Wetlands Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Noise Air Quality Water Quantity Vegetation • Total impervious: • Impacts wetlands • No impact to ESA • 0-3 dbA increase • LOS C 327,000SF on both sides of species habitat to 5 homes, an Carr Road Apt Bldg, a between Panther daycare and New Creek and Mill Horizon School Ave S due to proximity increase • Moderate impact • Slight increase in • Slight to riparian impacts to improvement in wetlands at Panther Creek Air Quality over Panther Creek habitat south of NA due to Level Carr Road of Service imorovement Transportation Impacts Table 64 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Transportation Impacts Average Timesavings • Time Savings per vehicle: AM = < 1 sec saved PM= 4 sec saved (Does not include time savings for ability to pass slow trucks on uphill grade) PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Queuing/Blocking • Queuing Penalty AM= 447 PM=1813 Total = 2,260 Safety Overall Operations • No improvements to • LOS: AM =A, F, B, 8-43 sight distance. D (Ave= C) PM= B, C, C, E (Ave= C) • Speed: AM= 19 MPH PM= 16 MPH Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Other Impacts Table 65 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Other Impacts Compatibility with Plans and Policies • Would meet mobility and concurrency objectives • Not directly related to transit; supports non- motorized travel • Generally not cost- effective PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Benefit-Cost • B/C: 0.24 • NPV: $-7,531,000 Costs Constructability • Total: $9.9 M • Moderate risk in constructing retaining walls adjacent to existing structures • Construction: $8.6 M • Probability of project • R/W: 8--44 being funded: Likely $0.2M • Probability of acceptance by general public: Likely • Probability of acceptance by neighborhood: Somewhat likely • Considerable impact to traveling public durina construction Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes modifications to the ex1stmg alignment by reconstructing the horizontal alignment to meet horizontal curvature requirements. Please see Figure 45 and. 1 Roadway Design The following tables compare the proposed Alternative 2's design elements and values with the minimum King County requirements. The tables list existing roadway design deficiencies and the improvements provided by the revised alignment. Please note that the locations of the existing geometric deficiencies vary due to differences between the proposed and existing alignment stationing. Roadway Geometry Alternative 2 (Figure 45 and Figure 46) is a revised alignment that addresses the existing superelevation deficiencies but does not address existing horizontal stopping sight distance deficiencies. The proposed modifications increase roadway capacity and correct some of the existing geometric design deficiencies discussed under the No Action alternative. Modifications to the existing horizontal alignment will improve safety and addresses some of the causes of the traffic collisions mentioned previously. Table 66 Alternative 2: Horizontal Curvatures and Superelevation Location Required• Existing Alternative 2 Notes -STA 21+00 656 feet min. Radius: 555 feet Radius: 660 feet, Meets radius, 6% superelev. 6% superelev. Standard 6% suoerelev. 2 -STA28+75 656 feet min. Radius: 568 feet Radius: 660 feet, Meets radius, 4% superelev. 6% superelev. Standard 6% superelev. 3 -STA 31+20 5% superelev. Radius: 1432 feet Tangent N/A 4 -STA 39+30 656 feet min. Radius: 573 feet Radius: 660 feet, Meets radius, 6% superelev. 6% superelev. Standard 6% suoerelev. 5 -STA 53+60 4% superelev. Radius: 1921 feet Radius: 1921 feet, Meets 4% superelev. 4% superelev. Standard *(1993 Kmg County Road Standards Table 2.1, for 45 mph design speed) PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-45 Carr Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 67 Alternative 2: Grade Location Required• Existing Alternative 2 Notes 1 -STA 35+10 to 45+10 9% 10% 9% Meets Standard *(1993 King County Road Standards, Section 2.02) Typical Roadway Sections 1 2 3 4 5 Like Alternative I, this alternative provides an additional eastbound general- purpose Jane and adds westbound and eastbound bike paths, and replaces the existing curb, gutter and five-foot sidewalk. Sight Distance Existing sight distance deficiencies are not addressed by this alternative. Some of the entering sight distances for existing driveways in Table 70 are improved with this alternative, primarily near the Talbot Road S intersection where the "S-curve" has been relaxed slightly. Table 68 Alternative 2: Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance Location Required• Existing Alternative 2 Notes -STA 21+00 400 feet 250 feet 250 feet Non-standard -STA28+80 400 feet 250 feet 250 feet Non-standard -STA 31+20 440 feet 400 feet Tangent N/A -STA 39+30 470 feet 250 feet 250 feet Non-standard -STA 53+60 440 feet 460 feet 460 feet Meets Standard *(1993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1) Table 69 Alternative 2: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance Location Required* Existing Alternative 2 Notes 1 -STA20+30 481 feet 258 feet 481 feet Meets Standard 2 -STA 31+40 495 feet NIA 500 feet Meets Standard 3 -STA49+00 495 feet 423 feet 497 feet Meets Standard 4 -STA 56+00 468 feet »468 feet 596 feet Meets Standard * ( 199 3 King County Road Standards Table 2.1,for 45 mph design speed) PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-46 Caw Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum N i • E .!! < • Q 'O .: • • u ] ~ u ·e fi . e •• • E II q, " ti -. • bQ • & • !1 t ~ ~ • 5 0 0 ~ N • • 0 Table 70 Alternative 2: Entering Sight Distances Driveway Location 1 -STA 20+00, Lt North side driveway 2 -STA 20+90, Rt South side driveway 3 -STA 21+00, Rt South side drivewav 4 -STA 22+00, Rt South side drivewav, 5 -STA 27+50, Rt (Smithers Ave S) 6 -STA 27+50, Lt (98'" Ave SE) 9 -STA 34+00, Rt South side (new house) driveway 10 -STA 37+50, Rt South side (red barn) drivewav 11 -STA 38+50, Lt North side (white house) drivewav 12 -STA 40+50, Rt South side (New Horizon School) driveway 13 -STA 42+00, Rt (Mill Ave S) 14 -STA 42+00, Lt (103"' Ave SE) 15 -STA 46+00, Rt South side driveway 16 -STA 50+50, Rt South side (KFC) drivewav 17 -STA 52+50, Lt North side (Premiere Mortgage) driveway 18 -STA 53+00, Rt (105'" Pl SE) 19 -STA 53+50, Lt North side (Allstate) drivewav PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Meets 620-Foot Standard ? No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Right Turn Movement Left Turn Movement Existing 170 feet 90 feet 420 feet 420 feet 140 feet >620 feet 300 feet 600 feet 200 feet 620 feet 480 feet 470 feet >620 feet 180 feet >620 feet 31 O feet >620 feet 8-51 Alt. 2 Existing Alt. 2 170 feet 360 feet 360 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet) >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet NIA >620 feet Right turn onlv 150 feet N/A N/A Signalized Signalized Signalized intersection intersection intersection >620 feet N/A N/A Signalized Signalized intersection intersection 470 feet 560 feet 640 >620 feet 430 feet 570 feet 200 feet 350 feet 360 >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet 595 feet >620 feet >620 feet 180 feet 320 feet >620 feet 370 feet 400 feet 260 feet N/A N/A Right turn Right turn onlv onlv >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet 320 feet 480 feet 500 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 20 21 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alternative 2: Entering Sight Distance (cont.) Meets Driveway Location 620-Foot Right Tum Movement Left Turn Movement Standard? Existing Alt. 2 Existing Alt. 2 -STA 54+50, Rt No 250 feet 400 feet 480 feet 280 feet South side (Tesoro gas station) drivewav -STA 56+00, Lt Yes 530 feet 620 feet N/A N/A north leg Signalized Signalized 106"' Pl SE intersection intersection -STA 56+00, Rt No 330 feet 350 feet N/A N/A south leg Signalized Signalized 106"' Pl SE intersection intersection /Shonnina Centerl Deviations The following table summarizes the design deviations associated with Alternative 2. Driveway entering sight distance deviations have been reduced by six to sixteen, and the horizontal stopping sight distance deviation reduced by one. All horizontal curve/superelevation rate, vertical curve stopping sight distance, and grade discrepancies have been eliminated. Table 71 Alternative 2: Design Deviations Location Design Standard Notes -STA 20+00, Lt Entering Sight Distance, LT: Signalized intersection North side driveway LT&RT (Talbot Rd S) within 250 feet -STA 27+50, Rt Entering Sight Distance, No Right Turn on Red @ (Smithers Ave S) RT signalized intersection -STA 32+50, Lt Entering Sight Distance, North side driveway RT -STA 34+00, Rt Entering Sight Distance, South side (new house) RT drivewav -STA 37+50, Rt Entering Sight Distance, LT: 620+ feet possible with South side (red barn) driveway LT sight line easement -STA 38+50, Lt Entering Sight Distance, LT: >620 feet possible by North side (white house) RT&LT trimming vegetation within drivewav orooe"'' -STA 42+00, Lt Entering Sight Distance, LT: 480 feet possible with 103rd Ave SE LT sight line easement PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-52 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 Table 72 Alternative 2: Design Deviations (cont.) Location Design Standard Notes -STA 46+00, Rt Entering Sight Distance, South side driveway LT -STA 50+50, Rt Entering Sight Distance, Right turn only South side (KFC) driveway RT -ST A 53+00, Rt Entering Sight Distance, LT: Signalized intersection 105"' Pl SE RT&LT (106th Pl SE) within 350 feet -STA 54+50, Rt Entering Sight Distance, LT: Signalized intersection South side (Tesoro gas station) RT&LT (1061h Pl SE) within 200 feet driveway -STA 56+00, Rt Entering Sight Distance, RT: Sight line limited by south leg 106"' Pl SE RT south side R/W; Signalized /Shonnina Center) intersection -STA 21+00 Horizontal Stopping 15.5-foot sight line Sight Distance easement required; Mitigate with advance signal beacon -STA 28+80 Horizontal Stopping 15.5-foot sight line Sight Distance easement required -STA39+30 Horizontal Stopping 14.5-foot sight line Sight Distance easement required Right-of-Way The proposed right-of-way acquisitions occur in areas where the existing right-of- way limits are less than the typical 20 feet offset from the back of sidewalk. Additional right-of-way is required adjacent to sections of the revised alignment where the horizontal curve radius has been increased. The following table lists the parcels and amounts of right-of-way required by the proposed roadway section. The building size column indicates "no impact" if the existing buildings or structures are not impacted by the proposed alignment. Addresses were obtained from King County's parcel viewer website and no attempt was made to correct that information. Table 73 Alternative 2: Right-Of-Way Requirements Area Parcel Building Size Land Use Address Required Number Commercial Commercial Commercial Multi-Family Residential PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 3123059040 3123059111 3123059006 8858250000 /sf\ (sf) 4300 Talbot Rd S, Renton 2495 No Impact 4300 Talbot Rd S, Renton 1250 No Impact 601 S Carr Rd, Renton 214657 36625 4200 Smithers Ave S, 8120 5565 Renton 8-53 ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 5 6 7 8 Parcel Land Use Number Single Family 3223059086 Residential Single Family 3223059019 Residential Single Family 3223059156 Residential Commercial 3223059237 Traffic Analysis Arterial Operations Address 851 S Carr Rd, Renton 10101 SE Carr Rd, Renton see www.metrokc.gov/gis/ mannortal/iMAP main.him 10545 SE Carr Rd, KC The arterial operations are the same as Alternative I. Area Building Size Required (sf) (sf) 4800 No Impact 3890 No Impact 10115 No Impact 1120 No Impact Figure 4 7 shows the average vehicle delay and LOS by approach for the study corridor intersections. In the AM peak period, intersection operations remain unchanged from the no-build operations. In the PM peak period, both intersections at Carr Road/98th Avenue SE and Carr Road/Mill Avenue S improve by one LOS to an A and C respectively. Table 74 Alternative 2 Arterial LOS AM Peak PM Peak Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM Intersection (sec.) Delay LOS VIC (sec.) Delay LOS VIC Carr Road Corridor SE Carr Rd & 98fu Ave SE 150 6 A 0.66 150 9.3 A 0.7 SE Carr Rd & Mill Ave S 150 82.6 F 0.83 150 26.7 C 0.79 SE Carr Rd & 106° Pl SE 150 18.7 B 0.58 150 27.7 C 0.94 SE Carr Rd & SR 515 150 52.3 D 0.98 150 64 E 0.99 Source: AATM, Tables 23 & 24. Queuing Significant queues are avoided by the build alternatives. Corridor Operations The corridor operations analysis results show that the corridor operations are only slightly modified with the improvements to the central corridor alone. However, PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-54 Can Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum the true benefits of the additional eastbound lane are not reflected in Synchro's corridor operational analysis. Structures and Retaining Walls Retaining walls are proposed for this alignment at locations along the roadway, to reduce impacts to frontage properties with significant elevation differences from the proposed top of sidewalk. Conceptual Cost Opinion A summary of conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for the cost opinion details. Right-of-way costs are based on King County assessed land and building values for 2003. The right-of-way subtotal includes land and building acquisition costs, but does not include business relocation costs. The Construction Cost subtotal includes a 25% contingency to account for the conceptual nature of the design that was translated into construction costs and I 0% mobilization costs. Miscellaneous Costs include Construction Engineering and Contingencies at 15%. A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for cost opinion details. Right-of-way $7,866,000 Construction (Grading/Drainage/Structures/PavingfTraffic/Utiltties/Mob.) $ 11,440,000 $1,579,000 Design Engineering and Administration Miscellaneous ( Constr. Eng. and Cont.) Total Cost Opinion Alternative 2 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-55 $1.716,000 $ 22,601,000 carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Source: AATM, Fig. 26. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 47 Alternative 2: Approach Delay and LOS 8-56 .. :I 0 :c .ll: Ill :. :ii: D. :c:: a 1' -2 o' z :,: ~ aJ .1'. ,_ 6\-• H ~ Cl oJ ~-:i n"T \§) r a ., r ~ ~m Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Benefit/Cost A benefit-cost analysis was performed using annualized time saving benefits and construction cost estimates over a 20-year period. The present worth values for benefits and costs were calculated using a 4% net discount rate and are expressed in year 2002 dollars. The 20-year period begins at the assumed 2007 year-of-opening. The benefit-cost analysis for alternatives in the central corridor applies dollar benefits to travel time savings as well as reductions in collisions. The savings due to collision reductions is based on the average collision rate (Table 54) less the estimated reduction associated with the improvements proposed for the alignment. The accident reduction benefit is being applied to these alternatives, unlike the west and east corridor alternatives, because of the conscious effort to improve the alignment in the central corridor. Predicted amounts of accident reduction for a given type of improvement are provided in a table accompanying the WSDOT benefit-cost analysis spreadsheet (please see Appendix B). The benefit-cost (B/C) ratio is based on the present worth dollar benefits divided by the present worth project cost. Typically, for an alternative to be considered cost effective, the benefit-cost analysis should yield a B/C ratio equal to or greater than I. The very low B/C ratios found here point to the lack of congestion in the central corridor. The proposed improvement did not significantly affect the level of service on the corridor. The benefit-cost analysis for this alternative is summarized in the table below. Worksheets for the benefit-cost analysis may be found in Appendix A. Net Discount Rate 4% PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Table 75 Alternative 2: Benefit-Cost Total Time Total Accident Savings Benefit Reduction Benefit /Year 2002 $1 / Year 2002 $1 $2,369,589 $6,159,520 8-57 Construction Benefit/Cos Cost t Ratio /Year 2002 $1 $22,601,000 0.38 carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings given to this and all other alternatives in the central corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Please see Figure 54. Meets Purpose and Need All build-alternatives meet the project's stated purpose and need. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 76 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Socioeconomic Impacts Displacements •Total no. of displacements: 3 •No. of residences: 1 (townhouse complex) •No. of comm. structures: 2 (PacMed bldg & barn) •No. of other structures: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 0 Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts (schools, churches, Impacts hosoitalsl •Schools: Minor access • No impact to extant • Two potential impacts to New building >50 yrs old or business Horizons school; no landscape. displacements impacts to New World Daycare •Churches: None • No recorded • Moderate proximity archaeological sites. impacts from encroachment •Hospitals: None • High probability of archaeological resources due to Panther Creek's ethnographic significance but low impact. 8-58 ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Natural Environment Impacts Table 77 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Natural Environment Impacts Water Quality/ Wetlands Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Noise Air Quality Water Quantity Vegetation • Total impervious: • Impacts wetlands • No impact to ESA • 0-3 dbA increase • LOS C 324,BOOSF on both sides of species habitat to 5 homes, an Carr Road Apt Bldg and Ne"' between Panther Horizon School Creek and Mill due to proximity Aves increase • Moderate impact • Moderate • Slight decrease to • Slight to riparian increase in a daycare due to improvement in wetlands at impacts to proximity Air Quality over Panther Creek Panther Creek decrease NA due to Level habitat south of of Service Carr Road improvement Transportation Impacts Table 78 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Transportation Impacts Average Timesavings Queuing/Blocking Safety Overall Operations • Same as Alt 1 • Same as Alt 1 • 30% of sight distance • Same as Alt 1 deficiencies corrected. Other Impacts Table 79 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Other Impacts Compatibility with Plans and Policies • Would meet mobility and concurrency objectives • Not directly related to transit; supports non- motorized travel • Generally not cost- effective PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Benefit-Cost • 8/C: 0.38 • NPV: $-14,072,000 Costs Constructability • Total: • Construction: •R/W: 8-59 $22.6 M • Lower risk in constructing retaining walls due to land & building acquisition $13.2 M • Probability of project being funded: Unlikely $7.9 M • Probability of acceptance by general public: Likely • Probability of acceptance by neighborhood: Very unlikely • Significant impact to traveling public during construction Can' Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum Alternative 3 Alternative 3 (Figure 48 and Figure 49) modifies the existing alignment by reconstructing the alignment to meet King County's design standard criteria. 1 2 3 4 5 Roadway Design The following tables compare the proposed Alternative 3's design elements and values with the minimum King County requirements. The tables list existing roadway design deficiencies and the improvements provided by the revised alignment. Please note that the locations of the existing geometric deficiencies vary due to differences between the proposed and existing alignment stationing. Roadway Geometry The proposed modifications increase roadway capacity and correct the existing geometric design deficiencies discussed under the No Action alternative. Modifications to the existing horizontal alignment improve safety and address the causes of the traffic collisions mentioned previously. The alignment's extended tangent section improves entering sight distances for most of the existing driveway approaches. The following sections summarize the proposed alignment design elements, King County requirements, existing design deficiencies, and the improvements provided by the fully revised alignment. Please note that the locations of the existing geometric deficiencies vary due to differences between the proposed and existing alignment stationing. Table 80 Alternative 3: Horizontal Curvatures and Superelevation Location Required• Existing Alternative 3 Notes -STA22+95 5% superelev. Radius: 555 feet Radius: 1500 feet Meets 6% sunerelev. Standard -STA 28+75 N/A Radius: 568 feet Tangent N/A 4% sunerelev. -STA 31+21 N/A Radius: 1432 feet Tangent N/A -STA 39+31 N/A Radius: 573 feet Tangent N/A 6% su=relev. -STA54+52 4% superelev. Radius: 1921 feet Radius: 1921 feet Meets Standard *(/993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1,for 45 mph design speed) PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-60 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum ; I ... ,, l • f i ~ I :t lli E• • -· • 1a • • • ~ ~ t • ,1 • • ~ ~ w • Table 81 Alternative 3: Grade Location Required• Existing Alternative 3 Notes 1 -STA 36+00 to 45+50 9% 10% 9% Meets Standard '(1993 King County Road Standards, Section 2. 02) Typical Roadway Sections 1 2 3 4 5 6 Like Alternatives I and 2, Alternative 3 provides an additional eastbound general- purpose lane and adds westbound and eastbound bike paths to a fully revised alignment. Sight Distance All horizontal and vertical sight distances meet standards. This alternative reduces the number of non-standard entering sight distance occurrences to eight. Four of the eight are located in the section between I06th Place SE and SR 515 (I 08'h Avenue SE) which is part of the Benson Road SE (SR 515) at SE Carr Road Intersection project. Table 82 Alternative 3: Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance Location Required• Existing Alternative 3 Notes -STA 22+95 400 feet 250 feet 400 feet Meets Standard -STA 28+75 400 feet 250 feet Tangent NIA -STA 31+21 440 feet 400 feet Tangent NIA -STA 39+31 470 feet 250 feet Tangent NIA -STA 54+52 440 feet 460 feet 460 feet Meets Standard *(1993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1) Table 83 Alternative 3: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance Location Required* Existing Alternative 3 Notes 1 -STA 20+30 481 feet 258 feet 485 feet Meets Standard 2 -STA 32+50 495 feet 555 feet 538 feet Meets Standard 3 -STA 50+00 495 feet 450 feet 495feet Meets Standard 4 -STA 56+50 468 feet >>468 feet 596 feet Meets Standard *(1993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1,for 45 mph design speed) PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-65 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 84 Alternative 3: Entering Sight Distances Driveway Location 1 -STA 20+00, Lt North side driveway 2 -STA 20+90, Rt South side driveway 3 -STA 22+50, Rt South side driveway 4 -STA 22+00, Rt South side (Pac Med blda.l drivewav 5 -STA 27+50, Lt (98'" Ave SE) 6 -STA 27+00, Rt (Smithers Ave S) 7 -STA 31+50, Lt North side (Walton Tires) drivewav 8 -STA 32+50, Lt North side driveway 9 -STA 34+00, Rt South side (House under construction) driveway 10 -STA 37+50, Rt South side (Red barn) drivewav 11 -STA 38+50, Lt North side (White house) driveway 12 -STA 40+50, Rt South side (New Horizon School) drivewav 13 -STA 42+00, Rt Mill Ave S 14 -STA 42+00, Lt 103"' Ave SE PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Meets 620-Foot Standard ? No Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Right Turn Movement Left Turn Movement Existing 170 feet 90 feet 420 feet 420 feet >620 feet 140 feet >620 feet 545 feet 300 feet 600 feet 200 feet 620 feet 480 feet 470 feet 8-66 Alt. 3 Existing Alt. 3 330 feet 360 feet 360 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet Driveway N/A Driveway removal Right turn removal onlv >620 feet N/A NIA Signalized Signalized intersection intersection >620 feet N/A NIA Signalized Signalized intersection intersection >620 feet 540 feet >620 feet >620 feet 610 feet >620 feet >620 feet 560 feet >620 I >620 feet 430 feet >620 feet >620 feet 350 feet >620 feet NIA >620 feet N/A >620 feet 595 feet >620 feet >620 feet 180 feet >620 feet ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Table 84 Alternative 3: Entering Sight Distances (cont.) Meets Driveway Location 620-Foot Right Turn Movement Left Turn Movement Standard ? Existing Alt. 3 Existing Alt. 3 -STA 45+00, Rt Yes >620 feet >620 feet 370 feet >620 feet Southside driveway -STA 49+00, Rt Yes . 180 feet >620 feet NIA N/A South side (KFC) Right turn Right turn driveway only onlv -STA 51+00, Lt Yes >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet North side (Premiere Mortqaqe) driveway -STA 51 +50, Rt 105th Pl SE No 310 feet >620 feet 480 feet 550 feet -STA 52+00, Lt Yes >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet North side (Allstate) drivewav -STA 53+00, Rt No 250 feet >620 feet 480 feet 570 feet South side (Tesoro aas station) drivewav -STA 55+00, Rt No 530 feet 350 feet NIA NIA South leg Signalized Signalized 106th Pl SE intersection intersection (Shoooinq Center) -STA 55+00, Lt Yes 330 feet >620 feet N/A N/A North leg Signalized Signalized 106th Pl SE intersection intersection Deviations Table 85 summarizes the design deviations present in Alternative 3's design. They are all entering sight-distance deviations, located at the ends ofthe central corridor where the proposed roadway ties into the remaining road. In all of these situations, however, the driveways are located in proximity to a signalized intersection that will provide some mitigative effect when exiting the driveway. The sight distances can also be improved by acquiring sight line easements, although in some cases this may not be practical. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-67 carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 85 Alternative 3: Design Deviations Location Design Standard Notes 1 -STA 20+00, Lt Entering Sight Distance, RT: 620 feet possible with North side driveway LT&RT sight line easement LT: Signalized intersection (Talbot Rd S) within 250 feet 2 -STA 53+00, Rt Entering Sight Distance, LT: Signalized intersection 105'" Pl SE LT (106"' Pl SE) within 350 feet 3 -STA 54+50, Rt Entering Sight Distance, LT: Signalized intersection South side (Tesoro gas LT (106th Pl SE) within 200 feet station) driveway 4 -STA 56+00, Rt Entering Sight Distance, RT: Sight line limited by south south leg 106"' Pl SE RT side R/W; Signalized (Shopping Center) intersection Right-of-Way The proposed right-of-way acquisitions occur in areas where existing right-of- way limits are less than the typical 20 feet offset from the back of sidewalk. Additional right-of-way is required at locations adjacent to the proposed tangent section of the revised alignment. The following table lists the parcels and amounts of right-of-way needed for the proposed alignment. The building size column indicates "no impact" if the existing buildings or structures are not impacted by the proposed alignment. Addresses were obtained from King County's parcel viewer website and no attempt was made to correct that information. Table 86 Alternative 3: Right-Of-Way Requirements Land Use Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Multi-Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Parcel Number 3123059040 3123059111 3123059158 3123059006 8858250000 3223059086 3223059018 Area Building Size Address Required (sf) (sf) 4300 Talbot Rd S, Renton 2910 No Impact 4300 Talbot Rd S, Renton 2565 No Impact see www.metrokc.gov/gis/ 6810 No Impact maooortal/iMAP main.him 601 S Carr Rd, Renton 96685 36625 4200 Smithers Ave S, Renton 127860 39035 851 S Carr Rd, Renton 10012 SE Carr Rd, KC 8-68 6690 No Impact 27370 No Impact ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 86 Alternative 3: Right-Of-Way Requirements (cont.) Parcel Land Use Number Single Family 3223059078 Residential Single Family 3223059156 Residential Single Family 3223059155 Residential Single Family 3223059155 Residential Single Family 3223059316 Residential Commercial 3223059120 Single Family 3223059040 Residential Commercial 3223059237 Traffic Analysis Arterial Operations Area Address Required (sfl 10062 SE Carr Rd, KC 60320 see www.metrokc.gov/gis/ 44880 mannortal/iMAP main.him 17648 103rd Ave SE, KC 39775 17648 103rd Ave SE, KC 7710 see www.metrokc.gov/gis/ 3320 maooortal/iMAP main.him 18100 107th PL SE, KC 2920 10062 SE Carr Rd, KC 5895 10545 SE Carr Rd, KC 1270 Building Size (sf) No Impact No Impact 760 No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact The arterial operations are the same as Alternative I. Figure 50 shows the average vehicle delay and LOS by approach for the study corridor intersections. In the AM peak period, intersection operations remain unchanged from the no-build operations. In the PM peak period, both intersections at Carr Road/98th A venue SE and Carr Road/Mill A venue S improve by one LOS to an A and C respectively. Queuing Significant queues are avoided by the build alternatives. Corridor Operations The corridor operations analysis results show that the corridor operations are only slightly modified with the improvements to the central corridor alone. However, the true benefits of the additional eastbound lane are not reflected in Synchro' s corridor operational analysis. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-69 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 87 Alternative 3 Arterial LOS AM Peak PM Peak Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM Intersection (sec.) Delay LOS V/C (sec.) Delay LOS V/C Carr Road Corridor 5 SE Carr Rd & 98• Ave SE 150 6 A 0.66 150 9.3 A 0.7 6 SE Carr Rd & Mill Ave S 150 82.6 F 0.83 150 26.7 C 0.79 7 SE Carr Rd & 106• Pl SE 150 18.7 B 0.58 150 27.7 C 0.94 8 SE Carr Rd & SR 515 150 52.3 D 0.98 150 64 E 0.99 Source: AATM. Tables 23 & 24. Structures and Retaining Walls Retaining walls are proposed for this alignment at locations along the roadway, to reduce impacts to frontage properties with significant elevation differences from the proposed top of sidewalk. Conceptual Cost Opinion A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for the cost opinion details. Right-of-way costs are based on King County assessed land and building values for 2003. The right-of-way subtotal includes land and building acquisition costs, but does not include business relocation costs. The Construction Cost subtotal includes a 25% contingency to account for the conceptual nature of the design that was translated into construction costs and I 0% mobilization costs. Miscellaneous Costs include Construction Engineering and Contingencies at 15%. A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for cost opinion details. Right-of-way Construction (Grading!Drainage!Structures/Paving!Traffic/Utilities/Mob.) $15,964,000 $13,669,000 $1,886,000 Design Engineering and Administration Miscellaneous (Const,. Eng. and Contingencies) Total Cost Opinion PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Alternative 3 8-70 $2,050,000 $ 33,569,000 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum .. .I :i 0 :c :c: -1 a, .II: -~1 ~ ~ I Cl a. :E C ,.,, ,.,., ',. in, ,_ .J \. 'o " 0 "' " \,'. u5 .,:; ~: Source: AATM, Fig. 26. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 50 Alternative 3: Approach Delay and LOS ~< -! \. 69i-+ ® + ;l ., f- <Q Mc( 8-71 .. :I 0 :c .II: ~ Cl a. :E a. 'o " 0 a: ~./ /an>1 u . , I 'I"" I I ,..\ ";)".. \&n.' I \I'' ,_/ i!iw .J I .i- ::i J .f:\ .-sl E6+"" ~ -, I aJ @.,, -:, lt+°" \5) r .LZ .,, g ~m Carr Road lmpra11ement Project Design Memorandum Benefit/Cost A benefit-cost analysis was performed using annualized time saving benefits and construction cost estimates over a 20-year period. The present worth values for benefits and costs were calculated using a 4% net discount rate and are expressed in year 2002 dollars. The 20-year period begins at the assumed 2007 year-of-opening. The benefit-cost analysis for alternatives in the central corridor applies dollar benefits to travel time savings as well as reductions in collisions. The savings due to collision reductions is based on the average collision rate (Table 54) less the estimated reduction associated with the improvements proposed for the alignment. The accident reduction benefit is being applied to these alternatives, unlike the west and east corridor alternatives, because of the conscious effort to improve the alignment in the central corridor. Predicted amounts of accident reduction for a given type of improvement are provided in a table accompanying the WSDOT benefit-cost analysis spreadsheet (please see Appendix B). The benefit-cost (B/C) ratio is based on the present worth dollar benefits divided by the present worth project cost. Typically, for an alternative to be considered cost effective, the benefit-cost analysis should yield a B/C ratio equal to or greater than I. The very low B/C ratios found here point to the lack of congestion in the central corridor. The proposed improvement did not significantly affect the level of service on the corridor. The benefit-cost analysis for this alternative is summarized in the table below. Worksheets for the benefit-cost analysis may be found in Appendix A. Net Discount Rate 4% PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Table 88 Alternative 3: Benefit-Cost Total Time Total Accident Savings Benefit Reduction Benefit 'Year 2002 $1 I Year 2002 $1 $2,369,589 $16,452,054 8-72 Construction BenefiUCos Cost (Year 2002 $1 t Ratio $ 33,569,000 0.56 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each screening category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings given to this and all other alternatives in the central corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Please see Figure 54. Meets Purpose and Need All build-alternatives meet the project's stated purpose and need. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 89 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Socioeconomic Impacts Displacements • Total no. of displacements: 5 • No. of residences: 4 (single-family & townhouse complex) • No. of comm. structures: (PacMed bldg) • No. of other structures: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 1 0 Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts (schools, churches, Impacts hospitals) • Schools: No impacts • No impact to extant • One potential to New Horizons building >50 yrs old. business School or New World Considerable impact displacement Daycare. to landscape which may have significance. • Churches: None • No recorded • Moderate proximity archaeological sites. impacts from encroachment • Hospitals: None • High impact and probability of archaeological resources due to Panther Creek's ethnographic significance. 8-73 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Natural Environment Impacts Table 90 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Natural Environment Impacts Water Quality/ Wetlands Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Noise Air Quality Water Quantity Vegetation • Total • Significant • No impact to • 0-3 dbA increase • LOSC impervious: impacts to ESA species to 3 homes and 315,700SF wetlands on habitat an Apt Bldg due North side of to proximity Carr Road increase between Panthe, Creek and Mill Aves • Significant • Significant • Decrease to a • Slight impact to increase in daycare and improvement in riparian wetland, impacts to New Horizon Air Quality over at Panther Creel Panther Creek School due to NA due to Level habitat south of proximity of Service Carr Road decrease improvement • Impacts riparian • Significant wetlands at increase in unnamed creek impacts to unnamed creek habitat north of Carr Road Transportation Impacts Table 91 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Transportation Impacts Average Timesavings • Same as Alt 1 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF • Queuing/Blocking Same as Alt 1 • 8-74 Safety Overall Operations 74% of sight distance • Same as Alt 1 deficiencies (however, straighter corrected. alignment = less time + driver comfort) Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Other Impacts Table 92 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Other Impacts Compatibility with Plans and Policies • Would meet mobilily and concurrency objeclives • Not directly related to transit; supports non- motorized travel • Generally not cost- effective PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Benefit-Cost • BIC: 0.56 • • NPV: $-14,747,000 • • 8-75 Costs Constructability Total: $33.6 M • Lower risk in constructing retaining walls due to land & building acquisition Construction:$15.7 M • Probabilily of project R/W: being funded: Very unlikely $16.0 M • Probabilily of acceptance by general public: Likely • Probabilily of acceptance by neighborhood: Unlikely • Moderate impact to traveling public during construction Can Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Alternative 4 Alternative 4 (Figure 51 and Figure 52) modifies the existing alignment to meet King County's standard design criteria much like Alternative 3. Alternative 4 was developed to avoid impacts to the Pacific Medical Building and the townhouses/apartments located on Smithers Avenue S that contributed to the very high cost (socially as well as economically) of Alternative 3. 1 2 Roadway Design The following tables compare the proposed Alternative 4's design elements and values with the minimum King County requirements. The tables list existing roadway design deficiencies and the improvements provided by the revised alignment. Please note that the locations of the existing geometric deficiencies vary due to differences between the proposed and existing alignment stationing. Roadway Geometry The proposed modifications increase roadway capacity and correct the existing geometric design deficiencies discussed under the No Action alternative. Modifications to the existing horizontal alignment improve safety and address the causes of the traffic collisions mentioned previously. The alignment's extended tangent section improves entering sight distances for most of the existing driveway approaches. Table 93 Alternative 4: Horizontal Curvature and Superelevation Location Required• Existing Alternative 4 Notes -STA 31+06 5% superelev. N/A Radius: 1530 feet Meets Standard -STA 54+69 4% superelev. Radius: 1921 feet Radius: 1900 feet Meets Standard *(1993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1,for 45 mph design speed) 2 Table 94 Alternative 4: Grade Location Maximum* -STA 40+00 to 45+00 9% *(1993 King County Road Standards, Section 2.02) Typical Roadway Sections Existing 10% Alternative 4 Notes 9% Meets Standard Like Alternatives I, 2, and 3, Alternative 4 provides an additional eastbound general-purpose lane and adds westbound and eastbound bike paths to a fully revised alignment. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-76 can Road lmpro11ement Project Design Memorandum 1 2 Sight Distance All horizontal and vertical sight distances meet standards. Most of the driveways at the west through middle portions of the central corridor will have their access concentrated at either Smithers Avenue S (a signalized intersection) or Mill Avenue S/103'd Avenue SE (potentially signalized by the City of Renton) and therefore no longer have entering sight distance issues. This reduces the number of non-standard entering sight distance occurrences to two: I 05th Place SE and the Tesoro gas station. These driveways are located on the south side of Carr Road where sight distance is hindered largely by the curvature of the roadway and the location of walls, shrubbery and signs that are located on private property. Entering movement at these locations, particularly left turns, are somewhat mitigated by the traffic signal at I 06 1h Place SE that creates a platooning effect on Carr Road. Table 95 Alternative 4: Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance Location Required• Existing Alternative 4 Notes -STA 31+06 440 feet N/A 440 feet N/A -STA 54+69 440 feet 460 feet 460 feet Meets Standard *(1993 King County Road Standard5 Table 2. ]) Table 96 Alternative 4: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance Location Required* Existing 5 -STA 19+50 481 feet 258 feet 6 -STA 36+50 495 feet 555 feet 7 -STA 50+00 495 feet 450 feet 8 -STA 57+50 481 feet »481 feet *(1993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1,for 45 mph design speed) PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-77 Alternative 4 Notes 519 feet Meets Standard 646 feet Meets Standard 512 feet Meets Standard 507 feet Meets Standard Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum PARSONS SRINCK.l!RHOFF Figure 51 Central Corridor Alternative 4 ; ,$) ·--~ ... ;,\,\ \Vi\"·. t ':< \ <~ i ·11\ 1 !JI ,,_,. SE CARR-RD. .. "'-1. l \ "'c. \ .,. ...--•4"'1 .... 11111111111 0 200 400 Can Road lmpro..,.,,...nf Project De•lgn Memor•ndum MILL AVES :IS ::ilAY CHICO). Table 97 Alternative 4: Entering Sight Distances Driveway Location 1 -STA 20+00, Lt North side driveway 2 -STA 21+00, Rt South side driveway 3 -STA 22+50, Rt South side driveway 4 -STA 22+00, Rt South side (Pac Med blda.\ drivewav 5 -STA 27+50, Lt (98th Ave SE) 6 -STA 27+00, Rt (Smithers Ave S} 7 -STA 31 +50, Lt North side (Walton Tires\ drivewav 8 -STA 32+50, Lt North side driveway 9 -STA 34+00, Rt South side (House under construction) drivewav 10 -STA 37+50, Rt South side ( Red barn\ d rivewav 11 -STA 38+50, Lt North side (White house\ drivewav 12 -STA 40+50, Rt South side (New Horizon School) drivewav 13 -STA 42+00, Rt MillAveS 14 -STA 42+00, Lt 103rd Ave SE 15 -STA 45+00, Rt Southside driveway PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Meets 620-Foot Standard ? Yes Yes NIA NIA NIA Yes NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Yes Yes Yes Right Turn Movement Left Turn Movement Existing 170 feet 90 feet 420 feet 420 feet >620 feet 140 feet >620 feet 545 feet 300 feel 600 feet 200 feet 620 feet 480 feet 470 feet >620 feet 8-83 Alt. 4 Existing Alt. 4 620 feet 360 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet Access@ >620 feet Access@ Smithers Ave S Smithers Ave S Access@ NIA Access@ Smithers Ave S Right turn Smithers Ave S onlv >620 feet NIA NIA Signalized Signalized intersection intersection >620 feet NIA NIA Signalized Signalized intersection intersection Access@ 540 feet Access@ Smithers Ave S Smithers Ave S Access@ 610 feet Access@ Smithers Ave S Smithers Ave S Access@ 560 feet Access@ Smithers Ave S Smithers Ave S R/W acquisition 430 feet R/W acquisition Access@ 350 feet Access@ Smithers Ave S Smithers Ave S New access@ >620 feet New access@ MillAveS Mill Ave S >620 feet 595 feet >620 feet >620 feet 180 feet >620 feet >620 feet 370 feet >620 feet Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 -STA 49+00, Rt Yes 180 feet >620 feet N/A N/A South side (KFC) Right turn Right turn only drivewav onlv Table 97 Alternative 4: Entering Sight Distances (cont.) Meets Driveway Location 620-Foot Right Turn Movement Left Turn Movement Standard ? Existing Alt. 3 Existing Alt. 3 -STA 51+00, Lt Yes >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet North side (Premiere Mortaaael drivewav -STA 51+50, Rt No 310 feet >620 feet 480 feet 550 feet 105'" Pl SE -STA 52+00, Lt Yes >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet >620 feet North side (Allstate) drivewav -STA 53+00, Rt No 250 feet >620 feet 480 feet 570 feet South side (Tesoro gas station) drivewav -STA 55+00, Rt NIA 530 feet 350 feet N/A N/A South leg Signalized Signalized 106" Pl SE intersection intersection /Shonnina Center\ -STA 55+00, Lt N/A 330 feet >620 feet N/A N/A North leg Signalized Signalized 106th Pl SE intersection intersection Deviations Table 98 summarizes the design deviations present in Alternative 4's design. They are entering sight-distance deviations, located at the east end of the central corridor where the proposed roadway ties into the existing road. In both situations, however, the driveways are located in proximity to a signalized intersection that will provide some mitigative effect when exiting the driveway. The sight distances can also be improved by acquiring sight line easements, although in some cases this may not be practical. Table 98 Alternative 4: Design Deviations Location Design Standard Notes -STA 53+00, Rt Entering Sight Distance, LT: Signalized intersection 105th Pl SE LT (106'" Pl SE) within 350 feet PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-84 caw Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Location Design Standard Notes 2 -STA 54+50, Rt Entering Sight Distance, LT: Signalized intersection South side (Tesoro gas LT (106"' Pl SE) within 200 feet station) driveway Right-of-Way The proposed right-of-way acquisitions occur in areas where existing right-of- way limits are less than the typical 20 feet offset from the back of sidewalk. Additional right-of-way is required at locations adjacent to the proposed tangent section of the revised alignment. The following table lists the parcels and amounts of right-of-way needed for the proposed alignment. The building size column indicates "no impact" if the existing buildings or structures are not impacted by the proposed alignment. Addresses were obtained from King County's parcel viewer website and no attempt was made to correct that information. Table 99 Alternative 4: Right-Of-Way Requirements Land Use Commercial Commercial Commercial State of WA Multi-Family Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential State of WA Commercial Church Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Commercial Single-Family Residential Commercial Commercial PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Parcel Number 3123059040 3123059111 3123059158 3123059084 8858250000 3223059086 3223059019 3223059183 3223059081 3223059156 3223059155 3223059120 3223059040 3223059053 3223059237 Address Area Building Size Required (sf) (sf) 4300 Talbot Rd S, Renton 7419 No Impact 4301 Talbot Rd S, Renton 7775 No Impact 601 Carr Rd, Renton 26477 No Impact Land Only 84881 No Impact 4200 Smithers Av S, Renton 2183 No Impact 851 S Carr Rd, Renton 12249 No Impact 10101 SE Carr Rd, Renton 162875 No Impact Land Only 5987 No Impact see www.metrokc.gov/gis/ 718 2884 mannortal/iMAP main.him see www.metrokc.gov/gis/ 27664 No Impact mannortal/iMAP main.him 17648103rd Ave SE, KC 18385 No Impact 18100 107th PL SE, KC 142 No Impact 10062 SE Carr Rd, KC 659 No Impact 10500 SE Carr Rd, KC 1312 512 10545 SE Carr Rd, KC 1218 No Impact 8-85 Ca" Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum 5 6. 7 8 Traffic Analysis Arterial Operations Figure 53 shows the average vehicle delay and LOS by approach for the study corridor intersections. The no-build and build scenarios include improvements at the Carr Road/SR 515 and Carr Road/I 06th Place SE intersections as proposed in the Benson Road SE (SR 515) at SE Carr Road intersection project (CIP 400698). In the AM peak period, all build-alternatives' intersection operations remain unchanged from no-build operations. The HCM calculations report Mill Avenue S at a LOS F, however this is a result of a relatively high volume of right-tum-on-red vehicles that the calculation does not account for. The Synchro analysis reports this intersection at a LOS A. In the PM peak period, both intersections at Carr Road/98th A venue SE and Carr Road/Mill Avenue S improve by one LOS for the build alternatives to an A and C respectively. Queuing Significant queues are avoided by the build alternatives. Corridor Operations The corridor operations analysis results show that the corridor operations are only slightly modified with the improvements to the central corridor alone. However, the true benefits of the additional eastbound lane are not reflected in Synchro' s corridor operational analysis. Table 100 Alternative 4 Arterial LOS AM Peak PM Peak Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM Intersection (sec.) Delay LOS VIC (sec.) Delay LOS VIC Ca" Road Corridor SE Can Rd & 98fu Ave SE 150 5.9 A 0.7 150 5 A 0.62 SE Can Rd & Mill Ave S 150 82.6 F 0.83 150 27.1 C 0.79 SE Can Rd & 106fu Pl SE 150 18.5 B 0.58 150 29.8 C 0.94 SE Can Rd & SR 515 150 51.4 D 0.98 150 63.7 E 0.99 Source: AATM. Tables 23 & 24. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-86 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum .. = 0 ::c alt CV GI A. :E er: .. :.;: 0 u ~ -2 ~. ~ I I. ::i<> .J j '- @ 3 •" ,I i.c :, .. .J \. •-Q,-v H ~ t / Source: AATM, Fig. 27. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 53 Alternative 4: Approach Delay aud LOS .. i = :. 0 I :c { ~ alt ~ • C i CV 8 ,e'. GI I A. I • :E = I!, • A. ~Cl.I~ ~o< iii e e ~ ~~. ~:-1; .. ,:... .j \. .1-, s1~@ ,--1'tl ' f-:J!W 3S ••V4lm ' .., .. :><l;,;1 ~ ~ 8-87 -1l :.;: u ~ -2 15 z ~ .J \. ·-f:i, -· H ® 9l I 0 .- N ~ -~ ~ .j \. .1-3 ~ ~ tt/~ ~f-, IS ~ C ~ ~ '!l. / :gw '!l. ~ l ~ . i ~ 3S ••V 41911 .i g ~ ;:!;c .J ( \. &. s;;. .2 u ... i 3.J @.'.::sj e e E 99"T ~ + 8: 8:.J:: c( c( ..5 ' f-' ';\ low ::I"~ 0 &-' st"T ® r u: ',. ,:em Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Structures and Retaining Walls Retaining walls are proposed for this alignment at locations along the roadway, to reduce impacts to frontage properties with significant elevation differences from the proposed top of sidewalk. Conceptual Cost Opinion A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for the cost opinion details. Right-of-way costs are based on King County assessed land and building values for 2003. The right-of-way subtotal includes land and building acquisition costs, but does not include business relocation costs. The Construction Cost subtotal includes a 25% contingency to account for the conceptual nature of the design that was translated into construction costs and 10% mobilization costs. Miscellaneous Costs include Construction Engineering and Contingencies at 15%. A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for cost opinion details. Right-of-way $3,085,000 Construction (Grading!Drainage!Structures/Paving!TraffidUtilities/Mob.) $14,421,000 $1,990,000 Design Engineering and Administration Miscellaneous (Constr. Eng. and Contingencies) Total Cost Opinion Alternative 4 Benefit/Cost $2,163.000 $21,659,000 A benefit-cost analysis was performed using annualized time saving benefits and construction cost estimates over a 20-year period. The present worth values for benefits and costs were calculated using a 4 % net discount rate and are expressed in year 2002 dollars. The 20-year period begins at the assumed 2007 year-of-opening. The benefit-cost analysis for alternatives in the central corridor applies dollar benefits to travel time savings as well as reductions in collisions. The savings due to collision reductions is based on the average collision rate (Table 54) less the estimated reduction associated with the improvements proposed for the alignment. The accident reduction benefit is being applied to these alternatives, unlike the west and east corridor alternatives, because of the conscious effort to improve the alignment in the central corridor. Predicted amounts of accident reduction for a given type of improvement are provided in a table accompanying the WSDOT benefit-cost analysis spreadsheet (please see Appendix B). The benefit-cost (B/C) ratio is based on the present worth dollar benefits divided by the present worth project cost. Typically, for an alternative to be considered cost effective, the benefit-cost analysis should yield a B/C ratio equal to or greater than I. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-88 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum The very low B/C ratios found here point to the lack of congestion in the central corridor. The proposed improvement did not significantly affect the level of service on the corridor. The benefit-cost analysis for this alternative is summarized in the table below. Worksheets for the benefit-cost analysis may be found in Appendix A. Net Discount Rate 4% PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Table 101 Alternative 4: Benefit-Cost Total Time Total Accident Savings Benefit Reduction Benefit /Year 2002 $1 I Year 2002 $1 $2,046,634 $16,452,054 8-89 Construction Benefit/Cos Cost t Ratio /Year 2002 $1 $ 21,659,000 0.85 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each screening category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings given to this and all other alternatives in the central corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Please see Figure 54. Meets Purpose and Need All build-alternatives meet the project's stated purpose and need. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 102 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Socioeconomic Impacts Displacements • Total no. of displacements: • No. of residences: (single-family) • No. of comm. structures: (barn) • No. of other structures: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2 1 1 0 Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts (schools, churches, Impacts hospitals) • Schools: No impacts • No impact to extant • One potential to New Horizons building >50 yrs old or business School or New World landscape. displacement Daycare. • Churches: None • No recorded • Moderate proximity archaeological sites. impacts from encroachment; one partial business remodel • Hospitals: None • High impact and probability of archaeological resources due to Panther Creek's ethnographic significance. 8-90 Can Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum Natural Environment Impacts Table 103 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Natural Environment Impacts Water Quality/ Wetlands Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Noise Air Quality Water Quantity Vegetation • Total impervious: • Impacts wetlands • No impact to ESA • 0-3 dbA increase • LOS C 318,415SF on both sides of species habitat to 2 homes and Carr Road New Horizons between Panther School due to Creek and Mill proximity Ave S increase • Significant impact • Significant • Slight decrease tc • Slight to riparian increase in a daycare, two improvement in wetlands at impacts to homes and an Air Quality over Panther Creek Panther Creek Apt Bldg due to NA due to Level habitat south of proximity of Service Carr Road decrease imorovement Transportation Impacts Table 104 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Transportation Impacts Average Timesavings • Time Savings per vehicle: AM = < 1 sec saved PM = 5 sec saved (Does not include time savings for ability to pass slow trucks on uohill arade1 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Queuing/Blocking • Queuing Penalty AM= 425 PM= 1.819 Total = 2,244 Safety Overall Operations • 74% of sight distance • LOS: AM =A, F, B, deficiencies corrected. 8-91 D (Ave= C) PM =A. C, C, E (Ave= C) • Speed: AM= 19 MPH PM= 17 MPH Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Other Impacts Table 105 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Other Impacts Compatibility with Plans and Policies • Would meet mobility and concurrency objectives • Not directly related to transit; supports non- motorized travel • Generally not cost- effective PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Benefit-Cost • B/C: 0.85 • NPV: $-3, 160,000 Costs Constructability • Total: $21.7 M • Lower risk in constructing retaining walls due to land & building acquisition • Construction:$16.6 M • Probability of project • R/W: 8-92 being funded: Very unlikely $3.1. M • Probability of acceptance by general public: Likely • Probability of acceptance by neighborhood: Likely • Moderate impact to traveling public during construction ca" Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum Central Corridor Selection Process Results Each build-alternative consists of identical roadway sections. The difference between each alternative is related to the level of modifications proposed for the horizontal and vertical alignments. The proposed horizontal alignments for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 potentially decrease the amount of accidents in the corridor, but also significantly increase right-of-way impacts. The table below compares the results of the benefit-cost analysis. Ideally, the benefit- cost analysis result is a B/C ratio greater than one. The B/C ratios for Alternatives I, 2, 3 and 4 are less than one. Alternative 4 has the highest B/C ratio, indicating that it provides better "safety value" and time savings for the dollar spent. However, the B/C ratio of less than one and the negative net present value indicate that it is not providing the best return on the dollar invested. Table 106 Summary Alternative B/C Ratio Net Present Cost Deviations Value 18-C) 1 0.24 -$7,531,000 $9,901,000 28 2 0.38 -$14,072,000 $22,601,000 15 3 0.56 -$14,747,000 $33,569,000 4 4 0.85 -$3, 160,000 $21,659,000 2 Preferred Central Corridor Alternative Alternative 4 was selected as the preferred build-alternative by its score in the Level 2 Screening process. It scored highest in the transportation impacts category and scored as well as the other alternatives in the other categories. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-93 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 54 Level 2 Screening Results Environmental Impacts· 25% D Social and Natural Environment Economic Impacts Impacts ... -.. MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS RATING ID-;; C 111-ill 0 ,::, :::,_~ ., a, " ~ .l9 a, ,::, Cl. ~ 1 2 3 4 5 ::, ., a, z C Ill 0 .'!l C Cl "' "'0 Least Effective/ Most Effective/ ,::, -"' " "' a, C C ..J .c: a, "' ::, > 0:: Cl. ~ Most Impact Least Impact "' a, a, • Q "' -a, E _?; ill iii E ,::, ~ a, "' a, :t::~ -~ C .!ll "' 0 " "' I! ~ "' "' ::, ::, ill iii ;:; ,::, 0 0 Cl. "' C::, .:!:! a, z ~ C. ::, §: ~ ::, a, .c: ::, C 0 ;:: <C D.. "' rn " !,! 'iii i5 .s ur ~ -"' " ::, ~ "' -a; .'!lo ·;: m .. .s ·;: .. " 0 ;:: :. .!ll .. "' .c: .c: Cl. " ::c .!ll .E .!!! IL Central Corridor 1 No Action, No Additional Improvements N 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 2 2 Additional EB Lane with 5' Bike Lanes: Align. 1 y 5 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 3 Additional EB Lane with 5' Bike Lanes: Align. 2 y 2 5 5 1 3 4 4 4 3 4 Additional EB Lane with 5' Bike Lanes: Align. 3 y 1 5 4 2 4 1 1 5 3 5 Additional EB Lane with 5' Bike Lanes: Align. 4 y 4 5 4 3 4 2 1 4 3 For sample calculations of total score, see Figure 33. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 8-94 -Transportation Implementability Benefit 50% 25% -Transportation Other Impacts _...... "' .!!! .!::? C 0 0 D.. "' ., ,::, Cl "' C Cl ~ C "' ~ ·;: C a, :ii Cl. "' -"' 0 "' ill " C 0 :c 0 f ~ "' q ~ "' E iii 0 ii: -iii ,::, -" -i= C) •;: .c: i;:: 0 ::, 0 -a, (.) ~ I-C rn ~ 'i -a, ·s 0 C "' Cl (.) ., C I! ., ~ m 0 ::, (.) ., 0 °E > :c < .. > ., "' 0 Cl. E 0 u F=='= ~ 3 2 1 2 1 3 5 5 2.93 ~ 4 4 1 3 3 2 4 2 3.22 ~ 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 1 3.05 ~ 4 4 4 4 3 1 1 2 3.16 ~ 5 4 4 4 3 2 3 4 3.71 - Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Chapter9 East Corridor (SR 515 to 116th Avenue SE) This section of the Carr Road Improvement Project corridor is located solely in King County. Carr Road is known as SE 176 1h Street east of SR 515 and is the primary arterial connecting the residential areas of Fairwood and Soos Creek at the east end of the corridor with commercial, office, and light industrial land uses located at the west end (Green River Valley). SR 515 and I 16th A venue SE are the primary north-south arterials in this area. The primary land uses along the east corridor are retail and residential. Stand-alone retail and shopping center development are clustered at SR 515 while single family residences make up the bulk of the rest of the developed land. Multi-family residential uses have recently been constructed along the north side of Carr Road in the vicinity of I 12th Avenue SE. Existing Conditions Roadway Design Carr Road is classified as a principal arterial. The posted speed limit throughout the Carr Road eastern corridor is 35 mph. The design speed per King County standards is 45 mph. The existing five-lane roadway sections include curb and gutter with sidewalk. The existing right-of-way limits are typically offset 20 feet from the existing back of sidewalk. Lane Configuration Carr Road (SE 176th Street) maintains a four-lane section and a center two-way left tum lane between SR 515 and !16th Avenue SE. At the signalized intersection in the east corridor area, the center two-way left tum lane gives way to a left tum pocket at I 16th Avenue SE. Traffic Conditions Corridor and Intersections Figure 55 and Figure 56 present intersection LOS for the Carr Roads corridor and study area. AM Peak Hour The SE Carr Road/I I 6th Avenue SE intersection operates at a marginal LOS (E) during the AM peak. The overall corridor level of service is at LOS B in the eastbound direction, and C in the westbound direction, with average arterial speeds of 2 l mph eastbound and 15 mph westbound. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-1 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 55 Existing AM Peak Hour Level of Service Not to Scole S 212th St Source: ECTR, Fig.8 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF I I I I I I C 167 F @r "@ 'I/, ~ ~ w "' ~ -< ~ " SE 192nd St E SE 200th St --[DJ L~ ® w "' • > -< ~ "' " I - I I I I Legend Carr Road Study Corridor Carr Road Study Area Limrls Freeway LOS Intersection LOS ~ I I --w <h . .. ~ ------ 9-2 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum PM Peak Hour The 116th Avenue SE intersection operates at LOS D in the PM peak period. The arterial Level of Service shows an overall corridor LOS of C in both directions, with average arterial speeds of 14 mph eastbound and 15 mph westbound. Accident History Accident data for the entire Carr Road corridor was collected. Figure 57 summarizes this data. Accidents in the east corridor have been concentrated at the SE 176th Street/116th Avenue SE intersection. As expected, accidents on the corridor tend to be congregated at high volume locations, and intersections with significant crossing volumes. Existing Traffic Conditions Summary Congested conditions are present at the east end of the east corridor with the intersections at Carr Road/I 16th Avenue SE exhibiting poor levels-of-service. Details of the existing condition traffic analysis and associated data can be found in the Existing Conditions Traffic Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff, September 20, 2002). Natural Environment A preliminary geotechnical investigation was performed for this project to aid in the development and evaluation of alternatives. The Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum, May 200 I, documented the findings of that investigation. The east end alignments are not within an area designated as a 100-year floodplain and there are no erosion or steep slope hazards within the east corridor area. No landslide hazard areas, seismic hazards or coal mine hazards are identified on the SAO map within the project area. Wetlands and Streams In addition to the preliminary geotechnical investigation, wetland and other natural environment discipline reports are being prepared for this project. The Wetland Special Study Report, September 30, 2003, documents the results of the field investigations that have been performed. Wetlands have been identified within the project corridor using National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and King County Sensitive Area Ordinance (SAO) maps as well as through field reconnaissance by project team biologists. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-3 Ca" Road lmprolfement Project Design Memorandum [N Not to Scole S 212:th St Source: £CTR, Fig. 9 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Figure 56 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service I I I I I I I 1~ I[§ "rn I I I I I 167 i --]] I§ ® Legend Carr Road Study Corridor Carr Road Study Area limits Freeway LOS Intersection LOS D I ·---• I I I SE 200th St ----I I - Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum •: I ill ~o Ill ill I 'P "' ti ::i ~ i' l "' ;, -·.; ig a I: ii CD :I I ! .... il iii !l ~ ~ i'l ;il ~ 'g ~ n @/ID Conidor 4-Year Average Annual Accident History, 1997-2000 (Total Accidents/Injury Accidents) @ Intersection 4-Year Average Annual Accident History, 1997-2000 (Total Accidents/Injury Accidents) "' " ll'l "' /g~ g? i' - g? <( £i "'" •cn.o. ~. 1!= w "' <I> .:ti ii ;::, IN Notto Scale Sources: King County City of Renton WSDOT >'!j cio' = ~ ~ __.., ... ~ ~ ., > " " a: "' = ... = !. 0 ~ .--..... ',C ',C Note: Only a partial history -..I of accidents is presented. Complete N data for all corridor intersections g and segments was not available. Q ~ ., ., "" "' > = = = a ~ ;- "' - First Level Screening Process Initial List of Alternatives Eight design alternatives were initially considered and evaluated under the First Level Screening Process (See Chapter 5 for additional information) to address the congestion problems identified by the traffic analysis. They are: E-1 No Action E-2 Right-Tum Pockets E-3 Additional Lane on I 16th Avenue SE at Intersection E-4 Full Improvements E-5 Transit Queue Jump E-6 Additional Carr Lanes E-7 Improve Traffic Signal E-8 Additional Thru Lanes on I 16th A venue SE Below are descriptions of the alternatives along with discussion of the impacts, implementability, and benefits of each initial alternative. Figure 62 provides a summary of the alternatives and their respective rating in each category as well as their overall ratings. E-1 No Action This alternative maintains the existing configuration on the eastern corridor. Please see Figure 58 for the existing configuration of the east corridor study area. Meets Purpose and Need: No. Impacts: This alternative did not impact any sensitive land uses, wetlands or fish habitat nor did it require any additional right-of-way. Implementability: The No Action alternative does not incur any cost and is not likely to draw public objection. However, it does not fulfill any goals of the published plans and policies. Benefits: This alternative does not address any identified deficiencies and does nothing to improve traffic operations. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-6 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum " ~ • -• " ii: -- • •. ! . ' • • I I l ' , f \ t I l!: -. -. -----,-, ~ -~ :11 ''1 \ ' ! t • --.';-= ~ .. - I I . - I ~ " Q It L -- ~ . -. -I' ) ,--. I "'" •I !-_ •I , -•• '~·f~J-~======::__ I E-2 Right-Turn Pockets This alternative adds right tum pockets for each movement, as necessary. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative does not impact any sens1t1ve land uses. It will require some right-of-way and will impact Big Soos Creek and its associated wetlands in order to create the tum pockets. Implementability: Right tum pockets do little to address comprehensive plan goals but is relatively inexpensive to construct and is not likely to draw much public objection. Benefits: Since this alternative does not address the heavy left tum or through movements, this alternative will only slightly improve traffic operations. E-3 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection This alternative adds an additional through-lane segment on 1161h Ave SE through the Carr Road intersection (please see ). 1161h Ave SE would taper back to the current 2- lane channelization on either side of Carr Road. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative does not impact any sensitive land uses. It will require some right-of-way along 1161h Avenue SE and will impact Big Soos Creek and its associated wetlands in order to create the additional roadway width. Implementability: Adding lanes on I 16th Avenue SE through the intersection does fulfill some of the goals listed in the comprehensive plans. It is one of the costlier alternatives proposed for the east corridor but is likely to be more acceptable than the other major construction alternatives. Benefits: The additional lanes on I 16th Avenue SE address the identified left tum capacity deficiencies by providing more throughput on I 16th Avenue SE thus allowing more green time for the left tum movements and enhancing overall traffic operations. E-4 Full Improvements Adds through lane segments as described in E-3, plus adds a right tum pocket on westbound Carr Road, and a dual left tum on eastbound Carr Road. Please see Figure 60 for a schematic of this alternative. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative does not impact any sens1t1ve land uses and has similar impacts to Big Soos Creek and its wetlands. It does, however, require substantially more right-of-way than Alternative E-3. All four legs at the PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-9 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum intersection are proposed to be widened thus at least doubling the right-of-way impact. Implementability: This alternative does well in fulfilling the goals of the comprehensive plans. It is relatively expensive to construct and is likely to draw more public opposition due to the amount of right-of-way required. Benefits: This alternative is best at addressing the identified deficiencies in the east corridor study area and it improves traffic operations considerably. E-5 Transit Queue Jump This alternative adds transit queue jump on westbound Carr Road (left turn) and SB I 16th Ave SE (right turn). Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: The transit queue jump does not impact any sensitive land uses nor does it have any impact on Big Soos Creek or its wetlands. Some right-of-way will be required to accommodate the additional pavement. Implementability: The transit queue jump is only moderately successful in achieving stated plan goals. It does enhance transit service fairly cost effectively. The right-of-way requirements are average for the alternatives considered. Benefits: This alternative received the same ratings as the No Action alternative. The transit queue jump actually worsens the congestion problem at the intersection by taking green time needed for the heavier movements. Additionally, the low number of buses using this intersection decreased the effectiveness of this alternative. E-6 Additional Carr Road Lanes This alternative adds an additional through lane in each direction on Carr Road, extending from SR 515 east to just beyond I 16th Ave SE, creating a 6/7 lane arterial. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: Adding lanes to Carr Road does not impact any sensitive land uses, wetlands or fish habitat. It does require substantial right-of-way acquisition along a fully developed corridor. Implementability: This alternative would fulfill most of the stated goals in the comprehensive plans but at considerable expense and would likely generate a significant amount of public objection. Benefits: This alternative fares poorly in benefits because the through capacity on the Carr Road corridor is not the problem and it does not alleviate the congestion at the I 16th Avenue SE intersection. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-10 Carr Road lmproi,ement Project Design Memorandum C 0 • C ~ -1 =h • I ' \ t 1 ,1 II •I ' ' ! I I -;5-----.... -' • J It I ' I ! ~ ! \ " PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF IW'KPIWTl'l9t!Cm!MII :::i..:.1 2 J.;:., ------·--I --I "loofmlllhr - -~ 1/ Figure 60 East Corridor Alternative E-4 Full Improvements N ·•· s NotlGk ... --- I II - ::: - .. ,, -- ~ iJ1~ .......... it ............. _ II -- ' .. ... _.._ UIC.O"IWI ---::: - /·-·--·-- c.,,. R-d lmprowement Project Design Memorandum E-7 Improve Traffic Signal This alternative improves the signal controller to allow fully actuated-coordinated operation. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative has no impact on sensitive land uses, fish habitat or wetlands. Implementability: Improving traffic signal operations addresses the majority of the comprehensive plan's stated goals with relatively minor cost and probably without any public objection. Benefits: The congestion problems at the 116th Avenue SE intersection, however, cannot be solved by changing/coordinating the traffic signal controller. The intersection is at its physical capacity to handle the traffic volumes and turning movements. E-8 Additional Thru Lanes on 116'h Ave SE This alternative adds an additional through lane in each direction on I 16th Ave SE, creating a 4/5 lane arterial. Please see Figure 61 for a schematic of this alternative. Meets Purpose and Need: Yes. Impacts: This alternative was thought to impact a public playground at the comer of I 16th Avenue SE and SE 164th Street. It will also require a substantial amount of right-of-way to widen I 16th A venue SE to at least four lanes. This will also impact the Big Soos Creek crossing as well as the adjacent wetlands. Implementability: Widening 1161h Avenue SE to four/five lanes meets some plan goals but at substantial cost and likely resentment from the adjacent homeowners. Benefits: Providing more capacity on l l 6ili Avenue SE does address the intersection capacity problem and will improve traffic operations. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-15 Can Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum - ,1, .. PAR.OHS BRIHCK•RHOFF 1th ..... H1DPli ...... ••-OW mttdKlneC..lll!IC -~ ---- , ·--I ' ii Figure 61 East Corridor Alternative E-8 Additional Thru Lanes on 116th Ave SE N ·•· • Notto Scala - ~ { It - fl = - - 11 -~l ~17 --- ~~~ ·-·-· 1111 ···--· - I I t t -n Hh-MIC....Ml .... _......._ ....... _ Carr A,:,ad lmprolf•m•nl Prt:1J-c,t De•l11n Memor•ndum First Level Screening Results Alternative E-4 Full Improvements and Alternative E-3 Add'! Lane on I 16th Ave SE at Intersection rated highest with scores of 4.1 and 3. 7, respectively. The build-alternatives, along with the No Action alternative, were carried into the next phase for more detailed, quantitative evaluation and screening. Please see Figure 62 for a summary of the first level screening results. Figure 62 First Level Screening Results Environmental and Transportation Impacts Impacts Implementability Benefit (25%) (25%) (50%) MEASURE OF "' EFFECTIVENESS RATING CD :§ "' "' "' C: CD "'-0 0 ·c:; 'Cl "' .. "' D.. C: CD ::::I~ .. CD CD 'Cl a. "' -'Cl ·c:; -G> z C: "' u "' C: "' "' 0 ~ 0 ~ • 'Cl .. 0 .. CD "' ? "' C: -.c a. > "' C 0 C: .§ "' "' CD --C: :c > "' ..!!! 'Cl .. Least Effective/ Most Effective/ CD E~ CD "' .. "' ~ "' >, ~ D.. --~ G> cu Most Impact Least Impact 0 "' u .. u, u a. -C: ~ ~ :!2 .c 0 ::I -0 0 a. '" u ~ C: I-~ G> ::I § ~ -a, u ::I "' .c "' 0 C: :!2 ii: D.. 0 u ' -?! 0 J!l ;.!! .c u, u "' .. ~ C) CD CD I-CD -o ii: ·;:: :c "' a, u 0 "' "' "' :; .. .c ! a. " .c .. u, a. 'Cl .§ ~ U: E 'Cl Alternative Description 0 ~ u East Corridor (SR 515 to 116th Ave SE) E-1 No Action N • • • 0 • • 0 0 2.7 E-2 Right-Turn Pockets y • 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 2.3 E-5 Transit Queue Jump y • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 E-6 Add'I Carr Lanes y • 0 • a 0 ~ ~ ~ 2.5 E-7 Improve Traffic Signal y • • • a a • ~ 0 3.1 E-8 Add'I thru lanes on 116~ Ave SE y 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 2.8 For sample calculation of total score, see Figure 14. PARSONS Ca" Road Improvement Project BRINCKERHOFF 9-19 Design Memorandum Second Level Screening Process The No-Action and the two build-alternatives selected from the First Level Screening process were subjected to a second, more detailed, quantitative evaluation. Please see Chapter 5 for a detailed description of the criteria and their measures of effectiveness. The following data was gathered to assist in the second level screening evaluation: No Action Roadway Design The posted speed limit throughout Carr Road's (SE I 76th Street) east corridor is 35 mph. The design speed per King County standards is 45 mph. The existing five-lane roadway section includes curb and gutter with sidewalk. The existing right-of-way limits are typically at or within IO feet of the existing back of sidewalk. SE 176th Street is on a tangential horizontal alignment between SR 515 and I 16th Avenue SE and slopes slightly upgrade (-2%) from west to east. SE 176th Street crests near I 14th Place SE and slopes downward at approximately 3-4% from that point to the east. Roadway Geometry SE 176th Street is on a tangential horizontal alignment between SR 515 and 116th Avenue SE and slopes slightly upgrade (-2%) from west to east. SE 176th Street crests near I 14th Place SE and slopes downward at approximately 3-4% from that point to the east. 116th Avenue SE is also on a tangential horizontal alignment. However, I 16th Avenue has an approximately 2% downward slope from the south to SE 176th Street. At the intersection, the downward slope of I 16th A venue SE increases to approximately 9.3%. It bottoms out at the Big Soos Creek crossing, approximately 500 feet north of the intersection and then climbs at approximately 4.5%. The following tables summarize the existing roadway design elements and values along with the King County design requirements. The following tables indicate Carr Road's existing design deficiencies and their locations. The existing data is based on information obtained from Carr Road construction plans and field observations. The following sections summarize the existing alignment design elements. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-20 Caff Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 1 Location Table 107 116 1 • Avenue SE No Action: Existing Grade Maximum* -STA 89+00 to 92+50 9% Existing Notes 9.3% Non- standard *(1993 King County Road Standards, Section 2.02) Typical Roadway Sections 1 2 SE 176'"' Street (Carr Road) is five lanes wide including a center two-way left tum lane that becomes a left tum pocket at the 1161h A venue SE intersection. 116'• Avenue SE is a two lane road that widens to three I I-foot lanes at SE 176'"' Street. At the intersection, an ] !-foot receiving lane, an I I-foot through lane and an I] - foot shared through/right lane are provided. Curb, gutter and sidewalk exist on SE 176'"' Street. 1161h Avenue SE's paved shoulders vary in width from approximately 12 feet to non-existent. There are no curbs or sidewalks on ! ! 61 • A venue SE. Sight Distance There are no stopping sight distance issues on SE 176'"' Street. Due to the changes in grade on 116'"' Avenue SE, vertical stopping sight distance requirements are not met in two instances. Please see Table I 08. Several private driveways and public street approaches are located along SE 1761h Street in the east corridor. Entering sight distances along SE 176'"' Street are not limited by the road's geometry. Sight distances for residential driveways adjoining 116'"' Avenue SE are not limited by the roadway's geometry. Table 108 116 1h Avenue SE No Action: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance Location Required• Existing Notes -STA 88+00 -495 feet 338 feet Non-standard, crest -STA 93+60 -495 feet 205 feet Non-standard, sag *(J 993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1, for 45 mph design speed & Section 2.12) PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-21 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 1 2 Deviations Table 109 summarizes the existing design deviations. The sag vertical curve located north of the intersection does not meet stopping sight distance requirements nor AASHTO's comfort criteria. The sag vertical curve's Jack of sufficient length may be mitigated by illuminating the sag curve at night. The crest vertical curve's lack of sufficient curve length is somewhat mitigated by the presence of the intersection's traffic signal. Vehicles will not normally be traveling at the corridor's maximum speed due to the signal's metering effect. The crest vertical curve is centered on the intersection. Location -STA 88+00 -STA 93+60 Right-of-Way Table 109 116 1h Avenue SE No Action: Design Deviations Design Standard Crest Vertical Curve Stopping Sight Distance Sag Vertical Curve Stopping Sight Distance Notes Curve located at a signalized intersection Mitigatable with street lighting Right-of-way is not required for the No Action alternative. Traffic Analysis No Action Volume Forecasting The first step undertaken to develop alternatives was to perform traffic volume forecasts for the no-build condition. The forecasted volumes could then be analyzed to determine the possible causes and solutions to the congestion problems on the corridor. Traffic forecasts for the design year 2020 PM peak period were provided by Rao Associates and were developed from the City of Renton's travel forecasting model which is consistent with the PSRC model. 2020 AM no-build volumes were derived manually from the 2020 PM volumes by applying the PM growth factor, between 2000 and 2020 volumes, to the opposing movements at the intersection. This was done to capture the directional differences in growth patterns that shift between the AM and PM peaks. However, due to the complexity of the network in the vicinity of the SR 167 interchange, significant movement-specific adjustments were necessary PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-22 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 26. The final step in developing the AM volumes compared results with a version of the 2020 PSRC AM Peak Period model. Some additional manual adjustments were made based on this review. Arterial Operations Operational analysis of the arterial was performed using Synchro. Analysis of signalized intersections within the study area utilized Synchro's implementation of the 2000 HCM method for the calculation of Level of Service (LOS), average vehicle delay and volume-to-capacity (V /C) ratio. LOS is a standard delay-based measure of traffic operating conditions, which grades traffic conditions on a scale of "A" to "F." LOS A represents free-flow conditions, while LOS F represents "breakdown" conditions on a roadway. The level of service that may be considered acceptable is variable and highly dependant on local conditions and roadway function, though generally LOS D or higher is considered acceptable, while LOS E indicates highly congested, near breakdown conditions. It should be noted that the Synchro HCM Signals calculation does not allow for consideration of right turns on red, thus resulting in significantly degraded LOS for movements that have high volumes of right-on-red movements. In cases with exclusive right tum Janes and high right turning volumes, the difference can be significant. These situations were identified and compensated for in the development of proposed solutions. An arterial analysis, based on the 2000 HCM Chapter 11 procedures, was also prepared for the Carr Road corridor to give a general sense of the overall corridor performance in terms of corridor-wide LOS and average speed. Details and software output data can be found in the Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum (Parsons Brinckerhoff, October 6, 2003). Table 110 presents the level of service, average vehicle delay and V/C ratios for the ! 16th A venue SE intersection for both AM and PM peak periods. The intersection is further detailed in Figure 63 presenting average vehicle delay and LOS by intersection approach to specifically identify the most congested direction of travel. Table 110 No Action: Intersection LOS, Average Vehicle Delay and V/C AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM (sec.) Delay LOS V/C (sec.) Delay LOS V/C Carr Road Corridor Carr Rd. & 116• Ave. SE 150 104.1 F 1.13 150 98.4 F 1.22 Source: AATM, Tables 30 & 31. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-23 Can Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Within the study corridor, the Carr Road/I I 6th Avenue SE intersection 1s consistently at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak periods. The volumes at the intersection of Carr Road/I I 6th Avenue SE exceed capacity on the westbound leg and the northbound leg in the AM peak period and exceed the westbound leg and the southbound leg in the PM peak period. These results are relatively consistent with the directional peak of commuter volumes. The poor operations of the westbound leg in the PM peak period are a function of the high conflicting eastbound left-tum volume and the signal timing (allocation of the green time). Queuing A summary on 95th percentile queue lengths as reported by Synchro is presented in Table 111. The I 16th Avenue SE intersection exceeds available storage capacity on at least one leg during one of the time periods by at least I 00 feet. Significant queues, those exceeding 1000 feet or the available space between intersections for through movements or 500 feet beyond available tum pocket storage for tum movements, have been identified in Table 112. Table Ill No Action: 2020 95th Percentile Queue (Ft) Intersection Eastbound Westbound AM Peak Hour Left Thru Rt Left Thru Carr Rd.& 116"AveSE G 328 -I 154 1282 PM Peak Hour Carr Rd & 116"Ave SE I m639 I m244 I -222 738 Underlined -Queue on mainline (through movements) exceeds 500 feet. ~ -Queue exceeds available storage length by less than 100 feet. @old ltaliq -Queue exceeds available storage length by more 1han 100 lee!. m -Queue metered by upstream signal. Source: AATM. Table 32. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-24 Rt I - I - Northbound Southbound Left Tbru Rt Left Thru Rt 68 I 949 I 79 I 653 I 27 418 1:19 1346 I - Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Ill;'\! I :a f) Ill :II 0 ; I ~ ::i ~ i :a i' =. "' ;r -·.; cg a fl i1 ~1 t-· ::I! g, !; ~ s:: -~ ~ w °' 53. :<m I CfD I_ 12 -,-. I ~" I I 60. :go ..j I.. ,._,@]) c, ; 1 M -m I ,io 58. (1,j) '-" -I r • <' m 60. !;.o ..j I.. 18.l(f,]) •• , I ~u 24. :So ..j I.. '-62 43.Jq,J)-, o-. ,r '\. il!w JI 1. :llw _, I '-,. '-1 .'fw 61 J (@;=. J I.. J._ Et'" 0 31 _ 18 ; Jr C -Q'ci),-B 1. :qo t ',Ir 11:~ ::,w 24. ...., ~~ ...j I.. '-sa 49.l@:y-, o-,r lllw _, I '-,. ~ \_ ~ LL Jc~-· -t '-61 .52.2 rA J .L E'"T' "-C -43 ; Ir -10;-c@ro ,I u t '; 1 (' i, w u, ,. J~ d2 -L32 0 3aJ@J)-c =2 D-~ i (' :gw 5. 4. fl:w ~ + J._. -m .., 11.. 72J ..L17 1 J(i:o:\-A E (?Ij),-B ··;1-',r :: w ..,~ "' 3. l 0 .0 ~ _ \... 23 11.lQ}iV-c B -"'f (' '1 0 , 5 ::lw '· "w + J._ 7 .., I'- 8J(,J),-A 39J ..L3a D @]),-o •·, r • , r "w ~ LL (515: "'· .. "' "' !!!· + J ·=J-7 3 @JJ,-A A,+ ;,:w 7. ~ ~~ ..j I..J._ 4 11.J@,-A ',Ir- iliw 51!;) SE 6. ~ ~~ + 6 J "'·" J-10 A "'""r ~.'.V r A + ~lL !!L ..j I.. J._ 5 14JQ,),-A 8 ',Ir m~ ~ 8. .:lo ..j I.. 54; J0]l:::: 32 E, ,-C ,Ir i!'w AM Peak Hour )N Not to Scale ~ ..j I.. J-118 "' .J</.04},-F E' f-~~ 44 J Movement Average Oeley (SecondsNehic:le) <i1]) Intersection Average Delay (Seconds/Vehicle) 8. ii!w ..j I.. 68 J@:::: 54 E--r-rD ,Ir lllw PM Peak Hour )N Notto Scale !.. .j I.. J-120 66 J(l!]),F E ',r ~w m 44 J Movement Average Delay (SecondsNehlc:le) ~!) lnten;ectlon Average Delay (Seconds/Vehicle) "l "°' C: el a, "' z 0 t -s· = > "Cl "Cl 6 "' ... =-t:I " $ "' = Q. r- !! ~ 0 .., fJJ " :1 ;:;· " Table 112 No Action: Significant Queues AM Peak Direction Spillback Carr Rd/116th Ave SE WBT = 1280' None PM Peak Carr Rd/1161h Ave SE SBT = 1350' None Source: AATM, Table 35. Structures and Retaining Walls There are no bridge structures or roadway retaining walls within the east corridor area. Conceptual Cost Opinion There is no construction cost associated with the No Action alternative. Benefit/Cost Benefit/Cost analysis is norrnally perforrned on the build-alternatives to assess their cost effectiveness. Construction (and other related type) and maintenance cost are typically used for the cost component. Benefits, usually in terrns of travel time savings or accident cost reduction, are translated and quantified into dollars of savings to provide a common reference. The No Action alternative does not generate benefit as defined above and was therefore excluded from comparison in this category. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-26 Ca" Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each screening category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings given to this and all other alternatives in the east corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Please see Figure 68. Meets Purpose and Need All build-alternatives meet the project's stated purpose and need. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 113 No Action: Socioeconomic Impacts Impacts to Sensitive Displacements Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts (schools, churches, Impacts hosoitalsl • None • None • None • None Natural Environment Impacts Table 114 No Action: Natural Environment Impacts Water Quality/ Water Quantity ~ No additional impervious surface PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Wetlands ~ None Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Vegetation ~ None 9-27 Noise Air Quality • No Increase in lo LOS F Proximity Carr Raad Improvement ProJect Design Memorandum Transportation Impacts Table 115 No Action: Transportation Impacts Average Timesavings Queuing/Blocking Safety Overall Operations • Average Time Savings • Queuing Penalty • No improvements • LOS: AM= F per vehicle: AM =278 PM=F No Action is the base PM= 918 • Speed: AM = 9 MPH or zero Total = 1196 PM= 11 MPH Overall Operations LOS were obtained from Synchro analysis using HCM methodology. The LOS results reported in the table above may not coincide with tables in the Final Alternative Analysis Technical Memorandum (Parsons Brinckerhoff, October 2, 2003) due to revisions and corrections that were made to the data input tables since these results were used. Average speeds were requested directly from Synchro's summary network Memorandum of Effectiveness report. These results were then tailored to reflect the selection of specific intersections included within the project area. Other Impacts Table 116 No Action: Other Impacts Compatibility with Benefit-Cost Costs Constructability Plans and Policies • Does not comply with • None • None • None concurrency requirements PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-28 ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Additional Lane on 116th Avenue SE at Intersection This alternative adds a through lane for both the northbound and southbound directions. The lanes begin and terminate approximately 500 feet on either side of the intersection. Please see Figure 64. 1 Roadway Design The following sections compare the proposed build-alternative's design elements and values with the minimum King County requirements. Existing vertical curve stopping sight distance design deficiencies are not corrected by the proposed alternative. Roadway Geometry The existing deficient grade and vertical curve lengths on 116 1h Avenue SE are not corrected by this alternative because the alternative was developed as a "pure" widening proposal. Available accident data did not imply a roadway geometry safety issues and correcting the roadway's vertical geometry will impact the adjacent properties. Furthermore, adjustments will be needed on SE 176'" Street as well. With the current concept, SE l 76ili Street is not affected by construction. Table 117 Add') Lane on 116'h Ave SE at Intersection: Grade Add'I Lane on Location Maximum* Existing 116th Ave SE at Notes Intersection -STA 36+00 to 45+50 9% 9.3% 9.3% Non-standard *(1993 King County Road Standards, Section 2.02) Typical Roadway Sections SE J 76ili Street will continue to be five lanes wide including the center two-way left turn lane that becomes a left turn pocket at the I 16th Avenue SE intersection. l l 6ili A venue SE will be widened to two I I-foot lanes in each direction 400 feet north and south of SE J 76'h Street. A 12-foot left turn pocket is also provided on each approach. Curb, gutter and sidewalk, existing on SE l 76'h Street, will be carried around the curb return then transitioned to the existing paved shoulder. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-29 ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 64 Ea .. Corridor Add'! Lane on 116th Ave~~ at Intersection PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-30 ..... -•4""1 0 5/J-,:;;-, ,lo' 200 • I I I I I I I I I I I Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 1 2 Sight Distance All horizontal stopping sight distances and driveway entering sight distances meet standards. Vertical curve stopping sight distance is unchanged from the No Action alternative. Table 118 Add'! Lane on 1161h Ave SE at Intersection: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance Location Required* Existing Notes -STA88+00 -495 feet 338 feet Non-standard, crest -STA 93+60 -495 feet 205 feet Non-standard, sag *(1993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1,for 45 mph design speed & Section 2.12) 1 2 Deviations Table 119 summarizes the design deviations present in Add'] Lane on I 16th Ave SE at Intersection's design. Vertical curve improvements are not proposed in order to minimize impact to the adjacent properties. Table 119 Add'! Lane on 116'h Ave SE at Intersection: Design Deviations Location Design Standard Notes -STA 88+ Crest Vertical Curve Curve located at a signalized Stopping Sight Distance intersection Sag Vertical Curve -STA 93+60 Stopping Sight Distance Mitigatable with street lighting Right-of-Way The proposed right-of-way acquisitions occur in areas where existing right-of- way limits are at the back of sidewalk. The following table lists the parcels and amounts of right-of-way needed for the proposed alignment. The building size column indicates "no impact" if the existing buildings or structures are not impacted by the proposed alignment. Addresses were obtained from King County's parcel viewer website and no attempt was made to correct that information. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-31 can Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 120 Add'l Lane on 1161h Ave SE at Intersection: Land Use Parcel Number Single Family 2823059057 Residential Single Family 2823059048 Residential Single Family 2823059062 Residential Single Family 7938400110 Residential Single Family 2823059056 Residential Single Family 7938400100 Residential Single Family 7938400090 Residential Single Family 7938400080 Residential Single Family 2923059086 Residential Single Family 2923059097 Residential Multi-Family 2680650000 Residential Single Family 3223059071 Residential Single Family 3223059303 Residential Single Family 3223059291 Residential Single Family 6196600080 Residential Single Family 6196600060 Residential Single Family 6196600040 Residential Single Family 6196600020 Residential Traffic Analysis Arterial Operations Right-of-Way Requirements Address 17450 116th Ave SE, KC 11602 SE Petrovitsky Rd, KC 17442116thAveSE, KC 17440 116th Ave SE, KC 17428116th Ave SE, KC 17420116"' Ave SE, KC 17408 116"' Ave SE, KC 17400 116th Ave SE, KC 11526 SE 176th St, KC 17445 116th Ave SE, KC 17405 116"' Ave SE, KC 11525 SE 176th St, KC 17709 116th Ave SE, KC 17721116thAveSE, KC 17718 116th Ave SE, KC 17702 116th Ave SE, KC 17616116th Ave SE, KC 17610 116th Ave SE, KC Area Building Required Size lsfl lsfl 781 No Impact 2831 1010 794 No Impact 947 No Impact 427 No Impact 577 No Impact 232 No Impact 10 No Impact 10366 3020 9600 1310 2928 No Impact 1990 No Impact 2934 No Impact 51 No Impact 597 No Impact 812 No Impact 2118 No Impact 690 No Impact The addition of lanes on 116th A venue SE improves the AM peak period intersection operations to a LOS E and eliminates the LOS F approaches. In the PM peak period, the intersection operations improve to a LOS D and the LOS F approaches are eliminated. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-32 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 121 presents the level of service, average vehicle delay and V/C ratios for the I 16th A venue SE intersection for both AM and PM peak periods. The intersection is further detailed in Figure 65 presenting average vehicle delay and LOS by intersection approach to specifically identify the most congested direction of travel. Table 121 Add'l Lane on 116 1h Avenue SE at Intersection: Arterial LOS AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM (sec.) Delay LOS V/C (sec.) Delay LOS V/C Caff Road Corridor 26. Carr Rd. & 116• Ave. SE 150 58.9 E 0.97 150 54 D 0.94 Source: AATM. Tables 30 & 31. Queuing A summary on 95th percentile queue lengths as reported by Synchro is presented in Table 122. Significant queuing in the AM westbound direction remains as shown in Table 123 below. Table 122 Add'l Lane on 116'h Avenue SE at Intersection: 2020 95th Percentile Queue (Ft) Intersection Eastbound Westbound AM Peak Hour Left Thru Rt Left Thru Carr Rd.& 116" Ave SE G 305 154 1111 PM Peak Hour Carr Rd & 116" Ave SE m515 m176 161 662 k.Jnderlinecj-Queue on mainline (through movements) exceeds 500 feet. ~ -Queue exceeds available storage length by less than 100 feet. !Bold ltalig -Queue exceeds available storage length by more than 100 feet. m -Queue metered by upstream signal. Source: AATM, Table 33. Rt I - Northbound Left Thru Rt 136 ~ 50 228 Table 123 Add'! Lane on 116 1h Ave SE at Intersection: Significant Queues AM Peak Direction Spillback Carr Rd/116"' Ave SE WBT= 1130' None Source: AA TM. Table 36. Southbound Left Thru Rt 168 ~ 448 558 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-33 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Structures and Retaining Walls Lengthening of the Big Soos Creek culvert crossing on I 16th Avenue SE will be required. Short retaining walls are also likely to avoid greater impact to adjacent private property. Conceptual Cost Opinion A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for the cost opinion details. Right-of-way costs are based on King County assessed land and building values for 2003. The right-of-way subtotal includes land and building acquisition costs, but does not include business relocation costs. The Construction Cost subtotal includes a 20% contingency to account for the conceptual nature of the design that was translated into construction costs and I 0% mobilization costs. Miscellaneous Costs include Construction Engineering and Contingencies at 15%. A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for cost opinion details. Right-of-way Construction (Grading!Drainage/Structures!Paving!Traffic/Utilffies/Mob.) Design Engineering and Administration Miscellaneous (Constr. Eng. and Contingencies) Total Cost Opinion Add'I Lane on 116"' Ave SE at Intersection Benefit/Cost $378,000 $1,735,000 $239,000 $ 260.000 $2,612,000 A benefit-cost analysis was performed using annualized time saving benefits and construction cost estimates over a 20-year period. The present worth values for benefits and costs were calculated using a 4% net discount rate and are expressed in year 2002 dollars. The 20-year period begins at the assumed 2007 year-of-opening. The benefit-cost calculation worksheets may be found in Appendix A. A summary of those calculations is shown in the table below. Table 124 Add'! Lane on 1161b Ave SE at Intersection: Net Discount Rate 4% PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Benefit-Cost Total Time Savings Benefit (Year 2002 $} $8,934,931 9-34 Construction Cost Benefit/Cost (Year 2002 $) Ratio $2,612,000 3.42 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Ill : :!! :II :t en ~o Ill 5i I ~ t> ~ l i' l "' !;' IQ'.; :o a fi 0 :, .... § :si Q. ,2. ; i g, ~ i::: ~ ~ c,,, "' "· "· I ,. i .-· 1· .. ·. ·.· ) ::!ca l;i:c &. (5 5)/ J .jl. -- @JL12 43=:@..::=6,' / 3sJ@.:.t1 ~ 81 ~--r B D • o-i,...;:. :.?, I "\ Ir -1 , !'t ~. SE 176th St (Carr Road) ,.< f8W ~w <t ~ E AM Peak Hour IN Not to Scale ··-"' 8. ~ > ~o ::; ...{I... w 26. C <I) ~w ·-soJ!Jiv~4o §! ·--1-··-------------c El 111ro ~ L ' V'>UJ <P, -J l..L54 43 -1(~;1>,o o-,-"\r 60. :law .j l. 2sJ @)> ct -- "\ I ,:/ C • a, ,_ -~ - 1. :llw ., 11.. 61 Jc,_~· E"""'i'" fA "\l, :,iu ,. ;z w l! .j f. J L1s D) 'i-@;=, • "\Ir :g w 5. ,-LL tl w +_,1-, ](1.. .j.. .L, t:.Cfg>, A 73 J .J...15 1 J@rA i'°" E "T@:?\-s A "T" \ r ,! w "'r .. ~ ,:w <I) " ' ' .., ss. 24. .... 3. ~ (5· 1 5 --,, -!XI O>U. 0::: \ ) J .jl. -' J '-58 -L2J Js @3) \... 20 49-@])-11JQ2])-c N t}) re ot -E a----I--' 1 "\Ir -t , J ~tt:I :gw !;:j:C b :g w =w ~ 44 J Approach Average Delay (SecondsNehlcle) X Approach LOS @ Intersection Average Delay (Secondi;IV&hicle) PM Peak Hour I )N Not to Scale I ~ 2 e. > _. ~w :g} \ ~ .jl. "' w U) 26, ~w -~ 68-'(f.Y)~52 ~ ---i-------~::.... ,..,. "\Ir'" ~ J -5 onw tO 6, ;! u.. 12 iJ!J\-A co ;::I Bo' -J l. .L,a 25 Jci<o),E C .-:;-f- 60. :;?c .j l. 11J@ •• "\ 1 :;;u 1. ~ + "'r 8:U. OW <OW J ~10 V'>lL ~ f. I1 1.. J .J.. .1.. , ! ..,.@]5, s ~ c 101J -~.J....iJ 39J -,J...3s 6 @rA -r l ,-@Jl,o 0 -Qg>,o A..,. t. ~ w t t ir ,_ ~u i;;l:: 1t i, w M w ~ 44 J Approach Average Delay (SecondsNehlcle) ){ Approach LOS @ Intersection Average Delay (SecondsNehicle) "I .,;· = -, '" a, "' > Q. Q. t"" "' = '" Q = .... .... a, -... ~ '" 'J1 t"l "' -... = ;- ;;i g -s· = > "O "O cl "' " ... 1::1 '" ;' '< "' = Q. t"" 0 'J1 Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each screening category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings given to this and all other alternatives in the east corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Please see Figure 68. Meets Purpose and Need All build-alternatives meet the project's stated purpose and need. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 125 Add'! Lane on 1161b Ave SE at Intersection: Displacements • Total no. of displacements: • No. of residences: • No. of comm. structures: • No. of other structures: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 3 3 0 0 Socioeconomic Impacts Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts (schools, churches, Impacts hospitals) • Schools: None • No documented • None historical/ and or cultural sites. • Churches: None • Area is fairly well- developed. • Hospitals: None • High probability of extant historic buildings. • No recorded archaeological sites but Big Soos Creek has ethnographic significance. 9-36 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Natural Environment Impacts Table 126 Add'I Lane on 116'• Ave SE at Intersection: Natural Environment Impacts Water Quality/ Wetlands Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Noise Air Quality Water Quantity Vegetation • Total impervious: le Potential impacts le Low potential to J. 0-3 dbA increase 1o LOS D 181,700SF to wetlands at Big affect ESA in noise to 13 Soos Creek species & habitat homes due to proximity increase 1o Improvement in Air Quality over NA due to Level of Service imorovement Transportation Impacts Table 127 Add'! Lane on 1161• Ave SE at Intersection: Average Timesavings • Time Savings per vehicle: AM = 39 sec saved PM = 36 sec saved PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Transportation Impacts Queuing/Blocking • Queuing Penalty AM= 198 PM= 492 Total = 690 Safety Overall Operations • No change in safety • LOS: AM=E 9-37 PM =D • Speed: AM= 13 MPH PM= 15 MPH Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Other Impacts Table 128 Add'I Lane on 1161h Ave SE at Intersection: Compatibility with Plans and Policies • Would meet concurrency and mobility objectives • Not directly related to transrt goals • More cost efficient than full improvements PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Other Impacts Benefit-Cost Costs Constructability • B/C: 3.42 • Total: $2.6 M • No technical constraints • NPV: $6,323,000 • Construction: $2.0 M • Probability of project •R/W: 9-38 being funded: Very likely $0.4 M • Probability of acceptance by general public: Very likely • Probability of acceptance by neighborhood: Somewhat likely • Some impact to traveling public during construction Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection This alternative adds a through lane on 1161 h Avenue SE, beginning and terminating 500 feet on either side of the intersection. It also adds a second left tum pocket in the eastbound direction and a right tum pocket in the westbound direction. See Figure 66. 1 Roadway Design The following sections compare the proposed build-alternative's design elements and values with the minimum King County requirements. Existing vertical curve stopping sight distance design deficiencies are not corrected by the proposed alternative. The existing deficient grade and vertical curve lengths on 1161h Avenue SE are not corrected by this alternative because the alternative was developed as a "pure" widening proposal. Available accident data did not imply roadway geometry safety issues. Correcting the roadway's vertical geometry will impact adjacent properties as well as requiring adjustments on SE 1761h Street. Table 129 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Grade Additional Lane Location Maximum* Existing on 116th Notes Avenue SE at Intersection -STA 36+00 to 45+50 9% 9.3% 9.3% Non-standard *( 1993 King County Road Standards. Section 2. 02) Typical Roadway Sections SE 1761 h Street will be widened to six lanes on both east and west approaches. The west approach will consist of two I I-foot through lanes in each direction and two 12-foot left turn lanes. The east approach will contain two I I-foot through lanes in each direction, an 11-foot wide right turn pocket, a 12-foot left tum pocket, and a 12-foot striped median. The existing curb, gutter and sidewalk will be replaced. The I 16th A venue SE roadway section is identical to the Additional Lane on 1161h Avenue SE at Intersection alternative. Sight Distance All horizontal stopping sight distances and driveway entering sight distances meet standards. Vertical curve stopping sight distance is unchanged from the No Action alternative. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-39 ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 66 East Corridor Full Improvements (All Le.,s) at Intersection PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF SE 176THST (CARRRtJ). l I I I • ) I 9-40 I I I I I I I I ------ Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 130 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance Location Required* Existing Notes 1 -STA 88+00 -495 feet 338 feet Non-standard, crest 2 -STA 93+60 -495 feet 205 feet Non-standard, sag *(1993 King County Road Standards Table 2.1.for 45 mph design speed & Section 2.12) Deviations 1 2 Table 131 summarizes the design deviations present in the Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection alternative. Vertical curve improvements are not proposed in order to minimize impact to adjacent properties. Table 131 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Design Deviations Location Design Standard Notes Crest Vertical Curve Curve located at a signalized -STA 88+00 Stopping Sight Distance intersection Sag Vertical Curve -STA 93+60 Stopping Sight Distance Mitigatable with street lighting Right-of-Way The proposed right-of-way acquisitions occur in areas where existing right-of- way limits are less than the typical 20 feet offset from the back of sidewalk. Additional right-of-way is required at locations adjacent to the proposed tangent section of the revised alignment. The following table lists the parcels and amounts of right-of-way needed for the proposed alignment. The building size column indicates "no impact" if the existing buildings or structures are not impacted by the proposed alignment. Addresses were obtained from King County's parcel viewer website and no attempt was made to correct that information. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-41 Ca" Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 132 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Right-Of-Way Requirements Land Use Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Parcel Number 2823059057 2823059048 2823059062 7938400110 2823059056 7938400010 7938400090 7938400080 2923059086 2923059097 2680650000 3223059071 3223059303 3223059291 6196600080 6196600060 6196607777 6196600040 6196600020 6196600021 2823059020 2823059055 2823059040 6196600022 Area Building Size Address Required (sf) (sf) 17450 116th Ave SE, KC 1750 11602 SE Petrovitsky Rd, KC 8400 1010 17442 116th Ave SE, KC 794 No Impact 17440 116th Ave SE, KC 947 No Impact 17428116th Ave SE, KC 427 No Impact 17420116th Ave SE, KC 577 No Impact 17408116th Ave SE, KC 232 No Impact 17400 116th Ave SE, KC 10 No Impact 11526 SE 176th St, KC 10716 3020 17445116th Ave SE, KC 9600 1310 17405 116th Ave SE, KC 2928 No Impact 11525 SE 176th St, KC 1990 No Impact 17709 116th Ave SE, KC 7092 No Impact 17721 116th Ave SE, KC 51 No Impact 17718116th Ave SE, KC 597 No Impact 17702 116th Ave SE, KC 812 No Impact 17720 116th Ave SE, KC 64 No Impact 17616 116th Ave SE, KC 2118 No Impact 17610 116th Ave SE, KC 690 No Impact 11603 SE 176th St, KC 6030 1770 11610 SE Petrovitsky Rd, KC 1750 No Impact 11620 SE Petrovitsky Rd, KC 21262 1070 11704 SE Petrovitsky Rd, KC 379 No Impact 11615 SE 176th St, KC 1033 No Impact 9-42 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 132 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Right-Of-Way Requirements (cont.) Parcel Land Use Number Single Family 6196600023 Residential Single Family 6196600360 Residential Single Family 2923059083 Residential Single Family 2923059090 Residential Single Family 2923059126 Residential Single Family 2923059122 Residential Single Family 5648600260 Residential Single Family 6196600020 Residential Traffic Analysis Arterial Operations Area Building Size Address Required lsfl (sf) 11625 SE Petrovitsky Rd, KC 484 No Impact 11705 SE Petrovitsky Rd, KC 15 No Impact 11520 SE 176th St, KC 687 No Impact 11512 SE 176th St, KC 658 No Impact 11504 SE 176th St, KC 867 No Impact 11430 SE 176th St, KC 456 No Impact Morning Glen Drainage, KC No Impact 17610 116th Ave SE, KC 690 No Impact The addition of lanes and improvement on all legs in the Full Improvements alternative improves the AM peak period intersection LOS to D and eliminates the LOS F approaches. In the PM peak period the intersection operations also improve to a LOS D and the LOS F approaches are eliminated. Please see Figure 67. Table 133 presents the level of service, average vehicle delay and V/C ratios for the 116th A venue SE intersection for both AM and PM peak periods. The intersection is further detailed in Figure 67 presenting average vehicle delay and LOS by intersection approach to specifically identify the most congested direction of travel. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-43 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 133 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Arterial LOS AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Cycle HCM HCM HCM Cycle HCM HCM HCM (sec.) Delay LOS VIC (sec.) Delay LOS VIC Carr Road Corridor 26. Carr Rd. & 116• Ave. SE 150 40.2 D 0.81 150 40.8 D 0.82 Source: AATM, Tables 30 & 31. Queuing A summary on 95th percentile queue lengths as reported by Synchro is presented in Table 134. Queuing issues are present for this alternative but no significant queues are expected. Table 134 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: 2020 95th Percentile Queue (Ft) Intersection Eastbound Westbound AM Peak Hour Left Thru Rt Left Tbru Carr Rd.& 116" Ave SE 0 211 -I 154 822 PM Peak Hour Carr Rd & 116" Ave SE I m262 I m563 I -I 198 569 Undenined-Queue on mainline (through movements) exceeds 500 feet. ~-Queue exceeds available storage length by less than 100 feet. !Bold ltalig-Queue exceeds available storage length by more than 100 feet. m -Queue metered by upstream signal. Source: AATM, Table 34. Structures and Retaining Walls Rt I - I - Northbound Southbound Left Thru Rt Left Thru Rt 102 0 133 0 50 215 400 476 I - Lengthening of the Big Soos Creek culvert crossing on 116th Avenue SE will be required. Short retaining walls are also proposed to avoid, where possible, greater impact to adjacent private property. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-44 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum 1: i :ii n en ~o Ill ill I 0 ::i ~ i : fl .. ;, IQ'i ::s a fi 0 :, .... [1 ~ ~ t' ~ i::: -~ ~ w 0, 58. " ~ I (iil '--13 --r I B ~"' 24. la C 3. ~ 15 AM Peak Hour ~ .~ .. 39J@_,::,.'.::" _g <515) "'w o-_, C -;;; - 1 ' 1- (1> --:BUJ ~ - I IN -Not to scale ,. ~. - .:le ..j C. w ..j C. 43 ~'16~ 1:::.s2 ot~ E ,Ir -----+------,.----l.. _ _:~SEsj ~ LI. 55J1T--;:,. I.... tn . . " . . ,-,,,-. . . . .--• ,, > • ,., •• • ,. ,,,, •• ~ •• .,,. 0 -· ._"'_,,.. , '' + + ,r " ,. • •-ke..-,S• 60. ::!c ..j C. 21J (u) n ~-, ,ic 60. !;;c ..j C. 1aJ @!) •• 'I ~" 1. :Sw ., ! C. "J @])~' El fA ,Ir ::l " 58. ~i @'--20 I r • "~ ,, •• ~ l' •• t-· ,,.,-~. •'@.f-' '' • ,~ -•• ,le ~~·~ ·~=·· ff •• •• ,, ,. ,, ,c ... •• ;,~ ,:w ;,!W I~ 44 _J Approech Average Delay (SecondsNehlcle) X Approach LOS OI!) Intersection Average Delay (SecondsNehlcl&) 24. ~~ 3 ~ ..jC. I . " ~J ..__ a D ",cf,J)-58 0:: .. ,I, E 17JQii]).'.::'° 2 15151 ,. ,--' • -' PM p 1 c • eak Hou• ,. . IN ,. - ~ ~w . . -.. > ' • • .~--' •• .!J' " '. ,,,..cso ·: J "'"'' , • ' ,. ,,c,,,C. ,,," ~ •• ~ I ,. /I' ./'.' + n" • ,. • ••«a-'-'' =~ ·~=•• n·" ,. " ;;;- 3 ~-.,.,f-30 4J~ 3 .L12 28Jq,:ef-5 'f-;::: c-.-. .._'D '' ,, ... .. ;1~ i,w :ew 44 J Approach Average Delay (SecondsNehicle) X Approach LOS Q~ lntersetllon Average Delay (SecondsNehlcle) >,,j ri,;" = ... "' Q's -..., >,,j = --9 "O :;i ., "' 9 "' = ~ ~ ~ "" "' ~ "' --= ;- ;;i "' r, g. = > "O "O :;i "' r, =- I;) " ;;; Co< "' = Q. t'" 0 r.,, Conceptual Cost Opinion A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for the cost opinion details. Right-of-way costs are based on King County assessed land and building values for 2003. The right-of-way subtotal includes land and building acquisition costs, but does not include business relocation costs. The Construction Cost subtotal includes a 20% contingency to account for the conceptual nature of the design that was translated into construction costs and I 0% mobilization costs. Miscellaneous Costs include Construction Engineering and Contingencies at 15%. A summary of the conceptual costs is provided below. Please see Appendix C for cost opinion details. Right-of-way Construction (Grading!Drainage/Structures/Paving(Traffic/Utilities/Mob.) Design Engineering and Administration Miscellaneous (Constr. Eng. and Contingencies) Total Cost Opinion Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection Benefit/Cost $865,000 $3,347,000 $462,000 $ 502.000 $ 5.176.000 A benefit-cost analysis was performed using annualized time saving benefits and construction cost estimates over a 20-year period. The present worth values for benefits and costs were calculated using a 4% net discount rate and are expressed in year 2002 dollars. The 20-year period begins at the assumed 2007 year-of-opening. The benefit-cost calculation worksheets may be found in Appendix A. A summary of those calculations is shown in the table below. Table 135 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Net Discount Rate 4% PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Benefit-Cost Total Time Savings Benefit /Year 2002 $\ $10,785,148 9-46 Construction Cost Benefit/Cost (Year 2002 $) Ratio $5,176,000 2.08 Ca" Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum Screening Evaluation The following tables present the data developed for each screening category and criteria for this alternative. A summary of the ratings given to this and all other alternatives in the east corridor area is provided at the end of this chapter. Please see Figure 68. Meets Purpose and Need All build-alternatives meet the project's stated purpose and need. Socioeconomic Impacts Table 136 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Displacements • Total no. of displacements: • No. of residences: • No. of comm. structures: • No. of other structures: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5 5 0 0 Socioeconomic Impacts Impacts to Sensitive Land Uses Cultural Resource Business Impacts (schools, churches, Impacts hospitals) • Schools: None • No documented • None historical/ and or cultural sites. • Churches: None • Area is fairly well- developed. • Hospitals: None • High probability of extant historic buildings. • No recorded archaeological sites but Big Soos Creek has ethnographic sianificance. 9-47 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Natural Environment Impacts Table 137 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Natural Environment Impacts Water Quality/ Wetlands Fisheries/ Wildlife/ Noise Air Quality Water Quantity Vegetation • Total impervious: • Potehlial impacts • Low potential to • 0-3 dbA increase • LOS D 101,000SF to wetlands at Big affect ESA in noise to 9 Soos Creek species & habitat homes due to proximity increase • Improvement in Air Quality over NA due to Level of Service imorovement Transportation Impacts Table 138 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Average Timesavings • Time Savings per vehicle: AM = 45 sec saved PM = 45 sec saved PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Transportation Impacts Queuing/Blocking • Queuing Penalty AM= 163 PM= 638 Total = 801 Safety Overall Operations • Double left could • LOS: AM=D 9-48 create more conflicts PM=D • Speed: AM= 14 MPH PM= 17 MPH Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Other Impacts Table 139 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Compatibility with Plans and Policies • Would meet concurrency and mobility objectives • Not directly related to transit goals • Less cost efficient than additional lane PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Other Impacts Benefit-Cost Costs Constructability • B/C: 2.08 • Total: $5.2M • No technical constraints • NPV: $5,609,000 • Construction: $3.8 M • Probability of project • R/W: 9-49 being funded: Somewhat likely $0.9 M • Probability of acceptance by general public: Very likely • Probability of acceptance by neighborhood: Unlikely • Moderate impact to traveling public during construction Ca" Raad Improvement Project Design Memorandum East Corridor Selection Process Results Table 140 below compares the results of the benefit-cost analysis. The B/C ratios for both alternatives are greater than one. The Add'! Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection alternative has the highest 8/C ratio, indicating that it provides better time savings for the dollar spent. Table 140 Summary Alternative B/C Ratio Net Present Cost Deviations Value (B-C) Add'I Lane on 116"' Ave SE 3.42 $6,332,931 $2,612,000 2 at Intersection Full lmprovm't (All Legs) at 2.08 $5,609,148 $5,176,000 2 Intersection Preferred East Corridor Alternative The Add' I Lane on I 16th Ave SE at Intersection alternative was selected as the preferred build-alternative by scoring highest in the Level 2 Screening process. It scored highest in two of the four categories; most importantly the transportation impacts category. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 9-50 Can Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure 68 Level 2 Screening Results Environmental Impacts 25% Social and Natural Environment Economic Impacts Impacts MEASURE OF EFFECTIVENESS RATING "C Cl> 1 2 3 4 5 Cl> z Least Effective/ Most Effective/ "C ~ Most Impact Least Impact C: C: "' Cl> ., E ., ., 0 " C. "' ~ C. ::, a. ., i5 ~ ., :ii Alternative Description East Corridor 1 No Action, No Additional Improvements N 5 2 Add'I Lane on 116• Ave SE at Intersection y 3 3 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection y 1 For sample calculations of total score, see Figure 33. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF ., -Cl> ., ., -::::, .l!! i:, ·c. C: ., .. 0 ...J .r: Cl> • > ., ·-Cl> ::: .c ., ~ C: ::, ., .r: Cl) " 0 -Iii ~o " 0 .. .r: C. " .E !!. 5 5 5 C: ., 0 Cl> :;:; ~ ~ "' -::, ., -Cl> 0 -C: C) ., " "' ~ Cl> "' ::, 0:: C. Q ., -~ "ii! E "C .! ., ;; -~ C: ., "' ., ::, ::, ., ;; ~ "C "i5 a .. z Cl> ::, ~ ~ ::, C: a ;: ~ "iii < ~ -::, ., ., ·;:: ID -., 0 "' ·;:: -;: Cl> .!!l .r: :I: ., U: 5 5 1 5 5 5 1 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 9-51 Transportation Benefi Implementability 50% Transportation Impacts C: 0 ., :;:; C) C) E C: ·; C: Cl> :i: C. "' " 0 ., Cl> 0 .I:' ~ iii 0 E .! "C ;:: Cl "' 'E C: Cl) ., 0 C) ::, u "' ., ~ ::, ., a ;; > ~ <( ., > 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 4 25% I Other I ., Cl> :2 0 a. "C C: "' .I:' ., -~ C: :a "' 4 ., "' ci: --;; -., " 0 .r: I;: 0 ::, ;'I:: ., ~ I-u -3: C: ., ., C: ~ ID 0 u :a :;:; .. C. E 0 u 1 2 5 5 2.34 3 4 3 4 3.25 3 3 1 3 3.17 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Chapter 10 Next Steps The next step in this project is to perform a more detailed analysis and evaluation of the preferred alternatives. Engineering studies such as a Preliminary Technical Information Report (drainage report) and a Geotechnical Report are reports necessary for development of the preferred alternatives. These reports will provide additional information that will be used to prepare a Design Report on the preferred alternatives. Environmental documentation of land use, socioeconomic, noise, air quality, cultural resources, wetlands, streams, and sensitive species habitat impacts are underway. These studies will culminate in technical memoranda or reports that will serve to provide the necessary information to prepare and submit a draft NEPA Environmental Assessment. A Biological Assessment is also in this project's future before a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONS!) can be obtained. Pennits and Agreements Permit requirements for each corridor area will vary depending upon the conditions present in that part of the corridor. The following table presents a list of likely permits that would be required for the Carr Road project as a whole. Table 141 Probable Project Permit Requirements Permit Hydraulic Project Approval 401 Water Quality Certification Coastal Zone Management 404 Fill Permit Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Sensitive Areas Review Stormwater Discharge (NPDES) PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Need for Permit Responsible Aaencv Using, diverting. obstructing or changing the natural State Fish and flow, or bed, of state waters Wildlife Applying for a federal permit, or any activrty that Department of could cause a discharge of fill material into water or Ecology wetlands, or excavation in water or wetlands. Conducting projects authorized by federal agencies Department of Ecolonv Placing a structure, excavating (including land U.S. Army Corps of clearing), or discharging dredged or fill material in Engineers waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Interfering with normal public use of King County water/shorelines of the state, or developing or conducting an activity valued at $2,500.00 or more, on the water or shoreline. Proposing a development project in, or near, King County environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands, streams, flood, steep slopes, erosion, landslide, coal mine, seismic, and volcano hazard areas. Construction sites wrth an area of disturbed soil of Department of one acre or more. Ecology 10-1 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Table 141 Probable Project Permit Requirements (cont.) Permit Dangerous Waste Permit Section 106 Review/ Archaeological excavation Clearing and Grading Permit PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF .• Need for Permit Responsible Aaencv Treating, storing, and/or disposing of dangerous Department of waste. Dangerous waste includes substances Ecology defined as hazardous by federal statute as well as wastes regulated under state laws and rules. Projects requiring federal funding, licenses, or State Office of permits. Archaeology and Historic Preservation Removal of trees and vegetation in a sensitive area King County and/or grading around a sensitive area. A grading permit is also required where the amount of disturbance is 100 cubic yards or greater. 10-2 Ca" Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Appendix A BENEFIT/COST WORKSHEETS Appendix B ACCIDENT REDUCTION FACTORS FOR IMPROVEMENTS Appendix C CONCEPTUAL COST OPINION SUMMARY SHEETS February 15, 2013 Via Email & U.S. Post Phil Olbrechts Olbrechts and Associates 18833 NE 741h Street Granite Falls, WA 98252 HOLDINGS LLC RECEIVE[; C!TY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Fieldbrook Commons/ LUA12-001,ECF, PPUD -Public Hearing Dated February 12,2013 Applicant's request for extended response period Dear Mr. Examiner, Following the public hearing for the above referenced project, the record was left open at the request of the Applicant to allow City staff the opportunity to review an Exhibit 22 prepared by the Applicant and presented to City staff and the Hearing Examiner at the hearing. Specifically, the record was to be left open for City staff to comment on the revised parking configuration shown in the Exhibit. The Applicant was merely attempting to show conceptually how we believe the site plan might be altered to decrease the surface parking presence while increasing landscape areas. The response letter dated February 14, 2013 from Mrs. Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, to our "first attempt" has now provoked an additional parking condition #32; is calling for a substantial modification of the project's floor plans and building elevations condition #33; and she raises issues about impacts to neighboring properties. The Applicant respectfully requests an extension of the response deadline to the City's response letter to not later than 5:00 pm, Friday, February 22"' to give the Applicant sufficient time to address the additional conditions and issues Mrs. Dolbee is now raising, especially in light of Mrs. Dolbee being absent from work today and Monday the l 81 " being a holiday. Respectfully, ~----, / ( I ~/ '--rt//?~- J us tin R. Lagers Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings, LLC cc: Bonnie Walter, Renton City Clerk Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton 9675 SE 36'" St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone 206-588-1147 Fax 206-588-0954 I I 0 :,: z 0 'z uJ er: U- 0 ~ 0 ' '· ", ,. ~ ..r- -,: ';, <.) cl ~ ·~ 'I February 15, 2013 Via Email & U.S. Post Phil Olbrechts Olbrechts and Associates 18833 NE 74th Street Granite Falls, WA 98252 CliY OF RENTON jC.\ 1 O~Vf\ FEB 1 5 2013 uvY)A._ RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Fieldbrook Commons/ LUA12-001,ECF, PPUD -Public Hearing Dated February 12,2013 Applicant's request for extended response period Dear Mr. Examiner, Following the public hearing for the above referenced project, the record was left open at the request of the Applicant to allow City staff the opportunity to review an Exhibit 22 prepared by the Applicant and presented to City staff and the Hearing Examiner at the hearing. Specifically, the record was to be left open for City staff to comment on the revised parking configuration shown in the Exhibit. The Applicant was merely attempting to show conceptually how we believe the site plan might be altered to decrease the surface parking presence while increasing landscape areas. The response letter dated February 14, 2013 from Mrs. Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, to our "first attempt" has now provoked an additional parking condition #32; is calling for a substantial modification of the project's floor plans and building elevations condition #33; and she raises issues about impacts to neighboring properties. The Applicant respectfully requests an extension of the response deadline to the City's response letter to not later than 5:00 pm, Friday, February 22nd to give the Applicant sufficient time to address the additional conditions and issues Mrs. Dolbee is now raising, especially in light of Mrs. Dolbee being absent from work today and Monday the 18th being a holiday. Respectfully, 9//- Justin R. Lagers Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings, LLC cc: Bonnie Walter, Renton City Clerk Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton 9675 SE 3&• St, Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone 206-588-1147 Fax 206-588-0954 City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Agency Contact: Chris Barnes Title: Transportation Operations Manager Phone Number: 425-430-7220 Email: cbarnes@rentonwa.gov 2011 City Safety Program Application for the Corridor Subprogram The SW 43rd St/SE Carr Rd/SE 176th St/SE Petrovitsky Rd Corridor is federally classified as a principal arterial, with two lanes of traffic on each direction, with intermittent two-way-left- turn-lanes (TWL TL), and carrying 53,100 vehicles per day. Posted speed is 35 mph. This is a major east-west corridor connecting Tukwila (S 180th Street) to unincorporated King County and extending to SR-18 (Maple Valley). The corridor crosses over SR-167, providing access through on-off ramps. The traffic signals along this corridor are operated in a cooperative manner with WSDOT, King County and Tukwila as part of the TransValley Corridor Project. The corridor provides major access to the Valley Medical Center in Renton, which is the largest nonprofit healthcare between Seattle and Tacoma. The Valley Medical Center in Renton is a destination hospital in Southeast King County, operating full-service hospital, emergency room and trauma center. The corridor is also a major access for emergency services as Fire Station No. 13 is located just south of the intersection with SR-515. The City of Renton reviewed the collision data provided by WSDOT and proposes Adaptive Signal Control System and safety improvements on SE 176th St to address fatal and serious injury collisions in the City along the SW 43rd St/SE Carr Rd/SE 176th St Corridor/SE Petrovitsky Rd -Corridor. The corridor has a high number of injury accidents. From 2004 to 2010, there were 191 injury accidents at the corridor's intersections or intersection related; of which 7 of them were serious injuries, 33 evident injuries and 151 possible injuries. Installation of Adaptive Signal Control System (ASCS). Within the City of Renton limits the corridor is 3.5-mile long, with 11 signalized intersections. This proposal to improve safety along the corridor includes the Adaptive Signal Control System in all 11 signalized intersections within the City. Adaptive Signal Control System technology coordinates traffic signals across a signal network, adjusting the lengths of signal phases based on current traffic conditions, demand and system capacity. 1 The system improves coordination and reduces the number of stops, which decreases rear- end crashes. With the adaptive signal control, the intersecting roadway at the intersections along the corridor will also benefit from the traffic signal coordination system. The grant request includes: a) the process of developing systems engineering documents for assessment and selection of adaptive signal control technology system; and b) implementation of the selected adaptive control system. a) Legislative District: 11 Congressional District: 9 b) The Schedule for the Adaptive Signal Control System is: Begin System Engineering: Mar 2012 System Engineering/Bid Package/Environmental Documents Approved: Dec 2012 Right-of-Way Approved: N/A Contract Advertised: Jan 2013 Implemented: Dec 2013 c) Cost estimate for the Adaptive Signal Control System is: System Engineering/Bid Package/Environmental: $50,000 Right-of-Way: N/A Construction: $550,000 Benson Road SE (SR515) at Carr Road SE Intersection Improvement Existing Conditions Every day 52,400 vehicles drive through the intersection of SR 515 and Carr Road SE. The intersection has been identified as a high accident location (HAL) and is included in the PSRC's Transportation 2040 plan. The route is also a major freight corridor and is classified as a T-1. The level of service (LOS) for the intersection is poor throughout most of the day. For the westbound movement on Carr Road the volume of right turning vehicles causes blockage of the curb lane effectively reducing the capacity of this movement by at least 50%. This existing heavy westbound right turn traffic contributes to rear-end and sideswipe accidents, as through traffic moves into the inside through lane to avoid right turning traffic. WSDOT recently completed 1-405 stage II improvements which include a new SR 515/1-405 interchange two miles to the north of this intersection. This has resulted in an increase in right-turn volume on Carr Road and is forecasted to further increase as traffic from nearby Benson Hill and the Soos Creek Plateau continues to be attracted to the 1-405 interchange. The intersection is a pivotal point along two major corridors that provide access to the Kent Valley (one of the largest warehousing district in North America), Ikea and SouthCenter Shopping areas, Valley Medical Center in Renton, which is the largest nonprofit healthcare center between Seattle and Tacoma. The SR-515 corridor also provides one of the main south accesses into our regionally designated growth center and the site of the Boeing 737 and 737 MAX plant. Improvements The project will widen the Carr Road approach at the intersection to provide a free flowing westbound right turn lane and widening of SR 515 to provide a merge lane for the right turn movement (see attached drawing). The project also includes bike lane, new sidewalk 2 separated from the roadway by a planter strip (Renton's Complete Street Standard) on the north side on Carr Road and along the east side of SR-515, drainage, illumination, traffic signal adjustments and upgrade, and landscaping. These project improvements will improve safety and mobility for general traffic, freight and non-motorized modes along the Carr Road and SR 515 corridors. By investing in these improvements the traveling public will benefit from reduced intersection delay, a reduction in traffic accidents and improved air quality. These investments will also assist the city in meeting its State GMA requirements for LOS and concurrency as our center grows and Boeing expands the jobs base for the aerospace industry in our region and within Washington State. a) Legislative District: 11 Congressional District: 9 b) The project Schedule for the roadway improvements is: Begin design: May 2012 Design/Bid Package/Environmental Documents Approved: Dec 2013 Right-of-Way Approved: N/A Contract Advertised: Jan 2014 Implemented: Dec 2014 d) Cost estimate for the roadway improvement at SE 1761 h St is: Design/Bid Package/Environmental: $155,000 Right-of-Way: $1,440,000 Construction: $986,000 The total corridor project (ASCT and improvements on SE 1761h St) cost is $3,181,000 and the requested amount is $3,181,000. We anticipate that the corridor project as requested (ASCT combined with the improvements on Carr Road) will significantly improve the safety of the corridor. However if grant funding is limited, the City's first priority is the ASCT system. 3 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2013 -2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Carr Road Improvements Functional Classlficatlon: Ma}or Arterial Fund: 317 Pro]. Length: Pro]: 122920 Communitv Plannina Area: Talbot & Benson TIP No. 10 CONT ACT: Jim Seltz 425.430.7245 DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Includes new pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, traffic signals from Benson Rd South (108th Roadway Improvement options including spot safety improvements, roadway widening and Ave SE) to Talbot Rd So. Potential improvements vary from roadway reaUgnment/widening at several roadway on new alignment have previously been investigated by King County. Funding locations to address geometric deficiencies, widening to 5-lane roadway (2 lanes westbound, 3 lanes proposed in 2015 Is for finalization of improvements scope, cost and schedule. Corridor eastbound}, to a new 4~5 lane roadway on new alignment. This project includes intersection Improvements will be developed in phases. The total project cost ls estimated as $72M. Improvements at Carr Road and Benson Rd S (108th Ave SE). JUSTIFICATION: CHANGES: Carr Road was recently annexed to the City of Renton and is classified as a principal arterial. It has four The City was awarded a Safety grant for signal timing improvements along SW 43rd St/SE lanes of traffic with left-tum lanes at intersections. King County has identified the need for improvements Carr Rd/SE 176th SUSE Petrovitsky Rd Corridor. The grant also includes widening of the 1+0 enhance vehicle traffic capacity and safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians on this major east-SE Carr Rd/Benson Dr S (SR 515) interseclion. The grant amount is for $3,241,000 and west transportation corridor. no match is required. funned: 3.271 0 rUnfunded: 1170 000 Profect Totals Programmed Pre-2013 Six-Year Program ITEM Proa rammed Soent f:lre-2012 2012 Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2016 EXPENSES: Planninn 200 000 200 000 200 000 Preliminarv Enaineerina 215 000 215.000 150 000 65.000 R-0-W /Includes Admin 1 1 440 000 1 440 000 900 000 540 000 Construction 1 466 000 1.486.000 1486000 Construction Services 100 ODO 100 000 100.000 Post Construction Services TOTAL EXPENSES 3,441 000 3,441,000 1,050,000 2.191,000 200,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Vehicle Fue! Tax Business License Fee 30 000 30.000 30.000 ProDosed Fund Balance Grants In-Hand iFederal Safelv) 3 241 000 3 241 000 1 050 000 2 191 000 Granls In-Hand 12\ Mitination In-Hand Other In-Hand 11\ Other In-Hand [2l Undetermined 170 000 170 000 170 000 IU .U.I ~uuRcr=] 3,441,000 3.441 000 1,050,000 2,191,000 200,000 ~"~ 10/11120\2 1.n?M 5 -10 Final , ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Carr Road Improvement Project FINAL Design Memorandum Prepared for: King County Road Services Division 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, Washington 98104-3856 Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff 999 Third Avenue Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98104-4020 October 20, 2003 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1-1 CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 2-1 CHAPTER 3 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................. 3-1 Purpose of the Project............................. . .. 3-1 Need for the Proposed Action .. 3-1 CHAPTER 4 EXISTING GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS .................................................. 4-1 Transit and Traffic Characteristics. . ............ 4-2 Transit Service . ................. . .................. 4-2 Vehicle Occupancy ................... 4-4 Vehicle Classification . . . . . . . . . . . .......................... . ........ 4-4 Agency Programs/Projects.. . .............................................. 4-5 CHAPTER 5 SCREENING PROCESS .............................................................................. 5-1 Design Criteria ................... 5-1 First Level Screening Criteria........ . .............................................. 5-3 Meets Purpose and Need........................................... . ..................... 5-3 Impacts............... . ........................................... 5-3 Implementability............................................................ . .................. 5-4 Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... 5-5 Second Level Screening Criteria.................................................. . .......... 5-5 Meets Purpose and Need....................................................... . ............................ 5-6 Social Impacts......................................... . .................................. 5-6 Natural Impacts................................. . .................................. 5-7 Transportation Impacts ............................................................... . ........ 5-8 Other Impacts................................................... . .................................. 5-9 CHAPTER 6 COMPLETED STUDIES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................. 6-1 Preliminary Geotechnical Memorandum....................................... . ........ 6-1 Existing Conditions Traffic Report..................... . ............................ 6-1 Public Involvement .................................................................... . ....... 6-1 CHAPTER 7 WEST CORRIDOR (LIND AVENUE SW TO TALBOT ROAD S) ................ 7-1 Existing Conditions........................................ . ........................ 7-1 Roadway Design........................ .................................... .............. . .................... 7-1 Lane Configuration.............................................................. . ..... 7-1 Traffic Conditions............................ . ............................ 7-1 Natural Environment.................................................................... . ............ 7-7 First Level Screening Process .......... . .................... 7-8 Initial List of Alternatives.......................... . .......... 7-8 First Level Screening Results.. . ...... 7-27 Second Level Screening Process ............ .7-32 No Action........................... . .............................................. 7-32 Additional Off-Ramp....... . .......... 7-44 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension .......................................... 7-61 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension ........................................... 7-78 Selection Process Results ........................................................ 7-95 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Carr Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum CHAPTER 8 CENTRAL CORRIDOR {TALBOT ROADS TO 106TH PLACE SE) .......... 8-1 Existing Conditions....................... . .... 8-1 Roadway Design . . . .............. 8-1 Lane Configuration... . 8-1 Traffic Conditions . . ............... 8-2 Natural Environment ..................... . ............... 8-6 First Level Screening Process . . ......... 8-8 Initial List of Alternatives....... . ........... 8-8 First Level Screening Results ............................................................................... 8-17 Second Level Screening Process.. . .. 8-19 No-Action ........................................................................... 8-19 Proposed Improvements....... . .............. 8-32 Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . .............................................. 8-32 Alternative 2 . . .................................. 8-45 Alternative 3. . ...................................... 8-60 Alternative 4 . . . . . ............................................................................................... 8-76 Central Corridor Selection Process Results.... . ................. 8-94 CHAPTER 9 EAST CORRIDOR (SR 515 TO 116TH AVENUE SE) ................................. 9-1 Existing Conditions.............. . ..................... 9-1 Roadway Design.......................................................................... . ............ 9-1 Lane Configuration......................................... . ................... 9-1 Traffic Conditions. . ....................................................................... 9-1 Accident History..................................................................................... . ............... 9-3 Existing Traffic Conditions Summary. . ................ 9-3 Natural Environment .............................................................................................. 9-3 First Level Screening Process ..... ..... .. . ..... ... ..... . .............. 9-6 Initial List of Alternatives .... 9-6 First Level Screening Results . . ..... 9-19 Second Level Screening Process. . ............ 9-20 No Action . .................................... . ......................... 9-20 Additional Lane on 116th Avenue SE at Intersection ............................................ 9-29 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection ........................................................ 9-39 East Corridor Selection Process Results . ............... . .................................... 9-50 CHAPTER 10 NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................... 10-1 Permits and Agreements............. . .......................................... 10-1 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF ii Ca" Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum List of Figures Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map ............ .. .............. 2-3 Figure 2 Existing Transit Service...... .. ........................ 4-3 Figure 3 Benson Road SE Intersection Alternative 2 Channelization Details.. . ........ 4-7 Figure 4 Existing AM Peak Hour Level of Service ... 7-3 Figure 5 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service ............................................................ 7-4 Figure 6 4-Year Accident History (1997-2000 Average Annual Rates) ............................. 7-6 Figure 7 West Corridor No Action Alternative ................................................................. 7 -11 Figure 8 West Corridor Alternative W-6 Split Ramp ........................................................ 7-15 Figure 9 West Corridor Alternative W-6a S~lit Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension................... .. ..................... 7-17 Figure 10 West Corridor Alternative W-7 Loop Ramp.... .. ....................... .7-19 Figure 11 West Corridor Alternative W-8 Outside Flyover .............................................. 7-23 Figure 12 West Corridor Alternative W-9 Inside Flyover... .. .............. 7-25 Figure 13 West Corridor Alternative W-12 Half Split Diamond ........................................ 7-29 Figure 14 First Level Screening Results ......................................................................... 7-31 Figure 15 West Corridor: No Action Intersection Approach Delay and LOS .................. 7-36 Figure 16 West Corridor: 2020 No Action AM Level of Service.... .. ........................ 7-39 Figure 17 West Corridor: 2020 No Action PM Level of Service ..................................... 7-40 Figure 18 Additional Off-Ramp ......................................................................................... 7-45 Figure 19 Additional Off-Ramp (cont.)............................................. .. ..... 7-47 Figure 20 Additional Off-Ramp: Intersection Approach Delay and LOS.... .. ....... 7-53 Figure 21 Additional Off-Ramp: AM Level of Service............................... . ..... 7-55 Figure 22 Additional Off-Ramp: PM Level of Service...... .. .................... 7-56 Figure 23 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension ..................................... 7-63 Figure 24 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension (cont.)... .. ..... 7-65 Figure 25 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: lntersectionApproach Delay and LOS.... .. ............................................ 7-70 Figure 26 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: AM Level of Service.. .. ......................................................................... 7-72 Figure 27 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: PM Level of Service.. .. .................. 7-73 Figure 28 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension .................................... 7-79 Figure 29 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension (cont.) ......................... 7-81 Figure 30 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Intersection Approach Delay and LOS....... .. ....... 7-87 Figure 31 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: AM Level of Service......................................... .. ....... 7-89 Figure 32 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: PM Level of Service ...................................................................................... 7-90 Figure 33 Level 2 Screening Results ............................. 7-96 Figure 34 Existing AM Peak Hour Level of Service .......................................................... 8-3 Figure 35 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service .......................................................... 8-4 Figure 36 Central Corridor: 4-Year Accident History (1997-2000 Average Annual Rates) ......................... 8-5 Figure 37 Central Corridor Alternative C-1 No Action Alternative ................................... 8-11 Figure 38 Central Corridor Alternative C-2 Additional GP Lane........... .. .................. 8-13 Figure 39 Central Corridor Alternative C-3 EB Add'I (Climbing) Lane ............................. 8-15 Figure 40 First Level Screening Results....................... .. ................... 8-18 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF iii Carr Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum Figure 41 No Action Approach Delay and LOS .................. ......... . ........... 8-27 Figure 42 Central Corridor Alternative 1 .. ..................... . ... 8-33 Figure 43 Central Corridor Alternative 1 (cont.) ........................ 8-35 Figure 44 Alternative 1: Approach Delay and LOS..................... . ........... 8-39 Figure 45 Central Corridor Alternative 2 ......................................................................... 8-47 Figure 46 Central Corridor Alternative 2 (cont.).... . ............................. 8-49 Figure 4 7 Alternative 2: Approach Delay and LOS ........................................................ 8-56 Figure 48 Central Corridor Alternative 3 ........................................... . .......... 8-61 Figure 49 Central Corridor Alternative 3 (cont.)..... . ............................ 8-63 Figure 50 Alternative 3: Approach Delay and LOS........................... . ....... 8-71 Figure 51 Central Corridor Alternative 4 ........................ . ............................ 8-79 Figure 52 Central Corridor Alternative 4 (cont.).............. . ......... 8-81 Figure 53 Alternative 4: Approach Delay and LOS. . .......................... 8-88 Figure 54 Level 2 Screening Results ........................................................................ 8-95 Figure 55 Existing AM Peak Hour Level of Service ................................. ... . ......... 9-2 Figure 56 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service ...................................... . ............ 9-4 Figure 57 4-Year Accident History (1997-2000 Average Annual Rates) ........................... 9-5 Figure 58 East Corridor Alternative E-1 No Action ............................................................ 9-7 Figure 59 East Corridor Alternative E-3 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection ..... 9-11 Figure 60 East Corridor Alternative E-4 Full Improvements ...... 9-12 Figure 61 East Corridor Alternative E-8 Additional Thru Lanes on 116th Ave SE ........... 9-17 Figure 62 First Level Screening Results.. . ........ 9-19 Figure 63 No Action Approach Delay and Level of Service......... . ..... 9-25 Figure 64 East Corridor Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection .............................. 9-30 Figure 65 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Approach Delay and LOS ......... 9-35 Figure 66 East Corridor Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection ............................ 9-40 Figure 67 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Approach Delay and LOS ........ 9-45 Figure 68 Level 2 Screening Results ............................................................................... 9-51 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF iv Carr Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum List of Tables Table 1 Peak Period Vehicle Occupancy Summary. . ....... .4-4 Table 2 Peak Period Vehicle Classification by Percent of Total.................. .. ........ 4-5 Table 3 Existing Freeway Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Summary . 7-5 Table 4 Existing Freeway Mainline Level of Service Summary............. .. .. 7-5 Table 5 Existing Grade................................................................ .. ........................ .7-32 Table 6 Existing Vertical Stopping Sight Distance .................................... .. ........... 7-33 Table 7 2020 No Action Arterial Level of Service.......................... .. .................... 7-35 Table 8 2020 No Action 95th Percentile Queue (Ft) ................................ .. .......... 7-37 Table 9 No Action: Significant Queues....................................... .. ....................... 7-38 Table 10 No Action: Socioeconomic Impacts..................... .. ....................... 7-42 Table 11 No Action: Natural Environment Impacts.. .. ................ 7-42 Table 12 No Action: Transportation Impacts.... .. ............ 7-42 Table 13 No Action: Other Impacts............ ............................................ . ..................... 7-43 Table 14 Proposed SW 43rd Street Grade .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. . ......................... 7 -44 Table 15 Additional Off-Ramp: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance .................................. 7-49 Table 16 Additional Off-Ramp: Right-Of-Way Requirements ...................... 7-50 Table 17 Additional Off-Ramp: Arterial Level of Service............................ . ................ 7-52 Table 18 Additional Off-Ramp: Significant Queues ...... 7-52 Table 19 Additional Off-Ramp: Benefit-Cost ............................. . .. 7-57 Table 20 Additional Off-Ramp: Socioeconomic Impacts... .. .............. 7-58 Table 21 Additional Off-Ramp: Natural Environment Impacts .... 7-59 Table 22 Additional Off-Ramp: Transportation Impacts.. . ... 7-59 Table 23 Additional Off-Ramp: Other Impacts............................................. .. ....... 7-60 Table 24 Proposed SW 43rd Street Grade.. .. ............... 7-61 Table 25 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance ...................................... . . ........... 7-62 Table 26 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Right-Of-Way Requirements ............................................. . . ....... 7-67 Table 27 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Arterial Level of Service .............................................. . .. ... 7-69 Table 28 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Significant Queues ........ ........ ........ ....... ............................ . .. .... 7-69 Table 29 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Benefit-Cost ............... 7-74 Table 30 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Socioeconomic Impacts.......... .. ............................... . ..7-75 Table 31 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Natural Environment Impacts ........................ . ...7-76 Table 32 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Transportation Impacts.... .. .. 7-76 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Additional Off-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension Other Impacts ... 7-77 Existing SW 43rd Street Grade...... . ... . ............ ............ .............. . ............ 7-78 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension Vertical Stopping Sight Distance ... . ........... 7-83 Table 36 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Right-Of-Way Requirements .............................................. . ......... 7-84 Table 37 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Arterial Level of Service.................................. .. ..................... 7-86 Table 38 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Significant Queues ..... 7-86 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF V Ca" Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum Table 39 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Benefit-Cost ............... 7-91 Table 40 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Socioeconomic Impacts ............................................... . ....... 7-92 Table 41 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Natural Environment Impacts................ . .... 7-93 Table 42 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Transportation Impacts....................... . .... 7-93 Table 43 Additional On-Ramp with Lind Avenue SW Extension: Other Impacts ............. 7-94 Table 44 Summary....... . ........................... . ............................ 7-95 Table 45 Existing Horizontal Curvatures and Superelevation............... . ........... 8-20 Table 46 Existing Grade............................. .................................. . ............. 8-20 Table 47 Existing Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance ..................................................... 8-21 Table 48 Existing Vertical Stopping Sight Distance.... . .... 8-21 Table 49 Existing Entering Sight Distances................................. . ............. 8-21 Table 50 Existing Design Deviations ............................................................................... 8-23 Table 51 No Action: Arterial LOS..................... . ........ 8-26 Table 52 No Action: 95th Percentile Queue (Ft)............................... . .......................... 8-28 Table 53 No Action: Significant Queues.................. . .............................. 8-28 Table 54 Accident History Data for Central Corridor............................ . ................ 8-29 Table 55 Central Corridor No Action: Socioeconomic lmpacts ........................................ 8-30 Table 56 Central Corridor No Action: Natural Environment Impacts...... . ................... 8-30 Table 57 Central Corridor No Action: Transportation Impacts....... . ................... 8-31 Table 58 Central Corridor No Action: Other Impacts............ . .......................... 8-31 Table 59 Alternative 1: Right-Of-Way Requirements.......................... . .. 8-37 Table 60 Alternative 1: Arterial LOS .............................................................................. 8-38 Table 61 Alternative 1: Benefit-Cost................................. . ........................... 8-41 Table 62 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Socioeconomic Impacts ............... . ............... 8-42 Table 63 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Natural Environment Impacts ........................ 8-43 Table 64 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Transportation Impacts.............. . ........ 8-43 Table 65 Central Corridor Alternative 1: Other Impacts.................. . .................... 8-44 Table 66 Alternative 2: Horizontal Curvatures and Superelevation ...... . ........... 8-45 Table 67 Alternative 2: Grade. .. . ............................................. . ..................... 8-46 Table 68 Alternative 2: Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance .......................................... 8-46 Table 69 Alternative 2: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance................... . ............. 8-46 Table 70 Alternative 2: Entering Sight Distances................... . ............................ 8-51 Table 71 Alternative 2: Design Deviations........... . ............................... 8-52 Table 72 Alternative 2: Design Deviations (cont.)............................. . .................... 8-53 Table 73 Alternative 2: Right-Of-Way Requirements....... . ..................... 8-53 Table 74 Alternative 2 Arterial LOS............... . .......... 8-54 Table 75 Alternative 2: Benefit-Cost........................................... . ...................... 8-57 Table 76 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Socioeconomic Impacts ........ . ........ 8-58 Table 77 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Natural Environment Impacts. . ....... 8-59 Table 78 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Transportation Impacts......... . ................. 8-59 Table 79 Central Corridor Alternative 2: Other Impacts .................................................. 8-59 Table 80 Alternative 3: Horizontal Curvatures and Superelevation ....... . ............... 8-60 Table 81 Alternative 3: Grade ...................................................................................... 8-65 Table 82 Alternative 3: Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance . . ....................... 8-65 Table 83 Alternative 3: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance..................... . ................ 8-65 Table 84 Alternative 3: Entering Sight Distances ........................................................... 8-66 Table 85 Alternative 3: Design Deviations.............. . .............................. 8-68 Table 86 Alternative 3: Right-Of-Way Requirements....................... . ........................ 8-68 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF vi Carr Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum Table 87 Alternative 3 Arterial LOS.. . ............. 8-70 Table 88 Alternative 3: Benefit-Cost ................. 8-72 Table 89 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Socioeconomic Impacts ... 8-73 Table 90 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Natural Environment Impacts .......................... 8-74 Table 91 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Transportation Impacts ................................... 8-74 Table 92 Central Corridor Alternative 3: Other Impacts .................. 8-75 Table 93 Alternative 4: Horizontal Curvature and Superelevation .................................. 8-76 Table 94 Alternative 4: Grade.... .. .................................................... 8-76 Table 95 Alternative 4: Horizontal Stopping Sight Distance..... . ................... 8-77 Table 96 Alternative 4: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance...... .. .................................. 8-77 Table 97 Alternative 4: Entering Sight Distances. .. ................................... 8-83 Table 98 Alternative 4: Design Deviations ..................................................................... 8-84 Table 99 Alternative 4: Right-Of-Way Requirements. .. .......................... 8-85 Table 100 Alternative 4 Arterial LOS...... .. ................................. 8-87 Table 101 Alternative 4: Benefit-Cost............................................... . .................... 8-90 Table 102 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Socioeconomic Impacts ................................ 8-91 Table 103 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Natural Environment Impacts ....................... 8-92 Table 104 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Transportation Impacts ...................... 8-92 Table 105 Central Corridor Alternative 4: Other Impacts ............................................... 8-93 Table 106 Summary....................................................................... . ............... 8-94 Table 107 116th Avenue SE No Action: Existing Grade.......................... .. ....... 9-21 Table 108 116th Avenue SE No Action: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance..... . ... 9-21 Table 109 116th Avenue SE No Action: Design Deviations........ .. ......... 9-22 Table 110 No Action: Intersection LOS, Average Vehicle Delay and VIC ..................... 9-23 Table 111 No Action: 2020 95th Percentile Queue (Ft) .................................................. 9-24 Table 112 No Action: Significant Queues......... . ............. 9-26 Table 113 No Action: Socioeconomic Impacts.. .. ............... 9-27 Table 114 No Action: Natural Environment Impacts.. ........................... .. .. 9-27 Table 115 No Action: Transportation Impacts.. .. ......... 9-28 Table 116 No Action: Other Impacts ... 9-28 Table 117 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Grade ........... 9-29 Table 118 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Table 119 Table 120 Table 121 Table 122 Table 123 Table 124 Table 125 Table 126 Table 127 Table 128 Table 129 Table 130 Table 131 Vertical Stopping Sight Distance............................ . ........... 9-31 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Design Deviations ..................... 9-31 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Right-of-Way Requirements....................................... . ... 9-32 Add'I Lane on 116th Avenue SE at Intersection: Arterial LOS ....................... 9-33 Add'I Lane on 116th Avenue SE at Intersection: 2020 95th Percentile Queue (Ft).................. .. ..... 9-33 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Significant Queues......... .. .. 9-33 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Benefit-Cost.. .. 9-34 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Socioeconomic Impacts ........... 9-36 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Natural Environment Impacts...... . ................. 9-37 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Transportation Impacts ............ 9-37 Add'I Lane on 116th Ave SE at Intersection: Other Impacts.............. ..9-38 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Grade........................ . ........ 9-39 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Vertical Stopping Sight Distance.... .. ....... 9-41 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Design Deviations ................... 9-41 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF vii Carr Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum Table 132 Table 133 Table 134 Table 135 Table 136 Table 137 Table 138 Table 139 Table 140 Table141 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Right-Of-Way Requirements ........................................... . Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Arterial LOS .............. . Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: ..9-42 .. 9-44 2020 95th Percentile Queue (Ft). . . 9-44 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Benefit-Cost................... . ...... 9-46 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Socioeconomic Impacts .......... 9-47 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Natural Environment Impacts....... . ........... 9-48 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Transportation Impacts ............ 9-48 Full Improvements (All Legs) at Intersection: Other Impacts .......................... 9-49 Summary.............................. . ....................................... 9-50 Probable Project Permit Requirements.................... . ............. 10-1 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF viii Ca" Road Improvement Project Draft Design Memorandum Chapter 1 Executive Summary The purpose and need of this project is to develop solutions to the congestion problems that occur on the Carr Road corridor in order to satisfy concrnTency requirements for development approvals over the next 20 years as defined by the State Growth Management Act. This design memorandum presents a summary of the design considerations, studies and reports prepared to formulate and define improvements necessary for concurrency compliance. The purpose of this memorandum is to document the selection of an alternative option and to discuss issues that are necessary for preliminary design of the preferred alternative. Carr Road is the name for a part of a larger principal arterial that extends from the City of SeaTac in the west to Maple Valley in the east. Along this route, beginning in the west, the arterial names transition from S 180th Street to SW 43rd Street to SE Carr Road to SE 176th Street and then SE Petrovitsky Road. The proposed project improvements, referred to collectively as the Carr Road improvements, are located in three jurisdictions: the southwestern portion of the project area is in the City of Kent, the western portion of the roadway in the City of Renton, and the central and eastern portions in unincorporated King County. The improvement study was initially scoped to evaluate three types of design improvements for the corridor: intersection improvements, capacity improvements (i.e. widening Carr Road), and major interchange modifications at SR 167. Very preliminary traffic analysis suggested that the Carr Road congestion problems could be grouped geographically into three areas: West Corridor (Lind Avenue SW to Talbot Road S), Central Corridor (Talbot Road S to SR 515), and East Corridor (SR 515 to I 16th Avenue SE). Analysis also pointed to the lack of sufficient intersection capacity rather than corridor capacity that is causing the traffic congestion. Evaluation and solution development of the SR 515 (I 08th Avenue SE)/SE Carr Road intersection is being pursued by another King Cmmty project. Selection of the preferred alternative was the result of a two level transportation alternatives analysis process in which many alternatives were developed, evaluated and screened. At the first level screening the alternatives were qualitatively evaluated based on their ability to potentially increase intersection capacity or corridor throughput to satisfy concurrency requirements. Each alternative was also evaluated for its environmental, social and economic impacts, its compatibility with plans and policies, costs, and constructability. Three alternatives from the west corridor, one from the central corridor and two from the east corridor areas were selected, along with the No Action alternative, for a more quantitative evaluation. A public meeting was held to inform the public of the project's intent, its progress, and to solicit input and feedback from the public. Selection of the preferred alternative followed using a weighted scoring system to determine the alternative's ranking. The evaluation criteria included social impacts such as displacements, impacts to sensitive land uses, historic/cultural resources, and business; natural impacts such as water quality/quantity, wetlands, fisheries/wildlife, vegetation, noise, and air quality; transportation impacts that included average timesavings, queuing/blocking, safety, and overall operations; PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 1-1 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum and other impacts such as compatibility with plans and policies, benefit-cost, costs, and constructability. In the west corridor area, the alternative that added another off-ramp to the SR 167 interchange along with the creation of a more direct north-south route by extending Lind Avenue SW to East Valley Highway was selected. The central corridor's preferred alternative is to provide three eastbound lanes, two westbound lanes, as well as bike lanes on an alignment located south of the existing Carr Road. The addition of one through lane in each direction on 1 16'' Avenue SE in the vicinity of the SE 176'' Street (Carr Road) intersection is the preferred alternative for the east corridor. With the selection of the preferred alternatives, detailed environmental and engineering studies will be performed to enable preparation of a NEPA Environmental Assessment and a Design Report. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 1-2 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Chapter 2 Introduction This design memorandum presents a summary of the studies, reports, and design prepared for the Carr Road Improvement Project. The results of lhis work will culminate in a Design Report and a Draft Environmental Assessment of the proposed alternatives. The environmental assessment will meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Carr Road is a principal arterial in King County, Washington. The roadway corridor extends through three jurisdictions: the extreme western portion of the roadway is in the City of Kent with the majority of the roadway in unincorporated King County and the City of Renton. A project vicinity map is provided in Figure I. Carr Road is part of a larger principal arterial that extends from the City of SeaTac in the west to Maple Valley in the east. Along this route, beginning in the west, the arterial's name transitions from S 180th Street to SW 43rd Street to SE Carr Road to SE 1761h Street and SE Petrovitsky Road. The proposed project improvements are referred to collectively as the Carr Road improvements, however, individual locations will be identified using the appropriate intersection designations. The proposed improvements are for an approximately two-mile portion of Carr Road. The project corridor encompasses Lind A venue SW in the west and extends east to and includes I 16'h Avenue SE. The project corridor also includes the SR 167 on-and ot1~ramps, SW 41" Street/East Valley Road intersection to the north and a proposed intersection formed by the extension of Lind Avenue SW with East Valley Highway S lo the south. It should be noted that the proposed improvements and, therefore, the project study area does not form a continuous corridor between Lind Avenue SW and 116th Avenue SE. The study of and proposed improvements for the 108th Avenue SE (SR 515)/Carr Road intersection were addressed in a separate study entitled Benson Road SE (SR 515) and SE Carr Road Intersection Improvements (Entranco, 2003, KC CIP# 400698) and was neither evaluated nor discussed here. Traffic forecast modeling and analyses were coordinated between the two projects to ensure that the proposed improvements from both projects arc compatible with each other and were taken into consideration. After preliminary traffic analysis early in the project, it became apparent that the project corridor could be characterized and separated into three distinct sections by the traffic congestion problems encountered. The west corridor area includes Lind Avenue SW, East Valley Road, SR 167 northbound on-and off-ramp termini, and Talbot Road S intersections with Carr Road. It also includes the SW 41" Street/East Valley Road intersection, SR 167 southbound on-and off-ramps and a proposed Lind Avenue SW/East Valley Highway S intersection. The central corridor extends from just east of Talbot Road S through the I 08'h Avenue SE (SR 515)/Carr Road intersection and includes the 9811 ' Avenue SE/Smithers Avenue S, Mill Avenue SISE 103'd Place, SE 105'" Place and SE I06'h Place intersections. The east corridor area begins just east of I 08th Avenue SE (SR 515) and extends through the I I 6'h Avenue SE intersection. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2-1 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum The east corridor study area initially included Carr Road just east of SR 515 ( I 08th Avenue SE) through the signalized 116 1 " Avenue SE intersection. However, analysis of the congestion issues narrowed the focus of the proposed improvements to the intersection of 116 1 " Avenue SE/SE 176 1 h Street. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2-2 Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Figure I Project Vicinity Map I :157 ( ~-J~--~ ~-1~1--------------l ~) PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 2-3 Legend Carr Road Study Corridor ~ Benson/Carr Project ~~~~~ (Separate Study) j I;,.·., ~,.,, .... , ,,,,1,-,,, \, ·e, 11 ..... , ' etail Area Carr Road Improvement Project Design Memorandum Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Subject: F.Y.I. Vanessa Dolbee Monday, February 18, 2013 8:17 AM Bonnie Walton; Cynthia Moya FW: Fieldbrook Commons Responce Letter From: Phil Olbrechts (mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9: 28 AM To: 'Justin Lagers' Cc: Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee; 'Michael Gladstein'; 'Joel Mezistrano'; 'Maher Joudi'; 'E DENNIS RIEBE'; 'Hoda Mezistrano' Subject: RE: Fieldbrook Commons Responce Letter 2/22/13 is fine. If you need any more time to work this out just let me know. From: justin@americanclassichomes.com [mailto:justin@americanclassichomes.com] On Behalf Of Justin Lagers Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 5:21 PM To: Phil Olbrechts Cc: Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee; Michael Gladstein; Joel Mezistrano; Maher Joudi; E DENNIS RIEBE; Hoda Mezistrano Subject: Fieldbrook Commons Responce Letter Mr. Olbrechts, PNW Holdings as the applicant would like to formally request an extension to the Tuesday, February 19th response deadline to Mrs. Dolbe's letter she sent out at . Frankly she has stunned us with what appears to be a very hard-lined reversal of staffs position on the our project. The exhibit we presented at hearing was merely a rough draft at compliance with a small fraction of the design conditions staff has asked for. Mrs. Dolbe has seemed to take this exhibit as our formal PUD submission or a replacement site plan to our application which it is not. We were not expecting a formal approval of our exhibit, rather we expected there would be some dialogue between City staff and the applicant to make sure were headed in the right direction. Clearly the mathematical error in open space calculation is something that must be addressed, however we are still in excess of the code requirement for open space by I 0%, we still have parking stalls we can eliminate which will further increase the open space and now at least we have some clarification of staff's condition #11 which stated landscape islands were required every "6 or 7 stalls." We respectfully request and extension until Friday the 22nd of February to submit a formal response as this will hopefully allow us time to meet with staff to discuss the issues they raise further. Respectfully, Justin Lagers Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC Director or I.and Acquisition & Devdopment Gt,-:-5 ~E 3filh St Suite 105 l\.Jercer l~L:md, WA 980-tO Office: 206-588-1147 Cell: 253-405-5587 Justin@pnwholdings.com 1 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: For the Record: Bonnie Walton Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:45 PM Phil Olbrechts Hoda Mezistrano; Vanessa Dolbee; 'Justin Lagers' RE: Fieldbrook Commons Fieldbrook HE Letter 02152013.pdf The hard copy of this same letter was received in the City Clerk's office on Friday, Feb. 15, 2013 at 10:17 am. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton From: justin@americanclassichomes.com [mailto:justin@americanclassichomes.com] On Behalf Of Justin Lagers Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 9: 18 AM To: Phil Olbrechts Cc: Bonnie Walton; Hoda Mezistrano; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Fieldbrook Commons Mr. Oblbrects, please find attached our formal letter requesting an extension to the response period to Mrs. Dolbee's comment letter dated February 14, 2013. Your timely acknowledgement and response to this request is great! y appreciated. Justin Lagers Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC Dirrcllff ul Lu.r;d _\,·t.pti~itinn &. [)cH'lopmrnt Clffi,c· 106-588-1147 Cel:: :Z.53-405-5587 Justin@pi:iwhold1qg_s.com 1 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Justin <justin@americanclassichomes.com > Friday, February 15, 2013 10:18 AM Bonnie Walton Subject: Fwd: Fieldbrook Commons Responce Letter Begin forwarded message: From: "Phil Olbrechts" <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> Date: February 15, 2013, 9:28:11 AM PST To: '"Justin Lagers"' <Justin@pnwholdings.com> Cc: "'Chip Vincent"' <cvincent@rentonwa.gov>, '"Vanessa Dolbee"' <vdolbee@rentonwa.gov>, "'Michael Gladstein'" <michael@americanclassichomes.com>, "'Joel Mezistrano'" <jocl@americanclassichomes.com>, "'Maher Joudi"' <maher.joudi@drstrong.com>, "'E DENNIS RIEBE"' <edriebe@msn.com>, '"Hoda Mezistrano"' <hoda@hodamezlaw.com> Subject: RE: Fieldbrook Commons Responce Letter 2/22/13 is fine. If you need any more time to work this out just let me know. From: justin@americanclassichomes.com [mailto:justin@americanclassichomes.com] On Behalf Of Justin Lagers Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 5:21 PM To: Phil Olbrechts Cc: Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee; Michael Gladstein; Joel Mezistrano; Maher Joudi; E DENNIS RIEBE; Hoda Mezistrano Subject: Fieldbrook Commons Responce Letter Mr. Olbrechts, PNW Holdings as the applicant would like to formally request an extension to the Tuesday, February 19th response deadline to Mrs. Dolbe's letter she sent out at. Frankly she has stunned us with what appears to be a very hard-lined reversal of staffs position on the our project. The exhibit we presented at hearing was merely a rough draft at compliance with a small fraction of the design conditions staff has asked for. Mrs. Dolbe has seemed to take this exhibit as our formal PUD submission or a replacement site plan to our application which it is not. We were not expecting a formal approval of our exhibit, rather we expected there would be some dialogue between City staff and the applicant to make sure were headed in the right direction. Clearly the mathematical error in open space calculation is something that must be addressed, however we are still in excess of the code requirement for open space by 10%, we still have parking stalls we can eliminate which will further increase the open space and now at least we have some clarification of staff's condition #11 which stated landscape islands were required every "6 or 7 stalls." We respectfully request and extension until Friday the 22nd of February to submit a formal response as this will hopefully allow us time to meet with staff to discuss the issues they raise further. Respectfully, Justin Lagers 1 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC Dirnu,r of I ,rnd .\.:-qui~i1io11 ,\. l)(."\dupme111 ':i,-.~ q ~(·!··1 \1 :-:·.:i:..:· 1,,5 \ '~1t·,'; j, ,.,r:.i .\ ,:-. .. ..:.,1 , ,fie, J06-588-l 14Z I ·,·]l 2_53-,405-5587 l v~tin@Jlow huld ings. corf) 2 Cynthia Moya From: Bonnie Walton Sent: To: Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:56 PM Cynthia Moya Subject: Attachments: FW: Field brook Carr Road/Benson Road Corridor Information Final Design Memo.pdf; Fieldbrook Traffic Exhibit.pdf Additional input. Please make sure this gets added to the file. Bw From: Kayren K. Kittrick Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 4: 10 PM To: 'olbrechtslaw@gmail.com' Cc: Bonnie Walton; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Fieldbrook Carr Road/Benson Road Corridor Information Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner: Attached are the electronic versions of the additional information on the Carr Road corridor in answer to the questions about improvements to be made by the City of Renton. The letter and attachments (labeled above as Fieldbrook Traffic Exhibit) is the electronic version of the letter submitted to the City Clerk's office. The other attachment (labeled Final Design Memo) is a 250-page document for reference in case of further detailed questions, the first pages through the introduction are part of the attachments to the Field brook Traffic Exhibit. Thank you for the opportunity to put these in the record. KCl.:)'Ve¥v K. K{;(;tvcdv Development Engineering Supervisor Community & Economic Development email: kkittrick@rentonwa.gov Phone: 425-430-7299 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: justin@americanclassichomes.com on behalf of Justin Lagers <Justin@pnwholdings.com> Thursday, February 14, 2013 5:21 PM Phil Olbrechts Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee; Michael Gladstein; Joel Mezistrano; Maher Joudi; E DENNIS RIEBE; Hoda Mezistrano Fieldbrook Commons Responce Letter Follow up Flagged Mr. Olbrechts, PNW Holdings as the applicant would like to formally request an extension to the Tuesday, February 19th response deadline to Mrs. Dolbe's Jetter she sent out at. Frankly she has stunned us with what appears to be a very hard-lined reversal of staffs position on the our project. The exhibit we presented at hearing was merely a rough draft at compliance with a small fraction of the design conditions staff has asked for. Mrs. Dolbe has seemed to take this exhibit as our formal PUD submission or a replacement site plan to our application which it is not. We were not expecting a formal approval of our exhibit, rather we expected there would be some dialogue between City staff and the applicant to make sure were headed in the right direction. Clearly the mathematical error in open space calculation is something that must be addressed, however we are still in excess of the code requirement for open space by 10%, we still have parking stalls we can eliminate which will further increase the open space and now at least we have some clarification of staffs condition# 11 which stated landscape islands were required every "6 or 7 stalls." We respectfully request and extension until Friday the 22nd of February to submit a formal response as this will hopefully allow us time to meet with staff to discuss the issues they raise further. Respectfully, Justin Lagers Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC t:Jn.fi(·r· ,,f L.~w.! ,;i·qui1-i:lu:1 ,.( Oti dti;,mw1 ·:·-" -s· ... _,.;1.\ s . ...:-::.-, ,,:_· (J"f:;..;' 206-588-1147 Cz:·: 253-405-5587 Justin@pnwholdings com 1 Denis Law Mayor February 15, 2013 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC 9725 SE 26'h Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton Re: Staff Review of Exhibit 22 for Fieldbrook Commons, LUA-12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers: Attached is your copy of the City of Renton's Staff Review of Exhibit 22, dated February 14, 2013, in the above-referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Enc.: Staff Review cc: Hearing Examiner Larry Warren, City Attorney Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Karen Kittrick, CED Bob MacOnie, CED Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record (27) 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 , (425) 430-651 O / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor February 14, 2013 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chi p"Vi ncent, Administrator CITY OF RENTON ,, , fl\ 11 :(}!: Phil Olbrechts FEB 14 2013~ RECEIVED Olbrechts and Associates 18833 NE 74th Street Granite Falls, WA 98252 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SUBJECT: Staff Review of Exhibit 22, Public Hearing Fieldbrook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Examiner Following the public hearing, the record was left open for staff to review the applicants updated open space recreation public benefit diagram, submitted by the applicant at the public hearing, held on February 12, 2013 (identified as Exhibit 22). It is staff's understanding that Exhibit 22 was a first attempt at meeting the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner; particularly, conditions related to surface parking lot landscaping and Bonus Density. Staff had an opportunity to review the provided Exhibit 22 (attached), and has made the following findings: 1. The common open space calculations, provided with the original application were incorrect. As noted on Exhibit 3 of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner the total common open space for the site was listed at 101,298 SF. After double checking the calculation, the total appears to be incorrect and should be 105,585 SF. This correction increases the open space provided and reviewed prior to the public hearing. However, the configuration and layout of the open space did not change; the error was simply an arithmetic mistake. 2. Due to the correct amount, 105,S85 SF, of open space for the original proposal; the open space calculations in Exhibit 22 does not result in an increased amount of open space as presented at the public hearing. The total amount of common open space included in Exhibit 22 is 104,565 SF, which is a reduction of 1,020 SF. 3. The open space reductions primarily came from two locations identified as areas 18 and 19 on Exhibit 22. These are the two largest common open spaces that provide active recreational ame,1ities to the overall development .. These. two spaces are designed to be usable and function truly as a common space. Other areas counted towards open space are smaller and would be landscaped with screening landscaping and may not be usable for active recreation. Based on the importance of areas 18 and 19 to the value of the overall development, staff would not be supportive ofthe reduction in common open space as proposed. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Mr. Examiner Page 2 of 3 February 14, 2013 • 4. Pursuant to the Bonus Density criteria, surface parking lots containing not more than 6 parking stalls separated from other parking area by landscaping with a minimum width of 15 feet shall be provided to receive the bonus density credit. The updated Exhibit 22, accomplished this in several locations, however in three areas the lots contained 7 continuous parking stalls without intervening landscaping which would not be compliant · with the bonus density criteria. After review of the provided Exhibit 22, the proposal does not accomplish the goal identified in the original recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, which states "that staff only recommends approval of the bonus density to 18 du/ac if the surface parking lot presence can be reduced and at the same time the square footage and configuration of the open space remains as proposed". Moreover, the provided Exhibits reaffirm staff's second recommendation to the Hearing Examiner that a partial bonus density approval of 16 du/ac is more appropriate for the subject site. The overall surface parking lot presence was not significantly reduced by the proposed amount .of added landscaping, which is less than the minimum needed to comply with Bonus Density. Furthermore, surface parking stalls remain in the wetland buffer area perpetuating impacts to the sites critical areas, and the common open space area is reduced. Based on the above, staff recommends that Bonus Density be reduced to 16 du/ac which will reduce the number of dwelling units from 162 to 144, a reduction of 18 dwelling units, with a specific reduction in units as follows: • BLDG K, L, M, and N -Each building should eliminate 3 units from the third story. This change would reduce the height and bulk of these buildings. By reducing the height and bulk, the scale of the buildings would be more compatible with the sur,rounding neighborhood, particularly the neighboring single-family developments. The buildings should be re-designed similar to BLDG D and G. This would result in a reduction of 4 three-bedroom units, 4 two-bedroom units and 4 one-bedroom units. • BLDG J -In order to reduce the bulk of this building, two units should be eliminated from the third floor in the center, providing modulation to the building elevations. These two units would be two-bedroom units. • BLDG G and H -Both these buildings should eliminate the third floor units. This would eliminate 2 two-bedroom units and 2 one-bedroom units. If the above changes are made to the project, a total of 24 parking stalls could be removed from the site. The reduction of 24 parking stalls would accomplish two things. First, if tandem parking was eliminated from the alley behind BLDG Aand B, then there would be sufficient backout room for the vehicles parked in the garage and would not require the relocation of BLDG B. This would allow the open space to remain as proposed in the original application. Secondly, parking stalls could easily be eliminated from the wetland areas and finally, additional stalls could be transformed into landscaping to increase pedestrian vehicular separation and provide sufficient space to comply with all parking lot landscaping regulations. Moreover, staff . . Mr. Examiner Page 3 of 3 February 14, 2013 supports this modified recommendation as the overall project would be improved and the impact on the surrounding community would be reduced. Staff recommends approval of the Field brook Preliminary PUD and a bonus density of 15.96 du/ac subject to all 31 conditions identified in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner (hearing date February 12, 2013) and Exhibit 20 in addition to the following conditions: 32) Tandem parking shall not be permitted in the alley way between BULD. A and B. 33) The applicant shall modify building floor plans and elevations as follows: a) BLDG K, L, M, and N -Each building should eliminate 3 units from the third story. This would reduce the height of these three buildings which is impacting neighboring properties. These buildings should be re-designed similar to BLDG D and G. This would result in a reduction of4 three-bedroom units, 4 two-bedroom units and 4 one- bedroom units. b) BLDG J -In order to reduce the bulk ofthis building, two units should be eliminated from the third floor in the center, providing modulation to the building elevations. These two units would be two-bedroom units. c) BLDG G and H -Both these buildings should eliminate the third floor units. This would eliminate 2 two-bedroom units and 2 one-bedroom units. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Sincerely, 1 / j\ /l -·· }1 Ot1uV:JX';_ <i___)ll!J;-e.Q__ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: PNW Holdings, Ray W.. Lotto, William O'Neil/ Owner(s) Party(ies) o( Record --De::~:~~'aw -------1 ~~;'for Wll February 14, 2013 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator CITY OF RENTON . ·. • /f\ Li :LJI: Phil Olbrechts FEB 1 4 2013 cJ>"' RECEIVED Olbrechts and Associates 18833 NE 74th Street Granite Falls, WA 98252 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SUBJECT: Staff Review of Exhibit 22, Public Hearing Fieldbrook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Examiner Following the public hearing, the record was left open for staff to review the applicants updated open space recreation public benefit diagram, submitted by the applicant at the public hearing, held on February 12, 2013 (identified as Exhibit 22). It is staff's understanding that Exhibit 22 was a first attempt at meeting the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner; particularly, conditions related to surface parking lot landscaping and Bonus Density. Staff had an opportunity to review the provided Exhibit 22 (attached), and has made the following findings: 1. The common open space calculations, provided with the original application were incorrect. As noted on Exhibit 3 of the staff report to the Hearing Examiner the total common open space for the site was listed at 101,298 SF. After double checking the calculation, the total appears to be incorrect and should be 105,585 SF. This correction increases the open space provided and reviewed prior to the public hearing. However, the configuration and layout of the open space did not change; the error was simply an arithmetic mistake. 2. Due to the correct amount, 105,585 SF, of open space for the original proposal; the open space calculations in Exhibit 22 does not result in an increased amount of open space as presented at the public hearing. The total amount of common open space included in Exhibit 22 is 104,565 SF, which is a reduction of 1,020 SF. 3. The open space reductions primarily came from two locations identified as areas 18 and 19 on Exhibit 22. These are the two largest common open spaces that provide active recreational ame,1ities to the overall development. These two spaces are designed to be usable and function truly as a common space. Other areas counted towards open space are smaller and would be landscaped with screening landscaping and may not be usable for active recreation. Based on the importance of areas 18 and 19 to the value of the overall development, staff would not be supportive of the reduction in common open space as proposed. Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov Mr. Examiner Page 2 of 3 February 14, 2013 4. Pursuant to the Bonus Density criteria, surface parking lots containing not more than 6 parking stalls separated from other parking area by landscaping with a minimum width of 15 feet shall be provided to receive the bonus density credit. The updated Exhibit 22, accomplished this in several locations, however in three areas the lots contained 7 continuous parking stalls without intervening landscaping which would not be compliant with the bonus density criteria. After review of the provided Exhibit 22, the proposal does not accomplish the goal identified in the original recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, which states "that staff only recommends approval of the bonus density to 18 du/ac if the surface parking lat presence can be reduced and at the same time the square footage and configuration of the open space remains as proposed". Moreover, the provided Exhibits reaffirm staff's second recommendation to the Hearing Examiner that a partial bonus density approval of 16 du/ac is more appropriate for the subject site. The overall surface parking lot presence was not significantly reduced by the proposed amount of added landscaping, which is less than the minimum needed to comply with Bonus Density. Furthermore, surface parking stalls remain in the wetland buffer area perpetuating impacts to the sites critical areas, and the common open space area is reduced. Based on the above, staff recommends that Bonus Density be reduced to 16 du/ac which will reduce the number of dwelling units from 162 to 144, a reduction of 18 dwelling units, with a specific reduction in units as follows: • BLDG K, L, M, and N -Each building should eliminate 3 units from the third story. This change would reduce the height and bulk of these buildings. By reducing the height and bulk, the scale of the buildings would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly the neighboring single-family developments. The buildings should be re-designed similar to BLDG D and G. This would result in a reduction of 4 three-bedroom units, 4 two-bedroom units and 4 one-bedroom units. • BLDG J -In order to reduce the bulk of this building, two units should be eliminated from the third floor in the center, providing modulation to the building elevations. These two units would be two-bedroom units. • BLDG G and H -Both these buildings should eliminate the third floor units. This would eliminate 2 two-bedroom units and 2 one-bedroom units. If the above changes are made to the project, a total of 24 parking stalls could be removed from the site. The reduction of 24 parking stalls would accomplish two things. First, if tandem parking was eliminated from the alley behind BLDG A and B, then there would be sufficient backout room for the vehicles parked in the garage and would not require the relocation of BLDG B. This would allow the open space to remain as proposed in the original application. Secondly, parking stalls could easily be eliminated from the wetland areas and finally, additional stalls could be transformed into landscaping to increase pedestrian vehicular separation and provide sufficient space to comply with all parking lot landscaping regulations. Moreover, staff Mr. Examiner Page 3 of 3 February 14, 2013 supports this modified recommendation as the overall project would be improved and the impact on the surrounding community would be reduced. Staff recommends approval of the Fieldbrook Preliminary PUD and a bonus density of 15.96 du/ac subject to all 31 conditions identified in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner (hearing date February 12, 2013) and Exhibit 20 in addition to the following conditions: 32) Tandem parking shall not be permitted in the alley way between BULD. A and B. 33) The applicant shall modify building floor plans and elevations as follows: a) BLDG K, L, M, and N -Each building should eliminate 3 units from the third story. This would reduce the height of these three buildings which is impacting neighboring properties. These buildings should be re-designed similar to BLDG D and G. This would result in a reduction of 4 three-bedroom units, 4 two-bedroom units and 4 one- bedroom units. b) BLDG J -In order to reduce the bulk of this building, two units should be eliminated from the third floor in the center, providing modulation to the building elevations. These two units would be two-bedroom units. c) BLDG G and H -Both these buildings should eliminate the third floor units. This would eliminate 2 two-bedroom units and 2 one-bedroom units. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: PNW Holdings, Ray W. lotto, William O'Neil/ Owner(s) Party{ies) of Record February 15, 2013 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) § ) JASON A. SETH, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 15th day of February, 2013, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record the City of Renton's Staff Review of Exhibit 22 in the Fieldbrook Commons, LUA-12-001, ECF, PPUD SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 15th day of February, 2013. / ) I \ Cynth i R. Mqya Notary Public fn and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 ·.,.• Katrina Garrison 17032 110th Place SE Renton, WA 980SS William O'Neil Executor of Viola T. O'Neil Estate 215 N S6th Avenue, #36 Yakima, WA 98908 Robert B. Lyon 10817 SE 170th Street Renton,WA 98055 Timothy S. Bell 11004 SE 173rd Street Renton,WA 98055-5927 Terestia Tamayao 10813 SE 172nd Street, #2C Renton,WA 98055 D. Bruce & Nancy Stanley 10825 SE 172nd Street, #5-B Renton, WA 98055-5969 William Barry 17033 llO'h Place SE Renton, WA 98055 Scott Riegel 1805 136th Pl NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Vincent Geglia 11410 NE 124th St #590 Kirkland, WA 98034 Joel Mezistrano PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, #lOS Mercer Island, WA 98040 Richard Niemi 17022 108th Avenue SE Renton, WA 9805S Linda & Jesse Hurtado PO Box 59743 Renton, WA 98058 Sylvia Coppock 10813 SE 172nd Street, #2A Renton, WA 98055 Dan Miles 10813 SE 172nd Street, #1 B Renton, WA 98055 Laura L. Smith 10841 SE 172nd Street, #9A Renton,WA 98055 Yoshio Piediscalzi 10604 Covington Way SE #2 Covington, WA 98042 Mike Simons 221 Wells Av S Renton, WA 98057 Rob Gladstein PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Ray Lotto Trustee of Marjorie L. Lotto 1250 Jones Street, #1701 San Francisco, CA 94109 Steve Cuspard 17S1S 110th Lane SE Renton,WA 98055 Patrick Creager 10833 SE 173rd Street Renton, WA 98055 Donna Hart 10813 SE 172nd Street, #2B Renton,WA 98055 Dan Russell 829 S 31st Street Renton,WA 98055 David Hoffman 10824 SE 170th Street #A201 Renton, WA 98055 Maher Jondi 10604 NE 38th Place #232 Kirkland, WA 98033 Kathleen Reader Bradley Design Group 4330 N Lexington St. Tacoma, WA 98497 Michael Gladstein PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street, #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Cindy, Vanessa Dolbee Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:04 PM Cynthia Moya Stacy Tucker LUA12-001 new party of record. Please find below a new POR request for the Fieldbrook Commons project. I am not sure what the protocol is to add POR to the list. Let me know if you need anything else from me. We need to make sure this person gets a copy of the decision. Thank you. Vanessa William Barry 17033 110th Place SE Renton, WA 98055 1 Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: F .Y. I. Vanessa Dolbee Thursday, February 14, 2013 5:28 PM Bonnie Walton Cynthia Moya FW: Fieldbrook Commons Response Letter From: justin@americanclassichomes.com [mailto:justin@americanclassichomes.com] On Behalf Of Justin Lagers Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 5:21 PM To: Phil Olbrechts Cc: Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee; Michael Gladstein; Joel Mezistrano; Maher Joudi; E DENNIS RIEBE; Hoda Mezistrano Subject: Fieldbrook Commons Responce Letter Mr. Olbrechts, PNW Holdings as the applicant would like to formally request an extension to the Tuesday, February 19th response deadline to Mrs. Dolbe's letter she sent out at. Frankly she has stunned us with what appears to be a very hard-lined reversal of staffs position on the our project. The exhibit we presented at hearing was merely a rough draft at compliance with a small fraction of the design conditions staff has asked for. Mrs. Doi be has seemed to take this exhibit as our formal PUD submission or a replacement site plan to our application which it is not. We were not expecting a formal approval of our exhibit, rather we expected there would be some dialogue between City staff and the applicant to make sure were headed in the right direction. Clearly the mathematical error in open space calculation is something that must be addressed, however we are still in excess of the code requirement for open space by 10%, we still have parking stalls we can eliminate which will further increase the open space and now at least we have some clarification of staffs condition #11 which stated landscape islands were required every "6 or 7 stalls." We respectfully request and extension until Friday the 22nd of February to submit a formal response as this will hopefully allow us time to meet with staff to discuss the issues they raise further. Respectfully, Justin Lagers Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC Director or Land Acqui~ition & l)cvclupuU'nt l167'.' SF !6th St Suit.: Ill~ \·krccr Island, W . .\ ~iw4n Offii::c: 206-588-1147 ('di: 253-405-5587 JtLc;tin@pnwholdings.com I Cynthia Moya From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Phil, Vanessa Dolbee Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:05 PM Phil Olbrechts; Justin Lagers (Justin@pnwholdings.com) Bonnie Walton Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001 20130214160840054.pdf As discussed, at the public hearing for the subject project, please find attached the City's updated staff recommendation and response to the applicants Exhibit 22. The official letter will be mailed through the City Clerk's office to all parties of record as well as you. For your information, I will be out of the office tomorrow, Friday, but will be back on Monday. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 -----Original Message----- From: pdecopy.rentonwa.gov Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:09 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Message from "EconDevelopment" This E-mail was sent from "EconDevelopment" (Aficio MP 6001). Scan Date: 02.14.2013 16:08:39 (-0800) Queries to: pdecopy.rentonwa.gov 1 -;f ~ , i:r~ldbrook Commons lI"eliminary Planned Urban fE!Velopment Public Hearing Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner February 12, 2013 . ;~y o~o . • ~~> ... + :-si-~ ~'<, Ch .... t:; al 1-1 ::c ~ ,, ~ ~ R-<.! t ~ ~ [~; l,jcC'!;F.l .,!s'1~ -~ '• --"' -D .. t" i>Ll" ,,, "p, ~. ~. ··-C r11 P· Ill O· n i:H1/';;-:,-~ is'.;--~ ll:I ~·~ _. ii!i e u •J1:1: 1.•,,_1,1 , • .,,,. -.,,., ! ,'(1:-r, r· , ,-,1 _,, r!,'J• ,,_,,i•·,,•c,, ,c,.~.11 i:}I>, l~-~ r• •.'."·(r, "I.I' • i,'!· t . • .. .tt > .. 41p:r+ J!;/P •(•.•.J} rlr1~.·J.•, 1ru-; ('•,,, •··l'rol •-,:,1, ::\~'"' 'l""J4 "·-'iJ 17040 108th Ave. SE, north of SE 172nd St. 3 parcels, all vacant (one former fire station property) 10.77 acre site located within the RMD Comp Plan designation and the R-14 zoning classification. ~~": RENTON ~~~ \JIE,\U or Tfl[ C:l'.RVE I\) ...,,.... l· ,:;r----11r -, • I - \ \ \ • 'I ' .• _,_!f.:t;.::.tt~ ;tlt~tt:tt:tt Brief Description , __ ·a~ '=='ii- :;.a.=-:':'.!".: ........ ~--.:!"..=-= M~!'.r ~~=- 'J--"=-...... -""=ylW I °!:•:::::!"'.::=.::::. -----, f-T~;:'f. -====-5:=.--:::.-=-ev.: e: I . a!i:.~-t1:if;a p:::.-r NO'!Jff .;;;... !, I I I 11 • 162 unit multi-family development • 12 separate buildings and a recreation center totaling 180,934 SF • • • • Applicant has requested bonus density of 18 du/ac for an overall density of 17.90 du/ac 1, 2, and 3, bedroom units are proposed Building sizes range from 10,251 SF to 18,507 SF Building heights range from 23' -111/8" to 36' -9 1/4". :11=:.-==-::==..-=-..--=:: __ Efil?J:;"'=-Dbd ~f•L~l~~-~~]($; ..., ____ ... ,. --... -· ~'Ti_ ... _ ~E]EnJE] • Parking for 210 vehicles is proposed, 47 in garages, 46 tandem garage spaces, and 117 surface stalls. ~ .\111'.:\D or TIIE Cl'RVE ~ b~-?& ·~ + ~N 01<, ~ ., i i((~ r---r i . I \ \ . ' ~=~-==---D~ ~ ......... - RENTON .\llE:\D OF TllE Cl:KVI: Brief Description I , :e.s:..r!::=: 1ir _:.;...:=·--- 1/ ,II =r.=t=!=... .. __ _ ~ --·-ir-~ ..::=:.-==-----~1 H 1;1,1,1 -==- is1.i.~-5:fiiJa' ·a=s=.--.r :=:t::-:r: ... ,: .... •=.n:r:r..::r--=:=--= =-.::.= =----=--=--=.. =~-:.. = ----;;;:-f a--: I /1 /r I RIF.BF. & ASSOCIATP.S.INC .... C><I TCCT _.,.C • .. L,..,.,..t"«I ..... ____ .,,,.,. -~--"'"'--· :.\..T-·::- NORTH l 7 7 7 _ .... 7 ~E]@E] Brief Description "-~ ~ I 111111111- 1::::::3 111111111!!1 I I - Critical Areas include, 6 wetlands and moderate risk sinkhole hazard area (Coalmine hazards). 3 wetlands are proposed to be filled -new wetland creation of 25,430 SF ~ .\!IE:\ll 01' TIIE Cl'RVE .. t .. WP!i <I <I <l <I D ~ 1§1 di Brief Description The site is forested with 786 trees " An arborist report was provided with the application which identified 227 trees as dead, diseased or dangerous. 275 are located within critical areas and their buffers " The applicant has indicated retention of 31 trees ' It is unclear how trees are counted in the Critical Areas as many of these trees are proposed to be removed as a result of a modification request included with the application. ·, Trees are proposed to be planted throughout the development site and along both street frontages.~y 0 b~~ ·~· ~.~ .. ~ ,:, ?..~ ~,r(J.~ Brief Description Cont. On January 7, 2013, the ERC issued a DNS-M which included 10 mitigation measures related to Geotechnical Recommendations, tree preservation and wetland creation and mitigation. A 14-day appeal period commenced on January 11, 2013 and ended on January 25, 2013. No appeals were filed. Comments were received from the Department of Ecology and the Muckleshoot Tribe. In addition, six public comments were received. DOE and Muckleshoot comments related to the wetland fill and creation Public comments were related to traffic, flooding, wetlands, habitat and tree removal. RENTON \JIL,\f) OF TllE Cl'KVE Preliminary PUD Analysis PUD applications permit modifications to development standards including: 4-2 Zoning Districts-uses & Standards, 4-4 City-wide property development standards, 4-7 subdivision regulations and 4-6-060 Street Standards with the exception of the following: Permitted Uses Density ~ \111· . .-\J) or Tl[E Ct'RVE Preliminary PUD Analysis R-14 zone allows a density range of 10 - 14 dwelling units per net acre, except that density of up to 18 du/ac may be permitted subject to bonus density review. " The applicant has requested bonus density review, and a density of 17. 96 du/net ac. · Attached residential uses are permitted in the R-14 zone. RENTON .\l[E,\ll or TllE f'.l'RVE Preliminary PUD Analysis The applicant has requested the following modification from RMC: " To provide more then 6 units per building, up to 17 units -Allow for height increase up to 36 feet 9 % inches (6 feet 9 % inches over max height) ·· Permit removal of trees in wetland buffers " Modify the frontage of 108th Ave. SE to have a 5' sidewalk and 8' planter strip RENTON \IJE.,\D OF TIIE Cl"RVE v~ ·~< ~~j Preliminary PUD Analysis Staff has requested the following modification from RMC to be included in the PUD: · A reduction in parking requirements from 208 to 200 ,, Perimeter Parking Lot landscaping to be approved as submitted in the landscape plan, Exhibit 11 " Allow garden beds to be 4' x 8' instead of 10' x 10' and a fence height of 6' 10" around the garden. ~ ~ .\lll'.:\ll 01' TIIE Cl"RVE Preliminary PUD Analysis PUD projects shall demonstrate superiority, and shall be superior to that which would result without a PUD and the development would not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. The project demonstrates superiority in the following ways: ~ • • • The recreation center would be open to the public (note recreation center is counted towards bonus density therefore it is not included as public benefit) A covered school bus shelter would be provided The building orientation and consolidation provide opportunities to increase common open space, which provide a variety of recreational opportunities, both passive and active The consolidated units allows for preservation of mature trees beyond the 10 percent requirement • A public wetland trail with interpretive signage would be --------provided "' y . ,-~~ ~& o.!m • ·~~ RENTON \IIEAIJ or TllE Cl'RVE ~~) ' Preliminary PUD Analysis Public Benefit Provided: Public Facilities and Overall Design Open Space areas total 111,018 SF in area which is above the R-14 requirement of 97,300 SF Community garden space, a pickle ball court, 3 play structures, picnic tables, BBQ, benches, open lawn play area, passive park space with arbor and a wetland trail with interpretive signage Site and Building Design Aggregated units which provide increased opportunity for open space and tree preservation Architectural design which includes modulation and variation on building materials. ~ \llE:\ll 01' TIIE Cl"RVI': Preliminary PUD Analysis The proposal is consistent with relevant Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies. The proposal is compliant with all relevant zoning and PUD regulations (excluding standards a modification has been request from) if all conditions of approval are complied with: , Conditions of Approval, include but not limited to, additional parking lot landscaping, screening components, relocation of refuse and recycling, bicycle parking, relocation of surface parking away from critical areas, insulation of a split rail fence and trail, final wetland documents, architectural detailing including doors, modulation, scale and color, sidewalk material ~-approval, the creation of bylaws, and a clarified tree retenf Y ~~ 0.2.m ---,~ . + ~ .. , + RENTON ~ & \111· . .-\ll or TIIE Cl'JsVE N'f aa.:»fi I(. NO!lffl,I £'..£¥A~ M.DKio L ,_ • NalttW !l.!V .. TIQI M!)IG It-~ afY.ATI(lri Preliminary PUD Analysis _,,----- 12::'&~-I MONG 1(. fA&T !LrY41'0N MJ)IIG L-·WTIUVA.tOI Sill.PfD I(, IE&T !UVATIClil [ r Building Kand L (Example) The proposed building have been designed to be built in a coordinated fashion utilizing a consistent set of materials. RENTON .\IIE.-\ll OJ' TIit ct:l{Vt Preliminary PUD Analysis ""'l/4, ,t: 1/4. !EC'Tll:W ,.._ ~ n,.,, 1111..,.q: 5-[. •w. - FIELDBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUD 1:e 11• ----Lit.L. ..... : ·~ _I I, ' l' I ~~ I' ...... ' ~..!I.!. • ff ' I ·-·~-----" - ~-.,..S'l'IIII, -:::::< --·------------.. --I I Infrastructure and services are sufficient to serve the proposed development RENTON \tll'.:\ll OF TIIE Cl'R\!I'. • Site circulation for pedestrian and vehicles is sufficient if all conditions of approval are complied with • Safe and efficient emergency access would be provided • Water and sanitary sewer services would be provided by Soos Creek Water District • Stormwater would be compliant with the 2009 KCSWDM. Preliminary PUD Analysis -·····--··---~ ~'i-~=--·~· ~-; ~~J£le :;.:_;;£.; -i::. ~::.~~-.~ :+£i..:.:7" ·, !•i . < -~~~-·,--: ;:,!t''.,9~ [r-'" _ _;--l~~-l ±,,~~~:[E?j ~~@fi't"j .. :J:-:-,--, ~~ ' ' ·. ,.±;, . §::==-1.~~g;--:~:."'.!: ~!;~icrt,.:~J.tf!.t.lli IW"'-"__. , ~>.,! ~--:~:::;._...:___ ----- ,;~'i,i-.,,.,.. D~ ,,,, .. """""""' ' ......... Ir' 1:.:$.~..::,t,,l"--as.-. ,...,.,,~r.s,,,• .. •-"."'"..., ,,,,,...~., - !ffiZZl::-...it-. ·---~ _; !'.;:-:"' .. "':::' .. "'.:.."" -- • 78 % of the 210 parking stalls proposed would function as surface parking. The excessive amount of surface parking stalls detracts from the aesthetics of the overall development and the quality architectural design and landscaping proposed. Two options: 1. Reduce the parking requirement to allow space for landscaping or 2. Reduce density to reduce the The applicant has indicated that sufficient parking has been provided to meet the demand created by the development. - parking requirement allowing for additional parking lot landscaping area. ~y (j u@:& + *' + RENTON \111'.:\D or Tl-IE Cl'l{VL ~fl 0~ ~ i 1:r~ g,~e· · ill ~ !c•"l,'lJl ; "·"'Y· P !ii at An a I ys 1· s cont rr-d _ .. ,.. ti~ ~uf h ~ E;J 1~ ·. ,, ,--,· 1 · • ---------.. -.,.~-----·----------- --- d! ' '-"'.>q" ' I I ' 'I ·--,..,,r::--"-!/ .-~ .. ~ a~-=--:-: ~ / :.::...-=-==i. : : • ·--., r r~~·:·· i' .Ne--I I ..., --~~ l~~ ··,1_ 1---t - -\ _l "\;, \, _.~I -i i::::i:.iiii I -. ~-· ; I ,,..,. __ ,-.-= EXHIBIT 11 _,_,_,,' '-"--,.~rt-.......... ----~ = RENTON \IIE.\ll OF TIIE Cl'l{VF The applicant submit a landscape plan depicting: • Street Trees -1ogth Ave. SE and 172nd St. SE. • 10 foot wide onsite landscape strips along all public frontages • 10 foot wide fully sight obscuring visual buffer along the north and southwest property lines (adjacent to existing single-family development) -~ ' u~f?& + :(( + ~L': 0~ ~ Preli11~inary Plat Analysis cont. ~ --·p,, ~-· -"!':. -~ I --· _ ·,GDIJ-, / 'l .... --... ~~ ==-..:.:::""'-----·\!..----i;"::"--· -----... -- i -=,, --"'· •. L. fl -. ' ~;a.. s-;-. r -:.. --·. -:. ....... -i.... I ,,.;;;:.. &J !!!,. ~,ijip' ~ ~ .<'\ '~:1_ ---•"t,.-: -:ik . P" .~!! t ,.. ,~ er ,.-1;.• ·-=="' . 1,1!!11"" • 1-..a,::, :..-.-:-:. ~· -SIC-_. ~-., ·-Tu ~-~-_.,,__ ------···-- EXHIBIT 10 The applicant submit wetland creation and mitigation plan to mitigate for the following impacts to critical areas: " Fill of 3 wetlands -9,330 SF $ • ~ " .. Wetland creation Wetland buffer averaging Wetland trail construction Temporary construction impacts Stormwater outfall into wetland area The accumulative impacts to wetlands and habitat should be taken into consideration when evaluating whether to approve, approve with fooa111ons and/or deny the proposed request RENTON -,!IF.-\[l OF TllE Cl'kVt Preliminary Plat Analysis cont. The applicant has requested approval of Bonus Density: To meet the requirements of bonus density the applicant has proposed the following: A 2,400 SF recreation center, which includes a gathering room, kitchen, outdoor BBQ pit, fire pit, etc ... ; and The applicant has requested to allocate the pickle ball court and play area to meet Public Benefit under the PUD standards and instead re-design the project to have no more than 6 parking stalls with a minimum of 15 feet of landscaping in-between. If the conditions of approval are met the project would comply with the bonus density requirements. RENTON \ 11 E:\ 0 0 r: TII E C t'RVE Preli1111inary Pla·t Analysis cont. The applicant has requested approval of both Bonus Density and a PUD These two requests need to be evaluated together as the bonus units should not take away from the quality of the overall project design. An area of conflict in the provided site plan, is the surface parking lot presence (78% surfaced parked) Code standards and conditions of approval will add landscaping to these parking areas reducing their aesthetic and visual impact. It is unclear to staff if the applicant can meet the required parking lot landscaping standards and the bonus density standards and at the same time achieve both a superior design and credit for the bonus density. There is a direct correlation between the reduction in units and the need to provide surface parking, therefore these two issues are linked and should be considered together. RENTON \111'.:\D OF TllE (:l'RVE " Recommendation Staff has provided 3 separate recommendations for the project as follows: Approval of the Fieldbrook Commons PPUD subject to 31 conditions. However staff only recommends approval of the bonus density to 18 du/ac if the surface parking lot presence can be reduced and at the same time the square footage and configuration of open space remains as proposed. Or the Examiner could choose to approve partial bonus density to 16 du/ac as half the credit has been achieved by providing the recreation center, provided the surface parking lot presence should be reduced and at the same time the square footage and configuration of open space shall remain as proposed. If neither of the above is feasible, staff recommends approval of the PPUD subject to the 31 conditions, provided the Recreation,..__ __ Center remains a part of the development. 0~~Y ~~ ··~ ·~· RE N TO N ~~ ,crQ<j \111'..\P OF TIJE c:l'RVE J.\J .......... !~ ' ., -------- C'-'-';.,:i/,,--/ ) I -------- ' ____ J__ __ j__ ~;1··· o·'"· ... -., .. o, z • ' ' I~ • • . I ' ' ~ .• :2 i~ I ~ i;', ~ t, ~ ~ II ' ' i8 I § ,I ,; j;;~ ~ tHl :! ii! j;;O ,l i ,- 'I . D DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M February 12, 2012 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Fieldbrook Commons, LUA12-001 Following the completion of the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner, the attached documents were received by the City. A Judgment from Superior Court State of Washington, which requires the applicant to provide a landscape easement and vegetative buffer along a portion of the north property line of the site, as shown in the attached exhibits. Staff is recommending a co~i):i~J3l}PYJ.:~ :,1,~q~:.t,/1~ , applicant comply with the court order~~We~ ~Q;~ vsgstative e~#sr Com.P.~ance shall be identified on ths tree retention plan ~qg tl:ia updated laAEisea13e plal1{r?r review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to Final PUD approval. h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\12-001. vanessa\2-12-13 memo to hearing examiner.docx 1111111 ill I II I .11 tll! 11111 20120608©01092 ATUOOODj SARAH J PAGE-00 OF 008 06/08/2012 II :37 KING COUNTY, WA 69.00 ~v 2...D\ z_o.S-.z__L1 cocA·B:S- L.-i ,,d...-:c__..-, ~--2.D \ z_ u b ee,oo l c.JM "'"" r,-,o1"' 1vr, ,.,ro...,.,,,on WASHINGTON STATE RECORDER'S tover Sheet (Rew 65 04l Document Titl~-(or t,l,nsactions contained therein): (all area~ applicable lo your document must be filled in) I. 0, v'N fl.}./ ' -~. 9\ -r mJI J..M;c/ 2 3. l&~~-;-J 4 Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference #'son page ___ of document Grantor(s) Exactly as name(s) appear on document 1. ~twJ?M-L Lobtb L.--w~ \ ~ , 2. Prc'r?.Je~e.d-Lno/~ 0 or;yelJ Additional names on page ___ of document. Grantee(s) Exactly as n~me(s) appear on document ~ Ott.V~ f. 6~·tw1~ I. ~~ ~-)\i\W>1,{ , 2. Sl;)fu,\tj ,\. ~ , UM-'k !(, ~~ m.d \ kl-(3, Additional names on page of document. Legal description (abbreviated: i.e. lot, block, plat or section. township. range) Additional legal is on page __ of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number 0 Assessor Tax # not yet assigned The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on this form. The staff will not read the document to verify the accuracv or comnleteness of the indexin£ information nrovided herein. "lam signing below and paying an additional $50 recording fee (as provided in RCW 36.18.0!0 and referred to as an emergency nonstandard document), because this document does not meet margin and formatting requirements. Fu1·thermore, I hereby understand that the recording process may cover up or otherwise obscure some part of the text of the original document as a result of this request.11 Signature of Requesting Party Note to submitter: Do not sign above nor pay additional $50 foe if the document meets margin/formatting requirements • • ·-r ll-2ll0314-4, SEA i ' CONFORMED COPY- 20120608001093 !f) \SHINGTON ATUOOODf SARAH J PAGE-00 OF 029 0s10a12012 11 :37 90.00 EXP07 2012 --· ,., 1 11v1cNT OF JU[JCJAL ADMINISTRATION 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 lN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF WASHINGTON !N, IN AND FOR KING COUNTY 9 RICHARD R. NlEMl, SYDNEY J. NJEMJ, DARLENE R. BJORNSTAD, AND THE IO DARLENE R. BJORN ST AD TRUST, 11 Plaintiffs, 12 V, 13 RAY W. LOTTO AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARJORIE L. LOTTO LlVlNG TRUST; RAY 14 W. LOTTO AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROBATE I 5 ESTA TE OF MARJORIE L. LOTTO; THE PROBATE EST A TE OF MARJORJE L. 16 LOTTO; WILLIAM J.O'NEIL AS NAMED PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 17 PRO BA TE ESTATE OF VIOLA T. O'NEIL, AND MARJORIE L. LOTTO AND VIOLA T. 18 0 'NEIL DBA MB INVESTMENTS, Defendants. No. l l-2-30314-4 KNT AGREED ORDER, DECREE AND FINAL JUDGMENT QUIETING TITLE, ADJUSTING PROPERTY BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTIES 19 20 I. JUDGMENT SUMMARY 21 1. Plaintiffs: Richard R. Niemi, Sydney J. Niemi. Darlene R. Bjornstad, and the Darlene R. Bjornstad Trust 22 23 2. Attorney for Plaintiffs: Sarah L. Atwood 24 25 26 3. Real Properties Affected: Law Offices of Sarah L. Atwood PLLC See Section II ~I and Section III~~ 1-5 herein. King County Tax Parcel Nos. 292305-9145 292305-9107, 292305-903 L AGREED ORDER. DECREE AND FINAL JUDGMENT QUIETING TITLE. ADJUSTING PROPERTY LAW OFFICES OF SARAH L. ATWOOD, PLLC 1 !9 N.E. S6"'STREET SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98105 206•524-0)77 (tel.) BOUNDARJES BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTIES -] 2 3 4 5 6 7 11·2-30314·4, SEA 6. Principal Judgment Amount: $0.00 TI. STIPULATION It is hereby stipulated by, between and among the Plaintiffs hereto; and the Court on good cause finds that: 1. Plaintiffs brought suit against the defendants seeking to quiet title in certain property described in the Complaint pursuant to doctrines of adverse possession, mutual 8 recognition of boundary, prescriptive easement and similar equitable doctrines. The 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Plaintiffs Niemi and Bjornstad also had claims of adverse possession and encroachment against each other. The affected prope11ies for this second Court Order are located at 108'h Avenue SE, Renton, Washington, 98055, parcels numbers 9031, 9107, and 9145. 2 Following the filing and service of the Complaint, Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their authorized agent entered into settlement negotiations. 3. The par1ies have senled the disputes, including those affecting the Plaintiffs' boundary line disputes. By separate court order entered by this Cour1 on April 13, 2012 the Plaintiffs and Defendants provided for a conveyance of real property from Defendants to Plaintiffs, and the entry of this second court order to provide for conveyance of real property solely between the Plaintiffs. 4. Title to the property described below should be quieted to each of the Plaintiffs, as set forth below in the Judgment. 5. All par1ies have previously stipulated and agreed to the entry of a Court Order directing a change in the Driveway Easement to that driveway easement existing solely on Plaintiffs' properties to comport with the actual location of Plaintiffs' driveway.fK~tm{fi!1$2h({y&; ·;[Ff 25 -~11©'.igµsly:,sftpiifatOOi"':nid''agreedil,,o the re<;or.1iflg of11 fylly fen~d lan,dscaping easemenrgt&i1ed' :f 23 24 26 AGREED ORDER. DECREE AND FINAL JUDGMENT QUIETING TITLE. ADJUSTING PROPERTY BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTIES· 2 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH L. ATWOOD, PLLC i l9N.E. 56m STREET SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98105 206-524-0371 {tel.) • . . I 11-2-30314-4, SEA to Plaintiffs on Defendants' property, ~chtrulr.thi!'-'handsc~ping Easement shows the location of a" 4r '»~"iriify~foo!Io(fffef~~d.trees to be,r<!tained,within'5aid buffer.--'·'" i 3 6. All other claims not otherwise resolved by the judgments quieting title in two court 4 orders, were agreed dismissed with prejudice and without an award of fees or costs to either party. 5 7. The boundary line adjustments between the Plaintiff Niemi and Bjornstad's 6 abuning properties do not -cause a substantial amount of properties to be exchanged, is for no 7 consideration, and that the parties' recording of quit claim deeds is for the purpose of ending a 8 bona fide property dispute. shall be regarded as a Lot Boundary Adjustment, and is tax exempt 9 pursuant to WAC 458-61-235 .. 1 0 III. JUDGMENT I 1 Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation and findings, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED 12 AND DECREED that: 13 1. Boundary Line Adjustment No. 2. Title to the following described real property 14 situated in King County, Washington, shall be and hereby is quieted in and to the Plaintiff Niemi, 15 to move the common legal boundary line between PlaintiffNiemi's properties to 3.68' east of the 16 legal line as shown on Exhibit 2 in the hatch marked area, and shall be transferred by a quit claim 17 deed. The Plaintiff Niemi has two parcels with a common legal boundary between their 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 contiguous properties located at I 08'" Avenue SE, Renton, Washington, 98055, parcels numbers 9031 and 9107, shown on Exhibit 2. to-wit: Existing Legal Descriplionfor Niemi Parcel 9/07: THE EAST 100 FEET OF THE WEST 515 FEET OF THE SOUTH 157 FEET OF THE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., fN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Exisling Legal Description for Niemi Parcel 9031: Tl-!E SOUTH l57FE£T OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M, fN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 78.6 FEET OF THE WEST 315 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 245 FEET THEREOF; AGREED ORDER. DECREE AND FINAL JUDGMENT QUIETING TITLE. ADJUSTING PROPERTY BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTIES· 3 LAW OFFICES OF SARAH L. ATWOOD, PLLC 119 N.F.. 56m STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98105 206-524-0317 (tel.) " "' en tj< ' tj< rl M 0 M ' N ' rl rl EXHIBIT FOR: TREES LOCATED IN LANDSCAPE EASEMENT & 20' BUFFER A ~ z w :,. w "' "' w {.'.> z 0:: < (.) PARCEL) <11 0 9031 z "' -' w g ~ ~ w X 0 z z w w w X :,. w z w ~ w u, ~ w "' ~ CID >->-!S' " w ~ ~ w ~ f5 l5 w ·-~ '-' ® ,., ,., ~CID~ B z 0:: l--. '-.i c,; LOT A ~ PARCEL "' u ' "' 9107 V1 I 0 z PARCEL < 9145 __________ J ------ ~--~ Ir I ~---20· BUFFER-20· +,m-. 1n-l '~· ·~ --~ , ....... _ -----f ff:.,".& ,,--I I r"\~ ______ ...1 20· ~~·/ . <c 'I ----,/ ct . g-'<- 0 ~c:'-'!<': ,\' 0'{ '>c A ,ft A s ,ft ,, '> ,f tf A'/i' !,, ? ;,if" ,i' ~ •c)' .... -... '? ..... {'.' "· ;,, ;,, -~ ,;!§!1"1.: / !? ,51 <J' !? $" ,.!'J .~ .!', I <J' " , O',., r • ' ::, " I ,,,,,,.~ ::r•·-" "'"s·" , .,r_,,~:,,::t d <:' 18 ~ ~ ... ,{ $ $1 "',.,,, , ...... , ,cT :.,.'<' e,~.,tl a--"> .;v d ,;, ~ " I ~ ,, ', ., PARCEL 9022 0 40 I ~ ~--- IBOVID & ASSOC!AulES, !NC. EXPIR(S· nz1)12ou 828 INDEX CT NE, RENTON, WA 98056 425-204-0840 NW 1/4, SE 1/4, SEC. 29-23-05 "' "' "' ~ ~ _rl M 0 M N rl rl ·,"'7:" • -., 7 TT"'"-,-,, _r,,·~· ·.c-s.a:·· ~-7'· ··-~-, ··. :·~~."":'r· I ----T --,--1-- UJ "' I I I I U); "' N UJ I I ~)~ ~/~ O> ::::, N ... " "' " z u -I .,, "' ";:! "' -LU w '-'-w @) ,w s ~ ----'-'-> /" 0 ."' 0 "' <( :::-"' w ·"' w. 2 N z N :c I "' -.. -.. ..., . ..., . 1-(' @ POINT OF -10 -10 co !,! w z w z 0 ::, BEGINNING I I ~ "' 15· I --N89'49'04"W 308.01' ....:·, ,37.00'---70.14' -. --132.76' [ ---i-----"' (1 .. ..., L3 ..., NW CORNER Na9-49'04"W 239.50' JO' S 1/2 OF S 1/2 OF Nea·29·19"w NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 I LANDSCAPE 100.31' ,w SEC. 29-23-5 "' I EASEMENT AREA "' NORTH LINE OF ;.., § S 1/2 OF S 1/2 OF LINE BEARING LENGTH " I c§v 0 NW 1/4 OF SE 1/4 ll N67'11'54"W 18.52' z SEC. 29-23-5 L2 N87"35'06"W 62.57' lJ N76'27'04"E 14.63' L4 N01"42'56"E 15.01' I L5 N0010'56"E 15.00' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AREA EXHIBIT l,. -NW 1/4, SE 1/4. SEC 29, TWP. 23N .. RNG. SE., W.M. OWN. BY DATE JOB NO. ® CONCEPT ENGINEERING, [NC EXHIBIT DBM 1/3/12 31051 455 Rainier Boulevard Nor\h A Issaquah, Woshinglon 98027 SHEET (425) 392-8055 FAX (425) 392-0108 CHKD. BY SCALE , .. = 60' 1 OF 1 Copyi9M c 2007 Ccv,u-p,1 En9iouritu1, l~c. All rjghts ,e1..r-,.,d. , Vanessa Dolbee From: katrina garrison <katrinag26@hotmail.com> Monday, February 11, 2013 4:04 PM Vanessa Dolbee; katrina garrison Fieldbrook Commons Project Sent: 'Z l EXHIBIT .33 To: Subject: To whom it may concern: My address is 17032 110th Place SE Renton, WA 98055 (Parcel# 863710-0400). PNW Holdings, LLC has filed an application with the City of Renton to build three story townhouses on the property directly behind my house (Parcel#292305-9022) and fill several wetlands on the property. Wetland Concerns: There is more than a foot of standing water on the property. My yard is soggy in the winter and takes a few months of dry weather to feel dry in the summer. I am concerned with flooding in the area and my house if the city allows this project to proceed. I was informed by Vanessa Dolbee that there are several category II wetlands on the property that will be filled as part of this project. WAC 173-183-710 Category II wetlands. The following types of wetlands are classed as category II wetlands: Documented habitat recognized by federal and state agencies for sensitive plant, animal, or fish species; or Documented priority habitats and species recognized by state agencies; or Wetlands with significant functions which may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration; or Wetlands with significant habitat value; or Documented wetlands of local significance. • Why would the city make a decision to fill a wetland that cannot be replicated? There is land that can be developed that would not have as a significant impact, if you make the decision to fill these wetlands keep in mind, it can NEVER be reversed. • Previously this property was under the jurisdiction of King County. Currently, there are signs on the fences around the property that state "protect our wetlands." I have talked to neighbors who have lived in the area for quite some time and stated King County has turned down several projects in the past due to the wetlands. What has changed, that it is now ok to build on these wetlands? • Why are wetland buffer zones 50ft in the city of Renton and 225ft in King County? That is a significant difference. Dept of Ecology stated for this project: The buffer area proposed for wetland creation has been described as being partially degraded but Ecology notes that the city's buffers are smaller than Ecology's recommended standards for Category II wetlands and that taken together in the whole, this project is proposing significant impacts to buffer functions in areas that that lie both inside and outside of the city's standard buffers including buffer reductions adjacent to the westernmost portions of Wetlands A & B adjacent to wetland flags A3 and 84. • There is also wildlife on that property. What will happen to these animals? Traffic Concerns: I called the City of Renton and learned that there was a traffic study waiver provided for this project. On the mayors page he states that one of his major concerns is improving traffic in Renton if that is the case why was a traffic study waiver for this project provided? (I called and spoke to Arneta Henniger on 11/2/2011 since she is the person who waived the traffic study, she could not tell me why it was waived and sounded very frustrated with me, I asked her if I was frustrating her she responded that it wasn't me it was her workload. As a homeowner, citizen and taxpayer I am concerned that Renton City employees are not doing their jobs properly because they are overworked. Since, I called the city has "decided" to require a "limited traffic study", with traffic as bad as it is, the city made a poor decision, maybe this is why the traffic in the area keeps getting worse. o Building 162, 3 bedroom units on that property is going to increase traffic significantly. I have sat through 4 rounds of stoplights on the corner of 108'" and Benson Dr Son several occasions for up to 12 minutes (I timed it), just to go to Fred Meyer. What does the City of Renton plan to do with the traffic on that corner as well as Benson Dr. S and SE? o Driving west on Carr road to get on 167 will back up to 106'" Ave at times, not due to accidents but the sheer number of cars on the road. Another apartment complex was just built on the corner of Carr road and 106th. Was 1 -.. there a traffic study co •ted? It can take up to 30 minutes to get do .arr road to 167, what does the city plan on doing about that? Personally, this is very frustrating as this will further decrease my property value, I have already lost 65K in value and I am scared to see what this will do. I will lose privacy (one of the reasons I bought the house) I will now have three story apartment buildings looking directly into my house. Not to mention the crime that comes with apartment complexes, but these will probably be viewed as selfish reasons which I do understand. In addition, American Classic homes (land acquisitions team, Justin Lagers) has questionable business practices and zero integrity. understand this has no impact on the business decision the city has to make but I would question everything he says and does. Justin has lied and threatened myself and my neighbors on several occasions. Justin oddly plays both good cop then bad cop when he doesn't get his way. Solution: This land is being sold for a very low price, why wouldn't the city purchase it and provide more parks for our children, retain the valuable wetlands and reduce our carbon footprint. Thank you, Katrina Garrison 17032 110" Place SE Renton, WA 98055 206-226-1993 Below is the Mayors statement on the State of the City for 2011, I hate to say you are not living up to your goals and visions. We must continue to work together to make sure that our city is uniquely prepared and effectively protected against fires, floods and any disaster. With the new Census numbers putting us at over 90,000 residents, Renton is now the 4th largest city in King County and the 9th largest in the state. Our task ahead is very exciting -but also challenging. The buzz word in government these days is "green!" And it should be. We are committed to moving forward with a "green" agenda where we lead by example and promote a healthy environment. We have made significant progress. Trees provide numerous environmental, social and economic benefits for people, yet urban areas present challenging environments for trees to grow and survive. We completed the urban forestry plan for Renton to ensure that we manage and protect the tree canopy in our city. For the second year in a row, we received the Tree-City USA designation and also received our first Tree City USA Growth award. 2 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: February 6, 2013 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: LUA (file) Number: Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Acceptance Date: Applicant: Owner: Contact: PID Number: ERC Decision Date: ERC Appeal Date: Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Mylar Recording Number: Fiedbrook Commons LUA-12-001, ECF, PPUD Fieldbrook Apartments Vanessa Dolbee January 17, 2012; Notice of Complete Application: June 25, 2012 PNW Holdings, LLC Fieldbrook Commons LLC Justin Lagers 2923059023; 2923059022; 2923059168 January 7, 2013 January 25, 2013 February 12, 2013 Date: Date: Project Description: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Location: 17040 lOB'h Avenue SE Comments: Rcc1p.tid Jc.() 171 u:1L-flc{(l&(tY\ h<.,~{t. tACapkt1 {,~hut uvv:,;C{t,vtd._ Q l't/Y\rle+e O:,r()I, adit:l"I ,}... Ju,,t-2'>11612__. Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: WA/2-001 justin@americanclassichomes.com on behalf of Justin Lagers <Justin@pnwholdings.com> Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:50 PM Vanessa Dolbee Fieldbrook building heights Building Height Comparison.doc Follow up Flagged Vanessa, we have been tweaking our grading plan to better balance the cut / fill dirt volumes on site and in doing so have been playing with building foundation pads. Attached is comparison whereby with our new grading plan we could eliminate the need for variances on 2 buildings, reduce the variance height request on 3 buildings but would have to increase our request for 4 buildings ( 2 by mere inches). We see this as a positive turn of events, especially in building J which Chip was concerned with, we cut almost four feet off the building hieght. Please review and I am sorry for these late changes, I know it makes things difficult on your end. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC i\\n•q1,: ,.sf [ .,n:J ( ,1:,i,,l_hi, ~>, ft\', ti,lJ/i)\t'iH Ju.stin:iVpnwholclings com 1 • • Fieldbrook Commons Building Height Comparison with Changes in Grading Plan. Building# Height as submitted Height with new grading plan A B C D E G H J K L M N 27'-2 W' 30'-11" 30'-7 \I.," 31 '-8" 36' -2" 28'-10 \I.," 28' -5" 35 '-3 \I.," 33'-3 \I.," 38'-3 \I.," 33 '-8" 34'-9 7/8" RED -Asked for variance already -need to expand it. BLUE-Asked for a variance but don't need as much now. YELLOW -Asked for a variance, now don't need it. NO HIGHLIGHT -Conforming 27'-5 5/8" 28' -4 V,'' 28' -8 3/8" 23 '-11 I /8" 27'-0 3/8" Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: justin@americanclassichomes.com on behalf of Justin Lagers <Justin@pnwholdings.com> Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12 06 PM Vanessa Dolbee Re: Bonus Density Follow up Flagged Vanessa, we are opting to provide the 15' landscape separators between every six stalls as the bonus density incentive and we would like our outdoor recreation facilities (pickleball court, tot toys, climbing wall, etc .. ) to go towards satisfying the PUD. We will need to request a variance to the parking calculation requirements by decreasing the amount of spaces provided by approximately IO stalls. We feel our proximity to public transportation and the on street parking available on 172nd will more than cover the reduction. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbce@rentonwa.gov> wrote: Justin, I was quoting the minimum parking lot landscape width which is 5-feet. It turns out to qualify for the bonus density you do need the 15 feet. Sorry for any confusion, this was an old code standard. Will the 15 feet work for you? After looking at the stalls I was thinking you would lose 10 to accommodate the 15 feet. 'Vanessa ,Do(6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 1 • • From: justin@americanclassichomes.com [mailto:justin@americanclassichomes.com] On Behalf Of Justin Lagers Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:10 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Bonus Density In addition, in order to qualify for a bonus, developments shall also incorporate at least 1 of the features described below: "Surface parking lots containing not more than 6 parking stalls separated from other parking areas by landscaping with a minimum width of 15 feet." Code says 15 feet but you said it was less than that correct? Just trying to make sure we can make this work. See attachment -we actually loose 8 parking spots. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC i/1:\·1".w , ; ! ;;ml .'.nf1'~1L,!'< ,, D,-1 ,·'. i,1mu11 \[ __ ; 1: '< :"l. I.', \\'.\ 'h("J : ), 1'i, ,' 206-588-1147 : ; i 253-405-5587 J ustin@pnwholdings.com Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC iOkh'(:>1r 0f [ ;:11\J \vq\lhifitm .,_\ !J.:, th:mit'Hl '' Justin'iVpnwhold1ngs.com 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) <patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov> Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:22 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001 Hi Vanessa, I am home sick today and don't have the specifics on this project with me but when I spoke to Ed Sewell some months ago about my concerns, he described the existing conditions to me with regards to the past disturbances from mining and other activities. He also described to me in detail the existing plant community such that I was no longer concerned about the proposed location of the mitigation area within a forested area. Additionally, this application would likely meet the conditions for a Federal Nationwide Permit and would not require Ecology approval. I hope this is sufficient. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner/Wetlands Specialist/WSDOE From: Vanessa Dolbee [VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 11:15 AM To: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) Subject: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001 Patrick, Thank you for your voice mail regarding the wetland creation proposed in the forested buffer included in the subject project proposal. Would it be possible for you to provide me with an e-mail documenting DOE's new position on the proposal. As the last e-mail received from DOE did not support the proposal and Ed Sewell's e-mail stated the DOE was "less concerned". Which could mean a number of things. Thank you for the follow up clarifying DOE's position on the subject projects mitigation proposal. 'Vanessa (J)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: CC: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M January 16, 2013 Vanessa Kayren Kittrick Arneta x7298 Utility and Transportation Comments for FIELDBROOK COMMONS PUD 17040 108TH Ave SE -Parcel 292305-9023, 292305-9022 & 292305-9168 LUA 12-001 The purpose of this memo is let you know that the cul-de-sac shown on the drawing submitted to the City stamp dated Nov. 26, 2012, is adequate if it is dedicated public right-of-way. This additional review comment is triggered as the original requirement was to extend the new street, SE 172"d St as called out on the above referenced engineering plan, to the east property line. There are wetlands on the east side of this parcel hence extending the street serves no benefit to the City. The location of the cul- de-sac ends approximately 170 feet west of the project's Detention Vault on the east side but they are showing an access road (which will be privately maintained) to said vault which will be maintained by the PUD so again extending the cul-de-sac other than shown is not necessary. Storm: The project is now showing a vault (on the west side) replacing the pond which is acceptable. The purpose of this comment is to clarify comments written in July regarding a pond. No further comments or changes to requirements for storm design. Thank you! Call me if you have any questions. Arneta x7298 i:\memo.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M December 17, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee Bob Mac Oni;~ Fieldbrook Commons, LUA-12-001-PPUD I have reviewed the above referenced submittal and have the following comments: There are minor errors and inconsistencies in the Project Narrative. The PUD plans use a six pointed star but that is not in the legend. It is likely the area of wetland creation but it isn't plain. The wetland mitigation plan may spell this out but the wetland information contained on the PUD plan sheets is sparse. This proposal seems to be asking a lot: 25% increase in the allowed height of some buildings, an increase in the allowed number units per building and wetland filling while offering little beyond the development itself. h:\ced\planning\technical scrvices\reviews\lua-12-001-rv 121214.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM December 4, 2012 Plan Review/Fire/Parks roperty Services Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner LUA12-001 Fieldbrook Commons (Apartments) The applicant has amended their design including site plan, building design and floor plans, open space and amenities, and stormwater and utilities. Please review the attached updated plan sets and provide comments to me by December 18, 2012. Thank you. h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\12-001.vanessa\second routing memo 12-001.docx ~is~ c· f - __ _:Ma:yo~r ______ .. r Ity O l December 10, 2012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street ste: #105 · Mercer Island, WA 98040 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice ~~2jjfiljj Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Fieldbrook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on January 3, 2012. During the review process the applicant requested the project be placed on hold. An e-mail was received on December 7, 2012 requesting the project be taken off hold. Therefore, your project has been taken off hold and the City will continue review of the Field brook Commons project. The Preliminary PUD has been rescheduled for ERC on January 7, 2013 and is tentatively scheduled to go before the Hearing Examiner on February 12, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, ~{L/;UJ}De,-1),~b-&- Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: PNW Holdings, Ray W. lotto, William O'Neil/ Owner(s) Party{ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Justin <justin@americanclassichomes.com> Friday, December 07, 2012 1 :48 PM Vanessa Dolbee Fieldbrook Commons Follow up Flagged Mrs. Dolbee, PNW Holdinds, LLC would like to formally request our PUD application for Fieldbrook Commons be removed from its hold status. Sent from my iPhone 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 4, 2012 TO: Plan Revie~Parks/Property Services FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner .J) SUBJECT: LUA12-001 Field brook Commons (Apartments) The applicant has amended their design including site plan, building design and floor plans, open space and amenities, and stormwater and utilities. Please review the attached updated plan sets and provide comments to me by December 18. 2012. Thank you. [~ c..r NI) N ,2"-'-' I u /--esf- h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\12-001.vanessa\second routing memo 12~001.docx DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 4, 2012 Plan Review/Fir~/Property Services \jJ Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner LUA12-001 Fieldbrook Commons (Apartments) The applicant has amended their design including site plan, building design and floor plans, open space and amenities, and stormwater and utilities. Please review the attached updated plan sets and provide comments to me by Oetember 18. 2012 .. ·• Thank you. /3'./ ,o ( (20{2., s~ Ttees L,-(\~ 81au·( a-rt t D '? 4)e.;w..J. cJ ~ fJO f e if LJY1 -~ 0--Vl (7 ·;).__ ~ d cr S"o ~ t7 J e,Vl CJ.Jdu _ c__ r-ti v L.{_S,.(_ 1 ~ P +«-. ~ u h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\12~001. vanessa\second routing memo 12~001.docx DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M December 4, 2012 Plan Review/Fire/Parks/Property Services Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner LUA12-001 Fieldbrook Commons (Apartments) The applicant has amended their design including site plan, building design and floor plans, open space and amenities, and stormwater and utilities. Please review the attached updated plan sets and provide comments to me by December 18, 2012. Thank you. h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\12-00 l .vanessa\second routing memo 12-00 l .docx · ' ::, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc . . 1'1i.11¥U!J@l#' '--------"'IJ,'-'64=-1=-C=-OVI=ngtu'--''-'n'-W"-a-'-y=S=E=#2=-=-===Ph=-o=ne=25IB59-051"'-==-5- September 17, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Covingtnn WA c:«l42 Fax:253-852-4732 RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response -LUA12-00I swc Job#l 1-121 Dear Vanessa, This is a response to the June 13, 2012 OTAK review regarding the Fieldbrook Commons project. Below, listed with the page and paragraph from the OT AK report in italics are the items that were underlined in the OTAK report that required further response from us. After each item we have provided a response; Page 5 paragraph 1 : "We recommend the applicant submit rating forms in order for the City to concur with the analysis and verify functional lift,, we recommend that an explicit assessment of existing proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency". The rating form for the new wetland mitigation area, which includes Wetlands A and C are attached to this report as requested. The existing buffer of Wetlands A and C that will be impacted consists ofan open deciduous forested canopy comprised of big leaf maple, some small western hemlock, as well as an open understory of vine maple, indian plum, Himalayan blackberry and scattered other small shrubs. Several trails, piles of trash and debris, several coal tailing piles, and a small homeless camp is found in this area. This area currently provides some thermal cover to the area around and along the edges of the wetland. It also provides a source of organic material which contributes to the soil composition as well as a source of food to invertebrates utilizing the wetland. The buffer provides some sound reduction from the surrounding residential uses abutting the property. The buffer also provides some barrier to human intrusion. However, the forest is relatively open and sound reduction in this area is not that high. Additionally, the use of the area by local youth on bikes etc. and on and off by homeless has further reduced this function as human use in and around these wetlands appears to occur regularly. Fieldbrook Commons// 1-12 I Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 2 of 15 W ct land buffers can also act as filters to runoff entering the wetland, acting to clean and filter contaminants form sheet flow into the wetland. This function appears relatively intact. The proposed wetland creation area will require some conversion of forested buffer to wetland. It will also shift existing upland forest outside of the existing wetland buffers of Wetlands A and C, into the buffer as the edge is expanded. In essence, the buffer remains forested except for portions of the buffer that require grading to connect into the wetland contours. The area to be merged into the buffer is of similar forested character as the existing buffer. The portions that will be graded and be replanted as buffer will have a temporary reduction in some buffer functions in the period ( 1 O+ years) it takes the installed tree species to attain a height of approximately 20' or more. Some of the functions that will increase will be the fact that the wetland and buffer area will be fenced preventing the current type of human intrusion in this area from occurring. The trash and debris within this area will be removed and non-native invasive Himalayan blackberry will be removed and replaced with native species with high values for habitat, thus increasing the species richness within the plant community. Numerous pieces of large wood will be placed within the wetland and buffer to increase buffer complexity and provide some habitat features currently not existing within this area. Page 3 paragraph 2: Future submittals shall include full scale maps with scale bars and legible no/es. See attached Final Mitigation Plan Page 4 paragraph 3: redundant to Page 3 paragraph 1 answered on page 1 of this report. Page 4 paragraph 5: redundant question asking for rating form of new mitigation area. See attached rating form. Page 5 paragraph 2: The city will request review of the hydrology monitoring data and analysis. A series of 6 monitoring pits/wells were located within the proposed wetland mitigation area (see attached wetland hydrology monitor point map). These were monitored with weekly site visits from April of2012-August 2012. At each of these points soil saturation and water table levels were measured to determine what surficial groundwater elevations are, to facilitate designing grades for the new wetland creation area. What we found was that within the proposed creation area, groundwater levels in the early growing Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Comm/ting, Inc.:. September 17, 2012 Page 3 o/15 season area between 14" -30" below the existing surface (see table below). It is assumed in the very early growing season February and March) the groundwater elevations are shallower than the measurements we took, meaning the groundwater elevations are closer to the soil surface. As shown on the attached Final Mitigation Plan, we utilized these existing groundwater contours to create the new grades for our mitigation site. As can be seen by the grades and associated cross-sections, the grades will remove soil down to the existing groundwater elevations to create wetland areas with soils saturated to the surface for the early growing seasons, to also include flat areas that will hold some shallow I" -3" of surface water to provide a variety of wetland hydro logic regimes from saturated, to seasonally flooded. Table 1. Groundwater elevations below surface o r hvdrolo, v monitoring points 2012 Monitor DATE point& elev. 4/13 4/27 5/11 5/24 617 6/28 7/12 A417.5' -15 -14 -15 -20 -26 drv drv B418' -17 -16 -16 -22 -27 dry dry C417' -20 -18 -17 -20 -25 dry dry 0416.5' -14 -14 -14 -16 -20 dry dry E4 l 8.5' -27 -26 -24 -30 -36 dry dry F418' -21 -22 -20 -28 -36 drv drv Note: All elevations indicate the elevation of the saturated capillary fringe of soil saturation observed in hydrology monitoring points. 8/12 drv dry dry dry dry drv Page 6 paragraph I: We recommend a design realignment of the trail to the outer 25% of the buffer to comply with Code. The City has requested that a trail be run along the mitigation and wetland areas to create additional public benefit. It is not possible to have a trail of any public value in the outer 25% of the buffer as it would essentially be a trail paralleling the development and within 12 feet of the development. In order to create a trail that will allow the public to walk through and view the critical areas on the site, we will need to go closer to the critical areas than the 25% Code allowance. As a compromise, the trail has been placed approximately halfway between all of the wetland areas, essentially splitting the buffer areas. This would allow a trail to pass around and along the majority of the wetland areas. To compensate for the area of the trail in the buffer, additional area has been added to the buffer as compensation. Page 6 paragraph 3: Refers to the proposed stormwater outfall and its potential impacts to Wetland B. Fieldhrook Commons/I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2011 Page 4 of 15 The current stormwater outfall is release to a level spreader near the edge of wetland B. This outfall will release water from the same basin matching closely with existing drainage patterns on the undeveloped site. Wetland B already has a highly fluctuating water table as a result of historic modifications off-site. As a result, fluctuations of surface water ( when present) up to 6" are seen in this wetland during storm events in short periods of time. As a result, the plant community in Wetland B generally consists of species tolerant of a highly fluctuating water table such as willows, hardhack and reed canary grass. No change in hydrology or the character of Wetland B is anticipated. Page 7 paragraph I: ff ten years of monitoring are required (by WADOE&Corps} an addendum to the mitigation plan will be prepared to address this change. The Final Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the Corps and W ADOE using the City required 5 years of monitoring. If the Corps requires additional monitoring years, this will be changed to reflect this requirement. The revised Monitoring Plan notes are attached at the end of this report. Page 8 paragraph I: redundant requirement to address buffer functions answered on Pages l and 2 of this report. Page IO paragraph 2: Performance standards for cover will be addressed in review of the final mitigation plan. See Final Mitigation Plan attached. If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at escwall(cilsewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan 1.0 MITIGATION PROJECT OVERVIEW Fie/dbrook Commons!l /-! 21 Sewall Wr:tlaml Consulting, Inc. September I 7, 2012 Page 5 of /5 To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetlands, it is proposed to create 25,508sf of wetland between Wetlands A and C 2.0 MITiGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 2.1 Mitigation Concept The mitigation proposal is to connect Wetlands A and C with an area of 25,508sf of wetland. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland. 2.2 Mitigation Goals 2.2.1 Create 25,508sf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 3.1 Pre-construction meeting 3.2 Construction staking 3.3 Construction fencing and erosion control 3.4 Clearing and grading 3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 3.6 Plant material installation 3.7 Construction inspection 3.8 Agency approval 3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 3.10 Silt fence removal 3.11 Project completion 3.1 Pre-construction Meeting A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of construction, to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved Fieldbrook Commons/ 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 6 qf 15 understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 3.2 Construction Staking The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and mulch placement are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas. 3.4 Clearing & Grading Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the approved Final Mitigation Plans. 3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas. 3.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will mulch areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 3.7 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the City's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. Fieldbrouk Cummuns///-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 7 of 15 Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing to the Owner. 3.8 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the City biologist should prepare a letter granting approval of the installation. 3.9 Monitoring The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation project. If additional years of monitoring are required by the Corps or W ADOE, the plan will be revised to reflect this change. 3.10 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at least one year, and/ or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. The City's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in place for a longer duration. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 4.1 Site Preparation & Grading 4.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 4.1.2The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 4.1.3The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all non-native invasive plant species including the removal of root crowns. These species may include, but are not limited to Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, English ivy, and English holly. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. Fie/dbrook Commons/I l-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September I 7, 2012 Page 8 of 15 4.1.4 The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to final grade with 8" of topsoil. The biologist will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting. 4.2 Plant Materials 4.2.1 All plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60.1 "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 4.2.3No balled and burlapped, or bare root plantings will be used. Container stock only. 4.2.4All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 4.2.5Substitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 4.2.6All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 4.2. 7The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 4.3 Plant Installation Fieldbrook Commonsl//-121 Snvall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September /7, 2012 Page 9 al/5 4.3.lAll plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. 4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 4.3.3All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. Planting pits shall not be deeper than the root ball. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install "Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed in the mitigation area. 4.3.5All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. 4.3.6All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty 4.4.lA fall-winter installation schedule (October 1" -March 15th) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th -Oct. 1st) a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. Fieldhrook Commonsll l-/ 21 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 10 of 15 4.4.2All disturbed areas will be protected with an arborists mulch to a minimum depth of six inches. 4.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications. 4.5 Site Conditions 4.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling. 4.5.2Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 4.5.3Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences. 4.5.4After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be seeded or mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 4.5.5Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the mitigation area. 4.5.6All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details. Soils from planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area. 5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 5.1 Maintenance Work Scope Fieldbrook Commons/I /-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September /7, 20/2 Page II of 15 5.1.1 To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 5.l.2Work to be included in each site visit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. c. Repair silt and/ or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 5.l.3Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and removing the root crowns. As a last resort, treating the remaining cut stems only with a glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed) by a licensed applicator can be utilized. b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 5.2 Maintenance Schedule The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 5.3 Watering Requirements Fieldbrook Commons/11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 12of/5 5.3.1 Waterwing with a temporary irrigation system will be required during the first spring and summer after the installation. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on-site conditions. 5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Monitoring Program Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the City Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. 6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1 Sampling Methodology The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per year over a five-year period, starting with the first year after the plants have been installed,and as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after the plant installation has been completed. Typically, the first monitoring visit occurs one year after the installation sign-off. 6.1.1 Hydrology Wetland hydrology will be monitored using four ( 4) combination staff/ crest gauges as well as four hydrology monitoring holes dug each sampling period near the piezometer. These will be located within the restoration area to be placed at the time of the installation sign-off by the biologist. Surface water level or ground water saturation depths will be measured at these stations to determine if wetland hydrology has been successfully attained. As is noted in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), wetland hydrology is defined as inundation or soil saturation (usually within 12" of the surface) during the growing season. The growing season for this area is generally defined as the period between the middle of March and the middle of November. However, plant growth often occurs earlier in the year fieidbrook Commons/ 1 /-/ 21 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 13 of/5 and sound professional judgment will be needed to determine when the growing season is taking place at the site. Hydrology will be monitored twice a month from March 1'' through May 30th of each year. Wetland hydrology will be considered successfully created if wetland hydrology is observed inundating or saturating the soil within 12 inches of the surface during the growing season 6.1.2 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material in late summer or early fall (August-September) to determine the health and vigor of the installation, as well as coverage estimates. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. All plants will be inspected and recorded as to whether they area alive or dead based upon the "as-built" in Years 1 & 2. In Years 3-5, coverage estimates will be used to determine success of the vegetation component. Two (2) transects will be established across the mitigation site within each plant community for a total of 6 transects. Within the emergent plant community coverage of vegetation will be measured with 0.25m rectangular plots. Estimates of coverage percentages will be made within these plots. A total of 10 sample points within the herbaceous/ emergent plant community will be randomly located during the installation sign off. At each of these points four samples, one in each quadrant will be taken. Within the scrub-shrub and forested plant communities 1/100 acre, circular plots will be used. A total of 10 randomly located plots along each transect will be recorded. Within each plot coverage estimates for both emergent and woody species will be recorded. Photographs of the mitigation area will be taken from 6 photo points to be located during the installation sign off as well as at each permanent monitoring plot. Photographs will be taken at each of the monitoring and included with the monitoring report for each year from these points. During years 1 & 2 of the monitoring, replacement plants as well as dead plants will be flagged with distinctive flagging to distinguish what plants these are. 6.2 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS Fie/dbrook Commons! 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page 14 of/5 1.a Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 100% survival for all installed planted woody vegetation at the end of year 1. 1.b Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 90% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of years 2. 1.c Years 3&5-Achieve at least 60% cover of woody species in shrub and forested plant communities by Years 3&4 and 50% cover of emergent species. 1.d Not more than 10%cover of non-native invasive species within mitigation area at any time. 2. The wetland mitigation project will create 25,508sf of wetland meeting at least the vegetation and hydrology criteria for a wetland as described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The new wetland area will be delineated in Year 5 to establish and insure adequate wetland has been created. 3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation for percent coverage measurements. 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. 7.2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the City approval. Such plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. 7.3 Contingency/ maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to: ,Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. Fieldbrook Commons/ 11-121 Se·wall Wetland Consulting, Inc. September 17, 2012 Page/5of/5 -Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. -Irrigating the mitigation area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. -Reseeding wetland and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if erosion/ sedimentation occurs. -Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. \ ' 1 "'.2 .,,. ., "3 2 ;, 5 0 z :~ X< ,, ,_._ r, ~ r ~ "" ~ .... · ,'; ' C > l',--, .. !; ., I C C i-1,,-:., l !'" I :1<:.. I I;; ~-I :_ j I] ,..L C D C -. .! } "7 C' -. -",,.. - ,- i I -~ ~ " ! ,, ,, -L _.-~ ~ ~ :;. ]. ..cc,,;~"' .?~f:'~ -:;~i,3 -: §·c -~ ? -' ::: c;"': J]"" 1 .; . .., . ~' s .... :. ;:? -~.=i :,. '" ~Jlr tj ';~~: j 1 ~I 0. ·-'j ifl!~ to/~-: a -s.:; ~· ::: · r1 'Y1 , . v:: "1 = . .J -,.-= '-' - ;: . ' i ~ i I ' --------~ ---·--- -, ;.; ~ z· I I ::I I ! ;; ~ C -·-:.:; !;'±,-;::: I: I ' 1; ' = '.~ ~ ·,1 V :::-; = I J 6 ') 2 ,, ' • Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Tuesday, July 17, 2012 12:22 PM To: Ed Sewall Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; justin@americanclassichomes.com Subject: RE: Fieldbrook Commons-City of Renton LUA 12-001 SEPA Comments Ed, Thanks for your email. I don't think a field visit is necessary at this time but would like a copy of the revised mitigation plan for our review as soon as it is available. Best regards, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshaot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Ed Sewall [mailto:esewall@sewallwc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 12:07 PM To: Karen Walter Cc: 'Vanessa Dolbee'; justin@americanclassichomes.com Subject: Fieldbrook Commons-City of Renton LUA12-001 SEPA Comments Karen, I am sending you this email to see if you had any interest in walking the site with me to look at the proposed impact and mitigation areas on Field brook Commons? I spoke to Patrick MGraner at WADOE this morning for the same reason, and at this time he does not feel he needs to make a site visit. He told me he was more comfortable with the project once he read through the report a little closer. He also said due to the fact we were filling <1/4 acre of wetland, a NWP 29 through the Corps does not require WADOE involvement under the new Nationwide conditions for 401 water qual. cert .. He said he was just responding to the neighbors request at that time. I also clarified with him some of the confusion on the wetlands/buffers/ratings as Rentons wetland classification system does not correspond to the WADOE rating system. We are currently revising our mitigation plan based upon our hydrologic monitoring and other comments, let me know if you would like to visit the site and we can pick a time to do that. Ed Sewall Sewall Wetland consulting<, Inc. (253) 859-0515 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ed Sewall [esewall@sewallwc.com] Tuesday, July 17, 2012 12:07 PM 'Karen Walter' Vanessa Dolbee; justin@americanclassichomes.com Fieldbrook Commons-City of Renton LUA12-001 SEPA Comments Karen, I am sending you this email to see if you had any interest in walking the site with me to look at the proposed impact and mitigation areas on Field brook Commons? I spoke to Patrick MGraner at WADOE this morning for the same reason, and at this time he does not feel he needs to make a site visit. He told me he was more comfortable with the project once he read through the report a little closer. He also said due to the fact we were filling <114 acre of wetland, a NWP 29 through the Corps does not require WADOE involvement under the new Nationwide conditions for 401 water qua I. cert .. He said he was just responding to the neighbors request at that time. I also clarified with him some of the confusion on the wetlands/buffers/ratings as Rentons wetland classification system does not correspond to the WADOE rating system. We are currently revising our mitigation plan based upon our hydrologic monitoring and other comments, let me know if you would like to visit the site and we can pick a time to do that. Ed Sewall Sewall Wetland consulting<, Inc. (253) 859-0515 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Vanessa, Arneta J. Henninger Tuesday, July 17, 201211:35AM Vanessa Dolbee Neil R. Watts; Kayren K. Kittrick FIELDBROOK COMMONS PUD Follow up Completed Per our conversation this morning with Neil, you and I, staff would support a PUD modification request for 5' sidewalks on 108th Ave SE fronting the project known as Field brook Commons. Staff would not support a request for 5' planter strip on SE 172"' ST. There are no changes to my original comments except my first comment in this email. Arneta X7298 1 Arneta J. Henninger From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Vanessa, Arneta J. Henninger Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11 :35 AM Vanessa Dolbee Neil R. Watts; Kayren K. Kittrick FIELDBROOK COMMONS PUD Per our conversation this morning with Neil, you and I, staff would support a PUD modification request for 5' sidewalks on 1081 h Ave SE fronting the project known as Field brook Commons. Staff would not support a request for 5' planter strip on SE 172"' ST. There are no changes to my original comments except my first comment in this email. Arneta X7298 1 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM July 9, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee, Planner Arneta Henninger Utility and Transportation Comments for FIELD BROOK COMMONS PUD 17040108TH Ave SE -Parcel 292305-9023, 292305-9022 & 292305-9168 LUA 12-001 I have completed the review for the above-referenced multi-family proposal of 162 residential apartments in 13 buildings located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 108th Ave SE and SE 172nd St in Section 29, Township 23N, Range SE. The following comments are based on the application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant for multi-family development. Existing: Water and Sanitary Sewer: This site is located in the Soos service area. Storm: There are storm drainage facilities in 108th Ave SE and SE 172nd St. Requirements: Water: • The applicant submitted a conceptual utility plan showing the location of the water for Soos Creek sanitary sewer. • Per the city of Renton Fire Marshal the fire flow is 2750 GPM; a minimum of 3 fire hydrants are required. The project will be required to install associated fire hydrants, an approved fire sprinkler system, FDC and backflow device in order to serve this project with adequate fire flow. Any new construction must have one fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure and additional hydrants (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. • Per City of Renton code the lateral spacing of fire hydrants shall be predicated on hydrants being located at street intersections. • The number and location of new fire hydrants as required by Renton Fire Department shall be determined based on the final site plan and fire flow demand. Sanitary: • The applicant submitted a conceptual utility plan showing the location of the sanitary sewer for Soos Creek sanitary sewer. Field brook Commons LUA 12-001 Storm: • The project is required to comply with the new City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. A conceptual drainage plan and report stamped by a PE was submitted with the formal application and per the report the project is complying with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The report submitted states that the project will adhere to the flow control -forested conditions. • The conceptual utility plan submitted is showing a vault and a pond. The storm drainage needs to be consistent with any other wetlands plans in regard to location and number of vaults and ponds. • Plans will be reviewed in detail prior to issuance of a construction permit following land use process. • The project will be required to pay the Surface Water System Development Charges of $0.405 per square foot of new impervious area. This fee is collected prior to the issuance of the construction permit. Street Improvements: • Additional offsite improvements to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting will be required to be installed for this project along the frontage of 108th Ave SE and SE 172nd St. Frontage improvements on 108th Ave SE shall include 8' sidewalks and 8' planter strips per the current code. Frontage improvements on SE 172nd St shall include 32 feet of pavement from the south to the north then an 8' planter strip and (working to the north) a 5' sidewalk. • Additional right-of-way dedication of 15 1/2' on 108th Ave SE will be required. The right of way dedication on SE 172nd St shall be calculated to be measured as necessary to meet the above described road section; that is at the back of the proposed sidewalk. All dedications are required prior to closing out the project. • This project needs to extend SE 172nd St to the east property line of the parcel being developed. SE 172nd St will be a dedicated public right of way prior to issuance of a construction permit. • The cul-de-sac needs to show a 45' pavement section. • Traffic Mitigation Fees will apply. These fees are calculated per the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 81h Edition. These fees are calculated as $80,797.50 based on the proposal. • Street lighting shall be installed per City of Renton standards and specifications. The lighting on SE 172nd St shall be decorative with black poles spaced approximately 110 feet. General: • All required utility; drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Network. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET [ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 9, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 25, 2012 APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Field brook Commons PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 469,158 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 17040 108'" Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 183,795 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units reSuTting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 13 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 183,795 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 28 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approxamily 25,000 cubic yards of cut and 24,926 cubic yards of fill to be balance across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 22,780 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code} COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Element of the Probable Probable Mare Environment Minar Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housino Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet 8. POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I S# 898 TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE Project Name: Fieldbrook Commons Project Address: 17040 1 OB'h Avenue SE Contact Person: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings Permit Number: LUA12-001 Project Description: 162 units / Multifamily Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: X Residential D Retail X ITE Trip Generation Manual, s•h Edition X Traffic Study D Non-retail Calculation: (162)6.65 = 1077.3 ADT 1077.3 X $75.00 = $80,797.50 Transportation Mitigation Fee: $80 797.50 D Other (220) Apartment 6.65 trips / du Calculated by: _K-'._K"""it"'t;..;.ric~k'---'}v'""-----------Date: 6/26/2012 Date of Payment: I City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET COMMENTS DUE: JULY 9, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 25, 2012 APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LL( PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee JUN 2 6 :!OF PROJECT TITLE: Fieldbrook Commons PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 469,158 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 17040 108th Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 183,795 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 13 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 183,795 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 28 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approxamily 25,000 cubic yards of cut and 24,926 cubic yards of fill to be balance across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 22,780 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Mo,e Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addWonal information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Denis Law c· Mayor r .. ··· 1t7 0 l .. · . . . ' . --=-------~-1g r 1:ru, r 1, July 17, 2012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36th Street ste: #105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Department of Community and Economic Development CE.'"Chip"Vincent, Administrator Feildbrook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on January 3, 2012. During the review process the applicant requested the project be placed on hold. An e-mail was received on July 17, 2012 requesting the project be "held" in order for the applicant to work through some internal decisions. Due to this request, the review process will stop until notification is received by the applicant requesting the project be taken off hold. As such, the Public Hearing will be canceled. The Public Hearing will be re-scheduled once the project is taken off hold and the review process continues. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of a request to take the project off hold. The project shall move forward within 90 days of this letter, which would be before October 16, 2012. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, J/' ./1.;'/ . Pi? (/c,CJ-c'>t<--u ~fac(_ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: PNW Holdings, Ray W. lotto, William O'Neil, City of Renton/ Owner(s) Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: UJA il-QO/ justin@americanclassichomes.com on behalf of Justin Lagers [Justin@pnwholdings.com] Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:10 AM Vanessa Dolbee Hold request Vanessa, to follow up on our conversation yesterday we would like to formally request our Fieldbrook Commons project be placed on hold while we work through some internal decisions regarding potentially providing some low-income units as part of the project. We realize this stops the review process and appreciate your understanding. Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC oen,ny· ,,1 i ,Hid \('<p1l!oaiti<lfi ~v !kYtfop1m·nt :;, "sy'.,• !I Justin@pnwholdings.com 1 Vanessa Dolbee (,UA12~c(!(' l From: Sent: To: Cc: Ed Sewall [esewall@sewallwc.com] Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:24 AM Vanessa Dolbee 'Justin Lagers' Subject: RE: Fieldbrook Function Comparison wetlands Vanessa, although the two rating systems dont cross-compare that well, I think the way you have charcterized them will work. Ed -----Original Message----- From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:19 AM To: 'Ed Sewall' Cc: 'Justin Lagers' Subject: Fieldbrook Function Comparison wetlands Ed, Pursuant to our phone conversation would the following be a correct statement? ''The categories utilized in this table are not the City of Renton categorizations but the WADOE categories. As a comparison DOE 3 = City of Renton 2, DOE 4 = City of Renton 3 and DOE 2 = City of Renton high functioning 2 or low functioning 1. Thank you, 'Vanessa <Do{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430. 7314 1 ~ C: lid) C: l!J11l 0 0 ..., ·u5 ~ ~ C: s ;§ N Q) i::5 = j! C: 0 l!J11l ~ •i Ol --'t -C: (Ll) H "" 0 ·c ...J :::, 3 ' >, C ~ !l1Lll '! :<: ro h C 0::: @f: () ~ ~ Denis Law Mayor July 11, 2012 Donna Hart 10813 SE 172nd Street, Unit 2B Renton, WA 98055 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LUA12-001 Dear Ms. Hart: Thank you for your comments on the Fieldbrook Commons development proposal, City file number LUAlZ-001. Your comments will be placed in the project official file and will be taken into consideration when the City's Hearing Examiner makes a decision on the subject proposal. In addition, you have been added to the Party of Record list for the subject project and therefore will be copied on all City correspondence as it relates to the project. Please remember that the land use review process is a public process so that people like you and your neighbors can be involved and your concerns can be heard by the City and the City Hearing Examiner. As I mentioned above, your comments will be taken into consideration when the Hearing Examiner makes a decision on this project. I also encourage you to attend the Public Hearing and bring any issues you may have to the Hearing Examiner on this project. If you have future comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7314. Sincerely, 11~-0il~ Vanessa Dolbee Seinor Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law r Cit.Y of, -----~M:a:y:or ____ ............ .. ..1$rrm,r1 July 11, 2012 Terestia Tamayao 10813 SE 172nd Street, Unit 2C Renton, WA 98055 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chi p"Vi ncent. Administrator SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LUA12-001 Dear Ms. Tamayao: Thank you for your comments on the Field brook Commons development proposal, City file number LUA12-001. Your comments will be placed in the project official file and will be taken into consideration when the City's Hearing Examiner makes a decision on the subject proposal. In addition, you have been added to the Party of Record list for the subject project and therefore will be copied on all City correspondence as it relates to the project. Please remember that .the land use review process is a public process so that people like you and your neighbors can be involved and your concerns can be heard by the City and the City Hearing Examiner. As I mentioned above, your comments will be taken into consideration when the Hearing Examiner makes a decision on this project. I also encourage you to attend the Public Hearing and bring any issues you may have to the Hearing Examiner on this project. Jfyou have future comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7314. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Seinor Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way , Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor July 11, 2012 Sylva Coppock 10813 SE 172nd Street, Unit 2A Renton, WA 98055 r City of , f . . 2: f f ( ('Y f } :~~ -~~ ,-. Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chi p"Vi ncent, Adm in istrato r SUBJECT: · RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FEILDBROOK COMMONS, LUA12-001 Dear Ms. Coppock: Thank you for your comments on the Feildbrook Commons development proposal, City file number LUA12-001. Your comments will be placed in the project official file and will be taken into consideration when the City's Hearing Examiner makes a decision on the subject proposal. In addition, you have been added to the Party of Record list for the subject project and therefore will be copied on all City correspondence as it relates to the project. Please remember that the land use review process is a public process so that people like you and your neighbors can be involved and your concerns can be heard by the City and the City Hearing Examiner. As I mentioned above, your comments will be taken into consideration when the Hearing Examiner makes a decision on this project. I also encourage you to attend the Public Hearing and bring any issues you may have to the Hearing Examiner on this project. If you have future comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7314. Sincerely, ~l@}yt\_~ Vanessa Dolbee Seinor Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov July 11, 2012 Dan Miles 10813 SE 172°d Street, Unit 2C Renton, WA 98055. Department of Community and Economic Development C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LUA12-001 Dear Mr. Miles: Thank you for your comments on the Field brook Commons development proposal, City file number LUA12-001. Your comments will be placed in the project official file and will be taken into consideration when the City's Hearing Examiner makes a decision on the subject proposal. In addition, you have been added to the Party of Record list for the subject project and therefore will be copied on all City correspondence as it relates to the project. Please remember that the land use review process is a public process so that people like you and your neighbors can be involved and your concerns can be heard by the City and the City Hearing Examiner. As I mentioned above, your comments will be taken into consideration when the Hearing Examiner makes a decision on this project. I also encourage you to attend the Public Hearing and bring any issues you may have to the Hearing Examiner on this project. If you have future comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7314. Sincerely, ~,~~~J_,' Vanessa Dolbee Seinor Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov - Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Patrick, Vanessa Dolbee Monday, July 09, 2012 10:45 AM 'McGraner, Patrick (ECY)' Chip Vincent RE: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD OTAK_Fieldbrook Review.pdf; Fieldbrook Commons Second Review_0613_ 12.pdf; 11121resp2.pdf; 11-121 Fieldbrook BASE 4-10-2012 CONCEPT 11X17.pdf; Critical Areas Report, Sewall.pdf; Sewall Responce, March 16, 2012.pdf Please find attached 6 documents. The City has required secondary review of the original study which was completed by Otak. The attached documents include the following: 1. Critical Areas Report, prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 2. Ota k's Secondary Review Memorandum, dated February 29, 2012 3. Response to Otak's Secondary Review, completed by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated March 16, 2012 4. 11 x 17 mitigation plan set, updated March 19, 2012 5. Second Response to Otak's Secondary Review, completed by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. dated April 10, 2012 6. Otak's 2'd Secondary Review Memorandum, dated June 13, 2012. Please let me know if you would like to see additional materials. We are taking the project before our Environmental Review committee on Monday, July 191h. Thank you, '//anessa <Do{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) [mailto:patrick.mcqraner@ecy.wa.gov l Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 9:22 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Chip Vincent Subject: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Vanessa Dolbee, As a means of introduction, I am Ecology's wetland specialist assigned to the King County jurisdictions and I have recently received e-mails about this project. I was wondering if there is an electronic copy of the wetland mitigation 1 plan that I might look at so that I can hopefully address such inquiries. If available, can you please send it to me? I don't know how this one escaped my attention with our typical SEPA notices. I see that the deadline for comments is today. If nothing else I will submit (separately) a comment stating that federal and state authorization is required prior to filling any wetlands on the site. Thank you, Patrick McGraner Wetlands Specialist Department of Ecology/NWRO 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 425-649-4447 patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Monday, July 09, 2012 4:58 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD --SEPA Comments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa, Thank you for sending us WDOE's SEPA comments for the proposed Fieldbrook Commons project referenced above. We agree with WDOE's comments and recommend that the applicant provide an additional analysis in-depth regarding the existing wetland conditions, the functions of the existing forested buffer and demonstration of no net loss given potential temporal impacts to the forested wetland buffer. As a result of this additional, in-depth analysis, the project may need additional mitigation to ensure that this project complies with local, state, and federal regulation regarding impacts and no net loss. Best regards, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muck/eshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 4:52 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: FW: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD --SEPA Comments Karen, See DOE comments below on the subject project. Vanessa (})of6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) [ma:lto:patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 1: 10 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD •• SEPA Comments 1 Dear Vanessa Dolbee, With regards to the application of Field brook Commons, I am submitting these brief comments for the record for SEPA review. Per the project description the applicant is proposing to fill three on-site wetlands. Ecology asks that the City of Renton condition approval of any site work with the following stipulation: The applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal authorizations for wetland impacts prior to beginning any ground disturbing activities or timber harvest. Furthermore, please note that Ecology generally does not support wetland creation within existing forested buffer areas. The buffer area proposed for wetland creation has been described as being partially degraded but Ecology notes that the city's buffers are smaller than Ecology's recommended standards for Category II wetlands and that taken together in the whole, this project is proposing significant impacts to buffer functions in areas that that lie both inside and outside of the city's standard buffers including buffer reductions adjacent to the westernmost portions of Wetlands A & B adjacent to wetland flags A3 and 84. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project of Field brook Commons. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner Wetlands Specialist Department of Ecology/NWRO 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 425-649·444 7 patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: McGraner, Patrick (ECY) [patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov] Monday, July 09, 2012 1:10 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Field brook Commons LUA 12-001, ECF, PPUD --SEPA Comments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Vanessa Dolbee, With regards to the application of Fieldbrook Commons, I am submitting these brief comments for the record for SEPA review. Per the project description the applicant is proposing to fill three on-site wetlands. Ecology asks that the City of Renton condition approval of any site work with the following stipulation: The applicant shall obtain all necessary state and federal authorizations for wetland impacts prior to beginning any ground disturbing activities or timber harvest. Furthermore, please note that Ecology generally does not support wetland creation within existing forested buffer areas. The buffer area proposed for wetland creation has been described as being partially degraded but Ecology notes that the city's buffers are smaller than Ecology's recommended standards for Category II wetlands and that taken together in the whole, this project is proposing significant impacts to buffer functions in areas that that lie both inside and outside of the city's standard buffers including buffer reductions adjacent to the westernmost portions of Wetlands A & B adjacent to wetland flags A3 and B4. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project of Fieldbrook Commons. Sincerely, Patrick McGraner Wetlands Specialist Department of Ecology/NWRO 3190 160th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 425-649-4447 patrick.mcgraner@ecy.wa.gov 1 Sylva Jean Coppock 10813 SE 172n" Street, Unit 2A Renton, WA 98055-5966 Phone: 425-235-8076 -Email: SylvaCop@comcast.net July 7, 2012 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Attention: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, CED-Planning Division Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Regarding: Construction of162 Residential Multi-Family Units at 17040 108<h Avenue SE. R CITY OF RENTON ECEIVEO JUL 06 2012 BUILDING DIVISION I have concerns about the decision to build 162 apartments to be known as Fieldbrook Commons on the 10.77 acres ofland at the above referenced address. I have lived at Kelsey Court Condominiums just south of SE 172nd Street for nearly 20 years and have seen a great deal of wildlife in this area, particularly coming and going from the wooded parcel of land north of 172nd and east of 108th. Last week as J exited the driveway from the complex two beautiful deer were grazing in the grass alongside the east/west road. A doe, with her fawns frequents the woods each spring, I sec them often in the spring and summer. And I've watched deer standing on the shoulder of the highway, waiting for traffic to clear so they can safely cross the 108th. At various times I have seen as many as three raccoons at a time frequenting the area and have spotted a coyote from time to time. There are also large communities of rabbits around the property and eagles often rest in the trees. Development has crowded out the wildlife to the point where there is no place for them to go and they are in constant danger of being struck by vehicular traffic that speeds much too fast up and down the old Benson Road. The small island of trees on this property is an aesthetic not to be dismissed as unimportant There is so little green space left in our crowded cities. Please take into consideration what we are all losing by continuing to build these mega-developments, which are so densely populating the landscape. Another aspect to consider is the traffic nightmare that will result from three more access locations along SE 172nd Street, which already carries a constant stream of traffic from the 36 units of Kelsey Court Condominiums and from ten single family residential homes in a cul de sac immediately east of the condo-complex. Since there is no traffic light at the intersection of 172nd and 108•h there is typically a wait for cars to exit or enter 108"' Avenue SE, especially during the morning and evening commute times. There have already been several accidents at this intersection over the years. be notified of any community meetings or public hearings scheduled in regard to the project. J ~ a Cop 10813 SE -;;1,~t, Unit 2A, Renton, WA 98055 (425-235-8076) ~,w 1?f.Mt;rwf Donna Hart, 10813 SE 1 znd Street, Unit 2B, Renton, WA 98055 (425-271-0148) Terestia Tamayao, 10813 S 172nd Street, Unit 2C, Renton, WA 98055 (425-226-7823) ,6,_hc.<:] ~ J,,._. Dan Miles, 10809 SE 172nd Street, Unit 1B, Renton, WA 980555 (425-228-7164) Enclosure: Letter submitted on September 5, 2011, regarding Surplus Property, former Fire Station 13 site. ,1 Sylva Jean Coppock 10813 SE 172"d Street, Unit 2A Renton, WA 98055-5966 Phone: 425-235-8076 -Email: SylvaCop@comcast.net September 5, 2011 City of Renton Community & Economic Development Attention: City Clerk · Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Regarding: Surplus Property Fire Station 13 crrv OF RENTON RECEIVED JUL 06 2012 BUILDING DIVISION I have some concerns about the disposition of the property referenced, and the forested area adjacent on the east and south sides of that parcel of land. I have lived at Kelsey Court Condominiums on SE 172"d Street for nearly 20 years and have seen a great deal of wildlife in this area, particularly coming and going from the wooded parcel of land adjacent to where the fire station once stood. At various times I have seen as many as three raccoons at a time frequenting the area and have spotted a coyote from time to time. A doe, with her fawns frequents the woods each spring, and I've watched deer standing on the shoulder of the old Benson Road, waiting for traffic to clear so they can safely cross the road. There are also large communities of rabbits around the property and eagles often rest in the trees. I would be opposed to someone buying that small parcel of property, and then perhaps expanding their holdings to the adjacent wooded area, building a new housing development and, as a result, driving the wildlife away. I will plan to attend the hearing on September 12, 2011 to listen to the public comments from others in this area. ~w~ Sylva Coppock NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIG NI FICANCE-M ITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary CITYOF RENT Public Approvals. A E C E I VE Q DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: June 25, 2012 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUO JUL O 6 2012 PROJECT NAME: Fieldbrook Commons BUILDING DIVISION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 {R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 13 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 183,795 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 28 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approxamily 25,000 cubic yards of cut and 24,926 cubic yards of fill to be balance across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 22,780 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. PROJECT LOCATION: 17040 1081h Avenue SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M}: As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: January 3, 2012 March 1, 2012; project was placed on hold for the completion of Independent Secondary Review. Second Notice of Complete Application on June 25, 2012. Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC; 9725 SE 36th Street, #214; Mercer Island, WA 98040; Eml: justin.pnwholdings@gmail.com Envlronmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Planned Urban Development Review Building Construction If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED -Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. :::~~~ MAILINGADDRKS~~ ~Qt. tkrJ: .2.!l ~ f,f'().$75 TELEPHONE NO.: 11.s-z._3 2. i:f.:,7(. Laureen M. Nicolay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: katrinag26@hotmail.com Friday, July 06, 2012 11 :59 AM Laureen M. Nicolay katrinag26@hotmail.com Zoning Land Use Information Request Public Works/Utility Inquiry Data from form "Zoning and Land Use Information Request" was received on 7/6/2012 11:59:17 AM. Zoning and Land Use Information Request I l I Field Value ' I I Sender's Katrina Garrison ' IName I -9tTY- ' ·•1.e1.,;t::.fV1=0 I Sender's 17032 I 10th Place SE I JUL I Address 1 Q6 ,n,, I Sender's BUILDING DIVISION ' JAddress 2 Sender's City, State, Renton, WA 98055 Zip i Sender's 2062261993 ' !Phone ' ' ! Sender's iEmail katrinag26@hotmail.com To whom it may concern: My address is 17032 110th Place SE Renton, WA 98055 (Parcel # 863710-0400). PNW Holdings, LLC has filed an application with the City of Renton to build three story townhouses on the property directly behind my house (Parcel#292305-9022). I have several concerns with this that the City of Renton needs to address: There is more than a foot of standing water on the property. My yard is soggy in the winter and takes a month or more of nice weather to dry, I am concerned with flooding in the area and my house if the city allows this project. I was informed by Vanessa Dolbee that there are several category II wetlands on the property that will be filled as part of this project. WAC 173-183-710 Category II wetlands. The following types of Question wetlands are classed as category II wetlands: Documented habitat recognized by federal and state agencies for sensitive plant, animal, or fish species; or Documented priority habitats and species recognized by state agencies; or Wetlands with significant functions which may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration; or Wetlands with significant habitat value; or Documented wetlands of local significance. Think flood control, water supply, fish and wildlife. Every natural wetland, from a high mountain bog to a scummy lowland pond, serves as a flood control device and water filter. These places and the plants that evolved there can reduce runoff at the rate of about a million gallons per year. Multiply that by the magnitude of wetland loss that's been tolerated in the Puget Sound region in the past 100 years, and you begin to see why floods have become worse, Puget Sound water quality 1 ,--Ficld -r--Value --------·--·-... ·····---1 ,c-----...+------~-------------------------·----__J Sender's Name has degraded, and salmon runs have belly-flopped. • What is going to happen to the water?• Category 2 wetlands cannot be replicated, they will be gone forever. Does the city of Renton support this? • Previously this property was under the jurisdiction of King County there signs all along the fences around the property that state "protect our wetlands." Does the city of Renton take the stance that it is ok to demolish and build on our sacred wetlands?• There is also wildlife on that property. What will happen to these animals? Do you have a plan to place them somewhere safe? Or do you just let them get hit by cars?• Traffic-I called the City of Renton and learned that there was a traffic study waiver provided for this project. On the mayors page he states that one of his major concerns is improving traffic in Renton. Why was a traffic study waiver provided? (I called and spoke to Arneta Henniger on 11/2/2011 since she is the person who waived the traffic study, she could not tell me why it was waived and sounded very frustrated with me, I asked her if I was frustrating her she responded that it wasn't me it was her workload. As a homeowner, citizen and taxpayer I am concerned that Renton City employees are not doing their jobs properly because they are overworked. Since, I called they decided to they would require a "limited traffic study" she didn't have the time to tell me what that is, please tell me what the difference between a limited and full traffic study are? o Building 100, 3 bedroom units on that property is going to increase traffic significantly. I have sat through 4 rounds of stoplights on the corner of 108th and Benson Dr on more than one occasion for up to 12 minutes (I timed it), just to go to Fred Meyer to get dinner. What does the City of Renton plan to do with the traffic on that corner as well as Benson Dr. Sand SE? o Driving west on Carr road to get on 167 will back up to 106th Ave at times, not due to accidents but the number of cars on the road. Another apartment complex was just built on the corner of Carr road and 106th. Was there a traffic study completed? It can take up to 30 minutes to get down that hill, what does the city plan on doing about that? Just continue to build more apartments?• Personally, this is very frustrating as this will further decrease my property value, I have already lost 65K in value and I am scared to see what this will do. I will lose privacy (one of the reasons I bought the house) I will now have three story apartment buildings looking directly into my house. Below is the Mayors statement on the State of the City for 2011, I hate to say you are not living up to your goals and visions. We must continue to work together to make sure that our city is uniquely prepared and effectively protected against fires, floods and any disaster. With the new Census numbers putting us at over 90,000 residents, Renton is now the 4th largest city in King County and the 9th largest in the state. Our task ahead is very exciting -but also challenging. The buzz word in government these days is \1 greenJ 11 And it should be. We are committed to moving forward with a 11 green 1' agenda where we lead by example and promote a healthy environment. We have made significant progress. Trees provide numerous environmental, social and economic benefits for people, yet urban areas present challenging environments for trees to grow and survive. We completed the urban forestry plan for Renton to ensure that we manage and protect the tree canopy in our city. For the second year in a row, we received the Tree- City USA designation and also received our first Tree City USA Growth award. I know this is a long letter but please take the time to read. Thank you, Katrina Garrison Field Brook Apartments Email "Zoning Land Use Information Request" originally sent to lnicolay(iurentonwa.gov from katrinag26(a:hotmail.com on 7/6/2012 11:59:17 AM. The following were also sent a copy: katrinag26@hotmail.com. 2 Laureen M. Nicolay From: Sent: To: Laureen M. Nicolay Friday, July 06, 2012 2:22 PM 'katrinag26@hotmail.com' Cc: Arneta J. Henninger; Vanessa Dolbee; Neil R. Watts Subject: FW: Fieldbrook Commons Information Request, LUA12-001 Dear Ms. Garrison: Thank you for your email (below) regarding the development proposed at 17040 -108th Avenue SE. I notice from our file that you have already been made a party of record for this project, so you will be receiving notices of future City actions regarding this application. I printed a copy of your comments and placed them in dur application file. Your comments are now public record and will also be available to the Hearing Examiner as part of his review of the project. In your email you raise several concerns. Neil Watts (425-430-7218) should be able to assist you with your questions and concerns relating to both drainage and traffic study requirements. Vanessa Dolbee (425-430-7314) will be able to respond to any wetland-related questions you may have. Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your comments, Lcw.reevvNi,c.ouLy, Sevu'.or P~ City of Renton Planning Division 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-7294 phone (425) 430-7231 fax lnicolay@rentonwa.gov From: katrinag26@hotmail.com [mailto:katrinag26@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 11:59 AM To: Laureen M. Nicolay Cc: katrinag26@hotmail.com Subject: Zoning Land Use Information Request Public W arks/Utility Inquiry Data from form "Zoning and Land Use Information Request" was received on 7/6/2012 11 :59:17 AM. Zoning and Land Use Information Request Field Sender's Name Sender's Address 1 Value Katrina Garrison 17032 110th Place SE 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: M E M O R A N D U M March 8, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee Bob Mac Oni;..,.-~. Field brook Commons, LUA-12-001-PPUD I have reviewed the above referenced submittal and have the following comments: The Parcel 'A' legal description accompanying the Master Application lists the wrong King County Tax Parcel ID. The narrative describes one of the properties as 'formally King County Fire Station 13' when it was actually Renton's Fire Station 13. On the map exhibit for the 'Sample Dedication for Parcel 'C' the parcel identifier shown on Parcel 'A' incorrect. There are discrepancies between the building heights shown in the project narrative under the Building Height Modification Request and those shown on the Preliminary Site Plan. h:\ced\planning\technica1 services\reviews\lua-12-001-rv 12071 O.doc • City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: '17(7',{?;('il J s VG ' J APPLICATION NO: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT TITLE: Fieldbrook Commons SITE AREA: 469,158 square feet LOCATION: 17040 108th Avenue SE COMMENTS DUE: JULY 9, 2012 DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 25, 2012 PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT REVIEWER: Arn eta Henninger EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 183,795 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 13 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 183,795 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 28 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approxamily 25,000 cubic yards of cut and 24,926 cubic yards of fill to be balance across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 22,780 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water linht/Glore Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Tronsnortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14 DOD Feet B, POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS c. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this applicat,on ytlfh part1Q:flor'attent1on to those areas m which we have expertise and have 1dentifred areas of probable impact _:_ area=-":'~~a,mfa,mation isn,rded to properly assess th,s proposal _ \ I ~--~' l \l ) .<.__.,,/ -, -/ \c\'I CD I?_ Signature of Director or Authonzed Representative Date v 07-03-12;09:38AM; ; 4252044465 :tt 1 / 4 _.' ~' ~ CT 0. -T: :JU-./:} 00 Denis Law . . Mayor-.- Nancy Rawls · · -Department of Transportation · ' Rentciri School D[si'ricf ' ' ' 420 Park Avenue N .·. Rento_ri, WA 98055 . · . Department of Community and Econ~mic Development · · -· : ·. CE "Cliip~Vincent, Interim Administrator Subject: . Fleldbrook Commons. [UA12~001; EGF; PPUD -.. . . -~ . ·' . The City of Reilton's Department qf (;ommunity and Economic D~velopmenf(CED) has··. 'received an application for a 162-unit multi-famlly'developmeni: located at 17040 1osth_ Averiue SE.' Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details .. •·· . . .. In order to.process this application, .CED needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children ·living iri residences at the location il)dicated above. Pl~ake fiU in -the aP,piopriate ~chools on the list. below and return this lett.er to my attention, City of Renton, CED, PlannirigDivision, iOSS Sciuth-Grady .Way; Renton, Washingtpn 98057 by J~ly9 2012. .· .· .··_ , .. ·. ·. · • · .. -,· _ .. -.. _ '' -. -· · .... ·.·. · ... -Elem~nta~Scho~I:-~& -~~:· --... - Middle Sch.col: --c-~~W,~~at~:;:.:_-41L:,~~~.,----_:__,-....:_;,.::.....-~~- High Sdio o I: . --'-,-,-Y,~!:1.d<l:H:;L{:.-1'4\L!l>.--"'----1---'-.,-----=-----'-_.::_---'---'~,-....:,-....:-'--"-,,_: Will the schools you have.indicated be le to handle the. i~pact of the additional ' •. ;tu~ent's estimated to rnme.fromthe-proposed develClprn~nt? Ye_s ' Nil_·._-__ . Any Comments.:_--..------~--~---.-----~---..-~-....,..--..., Renton City:Hall • 1055 South Grady Way·, Renton,Wa~hington 98057 '• -,entonwa.gcv .. -. ., . -. -. .-. . . f'·_ • 07·03-12;89:38AM; ; 42520<:.446!] # 2/ 4 --------------- Nancy Rawl.i. · · .. Page 2 of2 June 25, 2012 Thank you for providing this important informatkin. · If you have any questions r~gard;ng .· .. ·. this project, please rnnt.act me at (425) 430-7314 .. . Sincerely, . . . ···.·~p)i,eQ,·· Vanessa. Dolbee Sel)ior Planner · Eii'c:J0Sure ·.,_ .. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS "It is anticipated that the propo d d 1 that would utilize existing City ;:rk a~~e opmet wfu'?. generate future residents City has adopted a Parks Miti . recrea ion ac1l1t1es and programs. The unit to address these potentia~f~~:~=~ of $354.51 per each new multi family Parks Mitigation Fee2 MAP (scale varies) f_~.,~ •• l.. ,, ::=::/~;_;::_~~:-: -~ . ,. "'l;I'. I ~ I ;, . " I I -r; \. 'i) J, ,· " t1 ,, ,: .. • . . ~, .,/\ .• ' . ·:1 ~,_' _.,;_,~: ~: :! ,.-. ' : -• .:: !i ·•--- ' ,, "'' I -~ I ',,J F r \:. TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION(s) ~ I !' .~~~-~. S1DE- "A'"< l;!iG.J--OF-,,;AY WIDT'-1 \/AR:S ·11· .. TlitAVE~ TRA~EL '. 9. I . . .. LANE LAl.E ' 1iw,-•··;· I ;·o, ~, ""I" "•'P"' ! ., « JI · ' ;"'\ ' 'I, 'It., I ., N~., SIDE- "AL< It. 1 1 1-o" 110 "'O" 1-0· .J.'-~ -/ ' -/ : -/":) -,,v , e Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan Proposed Improvements BENSON DRIVE SOUTH/SR 515 BICYCLE LANES Project Status Origin and Destination Project Length Existing Condition Proposed Cross-section User Groups Connections Project Description Constraints and Considerations PROPOSED South Grady Way to SE 192nd Street 4.1 miles Major arterial Bicycle lanes ~, 111111 Ill 111111111 Bicyclists, with pedestrians on sidewalks City Hall PARKS AND SCHOOLS: Thomas Teasdale Park, Talbot Hill Elementary, Nelson Middle School TRAILS: Cascade BICYCLE LANES: Puget Drive SE, SE 176th Street, Benson and Talbot Road South A north-south route providing neighborhood ac- cess and access into downtown. Steep and busy in places. 102 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development EN VI R O NM EN TA L & D E VE L O PM EN T A PP LI CA TI ON RE VIE W SHE_~ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 9, 2012 I APPLICATION NO: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 25, 2012 APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Field brook Commons PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 469,158 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 17040 10s'h Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 183,795 square feet ··.I· SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 13 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 183,795 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 28 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approxamily 25,000 cubic yards of cut and 24,926 cubic yards of fill to be balance across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 22,780 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT {e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Mo,e Environment Minor Major Information Element of the Probable Probable Mo,e Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water liqht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet B. POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS .::f,1--wu_ a/U /U) ~?~ rc, &; ~ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this appllcatloA_ with panicular attention to those areas m which we have expertise and have 1dentif1ed areas of probable impact or areas where addrtronal mformayan 1s needed to properly assess this proposal. C !2"41,J ~hM£ . te ~ a 'l-1 r2 Signature of Director or Aut ~ Representative Date ' City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: T~ Mf'ir\:.C. ·Uc3!1 COMMENTS DUE: JULY 9, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 25, 2012 APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Fieldbrook Commons PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 469,158 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 17040 10s'h Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 183,795 square feet SUMMARY Of PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA E view and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development contai ing 162 units in t · Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units ulting in a ct ity of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of B separate multi-f esidential structures an one recreation building, totalin 183,795 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised o t ree pare otaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and i orested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and foreste area a ong t e eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 28 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studi er re ort, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approxamily 25,000 cubic yards of cut an 24,926 cu ic yar s o , to e a ance across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 22,780 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code} COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinn Air Aesthetics Water liaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000Feet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed th;s application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. . , Date •• FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 26, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector Field brook Commons Apartments Environmental Impact Comments: ol 1. The fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $388.00 per multi-family unit and $0.52 per square foot of commercial space. This fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow calculation for the project is 2,750 gpm. Minimum fire hydrant spacing is one hydrant within 150-feet and two within 300-feet of each building. Final fire hydrant requirements are based on fire flow calculations and final access road configuration. A water availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. Approved fire sprinkler (per NFPA 13) and fire alarm systems are required throughout all buildings. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fully addressable and full detection is required for all fire alarm systems. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150-feet of all points on the building. Fire lane signage required for the onsite roadways. Required turning radiuses are 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30-ton vehicle and 322-psi point loading. City street ordinance requires a full 90-foot cul-de-sac turnaround for streets exceeding 300-feet dead end. Landscape islands are not allowed in cul-de-sacs. City fire code ordinance requires two separate means of access roadways for complexes of three or more buildings. 4. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre- fire planning purposes. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fi re, COMMENTS DUE: JULY 9, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 25, 2012 APPLICANT: Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Fieldbrook Commons PROJECT REVIEWER: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 469,158 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 17040 108" Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 183,795 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 13 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 183,795 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 28 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approxamily 2S,OOO cubic yards of cut and 24,926 cubic yards of fill to be balance across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 22,780 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e,g, Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liqht/Glare Plants Recreation land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information~ to pr~sal. -/z_, 6 ;{ L... Signature of Director or Authorized Representat:? Date ~ f r:T City.?f,.,. -O' -----~,, ·c~.'· ·r1 1r·r ·r·1 ·"' ~J::..:.;· __ 1...:0·~'-., NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED jDNS-M) ·-... -............. __ ... _ .. c--.·--l<U>l---.... atr .. ._fho _______ .. _..., --.. ,,."""""""'""""'"""' --...... ,,._ -·-·-... ··-··--·--_......__ ...... ,_ ............ M .. ___ ,_,,..,., .. , ... _ .. ,..,,1 ........... K .. _ ................................ ....-..... ,.,-............ _ .. ,, .............. ,,,,_ .... _ .. __ .. .,_ .. ___ ... ,,-..... ... -·~--...... , ... ,,. ____ ............. ,,.,.., __ ,. .... . _ ................ _,.,., ....... _ .... ___ ... _., __ ,, ---""'""ru..<..,. _ _,_"'"'""""'"'"''"_,.. ""'""*""'"' ........... -... ~-... -· ...... -................ ...._ .. --. ... -..... . ..,,. .......... _ ............ _ ... ,,,. __ ............................... """'' ... .. . _ ..... ,,., .................. -..... _ ... _ .... ,..,_ .... __ _ ---·-·-........... ~--.--............. ,_..,.,,._.., ·--...... ~-"""""""-""" .... ,.,,,. .... .-.......... ...,. .. ..,,, ........ .._ .. ,._..., ... ,._... ..... _,_ .. , .... ,,, .. "" .... _"·'"" ...... '"'"""'----.. . ""'°'"'"-" ---l1<18DF ___ ct.Mm ... tml_AJ ........ _, ... <J\fo!_a ... ............... _.--.. -........ -... _ ... ,.... .......... H ........ _"""°""""-"0.'"'"""'-·-·,_-,.,,..... .............. -........ ... MOOl..,.lo .. ......_ -.. -.......... )9<1, ... <1N.,.po, .. CIN5-M•~ ............. ,_ '""""'"'"""'· ..... ft ...... --,--, .. -.. ., ... ....._ .. __ .. _ ...., .. ,_ .. ~ ...... -... 1.,1-,-............. ,_ ............. __ .. """"'"'ctlMPUTI .. PU<,11'10ff, "'""'~"1'=""!«<""-°"""""''"'"""""'""""' ............ _____ .,, ... ,.. .. --"""""''~·= ......,..,.., .... ,,;r-,.=-----.u~,,,.,.,. . ......,_.,,.,_ -.. ·---·----·-· , ............. ru .. 1-.--.-.,,..., --"""' ........ -..... ._ .... -- ................ _..,_..,...,,..,.,.. __ ......_ ...... ___ ... '-'"""'"''"·"'"'-"'"---.10"'°"""'"'"·-',....,.' • ....,. ....... __ ,,,,_ .. ,,00\.,<F,....., ---.... ·- ........ _ ..... __ ----__ ....... __ ................ .........,_ ... ,_., ....... ,.,..__ ..................... -................. _ .. _ .............. ,c,.....,..,.-.,,_ltfOJ-~,-. :--~ .. --....... a.,..._",.,_ .. ....,._ .. _,,~ .,,,,.._,, ... -.,.. ... _~M-•-1"")"1<1!<0 .. ol ,_,,""""'....,..""'""'""""'-""'·"1'1·"1-""n "'""-"'"~"''-"'' ,,,.,..Jo<, ...... _.,, .. a,, ... , .... .....,,.,""''"'""""''"" .. 1--000.-, ... ,..,..,oo,...,,_,odno..i.....-,.,, __ ~" .,_,. .. ,__ ,.,...._.,.,......,,ron ... .,....,..,_._..,,.,....,,,.,.""'°"" ""'""·"---~ ... -. ........ -.. ... )*<, ... """'"' .,,......,,-~_,-tbnon--. ...-... ..................... _. __ ,.._ .... ,,,.._,..., ................... ___ ,.,, .... ---.. -........ ___ ,,, :.=-:: ... :'!'.:...~ -..... ____ ., --·---... =---..... --...... ,,,.,.,.. ,...,.,,......,_,w: ...... ,,,,_,JJ,>0U-i-o.,...-,~,,u, ,,,._,,,.. __ ._....,._.....,..,,,.,,.,.,, __ km-.,..., ...-.,n~.......-"°"'""',,.,._"'""-·-"""""'"'~''"'· ' ===-=:~~ .. -:::::.:':.::.:=.::::::::.-. ----...... ___ .,,....., .. , .. _,,,.,~---_., __ ..._ ...... _~,,,,,, __ ........ _ .... _ .. ~_ .. _ .. ______ m,--................... ____ .._,,. ........................ ~,,,,. ---~ .... - ............. ·----·~""-'-"'""°"""'<-"°"-"-"'"'°'-""""""-, .. ,_....,_·_"" ........ ,.. ... ~ .... "' .......... ...,.,~ .... ,. ............. _,......,_., ,._,..,,,..,,,,, ... .,,.,,,..,_.,.,,~,s1.,1,no~ """"""""-"'"'-"'•"""" .. ................. -..,..,~ ... ,. .... ., .......... ,.. ... ,.._,..._.., ... _,,..,,,,, .. .. _ ... _, ''°'"""''""'""'-... -....... ., .. -.. _,..,,_.,..,,... .. -··--............. ..., .. ,,11 .. .....,. ........ ----.. -...... .. ..,.,.,_..,. ............................. -... ...... ,_ ..... _ CERTIFICATION CONTACT PERSON, V•n=a Ooll>er, S•nlo,Plannrr; Tel: 14:.:SI 43(l-1314; Eml: •<lolb,..@n,nlonwa,80• ---j I --1 ~j! /' _, -1'-..,_.w..==*_,_"""'=,."\_._(_·f_-__, hereby certify that "3 copies of the above document conspicuous places or nearby the des~rib~~ prope~ Date:C./'25/Zt)!Z, Signed~7:;;:;J'ZUil(UU?,i ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON 55 COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that b c• "'-"""' \;\.0 \ ± signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. d-5:' ;:,.012-j{ 1A ~c0 Notary Public in ndfur the"state of Washington Notary (Print): 1-f. 4 My appointment exp i res: __ ~A='"''j+"'''"'s~±'----"''''?.,_'1_._· , .. : "'"""''"":/ ..,,1 ,,.2 ____ _ CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 25th day of June, 2012, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, Notice of Application {NOA), Environmental Checklist, Reduced Site Plan documents. This information was sent to: Name Agencies -NOA, Env. Checklist, Site Plan Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC -Accpt Ltr Ray Lotto -Acceptance Letter, NOA William O'Neil -Acceptance Letter, NOA Katrina Garrison -NOA 300' Surrounding Property Owriers -NOA only (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ~,, 0 "" ;/5; J-o I z ) ss ) Representing See Attached Contact/Owner Owner Owner Party of Record See attached Notary Publiin and for the State of Washington Notary (Print)'-----'-~:..;' ·c.A::,,_,-___,&-"'-·--'-o-"'d"""-_..a"-·----------- My appointment expires: A v<.~L,,.;;,t :z q 1 "J.O 13 Project Name: Fieldbrook Commons Project Number: LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD template ~ affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology "'* Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region* Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers* Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WOFW -Larry Fisher* 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Duwamish Tribal Office "' 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle Attn: Steve Roberge Director of Community Development 13020 Newcastle Way Newcastle, WA 98059 Puget Sound Energy Municipal Liaison Manager Joe Jainga PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Muck!eshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015-172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program* Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Kent Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AlCP Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-589S City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Chec~list, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing Parcel ID: 0087000291 Parcel ID: 0087000293 Parcel ID: 0087000285 TEUNG YAOTA SUBIC MARGERY SUBIC GEORGE & FRANCES CHAO CHIOTA PO BOX 78414 PO BOX 769 PO BOX 89 SEATTLE, WA 98178 RENTON , WA 98057 RENTON , WA 98057 Parcel ID: 0087000298 Parcel ID: 0087000295 Parcel ID: 0087000305 NGY TENG+MORANY ROBISON JAMES L BAKERG MARK 17003 105TH AVE SE 9670 RAINIER AVES 10011 SE 187TH ST RENTON , WA 98055 SEATTLE, WA 98118 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 0087000300 Parcel ID: 0087000296 Parcel ID: 2892700130 WILLIAMS CHARLES D ROBISON JAMES+EDWARDINE SALAYMANG HALIMAH 25603 E LK WILDERNESS DR SE 9670 RAINIER AVES 16824 113TH AVE SE MAPLE VALLEY, WA 98038 SEATTLE, WA98118 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 1626800020 Parcel ID: 1626800055 Parcel ID: 2892700140 NEATHERY DAVID H CREAGER PATRICK H CARTER STANLEY D+BILLIE B 10830 SE 173RD ST 10833 SE 173RD 17107113TH AVE SE RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059176 Parcel ID: 1626800025 Parcel ID: 2369200020 RUSSELL DANIEL & DEBRA EALY MICHAEL R NELSON DONALD LEE JR 829 S 31ST ST 10838 SE 173RD 11011 SE 173RD ST RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2369200005 Parcel ID: 1626800060 Parcel ID: 3811300060 BELL TIMOTHY KUMAR KAMLESH+SAROJANI VONG BIEU C 11004 SE 173RD ST 10839 SE 173RD ST 5570 15TH AVES RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 SEATTLE, WA 98108 Parcel ID: 2892700120 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 2923059107 KILLIAN DANIELS NIEMI DONALD RICHARD NIEMI SYDNEY 2100 PEARMAN DR 17022 108TH AVE SE PALMDALE , CA 93551 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059015 Parcel ID: 2923059145 Parcel ID: 1626800030 SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC BJORNSTAD DARLENE R TRUST KUMA KAMLESH+SAROJANI 8110 E UNION AVE #200 14624 SE 183RD ST 17314 108TH AVE SE DENVER , CO 80237 RENTON , WA 98058 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2369200010 Parcel ID: 2923059015 Parcel ID: 2923059022 ADAMS JEREMY R SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC MB INVESTMENTS CHATHAM WR 11012 SE 173RD ST 8110 E UNION AVE #200 1851 CENTRAL PL S #225 RENTON , WA 98055 DENVER , CO 80237 KENT , WA 98030 Parcel ID: 2923059128 Parcel ID: 2923059015 Parcel ID: 2923059052 LOWER KYNAJ SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC NIEMI DONALD R+SYDNEY J 10819 SE 170TH ST 8110 E UNION AVE #200 17022 108TH SE RENTON , WA 98055 DENVER , CO 80237 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2892700150 Parcel ID: 2923059147 Parcel ID: 2923059144 LYONS WADE M+AMANDA A KELLY LLANE LYON RB 17109113TH AVE SE PO BOX58093 10817 SE 170TH RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98058 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059148 Parcel ID: 2923059148 Parcel ID: 2369200015 SPRINGBROOK RIDGE L L C SPRINGBROOK RIDGE L L C GILLELAND JOHN W 800 S 3RD ST 800 S 3RD ST 11005 E 173RD ST RENTON , WA 98057 RENTON , WA 98057 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 3811300050 Parcel ID: 381130011 O ZHONG ZHI GUANG+JIAN MING W GONZALEZ CHRISTIAN+CLAVEL N 17219 109TH PL SE 10925 SE 172ND ST RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 3811300090 Parcel ID: 3809000000 VENNING EDWARD W+DONNA 17210 109TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3811300020 Parcel ID: 3811300040 Parcel ID: 3811300080 SEIM JOHN R+CHARLENE A OKADA-LOUIE JULIE ASSEFA ASAMENEW 17203 109TH PL SE 17215109TH PL SE 17216 109TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059026 Parcel ID: 2923059113 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DIFRANCESCO LEONARD C KIRK FLOYD & GAIL 105 HARVARD AVE E #106 10845 SE 170TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98102 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 2923059015 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 2923059026 SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC DIFRANCESCO LEONARD C 8110 E UNION AVE #200 105 HARVARD AVE E #106 DENVER , CO 80237 SEATTLE, WA98102 Parcel ID: 2923059027 Parcel ID: 2923059031 Parcel ID: 2923059174 SOREM RON NIEMI DONALD RICHARD+SYDNEY PETETT BUILDERS 10835 SE 170TH ST 17022 108TH AVE SE 10622 SE CARR RD RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100350 Parcel ID: 2923059015 Parcel ID: 2923059094 GARRETT DANIEL SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC SCHLAMP PHIL R+LINDA 17017 110TH PL SE 8110 E UNION AVE #200 10825 SE 170TH ST RENTON , WA 98055 DENVER , CO 80237 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059026 Parcel ID: 2923059168 Parcel ID: 2923059028 DIFRANCESCO LEONARD C RENTON CITY OF SANBERG BRUCE+TAMI 105 HARVARD AVE E #106 1055 S GRADY WAY 17014 SE 224TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98102 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100330 Parcel ID: 8637100420 Parcel ID: 8637100370 STOIANOVA DINA BOGGLE ADDISALEM MANGAHAS THERESA 17007 110TH PL SE 17018 110TH PL SE 17025 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100410 Parcel ID: 2923059180 Parcel ID: 2923059026 YU Al LING SOOS CREEK WATER & SEWER DIFRANCESCO LEONARD C 17026 110TH PL SE PO B0X58039 105 HARVARD AVE E #106 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98058 SEATTLE, WA 98102 Parcel ID: 8637100360 Parcel ID: 8637100000 Parcel ID: 8637100000 MARCHAND TERRY M 17021 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100000 Parcel ID: 2892700160 Parcel ID: 2923059168 HUSETH KAREN J RENTON CITY OF 17123 113TH AVE SE 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON , WA 98058 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 2923059015 Parcel ID: 2923059023 Parcel ID: 2923059112 SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC PNW HOLDINGS LLC MARTIN ANDREW WILLIAM 8110 E UNION AVE #200 9725 SE 36TH ST STE 214 10839 SE 170TH ST DENVER , CO 80237 MERCER ISLAND , WA 98040 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3811300030 COURTNEY ROBERT & TAMAKI 17209 109TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3811300070 TZVETANOV IVAYLO K+VASELA T 17220 109TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 863710UINT Parcel ID: 8637100460 AROUND THE CLOCK INC 716 W MEEKER STSTE 101 KENT , WA 98032 Parcel ID: 8637100320 LEE DOUG+PHUNG VAN 17001110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 863710UINT Parcel ID: 8637100460 AROUND THE CLOCK INC 716 W MEEKER STSTE 101 KENT, WA 98032 Parcel ID: 8637100390 HUA MY M+ TIN YEN N 17033 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3811300100 HURTADO JESSE & LINDA PO B0X59743 RENTON , WA 98058 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 8637100400 GARRISON KATRINA R 17032 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100470 RENTON CITY OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON , WA 98057 Parcel ID: 8637100460 AROUND THE CLOCK INC 716 W MEEKER STSTE 101 KENT , WA 98032 Parcel ID: 8637100430 VAUGHN TAMARA L 17010 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 8637100380 Parcel ID: 1626800065 Parcel ID: 2923059026 VILLAGRANA RAM IRO+MARISELA BATSCHI JR JERRY A+DIANE R DIFRANCESCO LEONARD C PO BOX 1336 10843 SE 173RD ST 105 HARVARD AVE E #106 BREWSTER, WA 98812 RENTON , WA 98058 SEATTLE, WA 98102 Parcel ID: 2923059179 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 8637100340 SOOS CREEK WATER & SEWER NG ROBERT PO BOX58039 17013 110TH PL SE RENTON , WA 98058 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 ANDERSON BETTY HALLMARK MICHELLE ERIN LEGGED JILL L 10817 SE 172ND ST #A-3 10817 SE 172ND ST UNIT 38 10817 SE 172ND ST UNIT C-3 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 THOMAS DAVIDE THOMPSON MICHAEL VARDANYAN EDUARD 10817 SE 172ND ST#3-D 10821 SE 172ND ST #4A 10821 SE 172ND ST #48 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 JUANEDA YARA SANCHEZ SERGIO L +ANAL YNN C LINDSTROM JOYCE 10821 SE 172ND ST #4C 10821 SE 172ND ST #D 10825 SE 172ND ST #A-5 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 STANLEY D BRUCE+NANCY A FLAGSTAR BANK FSB BONIFANT DEANN MARIE 10825 SE 172ND ST #85 5151 CORPORATE DR 10825 SE 172TH ST #5D RENTON , WA 98055 TROY , Ml 48098 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 KELLAR ANN MARIE WOODS JENNIFER L LEWIS DANIEL 10829 SE 172ND ST #A6 10829 SE 172ND ST #6 B 10829 SE 172ND ST #C6 RENTON , WA 98055-5969 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 GOLD GLADYS M MARYOTI DANA G MILES RICHARD D MILES VIRGINIA C 10829 SE 172ND ST #D6 PO BOX 188 10809-B SE 172ND ST RENTON , WA 98055 OCEAN PARK , WA 98640 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 MADFAI MARK GALLIA GINA+RUTLEDGE KEVIN COPPOCK SYLVA JEAN 3010 ILWACO AVE NE 10809 SE 172ND ST #1-D 10813 SE 172ND ST#2A RENTON , WA 98059 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 HART DONNA MAE TAMAYAO TERESITA T BACANI DENNIS P+MARIA CIELO 10813 SE 172ND ST #28 10813 SE 172ND ST 32C 10813 SE 172ND ST #D2 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 REAL TY EXCHANGERS INC+NUNER LOOK JANAE D SOHNL Y MARY P 22732 126TH PL SE 350 106TH AVE NE #100 10833 SE 172ND ST UNIT 7C KENT, WA 98031 BELLEVUE , WA 98004 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 STEVENS KRISTIN L KELLEY MICHELLE TURPEN SUSAN K 10817 SE 172ND ST #7-D 10837 SE 172ND ST #8A 8008 39TH AVE NE RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 SEATTLE, WA98115 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 SIMPSON KEYSHA LOUIE GARLAN W SMITH LAURA L 10837 SE 172ND ST #8C 9311 MAYES CT S 10841 SE 172ND ST #A-9 RENTON , WA 98055 SEATTLE, WA 98118 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 Parcel ID: 3809000000 ONORATI KAREN M CONE CLARA L GARANA RICHARD 10841 SE 172ND ST 9 B 10841 SE 172ND ST #9C 10841 SE 172ND ST #D RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 ADEGBITE STEPHEN+UCHE CLOMAN GERALDINE DE LA TORRE MELINDA L 17577 110TH LN SE 17579110TH LN SE #2 17581 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 BENNETT ROBIN WATSON JESSE JR SANT GAIL 17583 110TH LN SE #4 17573 110TH LN SE 17571 110TH LN SE UNIT 6 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 NUTT CHRISTOPHER L TRAN MY+THUAN VAN ET AL SHPREYREGIN LEONID+SVETLANA 17569 110TH LN SE 17567 110TH LN SE #8 17555 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98056 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 HARRELL FLORENCE MENDOZA EVELYN D+CYRUS DAVIS ROSS+SUSAN BRADY 17557110TH LN SE 17559 110TH LN SE #11 17561 110TH LN SE UNIT 12 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DOZIER MICHAEL RUIZLI WEN FLOYDLANAM 17551110TH LN SE 17549110TH LN SE 17547 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 Parcel ID: 6614800000 HURNER JAMES F+RUBY MOFFATT MARK W & THERESA C STERLING SUSAN M+ROBERT D 17545 110TH LN SE 17533 110TH LN SE 17535 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98055 RENTON , WA 98005 Parcel ID: 6614800000 YEE DEBORA A 4401 40TH AVE SW SEATTLE, WA98116 Parcel ID: 6614800000 COYLE JANICE M 17527110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 GREVE DAVID P 17511110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 SHUTLER MICHELLE L +JOSEPH J 17517110TH LN SE#28 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 GINER DAVID+JESSICA 17503 110TH LN SE #31 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DEMENEZES TWILA 17539110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DANG NINA 17525 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 GORMLY EILEEN E 17513 110TH LN SE #26 RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 HOPPER SUSAN J 17507 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 DAMM MICHAEL+DAMN KELLI P 17529 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 FERGUSON DARLENE+NEAL 17523 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 CUSPARD STEVEN F 17515 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 Parcel ID: 6614800000 JANOWSKI HENRY F+ANNA E 17505 110TH LN SE RENTON , WA 98055 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED {DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Comm,,mity & Economic Development (CED) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: June 25, 2012 LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Fieldbrook Commons PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban Development for the construction of a multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14} units per net acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 13 separate multi-family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 183,795 square feet. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and protecting 28 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study, geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approxamily 25,000 cubic yards of cut and 24,926 cubic yards of fill to be balance across the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 22,780 square feet of dedicated public right-of-way. PROJECT LOCATION: 17040 1081h Avenue SE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED {DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is usin!l the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: other Permits which may be required: January 3, 2012 March 1, 2012; project was placed on hold for the completion of Independent Secondary Review. Second Notice of Complete Application on June 25, 2012. Justin lagers, PNW Holdings, LLC; 972S SE 36th Street, #214; Mercer Island, WA 98040; Eml: justin.pnwhoJdings@gmail.com Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Planned Urban Development Review Buildlng Construction !f you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED-Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Fieldbrook Commons/LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD NAME:---------------------------------- MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Wetland Study, Secondary Wetland Review, Technical Information Report, Traffic Study, Geotechnlcal Report, Arborist Report Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for August 14, 2012 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 10:00 a.m. on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Residential Multi-Family (RMF) on the City of Renton Comprehensive land Use Map and Residential -14 (R-14) dwelling units per acre on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental {SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-llOA, RMC 4- 3-050, RMC 4-9-150 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; and The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Northwest Traffic Experts, dated, November 14, 2011. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnica/ Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC., dated October 31, 2011 and Revised December 13, 2011. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Preliminary Technicaf Information Report prepared by D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated December 19, 2011. The applicant shalf comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. dated, November 8, 2011 and all associated secondary review recommendations. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Significant Tree fnspection Report prepared by Greenforest Incorporated, dated September 8, 2011. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, CED -Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on July 9, 2012. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on August 14, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7314; Eml: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION -----1 I _I I -------i-- JIJ:1 ;3 illi!:·!!-' /,1&.J [ : : .•r,; I iJ.r~'·\ ti,!/" c.. ,----·--- IIii·,,.~o.n+.' L__ ,-- •! --, ---,--,--, ,-·/ '""" 1 J,_,", I '""") ,,,. ' I I ,,,.,, / "''"' ,1 ,,,.,, I Denis Law Mayor r f -· Department of Community and Economic Development June 25, 2012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9725 SE 361h Street #214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 CE:'Chip"Vincent, Interim Administrator Subject: Notice of Complete Application and Off Hold Notice Fieldbrook Commons, LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review.·. Do.to the completion of the Independent Secondary Review, your project is now considered to be "off hold". It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee.o.n July 16, 2012. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on August 14, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative{s} ofthe applicant are required to be· present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~..I),J~ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: Ray W. Lotto, William O'Neil/ Owner(s) Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov Denis Law r City O 1 -----~M:ay:o:, ____ ............. ... ·t .µ.rrr .. rr.\ 'fl June 25, 2012 Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School District 420 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 ~~ '~,. Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Interim Administrator Subject: Fieldbrook Commons LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an applicatibn for a 162-unit multi-family development located at 17040 108th Avenue SE. Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details. In order to process this application, CED needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children living in residences at the location indicated above. Please. fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return· this letter to my attention, City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 by ·. July 9, 2012. Elementary School:_·----'-------~--~---------- Middle School: ----------------------'----- High School: --------------'-----------~-- Will the schools you have.indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes No._· __ _ Any Comments: ______ ----'--------'------------- Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ----~----- Nancy Rawls Page 2 of 2 June 25, 2012 Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, ~-DJbeP- Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure -----~~-------- Denis Law Mayor May 10, 2012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9675 SE 36'h St., Suite 105 Mercer Island, WA 98040 r t ·.....; City o ~'fl'J,I)Jl Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Interim Administrator SUBJECT: Independent Secondary Review Fieldbrook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has received a Scope of Work and cost easement from OTAK, for the Independent Secondary Review (enclosed). Furthermore, we received the $2,450.00 check to authorize the completion of the scope of work. As such, please find enclosed your receipt for the secondary review fee. If there are any cost savings through the project, these funds will be refunded. If there are additional costs incurred during the review additional funds will be requested from the applicant. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, '1£//{ffe)tLV~ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner ___ Enclosure; OTAK Scope of Work cc: PNW Holdings, Ray W. Lotto, William O'Neil, City of Renton/ Owner{s} Katrian Garrison/ Party of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Scope of Work City of Renton Fieldbrook Commons Secondary Review Otak Project No. 3 I 989B Proposal for Professional Services May 4, 2012 Addendum I The following addendum scope of work and cost estimate was developed by Otak, Inc. (Otak) to provide the City of Renton (City) with a secondary review of critical areas issues associated with the land use application for the Fieldbrook Commons Planned Urban Development (PUD) project. The secondary review will be based on a pre;~ous review of the Fieldbrook Commons PUD project conducted by Otak, and on documents subsequently provided to Otak by the City that address previous review comments provided by Otak on February 29, 2012. Our approach to this work is divided into three tasks: 1) review of updated mitigation plan and plan sheets, 2) preparation of a memorandum of findings, and 3) project coordination. Scope of Work Task I-Review Otak staff will review updated documents submitted by the Fieldbrook Commons PUD project applicant (applicant) to determine whether the documents are consistent with the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), whether they sufficiently address Otak review comments provided in the February memorandum, and if the mitigation and monitoring plans have been adequately amended. Project-related documents sent by the City to Otak for review include: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response to Otak Memorandum (March 16, 2012), by Sewall Wetland Consulting; Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response to City of Renton E-mail (April 10, 2012), by Sewall Wetland Consulting; Wetland Delineation Map, 11 x 17 (Revised March 19, 2012), by Sewall Wetland Consulting; Concept Delineation Map, 11 x 17 (Revised March 19, 2012), by Sewall Wetland Consulting; and Concept Delineation Map, Full Size (Revised April 10, 2012), by Sewall Wetland Consulting. Task 3-Memorandum of Findings Based on our review of the amended project documents, Otak staff will prepare a memorandum that summarizes our findings regarding whether the updated compensatory Fie!dbrook Commons Secondary Review otak K: \project\31900\31989B\Contract\31989B Fieldbrook SOW Addendum.doc:x Scope of Work Continued mitigation, monitoring, and maintenance plans are consistent with RMC. This information will be provided in pdf format for City use. Task 4--Project Coordination This task will include general project management, development of the project approach, and coordination with City staff. Assumptions: • This task does not include in-person meetings . Schedule and Fees Our proposed fee summary is as follows: Task I-Document Review Task 2-Memorandum of Findings Task 3-Project Coordination Proposed Fee Total $700 $1,275 $475 $2,450 Otak proposes to complete the above Scope of Work for a time and materials amount of $2,450.00. In-house reimbursable expenses, such as copies, reproductions, etc. and any outsourced direct expenses (e.g., postage/deliveries, mileage, etc.) will be invoiced at cost plus 10% and are included in the contract amount. We will not exceed this budget without prior approval from the City of Renton. If conditions are found to be different from those described above, Otak will notify the City of Renton immediately to discuss any impacts to the scope of work and budget We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. If you have any questions regarding this proposal or need additional information, please feel free to contact Stephanie Smith at (425) 739-7978. Fieldbrook CommonJ Secondary Review K:\project\31900\31989B\Conttact\31989B Fieldbrook SOW Addendum.doc: 2 otak Technical Memorandum 10230 1\rf~ Points Dn'vt: Suite 400 KJrkkmd, WA 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Subject: Project No.: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Stephanie Smith, Wetland Biologist Kevin O'Brien, Senior Wildlife Biologist June 13, 2012 Fieldbrook Commons Second Review 31989B As requested by the City of Renton (City), Otak biologists have previously conducted a site visit and provided a review of documents provided by the City related to the proposed Fieldbrook Commons project for compliance with City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinances. Otak provided the City with a review memorandum dated February 29, 2012. This second review is in response to the comments and changes provided by the applicant's biologist as outlined in Otak's February review. The applicant's biologist has provided a detailed outline addressing many of the recommendations brought forth by Otak as well as a revised concept delineation map and wetland delineation map. Introduction A wetland delineation was conducted in April 2011 by the applicant's biologist that identified a total of six wetlands on the project site, which include: three Category II wetlands (Wetlands A, B, and DJ and three Category III wetlands (\Vetlands C, E, and F). The project site consists of three parcels (2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023). Two of the parcels create a long, narrow corridor east to west and the third parcel extends to the south to make the project site somewhat "T" shaped. The smallest parcel (2923059168), in the northwest corner of the project area, previously had a fire station on the property. The building has since been demolished, leaving the property vacant but for paved parking areas, gravel, and overgrown landscaping. The other two parcels that make up the project area are forested with some evidence of past use, including dilapidated buildings and adjacent mine tailings. The project proposes to fill three wetlands (approximately 9,334 square feet) and provide compensatory mitigation onsite by creating approximately 25,508 square feet of wetland habitat. The proposed wetland mitigation area is located within the buffers of the existing wetlands on site that are not proposed to be filled. K \project \31900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Commons Second Review _0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 2 Fie!dbrook Commons Second &view Jt1ne 13, 2012 This memorandum outlines general background information, findings of the review responses, and additional recommendations. Specifically, this memorandum provides review, comment, and recommendations for the documents and exhibits indicated below: Documents Reviewed • Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response-LUA12-001, response to City comments (dated April 10, 2012) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; • Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response with revised Mitigation Plan, response to Otak comments (dated March 16, 2012) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; • Fieldbrook Commons Concept Delineation Map-11x17 and full size (dated April 2012, revision) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. • Fieldbrook Commons Wetland Delineation Map-11x17 only (dated March 2012, revision) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Background Information Sources • City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) accessed from: http://'w'WW.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/ (Referred to in this memorandum as RA1C) Response to Field brook Critical Areas Review Response, dated March 16, 2012 by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Sewall Wetland Const1!ting comments are indicated in italics, below. Otak response comments are indicated in bold, below. Underlined lettering below indicates further action needed or if the recommended action has been appropriately addressed. 2.a. Offsite \'(fetlands: As reqt1ested, we investiy,ated the off-site wetland area identified hy OT/lK. It appears lo be a linear extension ef Wetland B. We measured the distance ef this wetland to the eastern property line ef the site and it 1ms 5 5 '. As this distance appears to be a part ef Wetland B, this would also be a Category 2 wetland with a 50' btiffer. This buffer u,ould not extend onto the site. The applicant has appropriately identified and addressed the offsite wetland in the response memorandum and also by including the approximate location of the wetland and its buffer on the wetland delineation map. This action item has been appropriately addressed. 2.b. \'(fetland and Buffer Functions: The applicant's biologist copied the recommendation to include a table into the response memo, but did not provide a table that compares existing and proposed wetland and buffer K \project \31900\3 I 989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Commons Second Review _0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 3 I'ie!dbrook Commons Second &vieu, June 13, 2012 functions and values (including the low, moderate, and high ratings) using the Ecology methodology. The recommendation for wetland functions was appropriately addressed later in the document (1.4.3.2). We recommend that the applicant submit the ratings forms in order for the City to provide concurrence with the analvsis and to verify the functional lift associated with the proposed wetland conditions. However, no assessment of wetland buffer functions and values was provided. We recommend an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalencv particularly as the proposed project will remove existing forested buffer and replace that habitat with created wetland. 2.c. Maps: A1aps contain scales and notes are legible in the copies provided to the City. The full size map provided to the City and forwarded on to Otak contains scale bars and notes are legible. The 11x17 maps provided to the City and forwarded on to Otak do not contain scale bars and are not legible at half-size. Future submittals should include full scale maps with scale bars and legible notes. This action item is adequate for this review. 2.d. Wetland B Buffer Encroachment: The area will be restored by removing the fence and replanting nith native trees and shrubs. In addition to removing the dilapidated fence and replanting the encroached area with native trees and/ or shrubs, the buffer will need to have a split rail fence installed to prevent future intrusion. This recommended action is sufficient for this review: the final wetland mitig;ition plan should include fencing in this area. 2.e. Tree Retention: It is impossible to }iii any ,vet/and that has trees and not remove them. Trees within the filled wetland u,i!! be removed However, the proposed mitigation plantings replaces these trees n'ith many more trees than n,i!I he removed. The areas of clearing within existing buffer of Wetland A for e:,;pansion of the wetland n,i!I also have trees removed However, all of the new wetland and buffer will be planted n1th a dense planting of native trees and shrubs. It is understood that tree removal will be required in order to fill wetlands and buffers as well as grade the area for wetland creation. However, this comment was provided in order to highlight the importance of a high functioning buffer. While many more trees will be planted, it is the existing forested canopy that is providing the function. Small trees, recently installed will not provide the same functions for up to 20 or 30 years or more. Through the revised wetland mitigation plan the forested buffer of Wetland B will be preserved. Some forested buffer areas and the functions they provide will still be impacted, but at a slightly lower level of function. K \projecr\3 I 900\3 I 989B\Repons \Fieldbrook Commons Second Review _0613_ 12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 4 he/dhmok Commons Second Review June 13, 2012 This recommended action has been appropriately addressed at this time. The City and City biologist will review the tree removal and land clearing plan when submitted by the applicant. 2.f.1 Mitigation Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets: The March 16, 2012 memo from Sewall Wetland Consulting addressed a number of issues and provided numerous comments under the 2.f.1 heading. This memo addresses these comments below: The revised mitigation plan will not impact the buffer of Wetland B 1vhich is high functioning. Instead the new plan proposed creating u,etland between Wetlands A and C and converting moderate function buffer to wetland, and then move the buffer to the edge of the newly created u•etland. No loss of b,ffer function will occur as the same 50' buffer »,ii/ be utilized on the new wetland creation area. The project proposes to convert existing buffer for Wetlands A and C to created wetland. Per the response to 2.b above, an assessment of existing buffer function and proposed buffer function should be conducted by the applicant, in order to demonstrate that no net loss of wetland buffer function will occur as a result of the project. We recommend an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation ,,,,;]] achieve functional equivalency particularlv as the proposed project will remove existing forested buffer and replace that habitat with created wetland. The final mitigation plan will depict NGPA areas as well as specific locations of signs and fencing. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed. Usinx the W ADOE Wetland ratin 0 ~ systems which is based on 3 major recognized 1vetiandfunctions, Wetland D scored 3 3 points, indicating a Category 3 wetland which also indicates low-moderate overall functional value. Wetlands le & F scored 25 and 29 points, respectively. This indicates iowji,nction Category 4 wetlands. As seen in Table 1 he!on1, a substantial functional lift u,iJI be attained from the connection of Wetlands /I and C with 25,508 sf of additional u,etiand over the existing/unctions of the proposed fill u,etlands. The neu,ly created wetland will connec/ to existing Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands /I and CJ and provide enough lift that this u,etland uiil non, be considered a Category 2 wetland under the W ADOE ratin,g system. This is a substantial lift in function, smface water stor'{~e and species n'chness over the proposed low value Category 3 and 4 fill wetland.,. We recommend that the applicant submit the ratings forms in order for the City to provide concurrence ,,,,;th the analysis, and to verify the functional lift associated ";th the proposed conditions. A revised and updated critical areas report including the ratings forms, is an appropriate vehicle to do so or submittal of the rating:; forms as a critical areas report addendum. This (location and direction of proposed illumination out of and away from the wetland and buffer areas to protect buffer functions) will be noted on site plans for portions of the development abutting the wetland and buffer areas. K \project \3 I 9U0\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Commons S!:'cond Rei."lew _0613_ 12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 5 Fie!dhrook Commons Second Rtvieu• June 13, 2012 This recommended action has been appropriately addressed at this time. The City and City biologist will review the site plans when submitted by the applicant. Currently 1ve are monitoring groundu,ater within 6 wells within the new proposed wetland creation area he tween wetlands /1 and C. Current readings indicate groundwater is at a depth from 16 "-28" below the surface. We will continue to monitor these points into April to develop an appropriate grading plan to create wetland conditions within the mitigation area. The 2' elevation difference beflveen Wetlands A & C will be conndered when u,e prepare a final grading plan based upon groundwater elevations. It's possible that a small portion of the created wetland may have slope wetland characteristics. We have emp!qyed this type of grading in several ,vet/and mitigation projects successfully. However, this will depend upon our findings of our hydrolngJ monitoring which is currently being conducted. Two months of hydrology monitoring in a single year is a very small sample size on which to base wetland hydrology design. Project riming constraints, however, are understood to pertain. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed at this time. The City will request review of the hydrology monitoring protocols data and data analysis as this information becomes available. The use of a berm in this area (to prevent surface water draining from the proposed created wetland into Wetland B) if used, will he constructed of a soil material that will he an impediment to 1vater passing through the bem1 through the use of a barrier such as clay. This recommended action is currently sufficient: however, the City may require further mitigation plan changes based on future design options and elements. No impacts or excavation in the area of Wetland Bare proposed at this time. This recommended action is currently sufficient: however, the City may require further mitigation plan changes based on future design options and elements. Grass seed will he eliminated from the plantingplan. Use of chips or mulch will he utilized instead. Grass seed provision will be removed from the planting plan and arborist mulch will be used instead. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed. 2.f.5. The performance standards have been revised and included in the revised conceptual wetland mitigation plan. Further recommendations regarding the performance standards are included below in a separate review of the document. 2.f.6. Trails: The trail was requested by the City. It has been removed from the plan so there will be no trail impacts. K\project\31900\31989B\Reports\Fieldbrook Commons Second Revi~w_0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 6 heldhrook Commons Second Revien, June 13, 2012 The trail has been relocated to the wetland buffer per April 10, 2012 revised Conceptual Delineation Map. Per RMC 4-3-050C7.a.i(2), "trails and walkways shall be located in the outer 25% of the buffer." We recommend a design realignment of the trail to comply with the RMC allowed use of this feature in the outer 25'Vo of the buffer. 2.f.7. Grading Plans: The plan has been revised to eliminate any connection to Wetland B. The plan will connect Wetlands A and C through the minimum grading required far the required wetland creation area. This ,viii be based upon the results of our hydrology moniton·ng which started March 12, 2012. When we have sufficient early growing season hydrology data the grading plans for the mitigation area will be prepared. We anticipate that to be near the end of Apnl-middle of May. Two months of hydrology monitoring in a single year is a very small sample size on which to base wetland hydrology design. Project timing constraints, however, are understood to pertain. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed at this time. The Cicy will request review of the grading plan and the hydrology monitoring protocols, data, and data analysis as this information becomes available. 2.f.8. Storm Pond: The storm pond has been eliminated from the pm;ect and a buried vault 12ill be utilized outside of the wetlands and associated buffers. A stormwater outfall is located on the Concept Delineation Map. If available provide additional information regarding stormwater outfall design, anticipated stormwater volumes, and how the adjacent wetlands and buffers (particularly Wetland B) will be protected from potential impacts regarding the outlet location (e.g. How will the hydroperiod of Wetland B be affected?). At a minimum, a conceptual description of the stormwater outfall the extent of its service area, proposed vault volume and sizing criteria proposed discharge structure proposed stormwater fate after discharge (infiltration sheet flow through buffers to created wetlands and/or to Wetland B) and its potential impacts to wetlands and buffers should be provided. 2.f.9. Permits: When the City accepts the Conceptual Mitigation Pian, UJe can then prepare a Final Detailed Plan which would be suitable for submittal far a Nationwide Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as to IVS DOE far 401 Water Quality Certification. It is premature to submit for these pennits at this time as the required documents (Final mitigation plan and reports) have not been prepared. Final mitigation plan designs may undergo changes, possibly significant, based on responses from the Corps and/ or Ecology. Development of a final mitigation plan in a coordinated fashion with the Corps and/ or Ecology may minimize future design alterations. This recommended action has been appropriately addressed at this time. K.: \projccl \31900\31989B\Repons \Fieldbrook Commons Second Review_0613_ 12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 7 Fie!dbrook CoJJJJJJons Second Rt1,iew June 13, 2012 2.f.10. Long Term Monitoring: City of Renton Code requires 11tonitori11g and bonding of wetland JJJttigation pro;ect for five years. Although it is likely that the Corps and W ADOE 11tay require 10 years of JJJonitoring, the plan to be subJJJitted to the City will JJJeet the City Code of 5 years of JJJentoring. Hydrology 11tonitoring of the creation area will be a co11tponent. An effective mitigation plan could be developed for a five-year period and a ten-year period, with the performance standards and monitoring events for a ten-year effort triggered if the Corps/Ecology ten year monitoring standard it imposed. If 10 years of monitoring are required, an addendum to the wetland mitigation plan will be prepared to address the Corps requirements. 2.g. Buffers: In order to minimiZ! impacts to the wetland and buffers, the for7!1erly proposed stoT7!1 pond has been removed and replaced with a much more expensive 1Jault outside the wetland and buffers. The replacement of the proposed storm pond with a vault as a potential means of minimizing impacts to wetlands and buffers is acknowledged, but additional information would validate that minimization effort. Please see response for 2.f.8 above for additional information on vault and stormwater outfall design and impacts to wetland and buffers. The trail has also been removed from the wetland and buffers. The trail has been relocated to the wetland buffer per April to, 2012 revised Conceptual Delineation Map. The trail has been relocated to the wetland buffer per April to, 2012 revised Conceptual Delineation Map. Per RMC 4-3-050C7.a.i(2), "trails and walkways shall be located in the outer 25% of the buffer." We recommend a design realignment of the trail to comply with the RMC allowed use of this feature in the outer 25% of the buffer. The previous mitigation proposed in the high fimctioning, conifer do11tinated buffer of Wetland B has been removed fro11t the plan. No,v al! the mitigation/ wetland creation is to occur between Wetlands A and C. Both of these wetlands are isolated and not assofiated with the larger Wetland B. The proposed area far the creation is defiduous forest comprised of scattered big leaf 11tap!e, a single cottonu,ood, and understory of ,ine maple, elderberry, blackberry and Indian plum. This area has had past disturbances from mining and contains existi~tt disturbed areas as 1JJell as some trash and debris. Portions also include a large man~made berm that is comprised of peat and coal tailings. Preliminary hydrology monitoring reveals ground1vater at depths between 12"-28" of the surface within the proposed creation area. Soils in this area are gravelly loams on the surface with tighter clay soils beneath. Wetland creation in these types of soils is typically very successful The proposed u,ork in the buffers of these nt!ands to create over 25,000 sf of additional wetland area will not re11tove pristine buffer. Addttiona!!y, the ne,v!y created ,vet/and edge UJ1i! then have a 50' b,ffer of existingfarest to protect the resource. Any buffer area disturbed during creation of the mitigation project will be restored with native tree and shrub spefies. Al! K: \project\31900\319898\ Reports \Fieldbrook Common~ Second Revie'-':_0613_ 12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 8 Fieldhrook Co111111ons Second Revie11, June 13, 2012 the large trees removed from the buffer and the gradiny of the ,vet/and creation area will be utilized as habitat features (snags and large woody debns) ,vithin the 1vet!and and buffer mifi,gation area. Existing forested buffer habitat occurs on the project property, surrounding the onsite wetlands and providing buffer functions, with buffer widths substantially greater than 50 feet. We recommend an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency-particularly as the proposed project will remove existing forested huffer and replace that habitat with created wetland. Comments Regarding Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan attached to Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response Memo (March 16, 2012) 1\ final wetland mitigation plan and report will be forthcoming at a future date. These comments address the specific sections of the conceptual mitigation section in the memo dated March 16, 2012. General Comments: • Remove residual language from previous reports, in particular, all references to the County (Sections 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 5.4, 7.2). Either City staff and/ or agency (Corps and/ or Ecology) staff will be project contacts. • All portions of the wetland mitigation plan that pertains to the site preparation and conditions, plant installation, schedule, and warranty etc. should be included on a plan sheet for project bid and work reference purposes. 3.0. Construction Sequence 3.9. Monitoring: Add caveat that 10 years of monitoring may be required if the Corps takes jurisdiction. 4.0. Construction and Planting Notes 4.1.3. Sentence should read "The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all non-native, invasive plant species onsite, including the removal of root crowns. These species may include, but are not limited to Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, English ivy, and English holly." Trailing blackberry, a native species in the Pacific Northwest, should not be removed. Additionally, provide details regarding how the invasive species should be removed so as to not damage the desirable native species, and specify that the applicant's biologist shall oversee weeding of the buffer addition planting areas. 4.2.3. No balled and burlapped or bare root plant stock should be used. Container stock only. K: \prnject\31900\31989B\ Rt:ports\Fieldbrook Commons Second Review _(1613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 9 Field brook Commons Second Review June 13, 2012 4.3.3. Planting Pits: Revise the section to specify that the planting pit shall not be deeper than the root ball. Plants should be installed according to http://www.soundnativeplants.com/PDP /plantingtips.pdf. 4.4.2. All disturbed areas will be protected with arborist mulch to a minimum depth of six inches. As stated previously, grass seed should not be applied around newly installed plants. 5.0. Maintenance Program 5.1.3.a. The use of glyphosphate herbicide should be a last resort. The removal of stems and root crowns is more effective. Add a caveat that herbicide must be applied by an appropriately licensed individual. 5.3. Watering should still take place during the first spring and summer after planting, even if planting occurs between October and March IS'h. 6.0. Wetland and Buffer Monitoring Program • To be consistent with guidance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology, revise the "6.1 Sampling Methodology" section to specify that Year 1 monitoring will occur in the growing season after the plants have been installed for at least one calendar year. In other words, if the plants are installed in fall 2012 or spring 2013, Year 1 monitoring will occur in August or early September 2014. • Revise the "6.1.1 Hydrology" section to include specifications for monitoring hydrology in the wetland creation area monthly (at a minimum) from March through May in piezometers per guidance from USACE (htt:p://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdfltnwrap00-2.pdf). The use of staff/ crest gauges will not provide useful data if the wate"t is below the ground surface. • Revise the "Vegetation" section to specify that annual vegetacion monitoring will occur in late summer (August or early September). In addition to data specified in this section, sample plot data shall include: plant species present; count of surviving installed plants; general health and condition of installed plans; and presence and percent cover by individual non-native invasive species. Revise the "6.1.2 Vegetation" section to include rectangular or square (not transects) monitoring plots that represents approximately ten percent of the installed vegetacion areas and adequately represents the wetland creation and buffer enhancement areas. The permanent monitoring plots should also reasonably represent the plant communities to be established. All four corners of each plot should be staked with metal fence posts or tall re-bar and marked with flagging. Revise the paragraph regarding photo points to include photos at a consistent corner of each monitoring plot as well as overview photo points. Add a section to specify that that during the annual monitoring visit (during the first two years), flagging or markers will be replaced as necessary on each of the originally installed or replacement plants to distinguish them from volunteers. If flagging is used, it must be attached to side branches, not central leaders, and it must be attached in a manner such that it does not K:\project\31900\31989B\Reports\Fieldbrook Commons Second Reviev.·_U613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page I 0 I'ieldbrook Commons Second Revieiv June 13, 2012 restrict growth or girdle the plants. Old flagging should be checked to see if it is restricting growth. 6.2. Standards of Success: 1.b. Add caveat that only installed plants can be counted towards satisfying the survival performance standards. Add a performance standard for plant diversity; native volunteers can count towards this performance standard. 1.c. If only 5 years of monitoring is required per the City, performance standards must address all 5 years. • A performance standard of 60% cover by woody species in shrub and forested plant communities by Year 3 is ambitious and difficult to achieve, and may be adjusted downward: 30% for the restored buffer during Year 3, 40% during Year 4, and 50'1,, by Year 5 • Performance standards for woody vegetation in the created wetland: 40% cover by Year 3, 50% by Year 4, and 65% by Year 5 • Emergent vegetative cover is likely to be shaded out as woody vegetation establishes. We recommend emergent vegetative cover of 25% by Year 5 to reflect a shrub and forest vegetatlve commuruty. Performance Standards for percent cover will be addressed during the review of the final wetland mitigation plan. It is difficult to appropriately address performance standards without a grading plan and plant pallet, and the above recommendations may be subject to change based on review of the grading plan and plant pallet. 1.d. Revise sentence that there should not be more than 10 percent cover of non-native invasive species within the mitigation area during all monitoring years. Specify that non-native invasive species include those on the King County Noxious Weed List http://www.kin,"countv.gov/ environment/animalsAndPlants /noxious-weeds /laws /list.aspx, including the Non-Regulated Noxious Weeds and King County Weeds of Concern. 2. A final delineation of wetland boundaries in Year 5 should be conducted to ensure the appropriately-sized created wetland area has been established. 3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species can only be included as acceptable components of the mitigation performance standards through the percent cover performance standard, not as part of the percent survival. 7.0 Contingency Plan: 7.1. Provide additional information regarding contingency plans if adequate wetland hydrology is not achieved in the wetland creation area. 7.3. Remove residual language from previous reports including references to "irrigating the stream area" and "reseeding stream and buffer areas". K \project \31900\31989B\Rcports \Fiddbrnok Commons Second Review _0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 11 Fie!dbrook Commons 5 econd Rnn'en, June 13, 2012 Response to City Email (Sewell Wetland Consulting document dated April I 0, 2012) Items 1 through 4 were appropriately addressed. The City and City biologist will review the clearing and grading plans when submitted by the applicant. Sa. Given the nature of the project and the site constraints, the issue was appropriately addressed. Sb. The second sentence states, "the project has minimized impacts by avoiding impacts to Wetlands A, Band C and their associated buffers." This is not the case as there will be significant impacts to the buffers of Wetlands A and C in order to combine the two wetlands. Per comments for 2b on page 3 of this memo, an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency will provide a rationale for avoidance and minimization of impacts to the wetland buffers. Sc. Issue was appropriately addressed. The City and City biologist will review restoration details as mitigation planning develops. Sd.i. Issue was appropriately addressed. Sd.ii. Project applicant provided appropriate wetland creation ratios for the identified wetland impacts. 6a. Issue was appropriately addressed. 6b. A detailed planting plan will be forthcoming at a future date for review by the City. The City and City biologist will review planting plans upon submittal by the applicant. 6c. It is assumed that the created wetland will provide a seasonally flooded hydrologic regime. The City will request review of the hydrology monitoring protocols, data, and data analysis as this information becomes available. 6d. Issue was appropriately addressed. 6e. Under 6c, it is assumed that there will be seasonally flooded area within the wetland, and 6e states that it is the "goal to maintain the hydrologic contour within the soil profile, but to remove enough of the surface soils to bring water within 12" of the surface to create wetland hydrology conditions." Additionally, without a hydrogeologist conducting a site study, it is the assumption of the applicant's biologist "that groundwater within Wetland A seeps subsurface in a northerly direction through the upland area between Wetlands A and Cat a depth between 18"-24"." It is our K\project\319U0\31989B\Reports\Fieldbrook Commons Second Revie'i.v_0613_12.doc Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 12 Fie!dbrook Commons Second Rei.ie11, June 13, 2012 best professional judgment and our concern for project success that with marginal hydrology data regarding groundwater levels that these are results are assumptive. As the information becomes available, the City v.,jll request review of the hydrology monitoring protocols, data, and data analysis to further evaluate the project feasibility. 7. As stated above, without more hydrologlc information and a grading plan, these comments are assumptive. This section is also the first time it has been mentioned that "roof drains will be directed to the edge of the buffer in level spreaders to maintain hydrologic patters (sic) of the site." Provide additional information regarding number of roof drains, assumed volume, and where on the site the flow will be directed. Provide an analysis addressing how this hydrologic input mil not affect the hydrologic patterns of the wetlands and buffers. Si. Issue was appropriately addressed. 8ii. \'</h.i.le it is adequate that the buffers are reduced in the proposed areas, it is not the basis of it being a parking lot that makes it low impact vs. high impact living areas that may adversely impact the wetland function and value. Considerations for the "low impact" parking lot include potential for toxic runoff, headlights shining into the wetlands and buffers, and trash being contributed to the buffer. Numerous threats exist for the pedestrian trail being placed in the buffer, including people creating new ttails, leaving trash, and causing noise disturbance to wetland birds and animals. While buffer averaging is adequate in the proposed areas, the final wetland mitigation plan should address solutions these issues (ie. installing a split rail fence along the trail). Siii. Issue was appropriately addressed. 8iv. \X'hile the proposed buffer averaging and buffer widths follow the City requirements, the City code still requires the applicant to provide a site specific evaluation and documentation of huffer adequacy (RMC 4-3-0SOM6.f). Per comments for 2b on page 3 of this memo, an explicit assessment of existing and proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency and would constitute an appropriate evaluation. Per If the McMillan 2000 document is not an appropriate document to reference other Best Available Science documents can be referenced. 8v. Issue was appropriately addressed. 8vi. Some enhancement of the buffer may be necessary near the western and northwestern sections of Wetland B as this area had some disturbance and encroachment from the neighboring properties. Additionally, it is noted on the large plan sheet that the areas adjacent to the huffer suhtraction will K \project \31900\3 t 989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Commons Second Re,ie\l-'_0613_12.doc •. Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Page 13 I'ieidbrook Co1JJ1JJons Second &vien• June 13, 2012 also have some buffer restoration due to temporary impacts. All buffer restoration and enhancement components should be included in the final wetland mitigation report and plan sheets. 8vii. Include the notification requirement in the final wetland mitigation plan. 9. Per Rl\1C 4-3-050C7.a.i(2), "trails and walkways shall be located in the outer 25% of the buffer". 1\s previously requested, the applicant must demonstrate that the construction and use of the proposed trail will not degrade wetland or buffer functions and values. Relocate the trail to be in compliance with Rl\1C 4-3-050C7.a.i(2). Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Regards, Otak, Inc. Stephanie Smith Wetland Biologist Otak, Inc. 10230 NE Points Dr., Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Kevin O'Brien, Ph.D. Senior Wildlife Biologist Otak, Inc. 10230 NE Points Dr., Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 K \pru1ect\31900\31989B\ Reports \Fieldbrook Commons Second Rcviev,:_0613_ 12.doc (425) 739-7978 (425) 822-4446 (Office) (425) 827-9577 (Fax) (425) 739-7975 (Direct Line) (425) 822-4446 (Office) (425) 827-9577 (Fax) - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -------1Pt®ffiit@IIB 0 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 24, 2012 TO: FROM: OTAK, Stephanie Smith £;:) Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner SUBJECT; Feild brook Commons Secondary Review -LUA12-001 The City is in receipt of two response letters from the project biologist for the subject project. These response letters and associated mitigation plans address OTAK's February 29, 2012 memorandum. The City is requesting that OTAK provide a final review of the response letters and updated mitigation plan. The following documents are enclosed: 1. March 16, 2012, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Feildbrook Critical Areas Review Response. 2. 11 x 17 wetland delineation map, Revised 3/19/12. 3. 11 x 17 Concept Delineation Map, Revised 3/19/12 4. April 10, 2012, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response. 5. Full size Concept Delineation Map, Revised 4/10/12 This review is required to be funded by the project applicant. As such, please provide the City with a scope of work and cost estimate prior to commencing the review. If you have questions, please contact me at Vdolbee@rentonwa.gov or 425-430-7314. h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\12-001.vanessa\memo to otak _2 lual2-001.doc Denis Law r City O • - ____ :M:ay:o~, ____ ............... • .J ,g· r r LDJl April 24, 2012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Interim Administrator Feildbrook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on January 31, 2012. During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The following information will need to be submitted before July 23, 2012 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: • An Independent Secondary Review of the provided responses and updated critical areas reports. This shall be paid at the applicant's expense, and the Reviewing Official shall select the third party review professional. To correct a statement included in the hold notice dated March 30, 2012, a variance is not required for the removal of trees in a wetland because the subject application is a PUD, which provides the opportunity to request changes to RMC 4-4-130 Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: PNW Holdings, Ray W. Lotto, William O'Neil, City of Renton/ Owner(s) Katrina Garrison/ Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov April 10, 2012 Vanessa Dolbe Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton HOLDINGS LLC Re: Fieldbrook Commons -LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Vanessa, CITY OF RENTON RECE':'.1-r APR i \?2iJii' BUILDING DIVISION Please find enclosed five copies of the response to your request for additional information dated March 30, 2012 and five copies of the updated conceptual mitigation overview. Please feel free to contact me should you require any additional information. Sincerely, Justin Lagers Director of Land Acquisition & Development Enc: Sewell Wetland Consulting response letter, Fieldbrook conceptual mitigation 9725 SE 36th St, Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone 206-588-1147 Fax 206-588-0954 I:',_'.<·/:'_:;' iijj ...-m ... ·,_· ~· -'----___::Se=-=wa=::.:II_W=-=-=et=la=n=-=d=--Co=-=-="=s=u=-=lt=in.:..gu,...::l:.:nc==--. _ ~ 276UCovingtonWaySE#2 Phone:253-W-0515 Covington WA ~ Fax: 253-S52-4732 April 10, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response -LUA12-00I SWC Job#l 1-121 Dear Vanessa, CITY OF RENTON R E c E i \I i: n APR l ,, 2012 BUILDING DIVISION This is a response to your March 30, 2012 email regarding the Fieldbrook Commons project. Below in italics are the items you asked us to address. After each item we have provided a response; 1. The Map was not drawn to a I to JOO scale, it appears to be drawn to a 1 to 50 scale. Please provide a map drawn to scale including a "drawn" scale. The plan is now shown with a "drawn scale" and is at a scale of I "~I 00'. 2. The buffer averaging square footage was not provided per area. The areas of buffer reduction and buffer addition using buffer averaging are now shown on the mitigation plan (see attached). 3. The new buffer distances were not provided in areas of reduced buffer. Dimensions are now included in the areas of reduced buffer as requested. 4. A grading and clearing plan for the wetland creation shall be provided, including the total area a/permanent impact and temporary impact. At this point in time we are still monitoring groundwater levels within the proposed creation area. So far monitoring has shown groundwater levels between 16"-28" below the existing surface of the proposed creation area. However, we need to monitor the area for approximately 1 more month to completely understand the hydrology of this area as it pertains to creating an appropriate grading plan that will allow us a higher certainty on creating adequate wetland hydrology. At that time we will prepare a grading plan which will depict the area to be graded and all areas to be Fieldbrouk Commons! I 1-121 Sewall FVetland ronsulling, Inc. April JO. 2012 Page 2 of8 replanted in the creation area and any area within the buffer that would be graded back and require restoration. 5. RMC 4-8-120 D.23.i, this was not addressed This section of Code states the following; i. Alternative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are proposed, the applicant shall evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order: A void any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; Minimize any wetland or bl.{[(er impacts. Compensate for any wetland or buffer impacts; Restore any wetlands or bujfi?r impacted or lost temporarily; Create new wetlands and bujfl!rs }Or those lost; and In addition to restoring a wetland or creating a wetland, enhance an existing degraded wetland to compensate for lost functions and values. This evaluation shall be submitted to the Department Administrator. Any proposed alteration of wetlands shall be evaluated by the Department Administrator using the above hierarchy. a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer; The site contains three small wetlands which the developer proposes lo fill and mitigate for through the creation of a new wetland area and enhanced buffer areas between Wetlands A and Con the eastern third of the site. Wetland (F) located on the western side of the site is Category 3 wetland measuring 1595sf. Due to the requirement to provide a secondary fire access directly out to 108'h Ave S.E. the developer is unable to avoid direct impact to this wetland. Wetland (E) located in the center of the site and adjacent to S.E. 172nd St. measures 68sf and is rated as a Category 3 wetland. Due to the requirement to dedicate and construct the other half of the S.E. 172nd St. ROW the developer is unable to avoid direct impacts to this wetland. Wetland (D) is located generally in the center of the project and is rated as a Category 2 wetland measuring 7671sf. This wetland is located in the center of the site, and the preservation of this wetland with its associated buffer would remove such a large portion of the property as to not be feasible to develop in any way. b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts; The developer previously attempted to plan roadways and improvements around Wetland D, however the location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation and building locations to such an extent that the project would not be financially feasible to Fieldhrook Commons/ l-12 I Sewall Hletland ('onsulting, Inc. April JO, 2012 Page 3 of8 construct. The project has minimized impacts by avoiding impacts to Wetlands A, Band C and their associated buffers. These are the more valuable wetlands on the site, and preserving these wetlands would be the priority. c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarilv; and No temporary impacts to wetlands are proposed except for along the edge of Wetlands A and C wehre the newly created wetland area will be constrcuted. Some temporarly buffer impacts will ccur from the construction of the stormwater outfall and along the edge of the buffers. These areas will be fully restoired following construction and replanted with native trees and shrubs. d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods: i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost; This is not applicable to this site as no historic wetlands are located on the property to restore. ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and A total of 9334sf of wetland will be filled. As described in Code; "Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to restore wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or creation and then second, within the drainage basin, in order to compensate for wetland losses. Restoration activities must include restoring lost hydrologic, water quality and biologic functions". Additionally, Code states" Where feasible, created or restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland. In no cases shall they be lower". Code Snecifies the following mitigation ratios for wetland i mpacts: i. RATIOS FOR WETLANDS CREATION OR RESTORATION: Wetland Category Vegetation Type Creation/Restoration Ratio Category I Forested 6 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 3 times the area altered. Emergent 2 times the area altered. Category 2 Forested 3 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 2 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. Category 3 Forested 1.5 times the area altered. Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered. Emergent 1.5 times the area altered. Fieldhrook Commons/I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April /0, 2012 Page 4 ~(8 The following table outlines the wetlands to be filled and the required wetland creation using the City of Renton mitigation ratios: Wetland Size Category Vegetation Ratio Required Type Wetland Creation D 7671 sf 2 Forested 3:1 23013sf E 68sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5: I 102sf F l 595sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5: I 2393sf Total 25508sf Creation As required by Code, we are proposing to create 25,508sf of wetland. This wetland will all be Category 2 wetland. Proposed Wetland Mitigation location rationale. Given the configuration, topography, hydrology and character of the site, the available wetland mitigation areas are limited by I. Where sufficient hydrology exists 2. Where enough area exists without extending a buffer onto off-site areas. 3. Where it makes the most sense to create a wetland that doesn't leave an isolated, low function wetland. If any area of the site except the eastern side of the site were selected we would be creating a wetland that would be surrounded by development, and there fore isolated from other open space areas. This creates a functionally isolated feature that will not provide suitable wildlife habitat or support for many species. Additionally, there are no areas on the site, except along the eastern portion near Wetlands A, B or C that have suitable groundwater elevations to support creation of a wetland. For example, ifwe were to attempt to leave Wetland D intact, ad do creation around this wetland, its likely there would not be suitable wetland hydrology to support this wetland. Wetland D is an isolated feature that appears to be perched on an impervious hardpan, that allows water to sit long enough to create wetland conditions. This wetland, as well as Wetlands E and F do not appear to be intersecting a surficial groundwater system as does Wetlands A-C. As a result, creation in these areas in and around Wetlands D,E and F would most likely lead to areas that would not successfully create wetland hydrologic conditions. Ideally, as is typically done in most wetland mitigation projects that are successful, expansion of an existing wetland with sufficient hydrology is utilized to create addition wetland. This consists of taking the edge of an existing wetland or wetlands, and by grading back from the edge of the wetland and creating grades similar to the wetland, interception the surficial groundwater table allows creation of wetland hydrologic conditions. This is what we are proposing to do in the area between Wetlands A and C. Based upon our hydrologic monitoring, these wetlands appear to have suitable hydrology for creation of wetland between them. Fieldbruok Commons/ l I -I 21 Sewall 1'Vet/and Consulting, Inc April I Ii. 2012 Page 5 of 8 As is typical in this type of creation, and also unavoidable, the excavation and creation must occur within the existing buffer of the wetlands. However, as is shown on our plan, we now move the buffer to the edge of the creation area, thus maintaining the required buffer on the new enlarged wetland. It should also be pointed out that most of the area between Wetland A and C proposed as a mitigation area has been historically disturbed by past mining and clearing activities. We have specifically tried to avoid the larger grove of conifers located in the buffer of Wetland B to preserve this higher quality habitat. 6. Wetland Mitigation Plan shall included the.following additional items: a. Sufficient area for replacement ratios As depicted in the Table above. and on the attached Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we are meeting the ratios of mitigation required by Code. b. Planting scheme_fi,r we/land recreation and buffer enhancement areas At this point in time, it is premature to prepare a detailed planting scheme. Once the concept is approved, and the grading plan completed, we will prepare a plan that depicts the location of the native trees, shrubs and emergent plants to be installed, as well as the habitat features such as large woody debris (L WD) and snags. However, we would expect to include the following species within the created wetland and buffer areas; Douglas fir, western red cedar, sitka spruce, big leaf maple, Pacific willow, cascara, western crabapple, red osier dogwood, sitka willow, salmonberry, nootka rose, clustered rose, twinberry, Indian plum, hazelnut, black hawthorne, red elderberry, vine maple, slough sedge, small fruited bulrush, and other species. c. A complete description of the struc/ure and.functional relationships sought in /he new wetland As previously described, the new created wetland will create a larger combined Category 2 wetland by connecting Wetland A and C. This will result in a wetland that will include several hydro logic regimes including seasonally flooded and saturated areas. In addition, several types of plant communities will be present based upon hydro logic conditions. The created wetland will have a mix ofhydrologic and vegetation characteristics which will provide a greater variety of wildlife habitats and opportunities for wildlife. The placement of L WO and snags will create habitat features that do not currently exist within this area. d. A description of the author's experience in restoring or creating wetlands I have worked on hundreds of wetland mitigation projects throughout Washington State and the Pacific Northwest as well as in Ohio, New England and in Georgia since 1990. I have worked on small projects as well as large complex projects and have designed wetlands with a variety of hydrologic regimes, including numerous with slope type characteristics as presented here that have been very successful. I am very aware of the criteria needed to successfully create wetlands that replace and exceed the functions lost by the filling of the wetland they are meant to mitigate. Fieldbrook Commons/I 1-12 I Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. April In, 2012 Page 6 o/8 I am highly confident the proposed Fieldbrook Commons mitigation plan will be successful as we have described it e. An analysis of the likelihood of success and persistence based on ground water supply,jlow patterns, etc. As previously described above as well as described below, we have been monitoring the levels of groundwater within the proposed creation areas. The monitoring results within the first month of the growing season show the water table within 24" of the existing soil surface in the proposed creation area. We are aware that currently, groundwater within Wetland A seeps subsurface in a northerly direction through the upland area between Wetlands A and Cat a depth between 18"- 24". Our goal within this creation area is to maintain that same hydro logic contour within the soil profile, but to remove enough of the surface soils to bring water within 12" of the surface to create wetland hydrology conditions. 7, An analysis of impact on hydrology of the existing wetlands A and C after the additional creation of a new wetland adjacent. Would the creation of the new wetland change the categorization of the existing wetlands? In turn changing the huffer size? As previously stated, we are currently monitoring the hydrology of the area between Wetlands A and C to determine final grades of the creation area. It is probable, given the slight difference in elevation between Wetland A and C (approximately 12"), a portion of the creation area will be a "slope type" wetland. The grade between these two existing wetlands in the creation area will be determined based upon groundwater elevations we determine from our monitoring. Based upon those findings, the sloping portion of the wetland creation area will be a portion of the wetland that will have primarily saturated soils with no surface water. This will allow a slow migration of water through the soil profile from the south to the north through the creation area. This is currently occurring already in the upland area between Wetland A and C. However, it is at a depth> 12" which differentiates it from an area that would be considered wetland. A portion of the surface soils will be removed that will bring this saturated soil zone within 12" of the surface meeting wetland hydrology criteria. This should have no impact on the wetland hydrology of either Wetlands A or C. The water we will be intercepting exists within the soil profile in the proposed creation area. We will be removing soil from this area to bring this hydrology closer to the surface, and in portions on the surface of the creation area. We will also be directing clean roof water from the proposed development within the contributing basin, to the edge of the buffer in level spreaders to maintain the hydrologic patters of the site. Connecting Wetland A, a Category 2 wetland. to Wetland C, a Category 3 wetland, will result in Wetland C now being considered a Category 2 wetland. As a result a 50' standard buffer would e required on Wetland C now, and that is what we are providing as depicted on the attached plan. 8. Address review criteria of'4-3-050M6f (i-vii) for buffer averaging. i. lhat the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wetland and b~ffer; and Fieldbrook Commons// 1-12 I Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. April 10, 2012 Page 7 of8 The proposed buffer averaging in the reduced areas will be within areas that have sufficient dense. native vegetation to maintain the function of the wetlands and protect these welands, The portions of the wetlands closest to these reduced areas are not unique or have any sensitive characteristics that would make them susceptable to impact. ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland.function and values; and The proposed averaging will not impact the functions or character of these wetlands in this area, The area of the reusltion is in low impact parking areas and will generally not have heavy use such as living or recreational areas, iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the required standard b4ffer prior to averaging; and The proposed averaging will result in a reduction of 2, I 35sf of buffer, but with a subsuquent addtioon of 4, 787sfofbuffer, resulting in a net gain of 2,652sfof buffer. iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or similar approaches have been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in Rlv!C 4-9-250F are followed The proposed buffer averaging and buffer widths follow the City requirements as specified in the code, The document cited above is a document that was put together to give jurisdictions some guidance on determining standard buffer widths to include in their regulations, It does not appear an appropriate citation or document to be using in this contex as standard buffer widths have been decided and adopted as Code, v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the standard buffer or be less than twentyfivefeet (251 wide. Greater buffer width reductions require revie-w as a variance per subsection lVJ of this Section and RMC 4-9-2508; and The standard buffer on the wetlands being averaged is 50' There are two areas of buffer reduction within the averaging plan, onf that reduces the width to 28.5', and a second to 34', Both! of these areas are >50% of the standard buffer widtha nd meet this criteria. vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case- by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. Fie!dbrook Commons! l I-! 21 Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. April JO. 2012 Page 8 of8 The buffer in the areas of the reduction is densly planted with native vegetation. There is no need to enhance these buffer areas. vii. lv'otijication may be required pursuant to subsection f8 of this Section. Notification, ifrequired will be done. 9. Please included the trial in the design addressing all portions ofOTAK's report on trail impacts to the wetlands. As required by the City, we have included a trail through the wetland buffer. This trail will be a soft surface wood chip trail that passes through the middle of the buffer area between Wetlands C and B. The lfyou have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewalllwsewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan ..... RESroAA110N 1,1178FBllftRunwmoN -, 73IIEF EUFERRESTOWtTKIN -,1 8F BU'fER REDUCT10N FOR~ aTY.flEO.Jle> TIW. .... " -~~ •.. >, : .. ~::~_s...j c~~~ r-:., --= bo. "-·---· J-,.. """"" /ti L .. ~~3 / I I [o:o] ™ + + + + + + + ±________±_____ l=:=:=:=:=:=:=::3 ~ .. ~-'-"L \ ..::,;;·· 25,508 SF WETlAND CREATION 9,334 SF WETlAND F/1.L 4,781 SF BUFFER AIIER'IG/NG-ADOITK!N 4, 178 SF BUFFER AIIER'IG/NG- SU8T11AC110N 4,624 SF BUFFER RESTORATION FOR TEMPORARY IMPACTS ]' ·, ';j. ., .. : i~··' 817'•·· </ .-' B1t:····· ·> -~ '.J azi: /\j !/ ;·~--•• . ·A.17 A1i· ... j~ I 1,o1811F 9.FFER IILBTMC1l'JN 6 !ilffllF UftR RESTORATION / (~~c~_-·"'-,1_ --··= ,---:-. . 0 [ \/ a....1----J. r Note, Ba8e -providod by D.R. s._ bucd upan""""YofSowall Wdland CoomJting Wetland Delineation. JOBI 11-121 11412. 50 t/JO 1121./: B22;.·. ...... --- 150 2/JO a::: SCALE: ,. " f(J()' -.. -~ ... FIELDBROOK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, UC CONCEPT DELINEA T/ON MAP -IIY'..___.E§_ ~ --,,.,.,.. 1"1{)()' I --TS 27641 C'.ovinatui Wsy SE#2 J1Blll1IElt ~-~A::a r--·----- 1 I ~nis~ c· - ---~M:a:yo:, _____ ............ r lty O .. ~ March 30, 2012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice ._!.~~JJWJJ Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Feild brook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on January 31, 2012. During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The following information will need to be submitted before June 28, 2012 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: • The response letter received from Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. dated March 16, 2012 was provided as a response to the Independent Secondary Review. The letter addressed many items in the Secondary Review; however, additional wetland analysis is still required. Please address the remaining items in the OTAK's secondary review. • The removal of trees in a wetland will require a variance. The fee for a variance is $1,200.00 plus a 3 percent technology surcharge, resulting in a total fee of $1,236.00. Please provided both the fee and five copies of a variance justification narrative. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, vfil"lfi¥J(j vi k Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner PNW Holdings, Ray W. Lotto, William O'Neil, City of Renton/ Owner{s) Katrina Garrison/ Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 2:08 PM 'Ed Sewall' To: Cc: 'Justin Lagers' Subject: LUA 12-001 Feild brook Commons Ed, Pursuant to our phone conversation, please find below a list of items that I identified as remaining items to be addressed in your response to OTAK's secondary review, Please remember, this is my review and not a review completed by OTAK. Wetland Submittal 3/19/12 1. The Map was not drawn to a 1 to 100 scale, it appears to be drawn to a 1 to SO scale. Please provide a map drawn to scale including a "drawn" scale. 2. The buffer averaging square footage was not provided per area. 3. The new buffer distances were not provided in areas of reduced buffer. 4. A grading and clearing plan for the wetland creation shall be provided, including the total area of permanent impact and temporary impact. 5. RMC 4-8-120 D.23.i, this was not addressed. 6. Wetland Mitigation Plan shall included the following additional items: a. Sufficient area for replacement ratios b. Planting scheme for wetland recreation and buffer enhancement areas c. A complete description of the structure and functional relationships sought in the new wetland d. A description of the author's experience in restoring or creating wetlands e. An analysis of the likelihood of success and persistence based on ground water supply, flow patterns, etc. 7. An analysis of impact on hydrology of the existing wetlands A and C after the additional creation of a new wetland adjacent. Would the creation of the new wetland change the categorization of the existing wetlands? In turn changing the buffer size? 8. Address review criteria of 4-3-0SOM6.f (i-vii) for buffer averaging. 9. Please included the trial in the design addressing all portions of OTAK's report on trail impacts to the wetlands. Please let me know if you have any questions about the above list. 'Vanessa IJ)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 1 ~· Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 'I :~ ; , . , March 16, 2012 Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 27<-41 Covington WaySE#2 Covington WA 98012 RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response SWC Job#l 1-121 Dear Vanessa, L; Phone: 253-ffilJ--0515 Fax: 253-S.52-4732 I have reviewed the OTAK February 29, 2012, "Critical Areas Review of Fieldbrook Commons" letter. The following is our response to the Recommendations listed starting on Page 7 of the OT AK memo; 2.a. ( lffs1te \\etLmds: .\crnrdin;_: to the RJ'.IC (4-.,-11_011\I.,.a.i), "Ilic applirnnt shall he required to conduc/ Cl s!udr lo de/ermine !he c!C1ssi/icalion o/'thc 1,·c!la11d i/lhc subject pmper/1· or pmj!'cl mn1 is ll'ithin one hundrcdfeel of"a m:tland e\"1!11 i/"thc 1n:llc111d is not local<'d on tlw .rnhjcc/ pmpertr but it is determined that alremrions of the .111hj!'cl propcr/1· are like!,-to impucl the 1retland in questions or its Int/fer." If any portion of th,· \\'etland or huffcr is locnnl ()nsitt', the sire plans will tlLTd to be rn·iscd <1ccordingly. As requested, we investigated the off-site wetland area identified by OT AK. It appears to be a linear extension of Wetland B. We measured the distance of this wetland to the eastern property line of the site and it was 55'. As this appears to be a part of Wetland B, this would also be a Category 2 wetland with a 50' buffer. This buffer would not extend onto the site. 2.b. \\-crbnd :ind Buffer Functions: pro,·itk an :-is~cssment and compari:-;<m ot' exi~ting ,md propo~ed wetland and buffer funcrions and \·:alues u~ing 1he J,:col()g>-meth<Jd<J!ugy (htLp://w,\"\\".ccy.\Ya.J ... '/l\ /pubs/(l8{)(J009.pdt;, tu dem<mstratc that the pr()post·d mitig,nion will :1chie\T functional CL]Ui\·alency or impro\'ement nn a per functif>n basis (R,\IC 4-?J- o:=:.11\] 11.d). ProYidc a rabk that compares c:,;.isring and pn>poscd \\Ttland and buffer functions :ind \'alt.1es, such as th:it pnl\·idcd in the aboYc rncntioncd methodolog}. Fif'/dbrook Commons/J J-121 S(!wall W(!t/c.mcl Consulting, 117c. March I 6, 2012 Page 2 o/18 2.c. \Lq1~: 1:uturl· nups.. :-,t:h111it;l·1l .... hr Held h,· r'1r111tvtl ,It the ,1ppni1>r1:l!c "c:1k .tnd :ti! cr)11fr)t1r:-, ,111d 111:lj' 11rir1.·" '-.:Hi1.1ltl hl k,!..'.ihlc. Pn1\idL :q)pn1prutl· "c:ik l1;;r" (111 .111111-1;)-... Maps contain scales and notes are legible in the copies provided to the City. 2.d. \\.ctLtnd l) Bllffrr J.,ncrnachmcnt: lf tht' buffer is bl:'ing intruded upnn fnim the neighboring yard, thL· ,ipplic:1111 \\ ill rll:·i.:.·d t< i re:--;t(JtT the degraded p()rti(>t1 ()f the buffer and include new fencin,l!: t(i prL\Tl1t future 111tru;-;iun. This area will be restored by removing the fence and replanting with native trees and shrubs. 2.e. Tree Retmtion: 2.e.1. Per R.\[C ·1-/1-l .)11 tree n:m()\":-il i~ an ;1llowcd ;tcti\·in under certain circumsLmccs. I lo\\"t'Yer, pr(lhibited ,1eti\ itil:·s include tree rt'111(l\'al fr()m critic-d arc;ts, including wetbnd, and rhc·ir buffers (4-4-1311D.'>). This ch,,ptcr "f the R.\lC: e1ls" rcc1uircs a t1n· rcmoYal and land clearing plan when a land dc\cl()pnwnt ic.; c.;uhmittcd (4--1--1_101 l::2). It is impossible to fill any wetland that has trees and not remove them. Trees within the filled wetland will be removed. However, the proposed mitigation plantings replaces these trees with many more trees than will be removed. The areas of clearing within existing buffer of Wetland A for expansion of the wetland will also have trees removed. However, all of the new wetland and buffer will be planted with a dense planting of native trees and shrubs. 2.f. i\litigarinn ,\Icmn :rnd ;\litigati/ln Plan Sheets: 2.f.1. Rc\·i<...c the mitig:iti( 111 111L'mo and mitigation plan ;-,hn·ts t< l cnnuin ,111 of the Llcrnentc.; 1v1uircd hY R,\IC: 4-"\-11:ill,\[ and 4-8-1211[)2."\, and address the item, listed in Sccti"n 1.f ahn\T. The following are the sections under l .freferred to; 1.f.1. The mitigation n1L·mo ,111d asc.;ocimcd pbn sheets constitutt'"i a c<mceprual mi1igati()n pLm. 1.f.2. Thi.:.' pr()jcct proposes t< > rnitiµ_atc for the fill < >f c-:isting wetlands D, 1 ·., and l; hy n.'llHl\·ing c:--:isting high functioning \\Ttland huffrr_., 1r1 ()rdt'r t() create addirional \\Ttland. \\.ctland Buffer rc4uircmrnrs per R~!C •1-1-11.'ill\[(i_a.iii st,\tcs "All required wetland Im/fir ::ones shall he retained in their natural condition." The revised mitigation plan will not impact the buffer of Wetland B which is high functioning. Instead the new plan proposed creating wetland between Wetlands A and C and converting moderate function buffer to wetland, and then move the buffer to the edge of the newly created wetland. No loss in buffer function will occur as the same 50' buffer will be utilized on the new wetland creation area. Fie/dhrook Commons/ 11-121 Sein,ll 1'Vetland Consulting, Inc. March I 6, 20 I 2 Page 3 olf Ii 1.f.3. Tlh 111111,!..!,:11:1 lll mc!ll() Lick:-. nun> .... ·k mL·nt" ru1uirul h1. l{\!( · I -..: I _21 lD . .2.~ ,111d I\,\!( .) l-{1:,11\J. Th .... 11v1:-.1 1mp,irunr LKk1n,::, L'IL·!ll;..:111:--:irv: 1.f.3.1. ".'.ltl\l' (1n1\\\h Pr(1]L·ni(in .\rc:1:-.: RLl]UllTrncnr~ f1 lf pLKu11ctH uf wcrlands :111d huffvr:-. 11w i ,1 \.:ltl\ c ( ;n i\nh Pn ltL·cti()n .\rG1 '.'-(;[',\) (R\IC -l-1-ll'i(l]·:4 and 4-_,_ 0511\I~); a, ,,ell ,is, ,pcci11c11H>m for N(;]';\ ,ign,, fencing, maintenance, and maintenance co\TlLtnts (R.\I(: 4-J-O~Ol"A): The final mitigation plan will depict NGPA areas as well as specific locations of signs and fencing. 1.f.3.2. -\sst·ssrnent and Con1pari~on: Rc(1uircmenrs to pro\ ide ,m assessment and comparis( >11 of existing and propns(~d wetland ,1nd buffer functions and Yalucs using an appn1\·L·d rncthud()l()g~ 10 demonstrate that tht· pr()p(iscd mitigation will achine functi<,n,il Using the WADOE Wetland rating systems which is based upon 3 major recognized wetland functions, Wetland D scored a total of 33 points, indicating a Category 3 wetland which also indicates low-moderate overall functional value. Wetlands E & F scored 25 and 29 points, respectively. This indicates low function Category 4 wetlands. As seen in Table I below, a substantial functional lift will be attained from the connection of Wetlands A and C with 25,508sf of additional wetland over the existing functions of the proposed fill wetlands, Table I. Fuuct10ual Comparison o I d impact wet an s and proposed m1tl at10n Wetland Area Flood Species Water Hydrologic Habitat Storage Richness Qua!, Function Function capacity Function WetlandD 767/sf 3800cufi 5 soecies I 2ots Sots I Jots Wetland E 68sf 34cufi 2 soecies I I f)/S 4ots I Oots WetlandF I 59lsf 500cufi 5 soecies I Oots Sots I I f){S Prooosed 25508sf 7600cuft 15 species 24ots 20ots 2lpts Functional +16178sf +3266cuft +Sspecies* +12pts +12pts avg +9pts Lift av!! av!! *only 7 different species were found (excluding exotic/invasives) in Wetlands D,E &F The newly created wetland will connect to existing Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands A and C) and provide enough lift that this wetland will now be considered a Category 2 wetland under the W ADOE rating system. This is a substantial lift in function, surface water storage and species richness over the proposed low value Category 3 and 4 fill wetlands. Category 3 4 4 2 +l Cate!!orv Fieldbrook Commons/I 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 4 of/8 1.f.3.3. Pn1tcc1111_~ Bui'(l·!' i LE1ClJ(11h: ~pL·c1rlc.111rin:-t"()r l()CJ-:-i11~ .111tl d1rcct111_L: li;-.ditlll~ < n1 t :-.lt k ( )( ;111d ;\\\ ;t \-i"ri im wc:rL111d .ind hu ff'--r ,1n_·J:,-, i H. \JC. --1-.~-! 1~11 \ I (1.c.i1.h This will be noted on site plans for portions of the development abutting the wetland and buffer areas. 1.f.3.4. \linimi/.ati()n: Ru:.1uirernentf-; for 1ninirni1ing \\Ttland and buffer 1rnpact:-. 1s not addressed (R,\IC 4-8-] 2111)2,.i); 1.f.3.5. ! Jydrulogy: There is 110 inf<lrnut1011 t() detLT111lllC \\·hctht·r there \\·ill he sufficient hydrnl< l~-Y m esuhli:-;\1 and nuintain \\Ttland hydrology .. h~·dr()ph:·tic \·q!eUtion, and hydric s<iils at the pnJp<lsl:'d clc\"ati(ins \\"ithin the wetland crc,Hi()t1 area. • There ic., no n·idcnce to support the assumption thar gnnind\\·atcr cl{.'\·;1tions in the wetland creation ,l1Ta will lK· the same as in the t:-,.;_isting \\Ttlands. ln the wetland creation arc,1 ht't\\'L:cn \\ etlands _,.\ and C, rhcrc is ,111 approximate 2-f()(lt diCfrrcncc m eleYatir>n ;ind in thL \Yctland creati()n area on rhc west side of\\.erland 13 there is gcnernll~· a 4-frnit diffrrcncc, with ;is much :1:-.: ,1 ()-fi1()t difference in elcYation. Currently we are monitoring groundwater within 6 wells within the new proposed wetland creation area between wetlands A and C. Current readings indicate groundwater is at a depth from l 6"-28" below the surface. We will continue to monitor these points into April to develop an appropriate grading plan to create wetland conditions within the mitigation area. The 2' elevation difference between Wetlands A & C will be considered when we prepare a final 6>rading plan based upon groundwater elevations. Its possible that a small portion of the created wetland may have slope wetland characteristics. \ve have employed this type of grading in several wetland mitigation projects successfully. However, this will depend upon our findings of our hydrolo6,y monitoring which is currently being conducted. • There is 11( > inf( irm:tti< >Tl d·ur determines hr l\Y the C< 1nstructir >11 c if the herm pn lp< lSL'd IKt\.'•:ccn the cornhirn.·d \\.etlands .-\ and C \Yill pt-c\ cnt water in this larger, C()mbincd \\"erland from tlo\\·in~ ()Ut t() \\ t:tland B. The use of a berm in this area if used, will be constructed of a soil material that will be an impediment to water passing through the berm through the use of a barrier such as clay. • There is no inf()rnrntion to determint· that cxcay;ning <1djacent to \\'etland B (Soos Creek headwaters; \Yill not lurm ;rnd/or alter the existing wcthnd and strean1 hydr()l()gy and \·egL·Ut1<ll1. No impacts or excavation in the area of Wetland Bare proposed at this time. Fieldhrook Commons/} 1-1.? I Snra/1 f-Vetland Consulting, Inc. March I 6, 20 I 2 Page 5 off II 1.f.3.6. IJn 1p< 1~l d ( ;u:--~l :--: Tl1l :--pl·c!llt·d pL11111n!.2_· { i1· .~Lt~~ :'L'l'ds 111 ;11l d1:--1 url,Ld p( 1rtJ1 \Ii" ( 1f tl1L· hu((cr ,o,:1ti crL·,11nl \\ L'tLrnd. (;r;ts:-, h,1:--lll'ul :,;h()\\ n l( 1 c1 ll11]'l'tl· \\-ith ,rnd inhihit ,L::n >\\ th Pl-111:--.ulkd \\ (J()dy plants, and tall gra:-.:-. can h1Lk msullcd plants making thL·m l11Dff difficult tr> l()cuc during moninirin,~ \·isits, and incrL·asL· the likelihood of damage during maintenance actiYitiL'S. Grass see will be eliminated from the planting plan. Use of chips or mulch will be utilized instead. 2.f.6. TrJib: the proposed trails in the mitig:ition \\Ttland huffers mu;-,t C<Jnform \\·ith R.\JC 4-?,-ri.=;(J(:-:'.a.i(2)., and the <1pplicant must dcrno11stratt· that the C<>nstrucrion :1nd use ()fthe prop():-.cd tr,lils \\·ill nnt degrade \\·etland ()f buffer functiuns ,1nd \ alucs. The trail was a requested by the City. It has been removed from the plan so there will be no trail impacts. 2.f.7. (~rading Plans: pro\ ide ckaring/grading plans in the \"\Ttland rnitig,1ti()n <1n:a that (km()nqr:1tc:--the prop()sn.l clcning/grading in the buffers is the mini1num ncct·ssar: for the project (R\ IC: --l-8-12(1])"7). The plan has been revised to eliminate any connection to Wetland B. The plan will connect Wetlands A and C through the minimum grading required for the required wetland creation area. This will be based upon the results of our hydrology monitoring which started March 12, 2012. When we have sufficient early growing season hydrology data the grading plans for the mitigation area will be prepared. We anticipate that to be near the end of April-middle of May. 2.f.8. Stf>rm P( ind: Proyidc detailed plans regarding the storm water p( md. lnf()nnation tbJt specifically needs tll he includL'd: • propor.,cd outlet location and flo\Y rate; • r.,pccitlc1tions regarding cml-rgcnc:· 01·L,,-tl( >\1· • inf<Jnn,1tir>n regarding h<J\\-tht' adjacent \\"ctlands and buffers \\"ill be protected from p()Lcnttal irnpacLs rq.~:trding thl'. outlet loc1tiun(s); and • proYidc ,1 planting plan for rlw :--.torm \1·atcr pond. The target C< >mm unity sh<Juld lw :--imihr to the existing ,·cgctation onsitc. The storm pond has been eliminated from the project and a buried vault will be utilized outside the wetland and associated buffers. 2.f.9. Pern1its: Pro\·idc documentation regarding the rn.1uircd pcrmirs from Stall' ,1nd Federal agcncic~ including Ecology, US,\CF, and \\'1)1·'\'C Fie!dhrook Commons// 1-12 I Setralf /.t'etland Consulting, Inc. lvfardt I 6. 20 I 2 Page 6 o/18 When the City accepts the Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we can then prepare a Final Detailed Plan which would be suitable for submittal for a Nationwide Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as to W ADOE for 410 Water quality Certification. It is premature to submit for these permits at this time as the required documents (Final mitigation plan and reports) have not been prepared. 2.f.10. I Jll1g Tcrn1 .\ll>nit( iring: Pn i\ itk Cor ten :Tars 1 >f !11( )J1m1ring and rnamtcnance (Jf the mirigati()n area, including the entire wetland n1itigation huffcr. • To he CCJnsistcnt \\-ith guid,mce fn )111 the l"S -\CE and 1-.colog:·, StTti()n .) 1\lr>nin iring Program should specit\ that Year 1 Yegetation m()nitnring will ()ccur in the at the end ()f gn)\\·ing season after the plants haYe been insralkd f()r at kasr ()tlt' calendar yc1r. • At a minirnun1, monitnring sh< >uld occur in Y cars J, ~' _), 4, -~, 7, and 1 ( l. • Include specificati()ns for Jl1()flitoring hydrology in the wcthnd crearirn1 area from ,\l;irch thrnugh ;\fa} 1Tl piczomvrcrs per gu1d,1nce from l S.-\( :F (l 1 ttp: / / c I .enlc. u:-:.,1ci.:' .arm~ . mi I/ el p ul)S / p< l f/ trl\\ Tal ii I( 1-.:::. pd f ; . City of Renton Code requires monitoring and bonding of a wetland mitigation project for five years. Although it is likely that the Corps and W ADOE may require IO years of monitoring, the plan to be submitted to the City will meet the City Code of 5 years of monitoring. Hydrology monitoring of the creation area will be a component. 2.g. Buffers: 2.g.1. Cit:· codt· ft'(.JUirc:,; impacts to critical <treas and their buffers he 'J\"()ided, minimi1uL rcstnrcd or C(lm1xns,1rcd (R:\IC 4-J-05(J_\l8). Because a\"()iding all impJcts d(JL"S not ctppcar p(issibk, these imp;icts (pcrnuncnt and tu11pnr;iry) must he l\'11J\'ll\'11ZED. I >..:tcnsiYc propo:sed gr,1ding in the L·xisting huffr-rs doc:-not minimize impacr t() rhese critical art'as. In ()rdcr to minimize impacts: • D( > 11( ll rt'l11( )\ e l ht' exist in,!:.!.· functi< ma] wetland buffer in ( lrder t( l creat L' ne\\ werlancl: • Retaining wall:,; should be u:-:.nl ,1dj,Kcnt to propu:-:.cd trail:,;, the storm water pond, and an\· ()thcr arc1 where c:--.tcnsiYc gmding \\·ould othcn;1;:isc impact the huffcr; and • Buffer slopes should not he any :..tccpcr than they arc under cxi:-:.ting condition:-:.. In order to minimize impacts to the wetlands and buffers, the formerly proposed storm pond has been removed and replaced with a much more expensive vault outside the wetland and buffers. The trail has also been removed from the wetland and buffers. The previous mitigation proposed in the high functioning, conifer dominated buffer of Wetland B has been removed from the plan. Now all the mitigation/wetland creation is to occur between Wetlands A and C. Both of these wetlands are isolated and not associated with the larger Wetland B. Fieldhrook Commons/ J 1-121 Se1va1! Wetland Cons11l!ing, Inc. March I 6, 20 I 2 Page 7 of/R The proposed area for the creation is deciduous forest comprised of scattered big leaf maple, a single cottonwood, and understory of vine maple, elderberry, blackberry and Indian plum. This area has had past disturbance from mining and contains existing disturbed areas as well as some trash and debris. Portions also include a large man-made berm that is comprised of peat and coal tailings. Preliminary hydrology monitoring reveals groundwater at depths between 16" -28" of the surface within the proposed creation area. Soils in this area are gravelly loams on the surface with tighter clay soils beneath. Wetland creation in these types of soils is typically very successful. The proposed work in the buffers of these wetland to create over 25,000sf of additional wetland area will not remove pristine buffer. Additionally, the newly created wetland edge will then have a 50' buffer of existing forest to protect the resource. Any buffer area disturbed during the creation of the mitigation project will be restored with native tree and shrub species. All the large trees removed from the buffer and the grading of the wetland creation area will be utilized as habitat features (snags and large woody debris) within the wetland and buffer mitigation area. 2.g.2. At ,1 minimum, :di di:-;rurhcd and in\'asi\·e-don1inated buffer additirn1s. as \\·ell :ts the areas designated as '"lu{(/lT res/oralionfor lemporcfl~,· impacls" h:n-t to ha,-c an t·nhanccn1cnt pbn th,it 1ncludcs '.at a minimum): inyasiye remoya]; insrallati()n ()f ,1ppr()pri;1tc natiYc trees and shruhs; PL'ff()rmancc sLlnLhrds (less than 1 tJl\, in\"JSi\T C<l\Tr, ,tt lc:lst 0(f1'" sun·iya] for the tlrst 2 years, rcasnn;ihk-'1 1> dcsir;ihlc wo<)d~· cnn'r, n.:aS()!Uhlc di\"i:.:Tsir: of\\.O(>dy specie:-.); and monit()nng, 1ru111tc11ance, and C(>ntingency plan~. All disturbed areas and the entire mitigation area will meet this goal. If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewal1!11sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Attached: Revised Existing Conditions Map Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan Fieldhrook Commons/11-121 Sei1-·a/l rYet/and Consulting, Im:. !>larch lo, 2012 Page 8 0011 1.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PROJECT OVERVIEW To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetlands, it is proposed to create 25,SOSsf of wetland between Wetlands A and C 2.0 MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 2.1 Mitigation Concept The mitigation proposal is to connect Wetlands A and C with an area of 25,SOSsf of wetland. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland. 2.2 Mitigation Goals 2.2.1 Create 25,SOSsf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 3.1 Pre-construction meeting 3.2 Construction staking 3.3 Construction fencing and erosion control 3.4 Clearing and grading 3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 3.6 Plant material installation 3.7 Construction inspection 3.8 Agency approval 3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 3.10 Silt fence removal 3.11 Project completion 3.1 Pre-construction Meeting A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of construction, to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved Fieldhrook Commons/11-121 Seit'a/1 ff'ctland Consulting, Inc. March 16. 2012 Puge 9 ol/8 understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 3.2 Construction Staking The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and mulch placement are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas. 3.4 Clearing & Grading Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the approved Final Mitigation Plans. 3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with mulch upon completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas. 3.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will mulch areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 3.7 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the County's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. Fieldhrook Commons/] 1-121 5Jewall rretlancl Consulting, inc. March 16. 2012 Page IO of 18 Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing to the Owner. 3.8 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the County biologist should prepare a letter granting approval of the installation. 3.9 Monitoring The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation project. 3.10 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at least one year, and/ or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. The County's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in place for a longer duration. 4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 4.1 Site Preparation & Grading 4.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 4. 1 .2 The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 4.1.3The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all blackberry varieties onsite. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. 4.1.4 The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to grade with 8" of topsoil. The biologist will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting. 4.2 Plant Materials Fie!dhmok Commons// 1-121 Sewall iYetland Consulting, inc. March 16. 2012 Page 11 o///1, 4.2.lAll plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60.l "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 4.2.3 All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and burlapped. Bare root plantings will be subject to approval. 4.2.4 All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 4.2.SSubstitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 4.2.6AII plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 4.2.7The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 4.3 Plant Installation 4.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. Fieldbrook Commons!/ I-/ 2 I Sea·all YVetland Consulling, Inc. Morch 16, 20 I 2 Page 12 of'/8 4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 4.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install "Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed in the mitigation area. 4.3.5All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. 4.3.6All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty 4.4.1 A fall-winter installation schedule (October 1st -March 15th) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th -Oct. 1st ) a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. 4.4.2All disturbed areas will be mulched or seeded with native mixes as specified on the plans, as soon as the mitigation area grading is complete. The seed must be germinated and a grass cover established by October 1st. If the cover is not adequately established by October 1st, exposed soils will be covered with approved erosion control material and the contractor will notify the Owner in writing of alternative soil stabilization method used. Fieldhrovk Commons/11-121 5J'ewal/ Wetland Consulting, inc. March 16. 2012 Page 13 of'/ 8 4.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after fina 1 acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications. 4.5 Site Conditions 4.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling. 4.5.2Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 4.5.3Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences. 4.5.4 After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be seeded or mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 4.5.5Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the mitigation area. 4.5.6 All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details. Soils from planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area. 5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 5.1 Maintenance Work Scope 5.1.1 To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: Fie/dbrook Cummuns!/1-121 Sewall J+'etla11d Consulting, inc. March 16, 2012 Page /4ofll! a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 5.l.2Work to be included in each site visit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. c. Repair silt and/ or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 5.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and treating the remaining cut stems only with a glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed). b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 5.2 Maintenance Schedule The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 5.3 Watering Requirements 5.3.1 If plantings are installed within the dormant period throughout the winter months (October through March 15th ), watering is not required. However, watering will be encouraged if plants mortality rises due to dry conditions. J<·ieldhrook Commom/11 ~121 Seirall ft'etland ('onsulting. Inc. March 16, 2012 Page 15of/8 5.3.2lf plantings are installed during the summer months (March through October 1st ), a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on- site conditions. 5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Monitoring Program Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the County Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. 6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM 6.1 Sampling Methodology The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per year over a five-year period, as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after the plant installation has been completed. Typically, the first monitoring visit occurs one year after the installation sign-off. 6.1.1 Hydrology Wetland hydrology will be monitored using four (4) combination staff/crest gauges located within the restoration area to be placed at the time of the installation sign-off by the biologist. Surface water level or ground water saturation depths will be measured at these stations to determine if wetland hydrology has been successfully attained. As is noted in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), wetland hydrology is defined as inundation or soil saturation (usually within 12" of the surface) during the growing season. The growing season for this area is generally defined as the period between the middle of March and the middle of November. However, plant growth often occurs earlier in the year and sound professional judgment will be needed to determine when the growing season is taking place at the site. Fieldhrook Commons/ I 1-12 l Snra/1 Wetland Consult;ng. inc. March 16. 2012 Page I 6 of'] 8 Wetland hydrology will be considered successfully created if wetland hydrology is observed inundating or saturating the soil within 12 inches of the surface during the growing season. Readings will be made early in the growing season (@ March 15) to determine if wetland hydrology is present. 6.1.2 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation, as well as coverage estimates. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. All plants will be inspected and recorded as to whether they area alive or dead based upon the "as-built" in Years 1 & 2. In Years 3-5, coverage estimates will be used to determine success of the vegetation component. Two (2) transects will be established across the mitigation site within each plant community for a total of 6 transects. Within the emergent plant community coverage of vegetation will be measured with 0.25m rectangular plots. Estimates of coverage percentages will be made within these plots. A total of 10 sample points within the herbaceous/emergent plant community will be randomly located during the installation sign off. At each of these points four samples, one in each quadrant will be taken. Within the scrub-shrub and forested plant communities 1/100 acre, circular plots will be used. A total of 10 randomly located plots along each transect will be recorded. Within each plot coverage estimates for both emergent and woody species will be recorded. Photographs of the mitigation area will be taken from 6 photo points to be located during the installation sign off. Photographs will be taken at each of the monitoring and included with the monitoring report for each year from these points. 6.2 ST AND ARDS OF SUCCESS I.a Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 100% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of year 1. Fii!ldhrook Commons// 1-121 SeH·ull lt'etland Consulting. Inc. March I 6. 20 I 2 Pai;e 17 of I Ii l.b Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 90% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of years 2. 1.c Years 3&5-Achieve at least 60% cover of woody species in shrub and forested plant communities by Years 3&4 and 50% cover of emergent species. 1.d Not more than 10%cover of non-native invasive species within mitigation area after year 10. 2. The wetland mitigation project will create 25,508sf of wetland meeting at least the vegetation and hydrology criteria for a wetland as described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). 3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. 7.2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the County approval. Such plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. 7.3 Contingency/ maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to: -Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. -Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. -Irrigating the stream area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. Fieldhrook Commons/1 /-J 2 J SeH·al/ Wetland Consulting, inc. Afarch 16, 2012 Page 18 o/18 -Reseeding stream and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary if erosion/ sedimentation occurs. -Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary. I t A..J-!t:_ -.,,..,dfa ,, -(I'; .. --------... lP~~fillll@;]l () Planning Division REVISED Date_ G/;9/rL Nore: Bue map provided by D.R Strong based upon survey of Sewall Wetland Consulting Wetland Delineation FILDBROOK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, LLC WETLAND DELINEATION MAP _,.. .. - JOBI 11-121 a47E: ..... .,., LWAIMIIB>': ES SCALE: 1"=100' 1i1EHSm MARCH 2012 OESIGIER:_TS'-"---- lv,Jie J J •:::::::::::::::::::: .•:-:.:.: ·=-=-= <·=-1 ......... ~:::::::::::::: . . . . . . . .. . ·.·.·.·.·.· - - • ~ .... , .. E L -J::. -e . ...... I _,_ ---. )i/{?~ .. ·.·.--' I I -~~:~-:-·~ / "'~\::;.. -· -~~ .... -------......... :a:;:;:;:;:::::;:::;:;::: ;:;:::/i.-l,:. ............... . <·:. :-:-:-:.:.:.:.:. :.:• :-: -:-: ' j:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:-:-:-:-: :•:•:•:•~ir'."'8R:•:•:•:•:• •, ~<.~ r--·.r--: :: : : : :=~'!¥:::=::::: :: :: ~~1~t~~t~/ J--.' ._ - • r , .J, r- i -:/:::}}}}:/:) . ......... -----. ,,,.-----......._ ~-·· / . -~~;, -···· ··~--'"S · 0V, , . \.,_ , "'""'-'•W,'cc·, ,< V', )IJ, \"'" ,<(l(lno:t, .... ,'a,,'-''ri'°r'•''(•C:D, ~ )'2.,09-'"'~"',:,,·-,.._::,,.,,",'0 <-"-c':s ..,.,r t.Jv --·,:,., :)i), .. .,-H, .. ,,,_. .. y r'l;::_;,), / / \ >°('.\;,,~i,.:'0<-.q_!) (,(1(•~),: \". ¢. """", -~0~:o'" o\n) '•.• ;:,:--, ' ~ . ;1 • [o _:0 _:._q 25,430SF WETZANDCREAT/ON ™ 9303SFWETlANDFILL + + + ± + + + + ±__± ~------ci ---------------------------- mmm 4,787 SF BUFFER A VERAG/NG • ADDff/ON 2, 134 SF BUFFER AVERAGING· SUBTRACTION 4,688 SF BUFFER RESTORATION FOR TEMPORARY IMPACTS / ~?(';c;,0·0;>.C:;i;;:.~. O (J :,:.S:t;.,-,o'Oel -~-.,.,:;.,A -s· .Onv .. _. •.•. ·. ·,, r,,._,";:.~"7j"7""_) q ".:.: "•"/;\)\) (:_ ::--;,., ~v..-"7/:((t ","1~'>-,1,. • ·•••••• • ,o .)~.;:-~7""1'C'7f'l \ '-~)~y::.~L~-:-:--:-:~i:,1::,':n)2 \ 000~ I 1 / ~-:;0~,:.,~.;.;.;..;., \'"').'<·'." ,;;o;.ec, v~c:-::; ::::: ::::: :.: ;;~:i·o.0·0:.:::0/ . S .· .. ·.· .. ·.·. )0 ~,,....,r-~,., '1 'l)~O •,•,•. •,•,•.•.g'v/.-'~~A'l), '0_;\,'V'_...i:. · A J · -,::;;-'-i*i:.::,n.:><l•. ?>.· ..... , ~~~ i' }i#.~[i8 e:::,r0.0>5J·· ':' I C • p :-,, /JP:ffi{ --1' -----~ • ., . .... •. · ... ·.·.· .. ·.· .. ·.·. ~ I -. ~ ',cc_ . ·-,-·/:/:'/:\· ..l,. -.. ./ .,:.·.·.·,·l-1'..:\-----~~~~-- AIM. \ 11111 ) -r--' -, I --I I I I I . c, .LJ/ I ()' \ rot_ .'."·C·C·C·C·CcCcCcCc'c'c\}\? ' --· ----{······.····.· ...... ··· .. ~ -----::::::-:-:-:·.·.·.· ... . ' I --.v- :r -I k---... ~~ ~--·- Note: Base map provided by D.R Strong based upon survey of Sewall Wetland Consulting Wedand Delineation FILDBROOK COMMONS PNW HOLDINGS, LLC CONCEPT DELINEATION MAP JOBI 11-121 ai41Wm'.: ES ~ D47E' ... SCALE: 1"=100' CSIGN:R TS MAfi 1 ~1 llnlll WcdllldOwi~ Im:. Booll,pwl ...... 27641 Covington Way SE#2 C'Ai ........ WA 98042 253-859-0515 Fax 253-852-4732 - March 1, 2012 Justin Lagers . PNW Holdings, LLC 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch,Administrator Feildbrook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on January 31, 2012. During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The following information will need to be submitted before May 23, 2012 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: • An Independent Secondary Review of the provided critical areas reports has been completed by OTAK. This review indicated that many sections of Renton Municipal Code as well as State and Federal requirements were not addressed in the provided studies and mitigation and monitoring plan. As such, the applicant shall update or provide new information as identified in the enclosed Technical Memorandum prepared by OTAK, dated February 29, 2012. Once completed, the additional information may impact many plan sets. Any submitted items that require changes shall be re-submitted to the City including the identified number of copies in the submittal checklist and a small format (8.5 x 11) of the large plan sets. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, vAf fU/)!)0-fJdk Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure cc: PNW Holdings, Ray W. Lotto, William O'Neil, City of Renton/ Owner(s) Katrina Garrison/ Party{ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov City of Renton Planning Division FEB 2 9 2012 Technical Memorandum 10230 NE Poinl.r Drive Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone (425) 8224446 Fax (425) 827-9577 To: From: Copies: Date: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Stephanie Smith, Wetland Biologist February 29, 2012 Subject: Critical Areas Review of Fieldbrook Commons Project Documents Project No.: 31989B As requested by the City of Renton (City), Otak biologists conducted a site visit and reviewed documents provided by the City related to the proposed Fieldbrook Commons project for compliance >with City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinances. The project proposes to construct a 161 unit Planned Use Development (PUD) v,,-ith associated improvements on an approximately 10.7 acre site, located in Renton (City of Renton LUA12-001). The west side of the project site is bounded by Benson Road South (also called 108"' Avenue SE) and the south side is bounded by Cedar Avenue S (also called SE 172"' Street). A vicinity map is located at the end of this document. Introduction A wetland delineation was conducted in April 2011 by the applicant's biologist that identified a total of six wetlands on the project site, which include: three Category II wetlands (Wetlands 1\, B, and D) and three Category Ill wetlands (Wetlands C, E, and F). The project site consists of three parcels (2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023). Two of the parcels create a long, narrow corridor east to west and the third parcel extends to the south to make the project site somewhat 'T" shaped. The smallest parcel (2923059168), in the northwest corner of the project area, previously had a fire station on the property. The building has since been demolished, leaving the property vacant but for paved parking areas, gravel, and overgrown landscaping. The other two parcels that make up the project area are forested with some evidence of past use, including dilapidated buildings and adjacent mine tailings. The project proposes to fill three wetlands (approximately 9,334 square feet) and provide compensatory mitigation onsite by creating approximately 25,508 square feet of wetland habitat .. The proposed wetland mitigation area is located within the buffers of the existing wetlands on site that are not proposed to be filled. This memorandum outlines general background information, the results of the site visit, findings of the review, and recommendations. J..:: \pniject\31900\3 t 989B\Repom \Ficldbrook RD·iev.·.doo: /2-0J r Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 2 Review ofFieldbrook Commons Project Domments Fehmary 29, 2012 Documents Reviewed • Critical Areas Report (dated November 8, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Includes the • • • • • • Wetland Delineation Report and the l\.1itigation Memo; Supplemental Stream Study (dated December 14, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; Habitat Study (dated December 14, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; Sheet Pl.1 f'icl<lbrook Commons Preliminary Site Plan (dated December 29, 2011) by Riebe & Associates, Inc. Architecture and Planning (site plan); Fieldbrook Commons Wetland Delineation Map (<lated December 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. (wetland map); Fieldbrook Commons Concept Delineation Map (dated December 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. (wetland mitigation map); and Boundary and Topographic Survey for Fieldbrook (dated December 27, 2011) by Concept Engineering, Inc. Background Information Sources • • • City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) accessed from: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/ (Referred to in this memorandum as RMq The following maps were accessed from the City's website: http://rentonwa.gov/ government/ default.aspx?id=29885 (Referred to in this memorandum as City CAO maps) • City of Renton Aquifer Protection Map City of Renton Coal l\.1ine Hazard Map • City of Renton Erosion Hazard Map City of Renton Flood Hazard Map • City of Renton Landslide Hazard Map City of Renton Steep Slopes Map King County iMAP accessed from: htij?://www.kingi;ounty.gov/ operations/gis/Maps/iMAP.aspx (Referred to in this memorandum as King County iMAP). Background Information According to City CAO maps and King County i.MAP, the following are mapped on the site: • A portion of one Category II wetland (Wetland B); • Coal l\.1ine Hazard area; and • Steep slopes (may be just off site) . General Site Assessment Comments Otak biologists, Suzanne Anderson and Stephanie Smith, conducted a site visit on February 8, 2012 to assess general site and buffer conditions and to verify the delineated boundaries and ratings of K: \project \3 l 900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook ReYicw.doo: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 3 Revie1v of~zddbrook Commons Project Domments Febmary 29, 2012 Wetlands A through F. The western and southern portions of the project area arc generally flat, while the eastern section of the project area slopes down to the cast. Just southeast of the project site there is a large hill with steep slopes that is a result of past mining activities, some of which may have taken place on the project site. The site is predominately forested, dominated by deciduous species including mature black cottonwoods (Populus ba!samifera spp. trichocarpa), red alder (A/nus rubra), Oregon ash (Fraxinus !atifo!ia), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophy!lum), Western red cedar (Thuja p!icata), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesiz). Dominant understory species onsite include Indian plum (Oemleria cerasifarmis), beaked hazelnut (Cory/us conzuta), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), salmonberry (RI,htts spectabi!is), red-osier dogwood (Comus scricea), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifalia), and sword fern (Po/ysticbum m11nitum). There are some areas of the site \VJ.th infestations of non-native invasive species, particularly Himalayan blackberry (&,bus armeniacus), holly (Ilex aquifoli11m), and yellow arch-angel (Lamiastrum galeobdo!on). All of these infestations are near the project site edges, outside of the wetlands and mostly located outside of the buffer areas. I. Findings I .a. Verification of Wetland Boundaries and Ratings I .a. I. We concur with the wetland delineation report that Wetlands A, B, and D arc all rated as Category II (RMC 4.3-0SOMl.a.ii), with SO-foot buffers (RMC 4-3-050M6.c), and Wetlands C, E, and P arc all rated as Category III (RMC 4.3-0SOMl.a.ii), "'~th 25-foot buffers. l.a.2. \Ve concur with the locations of the wetland boundary flags of Wetlands A through F. l .a.3. During Otak's site visit a wetland was observed on the east side of the parcel that extends to the south (parcel 2923059023). It is likely that this wetland is a result of past mining activities as it is a long, linear feature adjacent to a very tall and steep-sided hill (tailings). The wetland was not mentioned in the wetland delineation report, nor has it been assessed for its rating and required buffer width. The eastern portion of this wetland may be connected to Wetland B. I .b. Critical Areas Report l .b. I. While each wetland was categorized in the report, the author does not state which criteria is being met for the wetland to receive this category. The entire City category definition is pasted into the report without justification. l .b.2. The function assessment of existing wetland and buffer functions and values is not supported by a recognized function assessment tool e.g. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (http:!I\V\V\V.ecy.wa.gov /pubs /0806009.pd!). K:\project\31900\31989B\Repom \Fieldbrook R~Yic•w.doc:,. Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 4 Revie1v o(Fie!dbrook Commons Project Documents Fehmary 29, 2012 I .c. Maps I .c. I. The topographic contours and many site descriptions are not legible on the wetland delineation or wetland concept maps and scale bars are not provided on all maps. I .c.2. Maps indicate that there is a Coal Mine Hazard Line at the south end of the southern parcel (parcel #2923059023). City critical areas maps indicate that the Coal Mine Hazard risk is unknown. I .c.3. There are slight discrepancies between the Concept Delineation Map and the Preliminaty Site Plan Map. these discrepancies include: • The buffer to be created on the west side of Wetland B (the northwestern lobe) is smaller on the Preliminary Site Plan Map. • It is difficult to interpret whether there are differences between the design of the storm pond on the Delineation Concept and Preliminary Site Plan Maps. I .d. Encroachment in Existing Wetland B Buffer I .d.1. ,-\ccording to site conditions and the wetland delineation map, the north/ central section of the existing buffer for Wetland B appears to include an intrusion from a portion of the neighbor's back yard. If the buffer is being intruded upon from the neighboring yard, the applicant will need to restore the degraded portion of the buffer and include new fencing to prevent future intrusion. 1.e. Tree Retention 1.e.1. The proposed project does not address the requirements of tree retention as outlined in RMC 4-4-130. I .f. Mitigation Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets I .f. I. The mitigation memo and associated plan sheets constirutes a conceprual mitigation plan. I .f.2. The project proposes to mitigate for the fill of existing wetlands D, E, and F by removing existing high functioning wetland buffers in order to create additional wetland. Wetland Buffer requirements per RMC 4-3-050M6.a.iii states "Ali required 1vet!and buffer '!{!mes shall he retained in their nafttral condition." l.f.3. The mitigation memo lacks many elements required by RMC 4-8-120D.23 and RMC 4- 3-0SOM. The most important lacking elements are: I .f.3.1. Native Growth Protection Areas: Requirements for placement of wetlands and buffers into a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) (RMC 4-3-050E4 and 4-3- 0SOM7); as well as, specifications for NGPA signs, fencing, maintenance, and maintenance covenants (RMC 4-3-0SOE4); I .f.3.2. Assessment and Comparison: Requirements to provide an assessment and K:\project\31900\3 I 989B\Repo.rts \Fieldbrook ReYiew.docx Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 5 Review of fie!dbrook Commons Project Documents I'ebmary 29, 2012 comparison of existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values using an approved methodology, e.g. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (htt;p://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0806009.pdf), to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis (RMC 4-3-0SOMl 1.d). I .f.3.3. Protecting Buffer Functions: Specifications for locating and directing lighting outside of and away from wetland and buffer areas (RMC 4-3-05011-16.c.ii.b). 1.f.3.4. Minimization: Requirements for minimizing wetland and buffer impacts is not addressed (RMC 4-8-120D23.i); I .f.3.5. Hydrology There is no information to determine whether there will be sufficient hydrology to establish and maintain wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils at the proposed elevations within the wetland creation area. • There is no evidence to support the assumption that groundwater elevations in the wetland creation area will be the same as in the existing wetlands. In the wetland creation area between Wetlands A and C, there is an approximate 2-foot difference in elevation and in the wetland creation area on the west side of Wetland B there is generally a 4-foot difference, with as much as a 6-foot difference in elevation. • There is no information that determines how the construction of the berm proposed between the combined Wetlands A and C will prevent water in this larger, combined wetland from flowing out to Wetland B. • There is no information to determine that excavating adjacent to Wetland B (Soos Creek headwaters) will not harm and/or alter the existing wetland and stream hydrology and vegetation. I .f.3.6. Proposed Grasses: The specified planting of grass seeds in all disturbed portions of the buffer and created wetland. Grass has been shown to compete with and inhibit growth of installed woody plants, and tall grass can hide installed plants making them more difficult to locate during monitoring visits, and increase the likelihood of damage during maintenance activities. I .f.3.7. Performance Standards: adequate performance standards are not addressed and should be included to meet Rl\-fC 4-8-120D23 and those included in the Reconunendations section below. I .f.3.8. Trails: The proposed trail will require significant grading adjacent to created wetlands, therefore the new buffers adjacent to trail (west of wetland B and east of wetlands A and C) will be very steep and will not provide the same functions as the current buffers (even once the forest grows back). • The trail is located through the center of the restored (proposed) buffer between Wetlands A and C and Wetland B. Trails are permitted in critical area buffers when they are located in the outer 25-percent of the buffer (RMC 4-3- 0SOC7.a.i(2)). K: \project \31900 \31989B \Reports \Ficldbrook ReYiew .docx Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 6 Review o(Fieldbrook Commons Pro;ect Documents February 29, 2012 I .f.3.9. Grading: The proposed extent of clearing/ grading in the wetland mitigation buffer area is not shown on the plans, and the mitigation 1ne1no does not demonstrate that the proposed clearing/ grading in the buffers is tl1e mininmm necessary for the project (RJ\fC 4-8-120D.7 Definitions). I .f.3.10. Storm Pond: The mitigation memo and plan sheets lack sufficient information to determine whether the stormwater pond proposed in the wetland buffer is an exempt acti,~ty pursuant to RMC 4-3-0SOC7.a.ii and meets the Wetland Protection Guidelines of the City's Surface Water Design Manual. Specific information that is lacking or cannot be confirmed because of the quality of drawings includes: • The outside of the stormwater pond berms cannot be counted as buffer. The berms have to be counted as impact or not count as addition. • It is unclear if there is an outlet from the pond and if so, where the water outlets to. • It is assumed that the plans suggest grading into the existing buffer in order to construct the berm around the stormwater pond. Grading information and proposed slopes are not included on the dra\\~ngs. l.f.3.11. Required Permits: No documentation is provided that Ecology and the CS Army Corps ofEogineers (CSACE) will permit the filling of Wetlands D, E, or F. The USA CE will have to decide whether these wetlands are jurisdictional. • Excavating adjacent to Wetland Bis likely to require a USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP), and may also require a Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA) from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDF\v} • If the Corps also finds that either Wetlands A or Care jurisdictional, a USACE NW'P may also be required for these actions. I .f.3.12. Long Term Monitoring: The mitigation memo specifics five years of monitoring and maintenance which is sufficient per RMC. However, the possible requirement for State (Ecology or \li?DF\v) or Federal (CSACE) permits may require additional years of monitoring. Joint Guidance from Ecology, USA CE, and the CS En~ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends monitoring and maintaining mitigation areas v.rith forested communities for a minimum of ten years (btt;p://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0606011 a.html). I .f.3.13. Final Delineation: The mitigation memo does not include provisions for delineating the created wetland area at the end of the monitoring period to verify whether the reguired compensation is achieved. I .g. Buffer Averaging I .g. I. The mitigation memo does not specify how the areas of buffer addition and the remaining-reduced buffer portions will provide full functions, and how they will achieve no net loss of functions by buffer averaging (RMC 4-3-0SOM6.e and f.). 1.g.2. The southern portion of the created wetland, adjacent to Wetland B appears to come K: \project\31900\31989B\Reports \Fieldbrook Rn·jev,.docx Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 7 Review ofFieldhrook Commons Project Documents February 29, 2012 too close to the property line. \Vetland creation cannot impose buffers on adjoining properties. I .g.3. Areas that are proposed for buffer addition must provide like-functions to buffer that is being destroyed. The follo<w~ng buffer addition areas will need to be included in a restoration plan: • Any buffer that will be added as proposed will either be disturbed by construction or installation of the mitigation plan • The buffer addition area near the SE corner of the project area (where the proposed trail ends) primarily consists of a fill plateau (from past mining activities) and is heavily dominated by Himalayan blackberry. • Proposed buffer addition on the northwest side of Wetland B. Currently this section contains a few trees, but is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and includes an intrusion from a neighboring yard. Additionally, the narrow rectangular portion (shown on Delineation Concept Map) of the addition (furthest west) will not provide adequate buffer functions as it will be sandwiched between neighboring fences and the proposed parking lot. 2. Recommendations 2.a. Offsite Wetlands: According to the RMC (4-3-050M3.a.i), "The applicant shall be req11ired to conduct a study to determine the das.rification of the wetland if the subject property or project area is within one hundred feet of a !Pelland even if the wetland is not located on the subject property hut it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the wetland in qmstions or its buffer." If any portion of the wetland or buffer is located onsitc, the site plans "ill need to be revised accordingly. 2.b. Wetland and Buffer Functions: provide an assessment and comparison of existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values using the Ecology methodology (htt;p://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0806009.pdf) to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis (RMC 4-3- 0SOMl 1.d). Provide a table that compares existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values, such as that provided in the above mentioned methodology. 2.c. Maps: Future maps submitted should be printed at the appropriate scale and all contours and map notes should be legible. Provide appropriate scale bars on all maps. 2.d. Wetland B Buffer Encroachment: If the buffer is being intruded upon from the neighboring yard, the applicant will need to restore the degraded portion of the buffer and include new fencing to prevent future intrusion. 2.e. T rec Retention: 2.e. I. Per Riv!C 4-4-130 tree removal is an allowed activity under certain circumstances. K:\project\3 l 900\31989B\llepom \Fieldbrook Rcyic\\·.docx Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 8 Review ofFieldhrook Commons Project Domments I'ebmary 29, 2012 However, prohibited activities include tree removal from critical areas, including wetlands and their buffers ( 4-4-130D3). This chapter of the RMC also requires a tree removal and land clearing plan when a land development is submitted (4-4-130H2). 2.f. Mitigation Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets: 2.f.1. Revise the mitigation memo and mitigation plan sheets to contain all of the elements required by RMC 4-3-0SOM and 4-8-120D23, and address the items listed in Section I .f above. 2.f.2. Revise the mitigation memo and mitigation plan sheets to retain the existing wetland buffers in their natural condition (RMC 4-3-0SOM6.a.iii). The majority of buffers associated with \Vetlands A, B, and C should not be changed from established, functional, mature forest in order to create new wetland. 2.f.3. Monitor Groundwater: If the revised wetland mitigation plan proposes wetland creation on-site, monitor the existing groundwater regime inside, and in the vicinity of, the proposed wetland creation area to inform the design and ensure a greater likelihood of successfully establishing wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils. Groundwater levels at the proposed created wetland elevations should be monitored according to guidance from the CSACE: http:// el.erdc. usace.army .mil/ el pubs /pdf/ tnwrap00-2. pdf ; htt;p://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wrap/pdfltnwrapOS-2.pdf; and htt;p://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/Water-Table-M-Design.pdf. • If berms are proposed to contain water in created wetlands, provide studies and construction plans regarding how the berm will function to retain water. • If Wetland B is expanded, a study will be required to determine how the expanded wetland will NOT impact the hydrology and vegetation of the existing wetland and associated stream. 2.f.4. Grass Seed: Remove provisions to plant grass seeds in the wetland mitigation area and buffer, and in disturbed/ enhanced portions of the wetland buffers. Include provisions to apply and maintain a minimum of 6 inches of arborist mulch ( or approved equivalent) to entire planting areas where native woody species are installed. 2.f.5. Perfonnance Standards: Expand the performance standards to include: • percent survival is only necessary for Years 1 and 2; • only installed plants can be counted towards satisfying the survival performance standards; • percent cover performance standards for native woody species (including both installed and desirable native volunteers) and native ground cover for Years 3 through 10; • species diversity performance standards for woody species for all 10 Years (native volunteers can be counted toward this performance standard); and K: \project \31900\j 1989B\R~p<Jrt~ \Fiddbrook Rc:Tiew.don; Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 9 Review of Fieldhrook Commons Pro;ect Domments Febmary 29, 2012 • • • provisions to incorporate 4 to 6 inches of compost into the upper 12 inches of all graded portions of the wetland creation area; permanent monitoring plots that reasonably represent the plant communities to be established as well as the size of the mitigation monitoring area. All four corners of each plot should be staked with metal fence posts or tall re-bar; and permanent photo points should also be established that represent the mitigation area. 2.f.6. Trails: the proposed trails in the mirigation wetland buffers must conform with RMC 4- 3-050C7.a.i(2)., and the applicant must demonstrate that the construction and use of the proposed trails "will not degrade wetland or buffer functions and values. 2.f.7. Grading Plans: provide clearing/ grading plans in the wetland mitigation area that demonstrates the proposed clearing/ grading in the buffers is the minimum necessary for the project (RMC 4-8-120D7). 2.f.8. Storm Pond: Provide detailed plans regarding the storm water pond. Information that specifically needs to be included: • proposed outlet location and flow rate; • specifications regarding emergency overflow • information regarding how the adjacent wetlands and buffers will be protected from potential impacts regarding the outlet location(s); and • provide a planting plan for the storm water pond. The target community should be similar to the existing vegetation onsite. 2.f.9. Permits: Provide documentation regarding the required permits from State and Federal agencies including Ecology, USACE, and \l;'DFW. 2.f. I 0. Long Term Monitoring: Provide for ten years of monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation area, including the entire wetland mitigation buffer. • To be consistent with guidance from the USACE and Ecology, Section 5 Monitoring Program should specify that Year 1 vegetation monitoring will occur in the at the end of growing season after the plants have been installed for at least one calendar year. • • 2.g. Buffers: At a :minitnum, monitoring should occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 . Include specifications for monitoring hydrology in the wetland creation area from March through May in piezometers per guidance from USACE (http:/ / el.erdc. usace.army .mil/ elpubs /pdf / tnwrap00-2.pdf). 2.g. I. City code requires impacts to critical areas and their buffers be avoided, minimized, restored or compensated (RMC 4-3-0SOMS). Because avoiding all impacts does not appear possible, these impacts (permanent and temporary) must be MINIMIZED. Extensive proposed grading in the existing buffers does not minimize impact to these K:\project\31900\31989B\Rerorts \Fieldbrook Re\·icw.docx Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Renton Community and Economic Development Page 10 Review ojf'ie!dbrook Commons Project Domments Febmary 29, 2012 critical areas. In or<ler to minimize impacts: • Do not remove the existing functional wetland buffer in order to create new wetland; • Retaining walls should be used adjacent to proposed trails, the storm water pond, and any other area where extensive grading would otherwise impact the buffer; and Buffer slopes should not be any steeper than they are under existing conditions . 2.g.2. At a minimum, all disturbed and invasive-dominated buffer additions, as well as the areas designated as "b11fer restoration for temporary impact.?' have to have an enhancement plan that includes (at a minimum): invasive removal; installation of appropriate native trees and shrubs; performance standards Oess than 10% invasive cover, at least 80°1<, survival for the first 2 years, reasonable 0/o desirable woody cover, reasonable diversity of woody species); and monitoring, maintenance, and contingency plans. 2.h. Other Information: • The Coal Mine Hazard Linc needs to be addressed by the appropriate professional. K: \proiect\31900\31989B \Reports\Fieldbrook Re\·iew.docx Denis Law r City of l -----~M:ay:o:, ___ .............. ~ _! .. _2rrw·r1 January 31, 2012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch.Administrator SUBJECT: Independent Secondary Review Feildbrook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has received a Scope of Work and cost easement from OTAK, for the Independent Secondary Review (enclosed). In order to continue the secondary review process the applicant shall provide the City with the $5,085 estimated in the Scope of Work. Once the City has received the funds OTAK will be authorized to start work on the Secondary Review. If there are any cost savings through the project, these funds will be refunded. If there are additional costs incurred during the review additional funds will be requested from the applicant. Please contact me at {425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, vfi~iJJk Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure: OTAK Scope of Work cc: PNW Holdings, Ray W. Lotto, William O'Neil, c'ity of Renton/ Owner(s) Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Scope of Work City of Renton Field brook Commons Preliminary Plat Secondary Review Otak Project No. 319898 Proposal for Professional Services January 26, 2012 The following scope of work and cost estimate was developed by Otak, Inc. (Otak) to provide the City of Renton (City) with a secondary review of critical areas issues associated with the land use application for the Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary Plat project. The secondary review will be based on documents provided to Otak by the City, and will include a site visit. Our approach to this work is divided into four tasks: 1) background review, 2) wetland verification site visit, 3) preparation of a memorandum of findings, and 4) project coordination. Scope of Work Task I-Background Review Otak staff will review documents submitted by the Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary Plat project applicant (applicant) to determine whether the documents are consistent with the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), and whether they adequately: identify and rate all wetlands on the project site, and evaluate all probable wetland and buffer impacts; and whether adequate mitigation and monitoring plans are included. Projected-related documents sent by the City to Otak for review include: • Critical Areas Report (dated November 8, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; • Supplemental Stream Study ( dated December 14, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; • Habitat Study (dated December 14, 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.; • Sheet P1.1 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary Site Plan (dated December 29, 2011) by Riebe & Associates, Inc. Architecture and Planning (site plan); • Fieldbrook Commons Wetland Delineation Map (dated December 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. (wetland map); and • Fieldbrook Commons Concept Delineation Map (dated December 2011) by Sewall Wetland Consulting Inc. (proposed mitigation map). Task 2-Site Visit/Wetland Verification Two Otak staff members will conduct a site visit to the approximately 10.7-acre site comprised of three parcels (#2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023), that is located on the east side of Benson Road South and north of Cedar Avenue South (SE 172"" Street). Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary Plat Secondary Review K \project\31900\31989B\ Contract\31989B Fieldbrook commons reYiew SOW.docx 1 otak Scope of Work Continued The purpose of the site visit will be to verify the wetlands delineated io 2011 by Sewell Wetland Consultiog, Inc., and to assess their characteristics and ratings per RMC. Assumptions: • • It is assumed that the wetland boundary flags from the 2011 delineation by Sewall Wetland Consultiog, Inc. will still be io place. We will only perform a reconnaissance (not a formal delineation) of any additional wetland areas that we may discover during our site assessment. • The site assessment/wetland verifications can be completed by Otak biologists during a siogle, ten-hour field day (including travel time). Task 3-Memorandum of Findings Based on our review of the project documents and ioformation gathered during our field assessment, Otak staff will prepare a memorandum that summarizes our findings regarding: site conditions, the wetland delineations and ratiogs; whether the documents adequately evaluate all probable project-related wetland and buffer impacts; and whether the compensatory mitigation, monitoring, and maintenance plans are consistent with RMC. This ioformation will be provided in hard copy and pdf format for City use. Task 4-Project Coordination This task will include general project management, development of the project approach, and coordination with City staff. Assumptions: • This task does not ioclude io-person meetiogs . Schedule and Fees Our proposed fee summary is as follows: Task I-Background Review Task 2-Site Visit/Wetland Verification Task 3-Memorandum of Findings Task 4-Project Coordination Expenses (Estimated) Proposed Fee Total $750 $1,870 $1,865 $570 $30 $5,085 Otak proposes to complete the above Scope of Work for a time and materials amount of $5,085.00. In-house reimbursable expenses, such as copies, reproductions, etc. and any outsourced direct expenses (e.g., postage/deliveries, mileage, etc.) will be iovoiced at cost Fieldbrook Common! Preliminary Plat Secondary Review K.: \project\31900\31989B\Contract\31989B Fieldbrook commons 1:eview SOW.docx 2 otak Scope of Work Continued plus 10% and are included in the contract amount. We v.ill not exceed this budget without prior approval from the City of Renton. If conditions are found to be different from those described above, Otak v.ill notify the City of Renton immediately to discuss any impacts to the scope of work and budget We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. If you have any questions regarding this proposal or need additional information, please feel free to contact Stephanie Smith at (425) 739-7978. Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary Plat Secondary Review K \project\31900\31989B\ Contract\31989B Fieldbrook commons review SOW.docx 3 otak Denis Law Mayor January 17, 2012 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings, LLC 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 r t -- City of 1 ·r1JJw11 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator SUBJECT: Notice of Complete Application and "On Hold" Notice Feildbrook Commons/ LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD Dear Mr. Lagers: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. However, during our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The following information will need to be completed so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: • An Independent Secondary Review of the provided critical areas reports. This shall be paid at the applicant's expense, and the Reviewing Official shall select the third party review professional. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending completion of the above information. Please contact me at (425} 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, //{~-{)qjJ~ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: PNW Holdings, Ray W. Lotto, William O'Neil, City of Renton/ Owner(s) Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov i City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: Fieldbrook Commons, LLC -as to Parcel C Fieldbrook Commons ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36'" Street. Suite 105 PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 17040 -1081" Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-588-114 7 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): Parcel A -292305-9023 Parcel B -292305-9022 APPLICANT (if other than owner) Parcel C -292305-9168 NAME: PNW Holdings, LLC EXISTING LAND USE(S) Vacant Land -Unimproved COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Planned Urban Development ADDRESS: 9725 SE 36'" St., Suite 214 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: R-14 -Residential Medium Density CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) R-14 -Residential Medium Densitv EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-588-1147 R-14 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): --- NAME: Justin Lagers SITE AREA (in square feet): 469,327.93 SF ··~ COMPANY (if applicable): PNW Holdings, LLC SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 24,525.51 SF ADDRESS: 9725 SE 361 " St., Suite 214 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: -NA- ; CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 162 units 19.02 AC; 17.96 units ner acre TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 206-588-11471253-405-5587 Justin.pnwholdings@gmail.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 162 Units utilizing density bonus incentives l' : 1 LJ scrs \I u st in \[)ocumcnts\Documcnts \Proj ccts\F i cl db rook\ F ic ldbrook RcportsV\pp 1 i cations\maslerapp F HC 11 c .doc -1. ... P,,.JJECT INFORMATION (cont1 .. Jed) ~-~-----~------------- NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: $16,356,000.00 0 ----- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 178,534 sa.ft. IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE - SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2400 -recreation building -D FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): X GEOLOGIC HAZARD 8760 sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if D HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. applicable): 2400 -recreation building D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 0 X WETLANDS 51,815 sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach leaal description on separate sheet with the followina information included\ SITUATE IN THE S.E. QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Michael Gladstein declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) __ the current owner of the property involved in this application or X the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all e ct to the t of my knowledge and belief. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) 11/26/2012 Date Signature of Owner/Representative I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that /?(c.N~"-{>"'4{)J7E:/M signed this instrument and acknowledge it to ~er/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. "''"'""'-11 "'''" \..· Ro~0 11 1,,1 ~ ~''""'"'11 ~ J.,. ,,,. -D-at~e~d;'----'"-''r--_~-P1i~$ ~~ \ -~ .... ,, z :: r'i F 0 1 .,."""' ... ~ ~ ~"<vi ~ t ~ Date ::=; ~IJ _... ~z~ ~ ~ CJ ;:0.-~ \ _.U&"'"" ,.'"'·J J.;.. £ ~-111. ,,, na • , • ,,,.. C, : ir1 -111]';. • I ,.. ... ...3i: - ~,1. "fx111"'"\'''''.,... ~.....-.,: Notary (Print): ~~~~~!.,l._,,(~·~M~?~=~Y _____ _ My appointment expires: ---~~·~/.~7~·/<--c~,,_ ___________ _ ,,,,,; ff OF YIP..'li ,.,,#' 11111,,,,,,"'"" l': \ U scrs \J us tin \l )ocumcn ts\Doc umcnts \Proj ccts \F ic ldbrook \F icldbrook RcportsV\pp 1 ications\mastcrapp I,. BC 11 c .doc . 2. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel A THE NORTH QUARTER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGES EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TAX PARCEL NO. 292305-9023 Parcel B THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., EXCEPT THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET THEREOF, AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 27,1979 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 7912270174; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF, LYING WITHIN THE 60 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY FOR SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. SC (FORMALLY KNOWN AS JOHN F. BENSON ROAD), AS ESTABLISHED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 19, 1912 UNDER VOLUME 16 OF THE KING COUNTY COMMISIONER'S RECORDS, PAGE 592; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED MAY 14, 1999 UNDER RECORDING NO. 9905141847. AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO RICHARD R. NIEMI, SYDNEY J. NIEME, DARLENE R. BJORNSTAD AND THE DARLENE R. BJORNSTAD TRUST BY JUDGEMENT RECORDED APRIil 19,2012 AND JUNE 8, 2012 UNDER RECORDING NOS. 20120419000630 AND 20120608001092 AND 20120529000485. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON TAX PARCEL NO. 292305-9022 Parcel C THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET FOR HIGHWAY. TAX PARCEL NO. 292305-9168 • t OPERATING AGREEMENT OF FIELD BROOK COMMONS, LLC • FIELD BROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT THIS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into effective as of the 10th day of April, 2012, by and among the parties listed on Schedule I attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, and any other person who executes this Agreement as and becomes a Member of the Company according to the terms hereof. ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS The following terms used in this Agreement shall have the following meanings (unless otherwise expressly provided herein): "Act" means the Washington Limited Liability Company Act (RCW Ch. 25.15). "Adjusted Capital Contribution." The Capital Contribution made by each Member to the Company as increased by Additional Capital Contributions or reduced from time to time by the return of capital and the aggregate distributions, if any, of Sale or Refinancing Proceeds made to such Member. "Bankruptcy" of any person means the filing by such person of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, or the adjudication of such person as bankrupt or insolvent, or the filing by such person of any petition or answer seeking any reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution or similar relief for itself under the present or any future federal bankruptcy act or any other present or future federal or state statute or law regarding bankruptcy, insolvency or other relief for debtors, or such person's seeking, consenting to or acquiescing in the appointment of any trustee, receiver, conservator or liquidator for itself or for its membership interest in the Company. "Capital Account" means the capital account determined and maintained for each Unit Holder pursuant to Section 7.3. "Capital Event." The sale, exchange or other disposition, including an involuntary conversion or condemnation of the Property, or a portion or item thereof or the refinancing of Company indebtedness. "Capital Contribution" means any contribution to the capital of the Company in cash or property by a Member whenever made. "Certificate of Formation" means the certificate of formation pursuant to which the Company was formed, as originally filed with the office of the Secretary of State on April JO, 2012, and as amended from time to time. "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or corresponding provisions of subsequent superseding federal revenue laws. f!ELDBROOK COMMONS. LLC OPERA TING AGREEMENT -2 of 28 "Company" means FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC. "Company Minimum Gain" has the same meaning as the term "partnership minimum gain" in Regulation Sections I.704-2(b)(2) and I.704-2(d). "Deficit Capital Account" means with respect to any Unit Holder, the deficit balance, if any, in such Unit Holder's Capital Account as of the end of the taxable year, after giving effect to the following adjustments: (i) credit to such Capital Account any amount that such Unit Holder is obligated to restore to the Company under Regulation Section I.704-l(b)(2)(ii)(c), as well as any addition thereto pursuant to the next to last sentences of Regulation Sections I.704-2(g)(I) and (i)(5); and (ii) debit to such Capital Account the items described in Regulation Sections l.704-l(b)(2)(ii)(d)(4), (5) and (6). This definition is intended to comply with the prov1s1ons of Regulation Sections 1.704-1 (b)(2)(ii)(d) and 1.704-2, and will be interpreted consistently with those provisions. "Distributable Cash" means all cash funds received by the Company from Company operations for a fiscal period (other than funds received as Capital Contributions or from a Capital Event), in excess of the amounts reasonably required for the repayment of or Reserves for Company borrowing, interest thereon, other liabilities, Company working capital and Reserves which the Manager reasonably deems to be required for the proper operation of the business of the Company, payment of all operating expenses and the repayment of current liabilities of the Company and in excess of any cash reserves which the Manager reasonably deems necessary for the operation of the business, including, but not limited to, Reserves for contingent or unforeseen liabilities or obligations of the Company. "Economic Interest" means a Unit Holder's share of Net Profits, Net Losses, and other tax items of the Company and distributions of the Company's assets pursuant to this Agreement and the Act, but shall not include any right to participate in the management or affairs of the Company. including, the right to vote on, consent to or otherwise participate in any decision of the Members. "Economic Interest Owner" means the owner of an Economic Interest who 1s not a Member. "Entity" means any general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, corporation, joint venture, trust, business trust, cooperative or association or any other organization that is not a natural person. "Majority Interest" means, at any time, more than fifty percent (50%) of the then outstanding Units held by Members. "Manager(s)" means Michael Gladstein, Robert Gladstein, and Joel Mezistrano, and any other Person who may become a substitute or additional Manager as provided in Article 5. FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT-3 of28 "Member" means each Person who executes a counterpart of this Agreement as a Member and each Person who may hereafter become a Member. To the extent a Manager has purchased a Membership Interest in the Company, it will have all the rights of a Member with respect to such Membership Interest, and the term ·'Member" as used herein shall include a Manager to the extent it has purchased a Membership Interest in the Company. If a Person is a Member immediately prior to the acquisition by such Person of an Economic Interest, such Person shall have all the rights of a Member with respect to such Economic Interest. "Membership Interest" means all ofa Member's share in the Net Profits, Net Losses, and other tax items of the Company and distributions of the Company's assets pursuant to this Agreement and the Act and all of a Member's rights to participate in the management or affairs of the Company, including the right to vote on, consent to or otherwise participate in any decision of the Members. "Member Minimum Gain" has the same meaning as the term "partner nonrecourse debt minimum gain" in Regulation Section I. 704-2(i). "Member Nonrecourse Deductions" has the same meaning as the term "partner nonrecourse debt minimum gain" in Regulation Section I.704-2(i)(1) and (2). The amount of Member Nonrecourse Deductions for a Company fiscal year shall be determined in accordance with Regulation Section I. 704-2(i)(2). "Net Profits" and "Net Losses" shall have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Section 8.5. "Nonrecourse Liability" has the meaning set forth in Regulation Section I.704-2(b)(3). "Percentage Interest" means with respect to any Unit Holder the percentage determined based upon the ratio that the number of Units held by such Unit Holder bears to the total number of outstanding Units. "Person" means any individual or Entity, and the heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of such "Person" where the context so permits. "Property" means all of the Company's assets. "Regulations" includes proposed, temporary and final Treasury regulations promulgated under the Code and the corresponding sections of any regulations subsequently issued that amend or supersede such regulations. "Reserves" means, with respect to any fiscal period, funds set or amounts allocated during such period to reserves which shall be maintained in amounts deemed sufficient by the Manager for working capital and to pay taxes, insurance, debt service or other costs or expenses incident to the ownership or operation of the Company's business. "Sale or Refinancing Proceeds" means the net proceeds derived from a Capital Event less the expenses incurred in connection with such Capital Event and less the application of such proceeds to the reduction of existing indebtedness, the discharge or payment of any other FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT-4 of28 expenses or liabilities and the establishment of appropriate reserves, all as determined by the Manager in its sole discretion. "Unit Holder" means a Person who is a Member or who holds an Economic Interest but is not a Member. "Units" means the Units issued to any Member under this Agreement as reflected in attached Schedule I, as amended from time to time. ARTICLE 2. FORMATION OF COMPANY 2.1. Formation. The Company was formed on April IO, 2012, when the Company's Certificate of Formation was executed and filed with the office of the Secretary of State in accordance with and pursuant to the Act. 2.2. Name. The name of the Company is "FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC." 2.3. Principal Place of Business. The principal place of business of the Company shall be 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite I 05, Mercer Island, WA 98040. The Company may locate its places of business at any other place or places as the Manager may from time to time deem advisable. 2.4. Registered Office and Registered Agent. The Company's initial registered agent and the address of its initial registered agent and initial registered office in the State of Washington are as follows: Address Hoda Mezistrano 7603 SE 37th Place Mercer Island, WA 98040 The registered office and registered agent may be changed by the Manager from time to time by filing a statement of change with the Secretary of State. 2.5. Term. The term of the Company shall be perpetual, unless the Company is earlier dissolved in accordance with either Article 12 or the Act. ARTICLE 3. BUSINESS AND POWERS OF THE COMP ANY 3.1. Business of the Company. The business of the Company shall be: 3.1.1. to acquire, and hold for long-term investment purposes, that certain real property situated northeast of the intersection of SE 172nd St & 108th Ave SE, in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, comprised of approximately 10.81 acres, also known as tax parcel numbers 292305-9022, 292305-9023, and 292305-9168; and 3.1.2. to exercise all other powers necessary to or reasonably connected with the Company's business which may be legally exercised by limited liability companies under the Act. FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT· 5 of28 3.2. Powers of the Company. In furtherance of the Company"s purposes, the Company shall have the power: 3.2.1. to enter into and perform contracts, leases and/or agreements of any kind necessary or incidental to the accomplishment of the Company's business purposes; 3.2.2. to acquire all real, personal and intangible property necessary or appropriate to the Company's business purposes; 3.2.3. to borrow money and to issue evidences of indebtedness, and to secure the same by mortgage, pledge, security interest or other lien against all or any portion of the Company's Property, and to prepay, refinance, modify, or extend any such indebtedness; 3.2.4. to collect all income and pay all expenses of the Company; 3.2.5. to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of all or any portion of the Company's Property; 3.2.6. to assume, perform and discharge any obligations and liabilities assumed in connection with the acquisition, ownership, financing, leasing, management, improvement or disposition of the Company's Property; 3.2.7. to bring and defend actions at law or in equity; 3.2.8. to make prudent interim investments of the Company's excess funds; and 3.2.9. to engage in and carry on any other activities necessary or incidental to the accomplishment of the Company's purposes that may be engaged in by a Washington limited liability company. ARTICLE 4. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF MEMBERS AND MANAGERS The names and addresses of the Members are as follows: Michael Gladstein 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite I 05, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Robert Gladstein 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite I 05, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Joel Mezistrano 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite I 05, Mercer Island, WA 98040 FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERA TING AGREEMENT -6 of 28 The names and addresses of the Managers are as follows: Michael Gladstein 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Robert Gladstein 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite I 05, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Joel Mezistrano 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite I 05, Mercer Island, WA 98040 ARTICLE 5. MANAGER; RIGHTS AND DUTIES 5.1. Managers 5.1.1. The overall management and control of the business and affairs of the Company shall be vested solely and exclusively in three Managers elected and/or removed by the unanimous vote of the Members from time to time. Michael Gladstein, Robert Gladstein, and Joel Mezistrano, shall be the initial Managers and shall serve until resignation or removal by the unanimous vote of the Members. Except for matters set forth in Section 5.2.7 below, the signature of any one Manager shall be sufficient to bind the Company. 5.1.2. The affirmative action of a vote of 2/3 of the Managers shall be the act of the Manager. 5.2. Authority. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, the Manager is hereby vested with the sole and exclusive right and full authority to manage, conduct and operate the business of the Company, and the Manager shall be entitled to make all decisions relating thereto or to any matter set forth herein. Specifically, but not by way of limitation, the Manager shall be authorized: 5.2.1. to enter into and execute any contracts, leases or agreements on behalf of the Company that the Manager deems necessary or appropriate to operate and manage the Company, and to carry on the business of the Company and achieve the Company's purposes; provided, however, that any contracts entered into with persons affiliated with any of the Members shall be upon terms comparable to those available from unaffiliated third parties; 5.2.2. to engage, on behalf of the Company, such agents, accountants, attorneys, property managers, consultants and other persons necessary or appropriate to carry out the business of the Company, and, to pay from the funds of the Company such fees, expenses, salaries, wages and other compensation to such persons as the Manager shall determine; FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT -7 of28 5.2.3. to pay, extend, modify, adjust, submit to arbitration, prosecute, defend or compromise, upon such terms as the Manager may determine, any obligation, suit, liability. cause of action or claim, including taxes, either in favor of or against the Company; 5.2.4. except to the extent prohibited by the Act, to take any actions and make any expenditures that the Manager deems necessary or appropriate in connection with (i) the operation of the business of the Company, (ii) the carrying out of the Manager's obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement, and (iii) the compliance with all obligations imposed upon the Company by agreements pertaining to the Company or its Property from time to time; 5.2.5. to make all tax elections on behalf of the Company; 5.2.6. to open, maintain, modify and close such bank accounts on behalf of the Company as the Manager deems appropriate; and 5.2.7. (i) to sell all or substantially all of the Company's Property to any third party, and/or (ii) to finance or refinance the Company's Property, and to borrow money and issue evidences of indebtedness on behalf of the Company, and as security therefor, (iii) to mortgage, pledge or otherwise encumber all or any portion of the Company's Property, (iv) to repay, refinance, modify, or extend any such indebtedness, (v) to acquire any other property, (vi) to obligate the Company as a surety, guarantor or indemnitor. Unless authorized to do so by this Agreement or by the Manager, no Member, employee or other agent of the Company shall have any power or authority to bind the Company in any way, to pledge its credit or to render it liable for any purpose. 5.3. Duties. The Manager shall use good faith, diligent efforts to oversee the management of the Company's business and other assets and to perform all of the Manager's obligations pursuant to this Agreement. In particular, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Manager shall be responsible for the management of the Company's Property, for maintaining appropriate casualty and liability insurance policies covering the Company's Property and business, and for keeping the Company's books and records and preparing the reports described in Article 10 below. 5.4. Compensation. Except as otherwise provided herein or agreed upon by the Members, the Manager shall not receive any compensation from the Company for its services. 5.5. Expenses; Reimbursement of Manager. The Company shall reimburse the Manager for all monies advanced and expenses incurred by the Manager which are directly connected to the management of the Company's business or affairs. The Company shall bear all operating expenses of the Company including, without limitation, the cost of any legal and accounting services performed on behalf of the Company by outside legal or accounting firms, and all due diligence, financing and other expenses relating to the Company's business or Property. 5.6. Vacancies. If a vacancy in a Manager's position arises as a result of a Manager's removal, Bankruptcy, resignation, disqualification or otherwise, the other Members may, by a FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERA TING AGREEMENT, 8 of 28 unanimous vote within ninety (90) days after such vacancy arises, elect an additional or substitute Manager who shall succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the Manager under this Agreement. The failure of the other Members to fill a vacancy in a Manager's position within ninety (90) days after the occurrence of such vacancy shall result in the dissolution of the Company in accordance with Article 12. 5.7. Limitation on Liability; Indemnification. 5.7.1. The Manager shall not be liable, responsible or accountable in damages or otherwise to the Company or the Members for any act or omission by the Manager performed in good faith pursuant to the authority granted to the Manager by this Agreement or in accordance with its provisions, and in a manner reasonably believed by the Manager to be within the scope of the authority granted to the Manager and in the best interest of the Company; provided that such act or omission did not constitute fraud, misconduct, bad faith or gross negligence. The Company shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Manager, and each director, officer, partner, employee or agent thereof, if any, against any liability, loss, damage, cost or expense incurred by it on behalf of the Company or in furtherance of the Company's interests without relieving the Manager of liability for fraud, misconduct, bad faith or negligence. No Member shall have any personal liability with respect to the satisfaction of any required indemnification of the Manager. 5.7.2. Any indemnification required to be made by the Company shall be made promptly following the fixing of the liability, loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or suffered by a final judgment of any court, settlement, contract or otherwise. In addition, the Company may advance funds to the Manager claiming indemnification under this Section 5.7 for legal expenses and other costs incurred as a result of a legal action brought against such Manager only if (i) the legal action relates to the performance of duties or services by the Manager on behalf of the Company, (ii) the legal action is initiated by a party other than a Member, and (iii) such Manager undertakes to repay the advanced funds to the Company if it is determined that such Manager is not entitled to indemnification pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 5.8. Removal. A Manager may be removed at any time, with or without cause, by the unanimous vote of a the Members. The removal of a Manager who is also a Member shall not affect the Manager's rights as a Member and shall not constitute a withdrawal of a Member. Upon termination, a Manager shall be paid all compensation due him through the date of termination pursuant to Section 5.5 above. 5.9. Right to Rely on the Manager. Any person dealing with the Company may rely (without duty of further inquiry) upon a certificate signed by any Manager as to the identity and authority of any Manager or other Person to act on behalf of the Company or any Member. ARTICLE 6. RIGHT AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS 6.1. Limitation of Liability. Each Member's liability shall be limited as set forth in this Agreement and the Act. FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERA TING AGREEMENT -9 of28 6.2. Liability for Company Obligations. Members shall not be personally liable for any debts, obligations or liabilities of the Company beyond their respective Capital Contributions and any obligation of the Members under Section 7.l or 7.2 to make Capital Contributions, except as otherwise provided by law or as otherwise agreed upon by the Members. 6.3. Inspection of Records. Upon reasonable request, each Member shall have the right to inspect and copy at such Member's expense, during ordinary business hours, the records required to be maintained by the Company pursuant to Section 10.5. 6.4. No Priority and Return of Capital. Except as expressly provided in Article 8 or .2., no Unit Holder shall have priority over any other Unit Holder, either as to the return of Capital Contributions or as to Net Profits, Net Losses or distributions; provided, that this Section 6.4 shall not apply to loans made by a Member to the Company. 6.5. Withdrawal of Member. Except as expressly permitted in this Agreement, no Member shall voluntarily resign or otherwise withdraw as a Member. Unless otherwise approved unanimously by the Members, a Member who resigns or withdraws shall be entitled to receive only those distributions to which such Person would have been entitled had such Person remained a Member (and only at such times as such distribution would have been made had such Person remained a Member). Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, a resigning or withdrawing Member shall become an Economic Interest Owner. The remedy for breach of this Section 6.5 shall be monetary damages (and not specific performance), which may be offset against distributions by the Company to which such Person would otherwise be entitled. 6.6. Additional Members. The Members agree to admit additional Members, only upon the unanimous affirmative vote of the Members. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Person shall not become an additional Member unless and until such Person becomes a party to this Agreement by signing this Agreement and executing such additional documents and instruments as the other Members may reasonably request as necessary or appropriate to confirm such person as a Member in the Company. 6.7. Meetings of Members. An annual meeting of the Members is not required. The Members may hold meetings, both regular and special, at any time. Regular meetings of the Members may be held without notice at such time and at such place as shall from time to time be determined by the Manager. Special meetings of the Members may be called at any time by any Member. The Members or Manager may participate in meetings by means of telephone conference or similar communications equipment that allows all Persons participating in the meeting to hear each other, and such participation in a meeting shall constitute presence in person at the meeting. If all the participants are participating by telephone conference or similar communications equipment, the meeting shall be deemed to be held at the principal place of business of the Company. 6.8. Action by Written Consent. Any action required or permitted to be taken at any meeting of the Members may be taken without a meeting if the Members consent thereto in writing. Such consent shall have the same force and effect as a unanimous vote at a meeting. FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT -10 of 28 ARTICLE 7. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMPANY AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS 7.1. Members Capital Contributions. Each Member shall contribute such amount as is set forth in attached Schedule I as such Member's share of the Members' initial Capital Contribution. 7.2. Additional Capital Contributions. 7.2.1. Call for Additional Capital Contribution. The Manager may determine, from time to time, that Capital Contributions in addition to the Members' initial Capital Contributions are needed to enable the Company to conduct its business ("Additional Capital Contributions"). Upon making such a determination, the Manager shall give notice to all Members, in writing, at least thirty (30) days before the date on which such Additional Capital Contribution is due. The notice shall set forth the amount of the Additional Capital Contribution needed, the purpose for which it is needed and the date by which Members shall contribute his pro rata share in accordance with his Percentage Interest. Except as noted in Section 7.2.2 below, no Member may voluntarily make any additional Capital Contribution. 7.2.2. Failure to Make Additional Capital Contribution. If a Member fails to make any Additional Capital Contribution required under Section 7 .2. l of this Agreement within thirty (30) days after it is required to be made (a "Defaulting Member"), the Manager shall, within fifteen (15) days after said failure, notify each other Member (a "Non-Defaulting Member") in writing, of the total amount of the Defaulting Members' Capital Contributions not made ("Additional Capital Shortfall"), and shall specify a number of days within which each Non-Defaulting Member may make an Additional Capital Contribution (on behalf of the Defaulting Member), which shall not be less than an amount equal to a Non-Defaulting Member's Percentage Interest multiplied by the Additional Capital Shortfall. If the total amount of Additional Capital Shortfall is not so contributed, the Manager may use any reasonable method to provide Non-Defaulting Members the opportunity to make Additional Capital Contributions, until the Additional Capital Shortfall is as fully contributed as possible. Following the Non-Defaulting Members' making of such Additional Capital Contributions to meet the Additional Capital Shortfall of the Defaulting Member, the Capital Accounts of the Members shall be adjusted accordingly and the Percentage Interest of the Defaulting Member shall be proportionately reduced and the Non-Defaulting Member or Members who have contributed all or a portion of the Additional Capital Shortfall shall have his or their respective Percentage Interest increased proportionately. The Members recognize and acknowledge that a failure to make an Additional Capital Contribution will dilute such Member's Percentage Interest. 7.3. Capital Accounts. 7.3.1. Establishment and Maintenance. A separate Capital Account will be maintained for each Unit Holder throughout the term of the Company in accordance with the rules of Regulation Section 1.704-l(b)(2)(iv). Each Unit Holder's Capital Account will be increased by ( l) the amount of money contributed by such Unit Holder to the Company; (2) the fair market value of property contributed by such Unit Holder to the Company (net of liabilities secured by such contributed property that the Company is considered to assume or take the FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT-11 of28 property subject to under Code Section 752); (3) allocations to such Unit Holder of Net Profits; (4) any items in the nature of income and gain that are specially allocated to the Unit Holder pursuant to Sections 8.2 and 8.3; and (5) allocations to such Unit Holder of income and gain exempt from federal income tax. Each Unit Holder's Capital Account will be decreased by (I) the amount of money distributed to such Unit Holder by the Company; (2) the fair market value of property distributed to such Unit Holder by the Company (net of liabilities secured by such distributed property that such Unit Holder is considered to assume or take the property subject to Code Section 752); (3) allocations to such Unit Holder of expenditures described in Code Section 705(a)(2)(B); ( 4) any items in the nature of deduction and loss that are specially allocated to the Unit Holder pursuant to Sections 8.2 and 8.3; and (5) allocations to such Unit Holder of Net Losses. In the event of a permitted sale or exchange of a Membership Interest or an Economic Interest in the Company, the Capital Account of the transferor shall become the Capital Account of the transferee to the extent it relates to the transferred membership Interest or Economic Interest. 7.3.2. Compliance with Regulations. The manner in which Capital Accounts are to be maintained pursuant to this Section 7.3 is intended to comply with the requirements of Code Section 704(b) and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. If in the opinion of the Company's legal counsel or accountants the manner in which Capital Accounts are to be maintained pursuant to the preceding provisions of this Section 7.3 should be modified in order to comply with Code Section 704(b) and the Regulations thereunder, then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the preceding provisions of this Section 7.3 the method in which Capital Accounts are maintained shall be so modified; provided, however, that any change in the manner of maintaining Capital Accounts shall not materially alter the economic agreement between or among the Members. 7.4. Withdrawal or Reduction of Members' Contributions to Capital. A Member shall not receive out of the Company's Property any part of its Capital Contribution until all liabilities of the Company, except liabilities to Members on account of their Capital Contributions, have been paid or there remains Property of the Company sufficient to pay them. A Member, irrespective of the nature of its Capital Contribution, has only the right to demand and receive cash in return for its Capital Contribution. 7.5. Guaranty of Company Indebtedness. The Members shall have no obligation to guaranty Company indebtedness unless they agree to do so. ARTICLE 8. ALLOCATIONS OF NET PROFITS AND LOSSES 8.1. Allocation of Net Profit and Loss -In General. 8.1.1. Net Profit. Net Profit for each fiscal year shall be allocated to the Members in proportion to their respective share of Distributable Cash, to the extent thereof, and thereafter according to their respective Percentage Interests. 8.1.2. Net Loss. Net Loss for each fiscal year shall be allocated to the Members in proportion to their positive capital accounts balances, to the extent thereof, and thereafter according to their respective Percentage Interests. FIELDBROOK COMMONS. LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT-12 of28 8.1.3. Limitation. The Net Loss allocated to each Member for any Company fiscal year pursuant to Section 8.1.2 shall not exceed the maximum amount of Net Loss that can be so allocated without causing such Member to have a Deficit Capital Account at the end of the fiscal year. All Net Losses in excess of the limitation set forth in this Section 8.1.3, shall be allocated to the other Members who do not have Deficit Capital Accounts in proportion to their respective Percentage Interests. 8.2. Special Allocations. The following special allocations shall be made for any fiscal year of the Company in the following order: 8.2.1. Minimnm Gain Chargeback. If there is a net decrease in Company Minimum Gain during any Company fiscal year, each Unit Holder shall be specially allocated items of Company income and gain for such year (and, if necessary, subsequent years) in an amount equal to such Unit Holder's share of the net decrease in Company Minimum Gain, determined in accordance with Regulation Sections l.704-2(1) and l.704-2(g)(2). The items to be so allocated, and the manner in which those items are to be allocated among the Unit Holders, shall be determined in accordance with Regulation Sections l.704-2(1) and 1.704-20)(2). This Section 8.2. I is intended to satisfy the minimum gain chargeback requirement in Regulation Section l. 704-2(1) and shall be interpreted and applied accordingly. 8.2.2. Member Minimum Gain Chargeback. If there is a net decrease in Member Minimum Gain during any Company fiscal year, each Unit Holder who has a share of that Member Minimum Gain, determined in accordance with Regulation Section l.704-2(i)(5), shall be specially allocated items of Company income and gain for such year (and, if necessary, subsequent years) in an amount equal to such Unit Holder's share of the net decrease in Member Minimum Gain, determined in accordance with Regulation Sections I. 704-2(i)( 4) and l. 704- 2(i)(5). The items to be so allocated, and the manner in which those items are to be allocated among the Unit Holders, shall be determined in accordance with Regulation Sections l. 704- 2(h)(4) and 1.70420)(2). This Section 8.2.2 is intended to satisfy the minimum gain chargeback requirement in Regulation Section l.704-2(i)(4) and shall be interpreted and applied accordingly. 8.2.3. Qualified Income Offset. In the event that any Unit Holder unexpectedly receives any adjustments, allocations, or distributions described in Regulation Sections I. 704- 1 (b)(2)(ii)(d)( 4), (5) or (6), items of Company income and gain shall be specially allocated to such Unit Holder in an amount and in a manner sufficient to eliminate as quickly as possible, to the extent required by Regulation Section 1.704 2(1)(b){2)(ii)(d), the Deficit Capital A count of the Unit Holder (which Deficit Capital Account shall be determined as if all other allocations provided for in this have been tentatively made as if this Section 8.2.3 were not in this Agreement). 8.2.4. Nonrecourse Deductions. Nonrecourse Deductions shall be allocated among the Unit Holders in accordance with their respective Percentage Interests. 8.2.5. Member Nonrecourse Deductions. Any Member Nonrecourse Deductions shall be specially allocated among the Unit Holders in accordance with Regulation Section 1.704-2(i). FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT-13 of28 8.3. Corrective Allocations. 8.3.1. Allocations to Achieve Economic Agreement. The allocations set forth in the last sentence of Section 8.1.3 and in Section 8.2 are intended to comply with certain regulatory requirements under Code Section 704(b ). The Members intend that, to the extent possible, all allocations made pursuant to such Sections will, over the term of the Company, be offset either with other allocations pursuant to Section 8.2 or with special allocations of other items of Company income, gain, loss, or deduction pursuant to this Section 8.3.1. Accordingly, the Manager is hereby authorized and directed to make offsetting allocations of Company income, gain, loss or deduction under this Section 8.3.1 in whatever manner the Manager determine is appropriate so that, after such offsetting special allocations are made, the Capital Accounts of the Unit Holders are, to the extent possible, equal to the Capital Accounts each would have if the provisions of Section 8.2 were not contained in this Agreement and all income, gain, loss and deduction of the Company were instead allocated pursuant to Section 8.1. 8.3.2. Waiver of Application of Minimum Gain Chargeback. The Manager shall request from the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service a waiver, pursuant to Regulation Section J.704-2(f)( 4), of the minimum gain chargeback requirements of Regulation Section 1.704-2(f) if the application of such minimum gain chargeback requirement would cause a permanent distortion of the economic arrangement of the Members, as reflected in Section 8. l. 8.4. Other Allocation Rules. 8.4.1. General. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all items of Company income, gain, loss, deduction, and any other allocations not otherwise provided for shall be divided among the Unit Holders in the same proportions as they share Net Profits or Net Losses, as the case may be, for the year. 8.4.2. Allocation of Recapture Items. In making any allocation among the Unit Holders of income or gain from the sale or other disposition of a Company asset, the ordinary income portion, if any, of such income and gain resulting from the recapture of cost recovery or other deductions shall be allocated among those Unit Holders who were previously allocated (or whose predecessors-in-interest were previously allocated) the cost recovery deductions or other deductions resulting in the recapture items, in proportion to the amount of such cost recovery deductions or other deductions previously allocated to them. 8.4.3. Allocation of Excess Nonrecourse Liabilities. Solely for purposes of determining a Unit Holder's proportionate share of the "excess nonrecourse liabilities" of the Company within the meaning of Regulation Section l.752-3(a)(3), the Unit Holders' interests in the Company's profits shall be determined in accordance with Section 8.1.1 of this Agreement. 8.4.4. Allocations in Connection with Varying Interests. If, during a Company fiscal year, there is (i) a permitted transfer of a Membership Interest or Economic Interest under this Agreement, or (ii) the admission of a Member or additional Members, Net Profit, Net Loss, each item thereof, and all other tax items of the Company for such period shall be divided and allocated among the Unit Holders by taking into account their varying interests FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT -14 of 28 during such fiscal year in accordance with Code Section 706(d) and using any conventions pennitted by law and selected by the Manager. 8.5. Determination of Net Profit or Loss. 8.5.1. Computation of Net Profit or Loss. The Net Profit or Net Loss of the Company, for each fiscal year or other period, shall be an amount equal to the Company's taxable income or loss for such period, detennined in accordance with Code Section 703(a) (and, for this purpose, all items of income, gain loss or deduction required to be stated separately pursuant to Code Section 703(a)(l), including income and gain exempt from federal income tax, shall be included in taxable income or loss). 8.5.2. Adjustments to Net Profit or Loss. For purposes of computing taxable income or loss on the disposition of an item of Company Property or for purposes of detennining the cost recovery, depreciation, or amortization deduction with respect to any property, the Company shall use such property's book value detennined in accordance with Regulation Section 1.704-l(b). Consequently, each property's book value shall be equal to its adjusted basis for federal income tax purposes, except as follows: 8.5.2.1. The initial book value of any property contributed by a Member to the Company shall be the gross fair market value of such property at the time of contribution; 8.5.2.2. In the sole discretion of the Manager, the book value of all Company properties may be adjusted to equal their respective gross fair market values, as determined by the Manager as of the following times: (I) in connection with the acquisition of an interest in the Company by a new or existing Member for more than a de minimis capital contribution, (2) in connection with the liquidation of the Company as defined in Regulation Section l.704-(l)(b)(2)(ii)(g), or (3) in connection with a more than de minimis distribution to a retiring or a continuing Unit Holder as consideration for all or a portion of his or its interest in the Company. In the event of a revaluation of any Company assets hereunder, the Capital Accounts of the Unit Holders shall be adjusted, including continuing adjustments for depreciation, to the extent provided in Regulation Section 1. 704-(1 )(b)(2)(iv)(f); 8.5.2.3. If the book value of an item of Company property has been detennined pursuant to this Section 8.5.2, such book value shall thereafter be used, and shall thereafter be adjusted by depreciation or amortization, if any, taken into account with respect to such property, for purposes of computing taxable income or loss. 8.5.3. Items Specially Allocated. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section 8.5 any items that are specially allocated pursuant to Sections 8.2 or 8.3 shall not be taken into account in computing Net Profit or Net Loss. 8.6. Mandatory Tax Allocations Under Code Section 704(c). 8.6.1. In accordance with Code Section 704(c) and Regulation Section 1.704-3, income, gain, loss and deduction with respect to any property contributed to the capital of the Company shall, solely for tax purposes, be allocated among the Unit Holders so as to take F!ELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATINGAGREEMENT-15 of28 account of any variation between the adjusted basis of such property to the Company for federal income tax purposes and its initial book value computed in accordance with Section 8.5.2.1. Prior to the contribution of any property to the Company that has a fair market value that differs from its adjusted tax basis in the hands of the contributing Member on the date of contribution, the contributing Member and the Manager ( or, if the contributing Member is the Manager, a Majority Interest of the non-contributing Members) shall agree upon the allocation method to be applied with respect to that property under Regulation Section 1.704-3. 8.6.2. If the book value of any Company property is adjusted pursuant to Section 8.5.2.2, subsequent allocations of income, gain, loss and deduction with respect to such property shall take account of any variation between the adjusted basis of such property for federal income tax purposes and its book value in the same manner as under Code Section 704( c ). The choice of allocation methods under Regulation Section 1.704-3 with respect to such revalued property shall be made by the Manager. 8.6.3. Allocations pursuant to this Section 8.6 are solely for purposes of federal, state, and local taxes and shall not affect, or in any way be taken into account in computing, any Unit Holder's Capital Account or share of Net Profit, Net Loss, or other items as computed for book purposes, or distributions pursuant to any provision of this Agreement. ARTICLE 9. DISTRIBUTIONS 9.1. Distributions of Distributable Cash. The Company will distribute Distributable Cash in a fiscal year as it becomes available to the Members as follows: 9.1.1. Pro rata in accordance with each Member's Capital Account in an amount up to each Member's Capital Account; and then 9.1.2. The balance, if any, shall be distributed to the Members pro rata in accordance with their Percentage Interests in the Company. 9.2. Distributions of Sale or Refinancing Proceeds from a Capital Event. Upon the occurrence of a non-terminating Capital Event, such as a refinancing of the debt secured by the Property, the net proceeds shall be distributed to the Members as follows: 9.2.1. Pro rata in accordance with each Member's Capital Account in an amount up to each Member's Capital Account; and then 9.2.2. The balance. if any, shall be distributed to the Members pro rata in accordance with their Percentage Interests in the Company. 9.3. Distribution of Proceeds from a Terminating Capital Event. Upon the dissolution of the Company, the proceeds of liquidation, including any proceeds from a Capital Event and any other funds or assets of the Company, shall be distributed in the same order of priority as set forth in Section 9.2. 9.4. Distributions in Kind. Non-cash assets, if any, shall be distributed in a manner that reflects how cash proceeds from the sale of such assets for fair market value would have F!ELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT-16 of28 been distributed (after any unrealized gain or loss attributable to such non-cash assets has been allocated among the Unit Holders in accordance with Article 8). 9.5. Withholding; Amounts Withheld Treated as Distributions. The Manager is authorized to withhold from distributions, or with respect to allocations or payments, to Unit Holders and to pay over to the appropriate federal, state or local governmental authority any amounts required to be withheld pursuant to the Code or provisions of applicable state or local law. All amounts withheld pursuant to the preceding sentence in connection with any payment, distribution or allocation to any Unit Holder shall be treated as amounts distributed to such Unit Holder pursuant to this Article 9 for all purposes of this Agreement. 9.6. Limitation on Distributions. No distribution shall be declared and paid unless, after the distribution is made, the assets of the Company are in excess of all liabilities of the Company, except liabilities to Members on account of their contributions. ARTICLE 10. ACCOUNTING, BOOKS, AND RECORDS 10.1. Accounting Principles. The Company's books and records shall be kept, and its income tax returns prepared, under such permissible method of accounting, consistently applied, as the Manager determines is in the best interest of the Company and its Members. 10.2. Interest on and Return of Capital Contributions. No Member shall be entitled to interest on its Capital Contribution or to return of its Capital Contribution, except as otherwise specifically provided for herein. 10.3. Loans to Company. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent any Member from making secured or unsecured loans to the Company. 10.4. Accounting Period. The Company's accounting period shall be the calendar year. 10.5. Records, Audits and Reports. At the expense of the Company, the Manager shall maintain records and accounts of all operations and expenditures of the Company. At a minimum the Company shall keep at its principal place of business the following records: 10.5.1. A current list and past list, setting forth the full name and last known mailing address of each Member, Economic Interest Owner and Manager; 10.5.2. A copy of the Certificate of Formation and all amendments thereto; 10.5.3. Copies of this Agreement and all amendments hereto; 10.5.4. Copies of the Company's federal, state, and local tax returns and reports, if any, for the three most recent years; 10.5.5. Minutes of every meeting of the Members and any written consents obtained from Members for actions taken by Members without a meeting; and FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERA TING AGREEMENT -17 of 28 10.5.6. Copies of the Company's financial statements for the three most recent years. 10.6. Tax Matters Partner. 10.6.1. Designation. Joel Mezistrano shall be the "tax matters partner" of the Company for purposes of Code Section 6221 et seq. and corresponding provisions of any state or local tax law. 10.6.2. Expenses of Tax Matters Partner; Indemnification. The Company shall indemnify and reimburse the tax matters partner for all reasonable expenses, including legal and accounting fees, claims, liabilities, losses and damages incurred in connection with any administrative or judicial proceeding with respect to the tax liability of the Unit Holders attributable to the Company. The payment of all such expenses shall be made before any distributions are made to Unit Holders (and such expenses shall be taken into consideration for purposes of determining Distributable Cash) or any discretionary Reserves are set aside by the Manager. Neither the tax matters partner nor any Member shall have any obligation to provide funds for such purpose. The provisions for exculpation and indemnification of the Manager set forth in Section 5.7 of this Agreement shall be fully applicable to a Member acting as tax matters partner for the Company. 10.6.3. Returns and Other Elections. 10.6.3.1. The Manager shall cause the preparation and timely filing of all tax and information returns required to be filed by the Company pursuant to the Code and all other tax and information returns deemed necessary and required in each jurisdiction in which the Company does business. Copies of such returns, or pertinent information therefrom, shall be furnished to the Unit Holders within a reasonable time after the end of the Company's fiscal year. 10.6.4. Except as otherwise expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, all elections permitted to be made by the Company under federal or state laws shall be made by the Manager in their, his or its sole discretion. ARTICLE 11. TRANSFERABILITY 11.1. General. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, neither a Member nor an Economic Interest Owner shall have the right to (a) sell, assign, transfer, exchange or otherwise transfer for consideration, (collectively, "sell" or "sale"), and (b) gift, bequeath or otherwise transfer for no consideration whether or not by operation of law, except in the case of bankruptcy (collectively "gift") all or any part of its Membership Interest or Economic Interest. Each Member and Economic Interest Owner hereby acknowledges the reasonableness of the restrictions on sale and gift of Membership Interests and Economic Interests imposed by this Agreement in view of the Company's purposes and the relationship of the Members and Economic Interest Owners. Accordingly, the restrictions on sale and gift contained herein shall be specifically enforceable. In the event that any Unit Holder pledges or otherwise encumbers any of its Membership Interest or Economic Interest as security for FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERA TING AGREEMENT· 18 of 28 repayment of a liability, any such pledge or hypothecation shall be made pursuant to a pledge or hypothecation agreement that requires the pledgee or secured party to be bound by all the terms and conditions of this Article 11. 11.2. First Refusal Rights. 11.2.1. A Unit Holder desiring to sell all or any portion of its Membership Interest or Economic Interest to a third party purchaser shall obtain from such third party purchaser a bona fide written offer to purchase such Interest, stating the terms and conditions upon which the purchase is to be made and the consideration offered therefor. Such Unit Holder shall give written notice to the other Unit Holders and the Manager of its intention to so transfer such Interest. Such notice shall set forth the complete terms of the written offer to purchase and the name and address of the proposed third party purchaser. 11.2.2. The other Unit Holders, shall, on a basis pro rata to their Units or on a basis pro rata to the Units of those remaining Unit Holders exercising their first refusal rights, have the first right to purchase all (but not less than all) of the Interests proposed to be sold by the selling Unit Holder upon the same terms and conditions stated in the notice given pursuant to Section 11.2.1 by giving written notice to the other Unit Holders and the Manager within ten (IO) days after such notice from the selling Unit Holder. The failure of a Unit Holder to so notify the other Unit Holders and the Manager of its desire to exercise its first refusal rights within said ten (I 0) day period as required by this Section 11.2.2 shall result in the termination of such Unit Holder's first refusal rights. 11.2.2.1. Within ten (10) days after expiration of the ten (IO) day period specified in the preceding paragraph, the Manager shall notify those Unit Holders electing to exercise their first refusal rights of any Units that the other Unit Holders did not elect to purchase. Those Unit Holders exercising first refusal rights in accordance with the preceding paragraph shall then notify the Manager and the other purchasing Unit Holders whether they elect to purchase such remaining Units, which shall be pro rata or allocated in such other manner as the purchasing Unit Holders shall agree. If no such notification is received by the Manager from any such Unit Holders in accordance with this paragraph, no Unit Holder shall have any further first refusal rights with respect to such Units. 11.2.2.2. If Unit Holders have elected to purchase all of the Units offered by the selling Unit Holder, the selling Unit Holder shall sell such Units upon the same terms and conditions specified in the notice required by Section I I .2.1, and the purchasing Unit Holders shall have the right to close the purchase within thirty (30) days after receipt of notification from the Manager that such Unit Holders have elected to purchase the selling Unit Holder's Units. 11.2.2.3. If Unit Holders do not elect to purchase all of the Units offered by the selling Unit Holder in accordance with this Section 11.2, then the selling Unit Holder shall be entitled to sell such Units to the third party purchaser in accordance with the terms and conditions upon which the purchase is to be made as specified in the notice under Section 11.2.1. However, if such sale is not completed within thirty (30) days following expiration of the other Unit Holders, first refusal rights under this Section 11.2, then the selling Unit Holder shall not be F!ELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT -19 of 28 entitled to complete the sale to such third party purchaser and the selling Unit Holder's Units shall continue to be subject to the rights of first refusal set forth in this Section 11.2 with respect to any proposed subsequent transfer. 11.2.3. Upon the devise, purchase or the gift of a Membership Interest or an Economic Interest, and as a condition to recognizing the effectiveness and binding nature of any sale or gift and (subject to Section 11.4, below) substitution of a Person as a new Unit Holder, the Manager may require the transferring Unit Holder and the proposed purchaser, donee or successor-in-interest, as the case may be to execute, acknowledge and deliver to the Manager such instruments of transfer, assignment and assumption and such other agreements and to perform all such other acts that the Manager may deem necessary or desirable to: 11.2.3.1. constitute such Person as a Unit Holder; 11.2.3.2. confirm that the Person desiring to become a Unit Holder, has accepted, assumed and agreed to be subject and bound by all of the terms, obligations and conditions of this Agreement (whether such Person is to be admitted as a new Member or will merely be an Economic Interest Owner); 11.2.3.3. maintain the status of the Company as a partnership for federal tax purposes; and 11.2.3.4. assure compliance with any applicable state and federal laws, including securities laws and regulations. 11.2.4. Any sale or gift of a Membership Interest or Economic Interest or admission of a Member in compliance with this Article 11 shall be deemed effective as of the last day of the calendar month in which the remaining Members' consent thereto was given, or, if no such consent was required pursuant to Section 11.3, then on such date that the transferor and the transferee both comply with Section 11.2.3. The transferring Unit Holder hereby indemnifies the Company and the Manager against any and all loss, damage. or expense (including, without limitation, tax liabilities or loss of tax benefits) arising directly or indirectly as a result of any transfer or purported transfer in violation of this Article 11. 11.2.5. Subject to Section 11.4, a Unit Holder may gift or devise by will all or any portion of its Membership Interest and Economic Interest (without regard to Section 11.2. l and 11.2.2, provided, that the donee complies with Section 11.2.3 and further provided that the donee is either such Unit Holder's spouse, former spouse, lineal descendent (direct or collateral and including adopted children). In the event of the gift of all or any portion of a Unit Holder's Membership Interest or Economic Interest to one or more donees who are under twenty-one (21) years of age, one or more trusts shall be established to hold the gifted interest(s) for the benefit of such donee(s) until all of the donee(s) reach the age of at least twenty-one years. 11.3. Intentionally deleted. 11.4. Transferee Not Mem her in Absence of Consent. FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT· 20 of28 11.4.1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Article 11, if the sale or gift of a Member's Membership Interest or Economic Interest to a transferee or donee which is not a Member immediately prior to the sale or gift is not approved in writing by all of the other Members, in their sole discretion, then the proposed transferee or donee shall have no right to participate in the management of the business and affairs of the Company or to become a Member. Such transferee or donee shall be merely an Economic Interest Owner. 11.4.2. Promptly following any sale or gift of a Member's Economic Interest which does not at the same time transfer the balance of the rights associated with such Person's Membership Interest, the Company shall purchase from such Person, and such Person shall sell to the Company for a purchase price of$ I 00, all such remaining rights and interests retained by such Person which immediately prior to such sale or gift were associated with the transferred Economic Interest. The acquisition by the Company of such Person's rights shall not cause a dissolution of the Company and such Person shall no longer be a Member. ARTICLE 12. DISSOLUTION AND TERMINATION 12.1. Dissolution. The Company shall be dissolved upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 12.1.1. upon the Termination Date; 12.1.2. by the written agreement of all Members; or 12.1.3. a Person ceases to be a Member upon the occurrence of any of the events specified in Section 25.15.130 of the Act, unless the business of the Company is continued with the consent of all of the remaining Members within ninety (90) days following the occurrence of such event. 12.2. Allocation of Net Profit and Loss in Liquidation. The allocation of Net Profit, Net Loss and other items of the Company following the date of dissolution, including but not limited to gain or loss upon sale of all or substantially all of the Company's assets, shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Articles 8 and .2 and shall be credited or charged to the Capital Accounts of the Unit Holders in the same manner as Net Profit, Net Loss, and other items of the Company would have been credited or charged if there were no dissolution and liquidation. 12.3. Winding Up, Liquidation and Distribution of Assets. Upon dissolution, the Manager shall immediately proceed to wind up the affairs of the Company, unless the business of the Company is continued as provided in Section 12.3.3 and Section 12.1. The Manager shall sell or otherwise liquidate all of the Company's assets as promptly as practicable ( except to the extent the Manager may determine to distribute any assets to the Unit Holders in kind) and shall apply the proceeds of such sale and the remaining Company assets in the following order of priority: 12.3.1. Payment of creditors, including Manager and Members who are creditors, to the extent otherwise permitted by law, in satisfaction of liabilities of the Company, other than liabilities for distributions to Members; FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERA TING AGREEMENT· 21 of 28 12.3.2. To establish any reserves that the Manager deems reasonably necessary for contingent or unforeseen obligations of the Company and, at the expiration of such period as the Manager shall deem advisable, the balance then remaining in the manner provided in Section 12.3.3 below; 12.3.3. By the end of the taxable year in which the liquidation occurs (or, if liquidation occurs within ninety (90) days prior to the end of the taxable year, within ninety (90) days after the date of such liquidation), to the Unit Holders in proportion to the positive balances of their respective Capital Accounts, as determined after taking into account all Capital Account adjustments for the taxable year during which the liquidation occurs ( other than those made pursuant to this Section 12.3.3). 12.4. No Obligation to Restore Negative Capital Account Balance on Liquidation. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, upon a liquidation within the meaning of Regulation Section l.704-l(b)(2)(ii)(g), if any Unit Holder has a negative Capital Account balance (after giving effect to all contributions, distributions, allocations and other Capital Account adjustments for all taxable years, including the year during which such liquidation occurs), such Unit Holder shall have no obligation to make any Capital Contribution to the Company, and the negative balance of such Unit Holder's Capital Account shall not be considered a debt owed by such Unit Holder to the Company or to any other Person for any purpose whatsoever. 12.5. Dissolution. The Manager shall comply with any applicable requirements of applicable law pertaining to the winding up of the affairs of the Company and the final distribution of its assets. Upon completion of the winding up, liquidation and distribution of the assets, the Company shall be deemed dissolved. 12.6. Certificate of Dissolution. After dissolution pursuant to RCW 25.15.270, the Manager shall file a certificate of dissolution pursuant to RCW 25.15.273. After the filing of the certificate of dissolution, the Company shall wind up business pursuant to RCW 25.15.295, dispose of any known claims pursuant to RCW 25.15.298 and distribute assets pursuant to RCW 25.15.300. 12.7. Return of Contribution Nonrecourse to Other Members. Except as provided by law or as expressly provided in this Agreement, upon dissolution each Unit Holder shall look solely to the assets of the Company for the return of its Capital Contribution. If the Property remaining after the payment or discharge of liabilities of the Company is insufficient to return the contributions of Members, no Unit Holder shall have recourse against any other Unit Holder. ARTICLE 13. INDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES OF MANAGER AND MEMBERS Any Manager, Member or Economic Interest Owner may engage in or possess an interest in other business ventures of every nature and description, independently or with others, including but not limited to, the ownership, financing, management, employment by, lending to or otherwise participating in businesses which are similar to the business of the Company, and neither the Company, the Manager or any Unit Holders shall have any right by virtue of this Agreement in and to such independent ventures or to the income or profits therefrom. FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT -22 of28 • ARTICLE 14. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 14.1. Notices. Any notice, demand, or communication required or permitted under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally to the party to whom directed or, if mailed by registered or certified mail, postage and charges prepaid, addressed (a) if to a Member, to the Member's address specified on attached Schedule 1, (b) ifto the Company, to the address specified in Section 2.3, and (c) if to the Manager, to the address specified in Section 2.3. Except as otherwise provided herein, any such notice shall be deemed to be given when personally delivered or, if mailed, three (3) business days after the date of mailing. A Member, the Company or the Manager may change its address for the purposes of notices hereunder by giving notice to the others specifying such changed address in the manner specified in this Section 14. l. 14.2. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to the internal laws of the State of Washington. 14.3. Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended except by the unanimous written agreement of all of the Members. 14.4. Construction. Whenever the singular number is used in this Agreement and when required by the context, the same shall include the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders and vice versa. 14.5. Headings. The heading in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretations of this Agreement. 14.6. Waivers. The failure of any Person to seek redress for violation of or to insist upon the strict performance of any covenant or condition of this Agreement shall not prevent a subsequent act, which would have originally constituted a violation, from having the effect of an original violation. 14.7. Rights and Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies provided by this Agreement are cumulative and the use of any one right or remedy shall not preclude or waive the right to use any or all other remedies. Said rights and remedies are given in addition to any other rights may have by law, statute, ordinance or otherwise. 14.8. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any Person or circumstance shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Agreement and the application thereof shall not be affected and shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 14.9. Heirs, Successors and Assigns. Each of the covenants, terms, provisions and agreements herein contained shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and, to the extent permitted by this Agreement, their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. 14.10. Creditors. None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be for the benefit of or enforceable by any creditors of the Company. FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERA TING AGREEMENT -23 of28 , 14.11. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 14.12. Investment Representations. 14.12.1. The Units have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Act of Washington or any other state securities laws (collectively, the "Securities Acts") because the Company is issuing the Units in reliance upon the exemptions fi-om the registration requirements of the Securities Acts, and the Company is relying upon the fact that the Units are to be held by each Unit Holder for investment. 14.12.2. Accordingly, each Unit Holder hereby confirms the Units have been acquired for such Unit Holder's own account, for investment and not with a view to the resale or distribution thereof and may not be offered or sold to anyone unless there is an effective registration or other qualification relating thereto under all applicable Securities Acts or unless such Unit Holder delivers to the Company an opinion of counsel, satisfactory to the Company, that such registration or other qualification is not required. The Unit Holders understand that the Company is under no obligation to register the Units or to assist any Unit Holder in complying with any exemption from registration under the Securities Acts. FIELDBROOK COMMONS, LLC OPERATING AGREEMENT· 24 of28 • Executed by the undersigned Members effective as of the date first above written. FIELDBROOK COMMONS. LL(' OPERA'I IN(; AvREEMEKT-25 of' 28 MEMBERS: Michael Gladstein Robert Gladstein ,/a-?/-~-- ~.-... , ..• : -·---·-·--- Robert Gladstein ,Joel Mezistrano .~a~o __ · ---- • SCHEDULE 1 Member Information Names and Addresses of Members Initial Ca12ital Units Interest Contribution Michael Gladstein $490 49 49% 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Robert Gladstein $290 29 29% 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Joel Mezistrano 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA 98040 $ 220 22 22% $1.000 00 -26 - City of Renton TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. 786 trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous 2 227 trees Trees in proposed public streets O trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts O trees Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers 275 trees Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 2. 3. 502 trees 284 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4. multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0. 1 in all other residential zones 4. 28 trees 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain4 : 5. 31 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. 0 trees (If line 6 is less than zero. stop here. No replacement trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. O. ___ inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. Q ____ inches 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees 6 : (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 1 Measured at chest height. per tree 9. O ___ trees 2 Dead. diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect. or certified arborist. and approved by the City. 3 -Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes. are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). ~-Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 · The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a 6 Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inehes of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. X.\1 HDUIProjects\2011\l 1031 PNWII-Fieldbrook Commons\BDG Plans\DD Phase\3-2Nov2012\Ficldhrook TrceRctcnt1onWorkshcct JJan2012.doc 12/08 DENSITY WORKSHEET City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. 469,327.93 square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets•• Private access easements•• Critical Areas* Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 24,525.51 square feet square feet 51,815.00 square feet 2. 76,340.51 square feet 3. 392,987.40 square feet 4. 9.02 acres 5. 162 units/lots 6. 17.96 = dwelling units/acre *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. C:\UscrsVustin\Ducumcnts\Oocumcnts\Projcds\Ficldbrook\Ficldbrook ReportslApplications\dcnsity worksheet revised 11122012.doc -I -03/08 ' Fieldbrook Commons Planned Urban Development Project nome, size and location of site Project Narrative Fieldbrook Commons is a Planned Urban Development (PUD) located easterly of 108'h Avenue Southeast and northerly of Southeast 172"' Street in Renton, WA. The project is comprised of three underlying tax parcels (King County Tax Parcel No's 292305-9022, -9023 & -9168) totaling approximately 10.77 acres. Lond use permits required for proposed proiect The following land use permits/ approvals are required for the proposed project: • Preliminary Planned Urban Development • Final Planned Urban Development * • Density Bonus Review • Merger of Parcels 292305-9022 & 292305-9168 into one tax parcel. Parcel 292305-9023 shall remain a separate tax parcel.* *note -some land use permits/ approvals will be processed concurrently. Zoning designation of the site and adiacent properties The underlying parcels are currently ;:oned Residential 14 du/ac (R-14) according to the City's zoning map. All three parcels are identified as Residential Medium Density in the City's comprehensive plan. The applicant is requesting Density Bonus Review pursuant to RMC 4-9-065 which, if approved, would allow the applicant to add up to 4 additional dwelling units per net acre, for a maximum density of 18 units per net acre. The applicant's planned 162 units represent a density of 17.90 units per acre. The bonus criteria as listed in RMC 4-9-065 D states: R-14 ]3onus Criteria Al!l!licant Meets Code Via: Maximum Up to 4 additional dwelling units per net acre. Applicant is requesting approval Additional Units Densities greater than 18 units per net acre are for 162 units on 9.0Z acres (net) Per Acre: prohibited. i for a net density of 17.96 du/ ac. I I i 1 Field brook Commons Planned Urban Development Bonus Criteria To qualify for the density bonus, the applicant shall provide either: (i) Alley and/or rear access and parking for 50% of detached or townhouse units, or (ii) Civic uses such as a community meeting hall, senior center, recreation center, or other similar uses as determined by the Administrator, or (iii) A minimum of 2 units of affordable housing per net developable acre to qualify for a density bonus. I Bonus Criteria ! In addition, in order to qualify for a bonus, developments shall also incorporate at least 1 of the features described below: (i) Active common recreation amenities such as sports courts, recreation center, pool, spa/ Jacuzzi. (ii) Surface parking lots containing not more than 6 parking stalls separated from other parking areas by landscaping with a minimum width of 15 feet. I (ii) Applicant is providing a 2400 sf recreation center that includes a gathering room, kitchen, outdoor BBQ, fire pit, outdoor living room, for meetings, social activities and private party rentals. The applicant will make these areas available for public rental. ! In addition, Applicant is providing (i) (a) An outdoor sports court (pickleball). (b) Outdoor recreational play equipment for ages 5-12. (c) On-site fitness center The parcels lying to the south of the project site are all zoned R-14 and are comprised of the following: • 2.08 acre, 36 unit Kelsey Court condominium community (17.30 du/ac)(approved in KC). • A ten lot single family neighborhood named Kelsey Lane. • 25.02 acre(19.31 ac net), 312 unit Benson Downs apartment community (16.15 du/ac) (approved in (KC). • 3.62 acre, 31 unit Palm Court condominium community (8.56 du/ ac) • Two single family residences of the Ericksen's Spring Glen short plat. 2 Fieldbrook Commons Planned Urban Development The parcels lying to the west of the project are all zoned R-14 and are comprised of the following: • Three single family residences • A vacant parcel The parcel lying to the east of the project is zoned R-8: • Owned by Soos Creek Water & Sewer District. The parcels lying to the north are a mix of R-14 & R-10 and are comprised of the following: • One larger parcel zoned R-14 with a single family residence • Two larger parcels zoned R-10, one vacant, once with a residence. • 4 single family lots zoned R-10 in the Threshold Subdivision. • Tract A of the Threshold Subdivision -a NGPE Tract containing a large wetland complex. Current use of the site and anv existing improvements Two of the three underlying parcels of the Fieldbrook Commons project site are undeveloped and contain second growth Cottonwood, Alder and Maple trees with moderate underbrush. The third parcel, which was formally King County Fire Station 13, is cleared with some remaining site infrastructure (limited asphalt, catch basins, pipe). The buildings and associated surface improvements have been previously removed. Special site features (i.e. wetlands. water bodies, steep slopes) The site is characterized by relatively flat to rolling topography with a large wetland complex comprised of three wetlands(A, B & C) and their associated buffers located on the eastern third of the site. Three smaller isolated wetlands are located as follows: • Wetland (D) is located generally in the center of the project, is isolated and lacks any unique plant associations or listed species and is rated as a Category 2, under the City of Renton rating standards, and a Category 3 under Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) wetland measuring 7671 sf. • Wetland (E) located in the center of the site and adjacent to S.E. 172"d St. measures 68 sf and is rated as a Category 3 wetland under the City of Renton standards • Wetland (F) located on the western side of the site is Category 3 wetland measuring 1591sf. The Applicant proposes to fill and mitigate these three isolated wetlands through the creation of a new wetland area and enhanced buffer areas for the existing wetlands (A, B & C) in the eastern third of the site. The Applicant is unable to avoid direct impacts to these wetlands for the following reasons: • Wetland (D) -The Applicant previously attempted to plan roadways and infrastructure improvements around this wetland, however the location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation, public utility and building locations to such an extent that the project 3 Fieldbrook Commons Planned Urban Development would not be financially feasible to construct. Due to location of existing utility service connections, sewer and water lines would need to be trenched through the wetland and its associated buffer to insure service to the entire site. • Wetland (E) -Based on the requirement to dedicate and construct street improvements on S.E. 172"d St. ROW, direct impacts to this wetland are unavoidable. • Wetland (F) -Based on the requirement to provide a secondary fire access directly out to 108'h Ave S.E. direct impact to this wetland are unavoidable. The Applicant proposes to fill a total of 9303 sq.ft. of wetlands and as mitigation provide 25,430 sq.ft. of wetland creation area, 4,284 sq.ft of buffer averaging addition, 3,815 Sq.ft. of buffer averaging subtraction and 4,638 SF of buffer restoration for temporary impacts during the course of construction. The overall creation and buffer addition provide enhanced riparian habitat area while opening the wetlands up to a soft surface walking trail with arboretum signage for the benefit of the community. Statement addressing soil tvpe and drainage conditions The general area geologic map resource identifies glacial till (Qgt) deposits across the site and surrounding areas. The referenced SCS soil survey identifies Alderwood series soils across the entirety of the site. The soil conditions observed at the test pit locations are generally consistent with glacial till deposits. The southern leg of the project site (King County Tax Parcel No. 292305-9023) contains a coal mine hazard area across the southern portion of the parcel. The Applicant has provided a Coal Mine Hazard Evaluation by Icicle Creek Engineers dated September 12, 2007 and a prior geological assessment by Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. dated October 11, 2006 which was prepared for a prior owner of the property. These reports were reviewed by Applicant's Geotechnical Engineer (Earth Solutions N.W.) to confirm required setbacks for building foundations adjacent to the hazard area. The Applicant will have additional geotechnical consultation in the structural design of the Building N foundation and the subsurface design for the parking area which lies on top of the hazard area. The Applicant has provided a Level 1 downstream assessment prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers. The site is contained within two Threshold Discharge Areas (TDA's) one to the east and one to the west. The project site is located within a Conservation Flow Control and Basic Water Quality Area. Due to the fact the project is a multifamily development it is being designed to meet the Enhanced Water Quality Treatment criteria. The developed site will contain an underground vault in the eastern TDA which will outfall to the large wetland complex. The western TDA will contain an underground vault for storm water collection and will outfall into the existing drainage conveyance system in 108'h Avenue SE. 4 Fieldbrook Commons Planned Urban Development Proposed use of the property and scape of the proposed development The Fieldbrook Commons project will include the construction of 12 new multifamily residential buildings totaling 162 units. A mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units will be provided. The unique building designs incorporate a four-sided design with alley parking on approximately 53% of the site with one- third of the units having individual garages. Surface parking areas in clustered parking pods will be provided. The Applicant is proposing a recreation center, large open spaces, a central active recreation park area, a community pea patch and a wetland walking trail. Pedestrian circulation is provided by a network of sidewalks throughout the development which link all of the buildings, the recreation areas and the surrounding city sidewalks. The Applicant will be providing the fire department with an ingress/ egress easement over the property and its internal private drive isles. On-site roadways, sanitary sewer, water, storm water conveyance, lighting, and electrical infrastructure will be installed as part of the development. Access The project has frontage on two public right-of-ways, 108th Avenue SE and SE 172"' Street. The Applicant proposes three entrances off of SE 172"" St, one to the south to serve buildings M & N; one to the east which serves buildings K & Land forms an internal loop with the main drive isle; and one to the north which serves as the main entrance to the site and which loops to a one-way, exit only, access back to SE 172"' St. An Emergency Only Access (EOA) out to 108'h Ave SE. The EOA will serve as the secondary fire ingress/ egress for the site with a bollard or breakaway structure which will prohibit residents from entering or exiting from the EOA. The Applicant is proposing a round-a-bout type configuration at the end of the SE 172"' St which will allow for greater traffic movement, less congestion and from which the project's three entrances will take access (see site plan). Proposed off-site improvements (i.e. installation of sidewalks. fire hydrants. sewer. water, etc) • The project's frontage along 108th Ave SE & SE 172"' St will be improved to add planter strips with street lights, street trees and new sidewalks. • The existing overhead phone lines on the 1801h Ave SE frontage will be relocated underground. • A new storm conveyance line will be placed across the intersection of 180'h Ave SE & SE 172"' St. • The 12" AC water main in 108" Ave SE will be replaced with a 12" D.I. main. Total estimated construction cast and estimated fair market value of the proposed proiect The estimated project value of the project is $16,356,000. The Applicant anticipates paying over $1,500,000 in development review and mitigation fees and $260,000 in building permit fees to the City of Renton. 5 Fieldbrook Commons Planned Urban Development Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed Grading and filling activities are proposed as part of the site infrastructure improvements as well as the limited wetland fills and wetland creation areas. Preliminary grading estimates show 17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill which nets a relatively balanced site. The site does contain some areas of unsuitable material (topsoil) from apparent prior grading activities (possibly from construction of a sewer main along the projects frontage) which will need to be removed but which also lie in areas of the vault excavation. Suitable clean topsoil and mulch from the site will be used in the wetland buffer enhancement and creation areas. Select crushed base course material, trench backfill, gravel backfill as well as asphalt treated base and asphalt top lift will be brought to the site from local sources and in accordance with the haul routes identified for the project site. Unsuitable soils and excess materials will be hauled off-site to approved locations. Number, type and size of anv trees to be removed Approximately 7.9 acres of land disturbance activity will take place on the site. 786 protected trees were identified on the project site, 275 of these were located in critical areas and buffers (trees in the area of wetlands and buffers to be filled are not included), 227 were certified dead, diseased or dangerous as identified in the Arborist report prepared by Greenforest Inc. A resultant 284 protected trees are on site. A detailed tree survey by Concept Engineers, and a detailed tree cutting and retention plan prepared by Bradley Design Group is included in the submittal documents. The applicant is retaining 31 protected trees and has an extensive landscape planting plan which provides a significant number of new deciduous and evergreen trees which will provide a healthier stands of trees for years to come while being strategically located to create screening buffers and architectural interest. The Applicant is requesting a Special Exemption under and to RMC 4-3-050.C.5.f allowing for the filling and mitigation of two Class 3 Wetlands (E & F), which would include the removal of trees and a modification to the code section to allow the filling of Wetland (D), a Class 2 Wetland (see modification/ special exemption request pages 7 & 8). Once these wetlands are filled and mitigated for, the trees currently located within the wetlands and their buffers would therefore be allowed to be removed due the species of the trees under RMC 4-4-130.H.7.d. (see RMC 4-4-130.D.2 which refers to RMC 4-3- 0SOC.5.f). Explanation of any land to be dedicated to the City The Applicant has provided sample road dedications from the three underlying parcels along with exhibits. In all, the Applicant proposes to dedicate 24,525 sf of roadway to the City (public). SE 172"• St right-of-way extension: The Applicant is opposed to extending the right-of-way beyond the traffic circle shown on the site plan across the parcel commonly known as the Wagner Property or parcel 292305-9023. The Applicant believes creating a dead end roadway, which will likely remain un-extended for the foreseeable future, does not benefit the surrounding community or Applicant's proposed 6 Fieldbrook Commons Planned Urban Development community. The Applicant further believes there is very little potential for future development of the multiple parcels to the east of the project site and cites the following objections: • In referencing the City of Renton 2012-2017 TIP, adopted 8/01/11, there is no plan, in at least the next six years, for City funding to extend SE 172'' St to either 1131h Ave SE or 116'h Ave SE. • A restrictive covenant exists on the Benson Downs property (located to the southeast of the site) which restricts construction of improvements which bear significant loads (i.e. roadways) in the area which an extension of SE 172'' St would project through (recording number 9804231194 and attached hereto as Exhibit A). This is due to the Coal Mine Hazard Area which runs through the Benson Downs parcel 292305-9015. Future development of the northern portion of the Benson Downs property is unlikely given the environmental constraints, Coal Mine Hazard Area and the topography challenge of the 1.5 acre, 40' high, coal tailings pile also which interferes with a roadway extension. It is unforeseeable that the needed right -of-way would be dedicated to extend SE 172'' St. • A future extension of SE 172'' St would need to cross over tax parcel 292305-9179 or-9180, both of which are owned by Soos Creek Water & Sewer District and offer little to no development potential due to environmental constraints. The Applicant is not opposed to granting a pedestrian connection easement from its proposed wetland trail to SE 172'' St for any future pedestrian or bicycle connections which the Applicant feels would be more likely to occur across the parcels to the east and which would provide a greater public benefit. Any proposed iob shacks, sales trailers, and/ or model homes The project will likely have two job trailers, one for site development activity and one for building construction. The Applicant will have four individual units which will be modeled. Proposed modifications being requested The Applicant requests the following modifications as a part of the Fieldbrook Commons PUD application. (1) City of Renton Code Section: RMC 4-2-110A Maximum Number of Units per Building R-14 -No more than six (6) dwelling units per building Modification Requested The Applicant has proposed 12 buildings, comprised of between 9 and 17 units each. The units are in scale with the large site area and provide larger community open spaces by grouping multiple units in the same building, versus multiple buildings with no large open space areas. Grouping multiple units provides a greater sense of community for the residents, decreased impervious surface, and more efficient construction costs which allow for more affordable housing. 7 Fieldbrook Commons Planned Urban Development , At the time of the Applicants pre-a pp and multiple subsequent reviews of its site plan and building plan presentations, including floor plans and eievations, this code section was not present. The Applicant requests relief from this new code section as it would make the project economically unviable to construct. (21 RMC 4-3-050.C.5.f Specific Exemptions -Critical Areas and Buffers: Specific exempt activities are listed in the following table. If an 11 X1 ' appears in a box, the listed exemption applies in the specified critical area and required buffer. If an "X'1 does not appear in a box, then the exemption does not apply in the particular critical area or required buffer. Where utilized in the following table the term "restoration" means returning the subject area back at a minimum to its original state following the performance of the exempt activity. Activities taking place in critical areas and their associated buffers and listed in the following table are exempt from the applicable provisions of this Section, provided a letter of exemption has been issued per subsection C4 of this Section, Letter of Exemption. Whether the exempted activities are also exempt from permits will be determined based upon application of chapters 4-8 and 4-9 RMC, or other applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. Wetland Disturbance, Modification and Removal: i. Any Activity in Small Category 3 Wetlands: Any activity affecting hydrologically isolated Category 3 wetland no greater than two thousand two hundred (2.200) square feet when consistent with all of the following criteria: (1) Standing water is not present in sufficient amocnts. i.e., approximately twelve inches (12") to eighteen inches (18") in depth from approximately December through May, to support breeding amphibians; (2) Species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species, are not present; (3) Some form of mitigation is provided for hydrologic and water quality functions, for example, storm water treatment or landscaping or other mitigation; and (4) A wetland assessment is prepared by a qualified professional demonstrating the criteria of the exemption are met. The wetland assessment shall be subject to independent secondary review at the expense of the applicant consistent with subsection F7 of this section. Modification/Special Exemption Requested The Applicant is proposing to fill and mitigate for, through the creation of new wetland areas and enhanced wetland buffers, three isolated wetlands. Wetlands E & F meet the 4 criteria listed in RMC 4-3-050.C.S.f as qualifying for the Special Exemption to be able to fill and mitigate these wetlands. The Applicant requests a modification of this subsection (i) to allow for a wetland fill of Wetland D which is an isolated, 7,671 sf forested wetland classified as a Category 2 wetland but which also meets the 4 criteria listed in RMC 4-3-050.C.S.f necessary to fill a wetland. The wetland lies generally in the center of the site, is isolated, and 8 • Fieldbrook Commons Planned Urban Development substantially interferes with vehicular, pedestrian and emergency service circulation for the project as well as utility installation. The Applicant has presented a final mitigation and grading plan and report by Sewell Wetland Consultants dated September 2012. The mitigation plan was reviewed by a peer reviewer (Oatak) for the City of Renton and found to be acceptable. The mitigation plan which calls for 25,430 sf wetland creation area, 4,284 sf buffer averaging addition, 3,815 sf of buffer averaging subtractions and 4,638 sf of buffer restoration for temporary construction impacts. The creation and restoration area will provide higher-value ecological habitat area while opening the wetlands up to a walking trail and education kiosks for the benefit of the community. (3/ RMC 4-2-110 -Maximum Building Height Maximum Building Height, except for uses having a "Public Suffix"' (P) designation and public watering facilities. Rl4 -Residential and Civic Uses: 30ft. Modification/ Special Exemption Requested The Applicant is proposing to construct 9 of the 12 buildings in excess of the code allowed maximum height. This is an allowed modification through the PUD process per Section 4-9-150 B2. All of the buildings will be sited on the eastern portion of the site. Building B: The requested height increase is to 30'-11". The added 11" of height is located on the north end of the building and does not affect the neighbors on the south side; The North side of the building has other buildings that buffer it from the offsite neighbors. To the East and West, this building is bordered by other buildings in the project, thus mitigating the height in those directions. Buildings C and D: The requested height increases are to: Building C: 30'-7 W; Building D: 31'-8". These height increases are minimal. The added height comes from the addition of a third floor. This is located on the South sides of the building. The facades on the North are unchanged and therefore maintain the same effective heights as the two story residences to the North. South of these buildings are other buildings within the project which buffer this increase from off site properties further to the south. Building E: The requested height increase is to 36'-2". This height increase is mitigated by large park areas to the West. The added height of the building is located on the North end of the building and therefore has minimal impact to neighbors to the south. To the east of the building is another similarly scaled building within the project. Building J: The requested height increase is to 35' -3.25" is mitigated by a large central park and a plated grove of trees on the south side; The North side of the building has 2 story buildings that buffer it from the offsite neighbors, whose homes are a maximum of two stories in height; to the East and West, this building is bordered by other buildings in the project, thus mitigating the height in those directions. Building K: The requested height increase for Building K is 37' -0.25". This building sits 75' south of the closest neighbor to the North. This separating area is heavily planted with new and existing trees along with additional landscaping. To the East is a permanent open space (critical area) for a distance of over 400'.To the west the site rises and the building is below the code allowed height of 30'. This fa~ade faces other on site buildings. To the South is Building L, a similarly scaled building. 9 Fieldbrook Commons Planned Urban Development Building L: The requested height increase is to 37'-0.25". To the North sits Building K, a similarly scaled building. To the East is a permanent open space (critical area) for a distance of over 400'. To the West the site rises and the building is below the code allowed height of 30'. To the South is a permanent open space as well as another similarly scaled building on our site, building M. Building M: The requested height increase is to 34'-0.25". To the North and South. lie our project with similarly scaled buildings. To the West the closest residence is approximately 120' away. The area between this residence and Building M will have a sight obscuring fence, a heavily planted landscape buffer and a a 60' parking and drive aisle space. To the East is a permanent open space that has a minimum estimated width of 400'. Building N: The requested height increase is to 34'-2". To the North is a similarly scaled building in the project. To the West the closest residence is approximately 100' away. The area between this residence and Building N will have a sight obscuring fence, a heavily planted landscape buffer and an additional 40' and drive aisle space. To the East is a permanent open space that has a minimum estimated width of 400'. To the South the closest residence is approximately 110' away. In the area between this residence and Building N will be a sight obscuring fence adjacent to a buffer that contains existing and supplemented trees. A 60' wide parking area and drive aisle lies between this buffer and the building. 10 • Re111rn A JJress: City Clerk's Ollice City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way Renton, W ;\ 98055 DEED OF DEDlCATlON Property Tax Parcel Number: 2923059022 Project File#: LUAl2-00\, ECF, PPLD Street Intersection: SE 172"~ Street & I ogth ;\ vc SE Reference Number(s) of l)ocumcnts assigned or released: Additional reference number., are on page __ Crantor(s): Fieldbrook Commons, LLC Crantee(s): City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (See al/ached Exhihi1s ) SAMPLE DEDICATION -AS TO PARCEL 2923059022 lh.: Grantor. for and in consideration of mutual benefits conveys. quil claims. dedicates and donates to the (Jranti.:c(s) as morn:d above. the above described real estate situated in the County of King. State of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below, Approved and Accepted Bv: Crantor(s): Field brook Commons, LLC Crantce(s): City of Renton Michael Gladstein -Member Mayor Robert Gladstein -Member City Clerk INDWIDU.1L FORM OF STATE OF W i\SHINGTON ) ss 4CKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF KING ) I ccrtit)' that I know or have satisfactory evidence thal -------- Notary Seal must be within box _________ signed this instrument and --- acknowledged it to be his/her/their fn:c and voluntary act for the ust::s and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print)_ -· ------ My appointment expires:~ ---- Dated: ' IN WITNLSS WHERUJF, I have hereunto set my hand the day and vcar as written below. Notary Seal must be within box Notary Seal must be within box Notary Seal must be within box /:VDIVIIJlfAL f"ORM OFACKt••OWLEDGAfEA'T STATE 01' WASI IINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF Kl:-IC, ) I cert it)' that [ know or have satisfactory cvidcm.:i.: 1hat signed this instrument and acknowk:dgcd it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Notary Public in and for the State of Washin!,,>ton Notary (Print) __ _ My appointment expires: __________ _ Dated: REPRESENTATIVE FORM OFACKNOU'LEDGMENJ' STATE OF WASHINGTON I SS COUNTY OF KING ) I ccrtif)' that I know or have satisfactory cvidcm.:i..: that signed this instrument. on oath stated that hc/shdthcy was/wen..· authorized to execute the instrument and ackno\\-lcdgcd it as the ___ _ _____ and of ____ ._____ __ to be the free and voluntary ad orsul'.h party/panics for the uses and purposi.::s mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print)_ My appointment expires: ______ _ Dated: CORPORATE FORM OFACKAOWI.EDGMENT STAIE OF IVASIIINGTON I SS COlJNTY OF KIN(, ) On this_ day or . 19 hcfi:.m; m..: personally appeared _ _____ to me known to be of the corporation that executed the within instrument and ac..:knowlcdge tht.: said instrument to ht: the free and voluntary act and dccJ of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. and each on oath stated that he/she was authori/.ed to execute said instrument anJ that the.: seal affixcd is the corpurati.: seal of said rnrporation. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) __ _ My appointment expires: _______ _ Dated: Page 2 Exhibit A Legal Description Page 3 Pro_je<.:t: WO# PID (iR:\NI OR: Street: Map Exhibit Page 4 C, ~ ~ a. z :::, ~ _J a. z :::, 00 I') "' I') "' I I') N I 0, N () w Cl) ..; () .....1f. LIJ!LE.J.Lb ~W.1/4, I SE.1/4. SEC. 29-23-5 '--i,j Cl) PARCEL NO. 2923059022 R=25.00' t.=52'07'50" L=22.75' w Cl) 1 ~rSZ-~ r -., z UNPLATTED i ff) ~ vi ~ vi w z :::, z PARCEL NO. 2923059168 UNPLATTED 3c R=150.50' t.=22'04'57" L=58.00' >-. !E N-~ 1\-1 0 -z-"?· 3: ~,.... ,o9 r-.. z ..;~ pL. 5E. GRAPHIC SCALE ~ ~ ~L.J --0 100' 200' ~ (/jr 1 INCH = 100FT. ;;: 1--. ~ p }.. -0 ADDITIONAL RIGHT ~· :.. OF WAY HEREBY llJ· t" DEDICATED TO THE z llJ CITY OF RENTON 2 23.71' R=21.50' D=91 '14'03" L=34.24' ~01 '42'56"E. 173.03' I g ~gf2t56"E POB 157.38' g W. LINE SE.1/4, SEC. 29-23-5 SEC. STATE HWY. NO. 5C R=60.00' ---'--t.=9114'03" - L=95.54' FIELDBROOK COMMONS RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION EXHIBIT PARCEL NO. 2923059022 COPYRIGHT@ 2012. D.R. STRONG CONSULlTNG ENGINEERS INC. 11,j;ii D.R. STRONG CONSUi.TING ENGINEERS ENGINEERS PLANNERS S1JR',£')QfS 10Ei04 NE Mlh PLACE, surre: 10! ~IRKVIHD, WII 98033 426.827.JDl33 OfTIQ: !00.9U,1.W2 TOLL FREE 425.827.:U:23 FAX ......... dr.trCII\I.C<>m PRO...ECT SUR'A:YOR: SJS DRAFTED BY: FIELD BOOK: DATE: 11/13/12 PROJECT NO.: 11002 SHEET 1 Of 1 D.R.STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS KIRKLAND WA 98033 DRS Project No. 11062 11/13/12 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION PARCEL 9022 That portion of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M, King County, Washington described as follows; Commencing at the intersection of the north line of the south half of the south half of said subdivision and the east line of the west 30.00 feet of said southeast quarter, said intersection being on the east right of way margin of Secondary State Highway No. SC (formally known as John F. Benson Road), as established by order filed March 19, 1912 under Volume 16 of the King County Comminishiner's Records, Page 592; thence SOI 0 42'56"W, along said east line and east margin, 100.04 feet to the south line of the north 100.00 feet of the south half of the south half of said subdivision and THE POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described tract; thence continuing SOI 0 42'56"W, along said east line and east margin,157.38 feet to a point of tangency with a 60.00 foot radius curve to the left; as conveyed to the State of Washington by Warranty Deed recorded under Recording Number 9905141847, records of said county; thence southeasterly, along said curve, through a central angle of 91 °14'03" a distance of 95.54 feet to a point of tangency and the south line of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 29 and the north right of way margin of SE. 172nd Street as established by Kelsey Lane, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 128 of Plats, pages 87 through 88, records of said county; thence S89°3 l 'OT'E, along said south line and north margin, 648.42 feet to a non- radial intersection with a 50.50 foot radius curve to the left, the center of which bears N41 °46'21 "W; thence northeasterly, westerly and southwesterly, along said curve, through a central angle of 211 °57'33" a distance of 186.82 feet to a point of reverse curvature with a 25 .00 foot radius curve to the right; thence southwesterly, along said curve, through a central angle of 52°07'50" a distance of 22. 75 feet to a point of compound curvature with a 150.50 foot radius curve to the right; thence westerly, along said curve, through a central angle of 22°04'57" a distance of 58.00 feet to a point of tangency, said point being on the north line of the south 23.71 feet of said subdivision; thence N89°31'07"W, along said north line, 527.63 feet to a point of tangency with a 21.50 foot radius curve to the right; thence northwesterly, along said curve, through a central angle of 91 ° 14'03" a distance of 34.24 feet to a point of tangency, said point being on the east line of the west 35.83 feet of said subdivision; thence NO! 0 42'56"E, along said east line, 173.03 feet to the south line of the north 100.00 feet of the south half of the south half of said subdivision; thence N89°49'09"W, along said south line, 5.83 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 23,246± square feet, (0.5337±acres) R:\20/ J\O\l l062\2\Doc11ments'1Legals\J J 1220-RW-Dedication-l 1062-9022.doc Form No. 14 Subdivision Guarantee Guarantee No.: 4209-1989803 GUAR~NTEE Issued by First American Title Insurance Company 818 Stewart St, Ste 800, Seattle, WA 98101 Title Officer: Lavonne Bowman Phone: (206)728-0400 FAX: First American Title ' Form No. 14 Subdivision Guarantee ( 4-10-75) Guarantee No: 4209-1989803 Page No.: 1 ~ I L,. s ~ ~ First American First American Title Insurance Company 818 Stewart St, Ste 800 Lavonne Bowman (206} 336-0728 lavbowman@firstam.com Peter Child (206) 336-0726 pchild@firstam.com King County Title Team Two Seattle, WA 98101 Phn -(206)728-0400 (800)826-7718 Fax - 818 Stewart St, Ste. 800, Seattle, WA 98101 Fax No. (866) 561-3729 Kelly Cornwall (206) 336-0725 kcornwall@firstam.com Curtis Goodman (206) 615-3069 cgoodman@firstam.com Kathy Turner (206) 336-0724 kturner@firstam.com PLEASE SEND ALL RECORDING PACKAGES TO 818 STEWART ST, STE. 800, SEATTLE, WA 98101. 1,000.00 SECOND REPORT SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE ORDER NO.: 4209-1989803 LIABILITY FEE $ $ 350.00 TAX $ 33.25 YOUR REF.: Fieldbrook First American Title Insurance Company a Corporation, herein called the Company Subject to the Liability Exclusions and Limitations set forth below and in Schedule A. GUARANTEES Additional Parcel Charge $ 100.00 $ PNW Holdings, LLC, a Washington limited liability company 9.50 herein called the Assured, against loss not exceeding the liability amount stated above which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set forth above. 3. This Guarantee is restricted to the use of the Assured for the purpose of providing title evidence as may be required when subdividing land pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 58.17, R.C.W., First American Title Form No. 14 SubdlVision Guarantee (4-10-75) Guarantee No.: 4209-1989803 Page No.: 2 and the local regulations and ordinances adopted pursuant to said statute. It is not to be used as a basis for closing any transaction affecting title to said property. Dated: November 01, 2012 at 7:30 A.M. 'irst American Tide Form No. 14 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) SCHEDULE A Toe assurances referred to on the face page are: A. Title is vested in: Guarantee No : 4209-1989803 Page No.: 3 Ray W. Lotto, as Trustee of the Marjorie L. Lotto Living Trust, as to an undivided 50% interest and Toe Heirs and Devisees for the Estate of Viola T. O'Neil, as to an undivided 50% interest, as to Parcel A; Fieldbrook Commons, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, as to Parcel B; and PNW Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company, as to Parcel c B. That according to the Company's title plant records relative to the following described real property (including those records maintained and indexed by name), there are no other documents affecting title to said real property or any porition thereof, other than those shown below under Record Matters. Toe following matters are excluded from the coverage of this Guarantee: 1. Unpatented Mining Claims, reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 2. Water rights, claims or title to water. 3. Tax Deeds to the State of Washington. 4. Documents pertaining to mineral estates. DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET THEREOF, AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1979 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 7912270174; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF, LYING WITHIN THE 60 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY FOR SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. SC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOHN F. BENSON ROAD), AS ESTABLISHED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 19, 1912 UNDER VOLUME 16 OF THE KING COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, PAGE 592; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED MAY 14, 1999 UNDER RECORDING NO. 9905141847. AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO RICHARD R. NIEMI, SYDNEY J. NIEME, DARLENE R. BJORNSTAD AND THE DARLENE R. BJORNSTAD TiRUST BY JUDGMENT RECORDED APRIL 19, 2012 AND JUNE 8, 2012 UNDER RECORDING NOS. 20120419000630 AND 20120608001092 AND 20120608001093 AND DEED RECORDED MAY 29, 2012 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20120529000485. PARCEL B. THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF Arst Ametican Title Form No. 14 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) Guarantee No. 4209~1989803 Page No.: 4 THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET FOR HIGHWAY. PARCEL C: THE NORTH QUARTER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. APN: 292305-9168-04 APN: 292305-9022-00 APN: 292305-9023-09 Rrst American Title Form No. 14 Subdivision Guarantee ( 4-10-75) RECORD MATIERS: Guarantee No.: 4209-1989803 Page No.: 5 1. Delinquent General Taxes for the year 2012 . The first half becomes delinquent after April 30th. The second half becomes delinquent after October 31st. Tax Account No.: 292305-9168-04 Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Amount Billed: Amount Pa id: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: Affects: 1st Half $ 2,368.23 $ 0.00 $ 2,368.23, plus interest and penalty 2nd Half $ 2,368.23 $ 0.00 $ $ $ 2,368.23, plus interest and penalty 180,000.00 315,700.00 Parcel B 2. Delinquent General Taxes for the year 2012 . The first half becomes delinquent after April 30th. The second half becomes delinquent after October 31st. Tax Account No.: 292305-9023-09 Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: Affects: 1st Half $ 1,224.89 $ 0.00 $ 1,224.89, plus interest and penalty 2nd Half $ 1,224.89 $ 0.00 $ $ $ 1,224.89, plus interest and penalty 180,000.00 0.00 Parcel C 3. Taxes which may be assessed and extended on any subsequent roll for the tax year 2012, with respect to new improvements and the first occupancy which may be included on the regular assessment roll and which are an accruing lien not yet due or payable. 4. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any, rights of vendors and security agreement on personal propenty and rights of tenants, and secured parties to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. 5. Viola O'Neil died leaving a Non-Intervention Will. Admitted to Probate: Probate Case No.: Personal Representative: Attorney for Estate: March 03, 2011 11-4-00130-6, Yakima County William J. O'Neil Dan Kellogg Said personal representative is authorized to administer the estate without intervention of court and to mortgage, convey or contract to convey decedent's interest in said premises. First American Tttfe Form No. 14 Subdivision Guarantee { 4-10-75) Guarantee No: 4209-1989803 Page No.: 6 6. Lien of succession taxes upon the estate of Viola O'Neil, deceased, Yakima County, Probate Case No. 11-4-00130-6 7. The right, title or interest of M.B. Investments and W.R. Chatham, as disclosed by King County tax rolls. 8. Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon said premises, as granted by Deed. Recording Information: 1336934 9. Reservations and exceptions, including the terms and conditions thereof: Reserving: Minerals Recording Information: 1336934 10. Right to enter said premises to make repairs, and the right to cut brush and trees which constitute a menace or danger to utility lines located on the property adjoining said premises, as granted by instrument recorded under Recording No. 4043987. 11. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: September 27, 1978 under Recording No. 7809270194 In Favor of: Cascade Sewer District, a municipal corporation For: Sewer mains and appurtenances 12. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: March 25, 1980 under Recording No. 8003250181 In Favor of: Cascade Sewer District, a municipal corporation For: Sewer mains and appurtenances Affects: Parcel A 13. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Agreement to Dedicate Roadway" Recorded: March 10, 1981 Recording No.: 8103100664 Affects: Parcel A 14. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: October 22, 1982 under Recording No. 8210220372 In Favor of: King County Water District No. 58, a municipal corporation For: Water mains and appurtenances Affects: Parcel A 15. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Developer Extension Reimbursement Contract Cascade Sewer District" Recorded: April 28, 1983 Recording No.: 8304280626 16. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Developer Extension Reimbursement Contract King County Water District No. 58" Recorded: April 28, 1983 Recording No.: 8304280645 First American 77tle Form No. 14 Guarantee No.: 4209-1989803 Page No.: 7 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) 17. Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon said premises, as granted by Deed. Recording Information: 9905141847 18. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Developer Extension Reimbursement Agreement" Recorded: March 23, 2001 Recording No.: 20010323000684 19. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Landscape Easement Agreement" A. B. Recorded: June 08, 2012 Recording No.: 20120608001094 Affects: Parcel A INFORMATIONAL NOTES = Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. General taxes for the year 2012, which have been paid. Tax Account No.: 292305-9022-00 Code Area: 2128 Amount: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: Affects: $ $ $ 6,418.76 473,000.00 0.00 Parcel A First Ama !(an Title Form No. 14 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) Guarantee No : 4209-1989803 Page No.: 8 SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE OF THIS GUARANTEE 1. Except to the extent that specific assurance are provided 1n this Guarantee, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects, hens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters against the title, whether or not shown by the public records. (b) (1) Taxes or assessments of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property; or, (2) Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not the matters excluded under (1) or (2) are shown by the records of the taxing authority or by the public records. (c) (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excluded under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records. 2. Notwithstanding any specific assurances which are provided in this Guarantee, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the Following: (a) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters affecting the title to any property beyond the lines of the land expressly described in this Guarantee, or title to streets, roads, avenues, lanes, ways or waterways to which such land abuts, or the right to maintain therein vaults, tunnels, ramps, or any structure or improvements; or any rights or easements therein, unless such property, rights or easements are expressly and specifically set forth in said description. (b) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, whether or not shown by the public records; (1) which are created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by one or more of the Assureds; (2) which result in no loss to the Assured; or {3) which do not result in the invalidity or potential invalidity of any judJCial or non-judicial proceeding which is within the scope and purpose of the assurances provided. (c) The identity of any party shown or referred to in this Guarantee. (d) The validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown or referred to in this Guarantee. GUARANTEE CONDmONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. Definition of Terms. The following terms when used in the Guarantee mean: (a) the "Assured": the party or parties named as the Assured in this Guarantee, or on a supplemental writing executed by the Company. (b) "land": the land described or referred to m this Guarantee, and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. Toe term "land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or referred to in this Guarantee, nor any right, title, interest, estate or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways. (c) "mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. (d) "public records" records established under state statutes at Date of Guarantee for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. (e) "date": the effective date. 2. Notice of Claim to be Given by Assured Claimant. An Assured shall notify the Company promptly in writing in case knowledge shall come to an Assured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which 1s adverse to the title to the estate or interest, as stated herein, and which might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable by virtue of this Guarantee. If prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, then all liability of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required; provided, however, that failure to notify the Company shall in no case preJudice the rights of any Assured under this Guarantee unless the Company shall be preJudiced by the failure and then only to the extent of the prejudice. 3. No Duty to Defend or Prosecute. The Company shall have no duty to defend or prosecute any action or proceeding to which the Assured is a party, notwithstanding the nature of any allegation in such action or proceeding. 4. Company's Option to Defend or Prosecute Actions; Duty of Assured Claimant to Cooperate. Even though the Company has no duty to defend or prosecute as set forth in Paragraph 3 above: (a) The Company shall have the right, at its sole option and cost, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding, interpose a defense, as limited in (b), or to do any other act which in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest as stated herein, or to establish the lien rights of the Assured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Assured. The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this Guarantee, whether or not it shall be liable hereunder, and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of this Guarantee. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, it shall do so diligently. (b) If the Company elects to exercise its options as stated in Paragraph 4(a) the Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the right of such Assured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the Assured and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel, nor will the Company pay any fees, costs or expenses incurred by an Assured in the defense of those causes of action which allege matters not covered by this Guarantee. (c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a defense as permitted by the provisions of this Guarantee, the Company may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal from an adverse judgment or order. (d) In all cases where this Guarantee permits the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, an Assured shall secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of such Assured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, an Assured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid in any action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or lawful act which in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest as stated herein, or to establish the lien rights of the Assured. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Assured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the Assured under the Guarantee shall terminate. s. Proof of Loss or Damage. In addition to and after the notices required under Section 2 of these Conditions and Stipulations have been provided to the Company, a proof of loss or damage signed and sworn to by the Assured shall be furnished to the Company within ninety (90) days after the Assured shall ascertain the facts giving rise to the loss or damage. Toe proof of loss or damage shall describe the matters covered by this Guarantee which constitute the basis of loss or damage and shaU state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Assured to provide the required proof of loss or damage, the Company's obligation to such Assured under the Guarantee shall terminate. In addition, the Assured may reasonably be required to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and shall produce for examination, Inspection and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Guarantee, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, 1f requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the Assured shall grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party, which reasonably pertain to the Loss or Damage. All information designated as confidential by the Assured provided to the Company, pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary 1n the administration of the claim. Failure of the Assured to submit for examination under oath, produce other reasonably requested information or grant permission to secure reasonably necessary informauon from third parties as required in the above paragraph, unless prohibited by law or governmental regulation, shall terminate any liability of the Company under this Guarantee to the Assured for that claim. Form No. 1282 (Rev. 12/15/95) Hrst: Amen'can Title Form No. 14 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) 6. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims: Termination of Liability. In case of a claim under this Guarantee, the Company shall have the following additional options: (a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Liability or to Purchase the Indebtedness. The Company shall have the option to pay or settle or compromise for or in the name of the Assured any claim which could result in loss to the Assured within the coverage of this Guarantee, or to pay the full amount of this Guarantee or, if this Guarantee is issued for the benefit of a holder of a mortgage or a lienholder, the Company shall have the option to purchase the indebtedness secured by said mortgage or said lien for the amount owing thereon, together with any costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the Assured claimant which were authorized by the Company up to the time of purchase. Such purchase, payment or tender of payment of the full amount of the Guarantee shall terminate all liability of the Company hereunder. In the event after notice of claim has been given to the Company by the Assured the Company offers to purchase said indebtedness, the owner of such indebtedness shall transfer and assign said indebtedness, together with any collateral security, to the Company upon payment of the purchase price. Upon the exercise by the Company of the option provided for in Paragraph (a} the Company's obligation to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss or damage, other than to make the payment required in that paragraph, shall terminate, including any obligation to continue the defense or prosecutiOn of any litigation for which the Company has exercised its options under Paragraph 4, and the Guarantee shall be surrendered to the Company for cancellation. (b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other Toan the Assured or With the Assured Claimant To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an Assured claimant any claim Assured against under this Guarantee, together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the Assured claimant which were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated t.o pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of the option provided for in Paragraph (b) the Company's obligation to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss or damage, other than to make the payment required in that paragraph, shall terminate, including any obligation to continue the defense or prosecution of any litigation for which the Company has exercised its options under Paragraph 4. 7. Determination and Extent of Liability. This Guarantee is a contract of Indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the Assured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason of reliance upon the assurances set forth in this Guarantee and only to the extent herein described, and subject to the Exclusions From Coverage of This Guarantee. The Liability of the Company under this Guarantee to the Assured shall not exceed the least of: (a) the amount of liability stated in this Guarantee; (b) the amount of the unpaid pnnc1pal indebtedness secured by the mortgage of an Assured mortgagee, as limited or provided under Section 6 of these Conditions and Stipulations or as reduced under Section 9 of these Conditions and Stipulations, at the time the loss or damage Assured against by this Guarantee occurs, together with interest thereon; or (c) the difference behveen the value of the estate or interest covered hereby as stated herein and the value of the estate or interest subject to any defect, lien or encumbrance Assured against by this Guarantee. 8. Limitation of Liability. (a) If the Company establishes the title, or removes the alleged defect, lien or encumbrance, or cures any other matter Assured against by this Guarantee in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. (b) In the event of any litigation by the Company or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determinabon by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title, as stated herein. Guarantee No.: 4209·1989803 Page No.: 9 (c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any Assured for liability voluntarily assumed by the Assured in settling any claim or suit without the prior written consent of the Company. 9. Reduction of Liability or Termination of Liability. All payments under this Guarantee, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Paragraph 4 shall reduce the amount of liability pro tanto. 10. Payment of Loss. (a) No payment shall be made without producing this Guarantee for endorsement of the payment unless the Guarantee has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss or destruction sha!I be furnished to the satisfacbon of the Company. (b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage shaH be payable within thirty (30) days thereafter. 11. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement. Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this Guarantee, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the Assured claimant. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the Assured would have had against any person or property in respect to the claim had this Guarantee not been issued. If requested by the Company, the Assured shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The Assured shall permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle in the name of the Assured and to use the name of the Assured in any transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the Assured the Company shall be subrogated to all rights and remedies of the Assured after the Assured shall have recovered its principal, interest, and costs of collection. 12. Arbitration. Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the Assured may demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not lrm1ted to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the Assured arising out of or relating to this Guarantee, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a Guarantee provision or other obligation. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Liability is $1,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Assured. AU arbitrable matters when the amount of liability is in excess of $1,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the Assured. The Rules in effect at Date of Guarantee shall be binding upon the parties. The award may include attorneys' fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is located permits a court to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party. Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator{s) may be entered in any court having Jurisdiction thereof. The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules. A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request. 13. Liability Limited to This Guarantee; Guarantee Entire Contract. (a) This Guarantee together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire Guarantee and contract between the Assured and the Company. In interpreting any provision of this Guarantee, this Guarantee shall be construed as a whole. (b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, or any action asserting such da1m, shall be restricted to this Guarantee. (c} No amendment of or endorsement to this Guarantee can be made except by a wntmg endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company. 14. Notices, Where Sent. All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this Guarantee and shall be addressed to the Company at 2 First American Way. Bldg. 2, Santa Ana, CA. 92707. Form No. 1282 (Rev. 12/15/95) Fi& American T,t/e Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Vanessa: Peter Renner Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:58 AM Vanessa Dolbee RE: LUA12-001 Fieldbrook Commons/Fire Station Property P&S.pdf Yes. It is true. The City is no longer the owner of the property at 17040 1081 h Ave SE in Renton Thank you. Peter Peter M. Renner, CFM Facilities Director 425-430-6605 425-430-6603 fax prenner@rentonwa.gov From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:14 AM To: Peter Renner Subject: LUA12-001 Fieldbrook Commons/Fire Station Property Peter, It is my understanding that the transaction between the City and PNW Holdings for the Old Fire station site has been completed and the City is no longer the property owner. Is this true? If so can you please send me an e-mail identifying the City is no longer the property owner for the subject land use file. This will allow me to take the City off the correspondence list. Thank you, 'Vanessa (})of6ee CED, x7314 1 ASSIGNMENT OF REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT This Assignment of the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement is made on this I 0th day of April, 2012, ("Assignment") by and between PNW Holdings, LLC. a Washington limited liability company (the "Assignor") and Fieldbrook Commons, LLC, a Washington limited liability company (" Assignee"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Assignor (as Buyer) and the City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation (as Seller) entered into that certain Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (Raw Land Washington) dated October 25, 2011, ("Agreement"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "'A", for the sale of the Property (as defined in the Agreement). WHEREAS, Assignor has the right to assign the Agreement pursuant to Section 19(1) of the Agreement. AND WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign its interest in the Agreement to Assignee, and Assignee desires to assume all of Assignor's obligations under the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: I. Recitals. The above-stated recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Transfer of Agreement. Assignor hereby assigns, sets over and transfers to Assi1,~1ee all of its right, title, and interest (including liabilities and obligations) in, to and tinder the Agreement and the Property. Assignee hereby assumes all of Assignor's right, title, and interest (including liabilities and obligations) in, to and under the Agreement and tl1e Property. 3. Signatures. This Assignment may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same Assignment. Facsimile copies of signatures hereto shall be deemed originals. · 4. Definitions. All definitions and capitalized terms used in the Agreement shall apply for the purposes of this Assignment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties duly execute and make effective this Assignment as of the date first above written. ASSIGNOR: Its: Manager ASSIGNEE: Fieldbrook Commons, LLC By: ~L----- J~el Mezistrano Its: Manager AC-070 REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (Raw Land-Washington) This Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement ('' Agreement'') is made and entered this 25th day of October, 2011, by and between The City of Renton, a Municipal Corpozation ("SeUer") and PNW Holdings LLC, a Washington Limited LW>ilily Company, and/or assigns (''Buyer"). ' In consideration of the promises and mutual covenan1s set forth herein, Buyer and Seller agree as follows: DESCRIPTION OF PROPER'IY TO BE CONVEYED -Seller agrees to sell to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to pm-chase from Seller, upon the tenns and conditions hereinafter set forth, that certain real Property descnl>ed as follows: THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNI'Y, WASHINGTON, together with all improvements and fixtures thereon and all related rights and appurtenances thereto, as well as all Intangil>le Property associated therewith. Seller warrants that this is the correct legal desaiption of the Property to be conveyed pursuant to this Agreement. If the above legal desaiption is not a complete legal description of the Property to be conveyed, . Seller shall provide Buyer with a complete legal description. Seller and Buyer hereby authorize Escrow to insert over their signatures the correct legal description of the real Property. l. PURCHASE PRICE -The purchase price shall be One Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($165,000). The purchase price shall be paid in cash at the time of closirtg, less any earnest money previously paid by Buyer. 2. EARNEST MONEY RECEIPT -Upon the date Buyer acknowledges receipt of a fully executed copy of this Agreement ("Mutual Accep1ance"), Buyer shall deliver and deposit with First American TIiie Insurance Company ("Escrow'') an Earnest Money Promissory Note. The· F.amest Money Note shall be payable in the swn of F"IVe Thousand Dollars ($5,000). All earnest money shall be applicable to the purohase price at closing. Within five (S) business days after Buyer notifies Seller that it bas removed the Feasioility · Contiogency stated below, Buyer shall convert the Earnest Money Note to cash and release its proceeds to F.scrow with instructions to release the money to Seller. Earnest Money shall be considered non-refundable once released to Seller, except in the case of SeUer default 3. FEASlBILITY CONTINGENCY -This Agreement is expressly subject to Buyer completing, at its sole expense, a feasibility study for the development of the Pmperty. This feasibility study shall be completed within Thirty (30) business days lrom the taler of Mutual Acceptance or the date Seller has provided Buyer with all of the Property Documents descnlled below (the "Feasibility Period"). If Buyer shall deem, in its sole and absolute discretion, that its intended use of the Property appears to be economically viable and arobitecturally feasible, t1!en PNW Holdings LLC / City of Renton / PS13 Property pagel notification shall be provided to Seller in writing, on or before the last day of the Feasibility Period, slating that the contingency has been removed. If Buyec elects not to proceed with the transaction, no notice shall be given to Seller,· this transaction shall be null and void UD]ess otherwise agreed upon by the parties to this Agreement, and all Earnest Money deposited under this transaction together with any accrued interest sball be returned to Buyer. 4. SELLER'S COOPERATION -Seller.agrees that Buyer and/or its nominee may seek to obtain PUD approval, binding site plan approval, subdivide, rezone and/or develop any or all portions of the Property descnlled in this.Agreement Seller agrees to join with Buyer in the signing of all application docwnents, easements, acquisition of utilities, requests for zoning, conditions, covenants and restrictions, etc. Seller does not waive its independent right to ensure that any proposal meets its codes and complies with all Federal and State laws, including ihe State Environmental Protection Act (SEP A). 5. CWSING -This transaction shall close within One Hundred Twenty (120) days after the date Buyer removes its Feasibility Contingency as noted in Section 3 above. The closing of this transaction sball 1ake place at Escrow. Buyer reserves the right to close this transaction and waive all contingencies at any time if, in Buyer's sole discretion, this action is warranted. 6. CONVEYANCING -Titre to the Property shall be conveyed to Buyer at closing by warranty deed free of encumbrances or defects and Seller shall deliver possession of the Property to Buyer free of all temmcies on the date of closing. In addition, Seller shall provide Buyer with a written assigrunent of the Intangible Property relating to the Property at Closing. 7. CLOSING ADJUSTMENTS AND COSTS a) Any and all rents, or other income and operating expenses for or pertaining to the Property, shall be pro-rated between Seller and Buyer as of the closing date. Any pro- rations based on estimates shall be subsequently adjusted after closing when actual costs and pro-rations can be calculated, and the obligated patty for any overage or adjustment shall promptly pay the amount due to the other patty. b) Seller shall pay for the cost of the Standard Title Policy, transfer taxes, one-htlf of the Escrow fee and all other customary closing costs for Seller. Buyer shall pay the cost of the Extended portion of the Title Policy, recording the deed, one-half of the Escrow fee and all other customary closing costs for Buyer. 8. lNTER1M ACTIONS/RIGHT OF ACCESS After the date of Mutual Acceplance, Buyer, its agents and employees shall have the right to enter onto the Property fur the purpose of accomplishing Buyer's objectives for the study and development of the Propetty. Buyer shall restore the Property reasonably consistent with its present condition in the event of termination of this Agreement except in the case of Seller's defiwJt. PNW Holdings LLC / Oty of Renton/ FS13 Property page2 9. SELLER'S REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES -Seller represents, wanants and covcoants the following to Buyer: a) b) c) d) e) t) g) . Power and Authority-Seller is the owner of the Property and has the legal power, right and authority to enter into this Agreement and to consummate the transaction provided for herein. This Agreement and all othet docwnents executed and delivered by Seller constitute a legal, valid, binding and enforceable obligation of Seller. Each person signing below on bebalf of Seller represents and warrants that it has the legal power, right and authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of Seller and that its sigmrture to this Agreement binds Seller to the teens of this Agteement. Title -Sellec has fee simple title to the Property which as of the Closing Date, will be free and clear of all encumbrances, defects, and encroachments. The term Property includes any easements, rights of way, or appurtenances necessary to record the final plat, obtain building permits, and certificates of OCCll})ancy. Buyer acknowledges an existing fence line dispute with a neighboring property and agrees to waive any rights it may have Wider this section regarding warranties against encroachments. Hazardous Substances -To the best of Seller's knowledge, there Is no hazardous waste or ha:zmdous substances on the Propecty (including the land, surface water, ground water, .and any improvements) as such tenns are defined by any law, ordinance, or regulation applicable to the Property. Other Claims Of Commibnents -There are no writteo or verbal con1Iacts or agreements fur the sale, lease, rental or use of the Property or any portion lhereot; which contract or agreement may be binding against the Property and may subsequently result in a claim against Buyer. . Legal Action -There is no acli-OJJ, suit, proceeding or investigation pending, or to Seller's knowledge threatened. before any agency, comt or other governmental authority which relates lo the Property or Buyer's intended use thereot: Foreign Person or Entitv -SeUer is not a foreign pmon, non-resident alien, foreign corporation, foreign partnership, foreign trust or foreign estate, as those terms are defined in the lntemal Revenue Code and the Income Tax Regulations promulgated thereunder. At closing, Seller shall deliver to Escrow a certificate of non-foreign status in the form requited by Income Tax Regulations and reasonably acceptable to Buyer. In the event Seller shall not deliver such certificate to Escrow at closing, Escrow shall withhold the amount n:quired pursuant to Section I 44S of the Internal Revenue Code and submit such wilhbolding to the Jntemal Revenue Service. l&ga! Lot -The Property conveyed at c:losing shall be a legal lot in compliance with slate sfallltes and local ordinances. PNWHoldlngsLLC/ City of Renton/ FS13 Propert;y page3 h) No Artifacts or Protected Species -The Property is free of historical or archaeological artifa&ts and/or protected species. i) Utilities -The Prope,1y is presently served by a public water main, public sewer main, gas main, and electric distribution line. The tenn "served by" means that a main or line capable of adequately serving the entire property abuts or a<fioins the Property at some point. 10.SEILER'S OBUGATIONS PENDING CLOSING -During the term of this Agreement until teuainarion as herein provided, Seller coveoaots and agrees to perform the following obligations: a) Property Documents 7 Seller shall provide Buyer with copies of all documents pertaining to the Property which shall include but not be limited to the preliminary plat approval containing conditions required for final plat approval, the recorded plat if recorded, any and all engineering and other consulting studies, soils reports, swveys, environmental reports, development plans and specifications, permit applications, governmental licenses, pennits and approvals, warranties from third parties, utility rights and agreements ( collectively ~Intangible Property"). In addition, Seller shall provide Buyer with all govemmenlal communications, umecmded covenams, restrictions, easements, and/or other potential encumbrances pedllining to the Property. Any additional documents n:cei.ved by Seller subse.quent to the date of Mutual Acceptance, shall be ptomptly forwarded to Buyer. b) Sell or Encumber Property -Seller shall not sell, assign, or convey any right, title or in!eleSt whatsoever in or to lhe Property to any thitd party, or create or permit to exist any lien, encmnbi:ance or charge thereon which will not be paid in full at closing. c) ~ons and Warranties -Seller shall not take any action, or omit to take any action, that would have the effect of violating any of its representations, wimanties, covenants, and agieements contained herein. d) Existing Fmancing -Seller shall continue to make all payments required 111lder the tetms of any existing financing on the Property and shall not suffer a default or permit a demult to arise therewlder. e) Memorandum of Agreement • Seller sba11, upon request by Buyer, execute a memorandmn of this Agreement which Buyer nilly record. ll.1TILE JNSURANCE -As. soon as possible after the date oftbe Mutual Ac:ceptan<:e, Seller shall cause Fust American Title Insurance Cmnpany (the "Trtle Coinpany") to issue a commitment for an AL TA Owners Extended Covel8ge Title Policy (including copies of all exception docurneots referenced in said commibnent) in an amount equal to the Purchase Price, which commitment shall provide for the issuance of a final title policy as of the Closing Date, !'NW Holdings I.LC/ Ci1;y of Renton/ FS13 Property page4 . subject to no lieos or encwnbrances and include such endorsements, affirmative coverage, and other modifications required by Buyer and Buyer's lender. The Trtle Company shall issue the Title Policy to Buyer as soon as possible after Closing. 12.CONDTTON OF PROPER'IY AT CLOSING a) Condition of Property-Between lhe date of Mutual Acceptance and the date of closing, there shall be no material adveise change(s) in the condition of the Property. Prior to Closing, Seller shall remove alljllllk and debris from the Property. b) Casualty or Condeumation -If prior to closing. !here is a loss of the Property by casually or condemnation, Buyer shall have the option to: I) accept title to the Property without any adjusbnent of the purchase price, in which event at the closing all of the condemnation awards shall be assigned bY Seller to Buyer and all moneys received by Seller in connection with such loss shall be paid over to Buyer; or 2) terminate this Agreement, in which event all earnest money deposits, whether refundable or not, shall be retumed to Buyer, and this Agreement shall then be null and void. c) Momtorimn -As of the closing date 1here shall be no actions imposed, pending, or contemplated by any utility supplier or other authority having jurisdiction over the Property that would result in restricting, mincing, delaying, or denying pennits necessary fbr the development, construction, use or occupancy of the Property as a residential development 13.CONDmONS PRECEDENT TO CLOSING -If any of Seller's obligations contained herein have not been completed then Buyer shall have the right to extend the closing date until the date which is 15 business days after Seller completed the condition or may tenninate this Agreement and have all Earnest Money refunded to Buyer. 14DEFAULT PROVISIONS a) Buyer's Remedies -In the event of Seller's breach of this Agreement, Buyer shall have the right to enforce this Agreement by specific perfbrmance or by any other remedy IIVllilable in law or equity. Buyer, at its option, may elect to waive the perfonnance of any condition, contingency or provision in Buyer's favor set forth in this Agreement b) Seller's Rgpedjes -In the event Buyer fails, without legal excuse, to complell: the pW'Chase of the Property, any Earnest Money deposit(s) paid to Seller shall be forfeited to the Seller as the sole and exclusive remedy available to the Seller for such failure. This limitation shall include any claims fur attorneys' fees, interest and actual or consequential damages. It is agreed that the Eames! Money shall 1ep1esent the reasonable estimate by the parties of the amount of damages that Seller would suffer by reason of Buyer's demult wider this Agreement. Seller hereby waives any other mnedy it may PNW Holdings LLC / City of Renton/ PS13 Property pages have. In the event Seller fails to receive any payment or notice required herein, Seller shall so notify Buyer and Buyer shall then have ten (10) days to cure performance I SNOTICES -All notices shall (i) be in writing; (ii) be sent by mail, courier service, or facsimile transmission; and (iii) be effective on the date it is officially recorded as delivered. The addresses to be used in this Agreement are: Buyet's Address: Seller's Address: PNW Holdiogs, LLC Attn: Michael Gladstein • Manager 9725 SE 3~ St. Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Phone: (206)588-1147 City of Renton c/o Peter M Renner, CFM Facilities Director copy to Lany Warren, City Attorney Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-6605 16.0PEN SPACE/ AGRICULTIJRAL TAXATION PENALTIES· Seller shall pay all applicable ''back" or "roll-back'' real estate taxes, interest and/or penalties to bring the subject Property out of any open space designation, green belt, farm, forest, other property defunal, current use taxation program or similar restrictive designation. Such back taxes, interest or penalties shall be paid by Seller before closing. If Seller is unable to complete this obligation prior to closing, Buyer shall have the option of delaying closing until the county tax. assessor has cleared the matter, or proceeding to close with an escrow hold-back in 1he amount of one hundred fifty percent (ISO%) of the estimated back taxes and penalties. 17.COVENANTS CONDIDONS & RESTRICTIONS -If Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("CC&R'S) have not already been recorded against the Property as of the date of this Agreement, Seller. agrees not to record any against the Property prior to closing without Buyer's prior written consent 18.REAL EST A TE COMMISSION -Each party represents and warrants to the other that it has not used the services of any real estate agent, broker or finder with respect to the transaction contemplaled hereby. Each party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other against and fiom any inaccuracy in such party's representation under this Paragraph. PNW Holdings LLC / City of Renton/ PS13 Property ' page6 19.MISCEILANEOUS a) Entire Agreement No Oral Modifications -This Agreement, and any exhibits hereto, constitute the final and complete Agreement, and supersede all prior correspondence or agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement cannot be changed or modified other than by a written agreement executed by both parties. . b) . Successors Bound -The provisions of this Agteement sbaU extend to, bind and inure to the benefit oftbe parties hereto and their respective heirs, s~ and assigns. c) Governing Law-This Agreement sball be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. d) Sevetability -If any tenn or provision of this Agreement shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, but each remaining tenn and provision shall be valid and enforced to the fullest extent pennitted by the law. e) Construction -Seller and Buyer acknowledge that each party and its COIIIISel have reviewed and revised this Agreement and that the nonnal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafling party shall not apply in the inteq,retation of this Agreement (mcluding exlul>its) or any amendments thereto, and that the Agreement shall be given a reasonable interpretation in accozdance with the plain meaning of its terms and the intent of the parties. f) Survival ofTerms -The terms and provisions of this Agteement shall survive the closing and shall not be merged into the deed or extinguished thereby, but shall remain in full fozce and effect thereafter. g) 1lme Periods -All lime periods set forth in this Agreement shall be measured from the date of Buyer's receipt of a Seller signed original of this Agreement, which date shall be considered to be the "date' of this Agreement and is set forth below. If the date of any performance under the terms_ of this Agreement mils on a weekend or holiday, the lime for perfonnance shall be extended ID the next business day. h) Time oftheE=lce-T1IDe is of the essence, and shall apply to all terms and condmons of this Agreement i) Counterparts -This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and together shall constitute one and the same Agreement . j) Facsimile Transmission -Facsimile transmission of any signed original document, and retransmission of any signed facsimile transmission, shall be the same as delivery of an PNWHoldlngs LLC/CityofRentun / PS13 Property page7 k) I) m) n) o) p) q) r) original. At the request of either party, or Escrow, the parties will confum facsimile transmitted signatures by signing an original document Multiple Parties -In the event Seller is composed of more than one party, obligations arising from this Agreement are and shall be joint and several as to each such party. Each person executing this Agreement does so in his or her individual capacity and on behalf of his or her marital community. Assignment of Agreement -Buyer shall have the right to assign this Agreement and its rights hereunder and to be relieved of any futme liability under this Agreement, provided 1hat the assignee shall assume all of the obligations of Buyer hereunder. f.mantjng Extension of Closing Date -Seller agrees that the· closing date may be extended up to fifteen business days, if necessary, to permit Buyer's lender to prepare financing docwnents. I 031 Exchange -Buyer agrees to cooperate with Seller if Seller decides to participate in a 1031 exchange of properties, provided that such exchange shall be at no expense to Buyer and shall not delay closing, and provided further that Buyer shall not be required to talce title to any property other than the Property. No Waiver -No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constiblte a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless excused in writing by the party making the waiver. Further Acts -Each party shall, at the request of the other, execute, acknowledge (if appropriate) and deliver whatever additional documents, and do such other acts as may be reasonably required in order to accomplish the intent and purposes of this Agreement Attorneys Fees • In the event that either party hereto brings an action or proceeding fur a declaration of the rights of the parties wider this Agreement, fur iajunctive relief; or for an alleged breach or default of this Agicement, or any other action arising out of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby, the prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees and comt costs incurred in such action or pl'O('ffiJing, in addition to any other damages or relief awarded, regardless of whether such action proceeds to final judgment No Pertnersbim • Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed in any way to create between the parties any relationship of partnership, joint venture or association, and the parties disclaim the existence thereof. PNW Holdings LLC / Clly of Renton/ FS13 Property page8 20.BTNER'S OFFER -The undersigned Buyer, on this 25th day of October, 201 l, hereby offers this Agreement lo Seller to purchase the Property desc,ibcd herein, pursuant to the tem1s and conditions contained herein. Buyer: PNW Holdings, LLC L/_z{/.k~ /fustinR.~ Director of Land Acquisitions 21.TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE-Buyer's offer is made subject to the acceptance of Seller, on or ' before twelve o'clock midnight of November l l, 20 I I. If Seller does not accept this Agreement within the lime specified, the Earnest Money note shall be returned to Buyer, and this Agreement shall be null and void. 22.SELLER'S ACCEPTANCE -The undersigned Seller on this lday of ;j_}r;,Jp,11 bi'/, 2011; hereby accepts and approves this Agreement, and agrees to carry out all of the lemis thereof By: ----1::~:M-A-b.-U-c~--- Printed Name: Denis Law Title: Mayor, City of Renton By: &,,.< ,; ./. f-t)~ Printed Name: Bonnie Walton Title: City Clerk, City of Renton 23.BUYER'S RECEIPT -Buyer hereby acknowledges receipt of a Seller ~igned copy of this Agreement, on ;f,i....,;l.__. 9' ~ , 2011. LC . LagerS Director of Land Acquisitions PNW Holdings LLC / City of Renton/ F513 Property : i' ...... .,, ·.''.! ... :·.·:;-:..~r,:·. ··~:: 'T ' ..... , .. · :r;;, '(1 ·.<~ . ..!: . : ·-. ,._, ·:·. ', .' ~. ,, ·: \~ ,'..~c-'.:. '., -~ •,-. . ;..•, . ·/.i ;::' _. ~-. .:.~ .'. > .·• -_, (: :;_i ;1· •:··J : ! ·::?\:; ·,1 ~;', ,, ·;~.,·:., ' ' :: j,-.:t; .. , '· '· ., ' ., ,;_,.; .. i.' ,_..-:::: : EARNEST MONEY PROMISSORY NOTE $5,000.00 Mercer Island, Washington October 25, 2011 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned ("Buyer") agree(s) to pay to the order of The City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation ("Seller") the sum of FIVE THOUSAND AND N0/100 DOllARS ($5,000.00), without interest, PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS: This note is evidence of the obligation to pay earnest money under the terms and provisions of a real estate Purchase and Sale Agreement between ("Seller") and ("Buyer") dated October 25, 2011. Buyer's failure to pay the earnest money pursuant to the terms of said Purchase and Sale Agreement shall constitute a default on said Purchase and Sale Agreement as well as on this note. This note is due and payable within 5 (five) business days of Buyer and Seller agreeing that the conditions, contingencies, and inspections given in the said Purchase and Sale Agreement have been met. In the event that this note is not paid when due and suit is instituted for the collection thereof, the undersigned promises to pay to the holder of this note all reasonable costs and expenses of suit, including all reasonable attorney's fees, to be determined by the court in which such action may be brought. PNW Holdings LLC a Washington Limited Liability Company ~Aw~ Robert Gladstein -Manager f\\'7-' I 1 JA 12.. -00 I ' ' ," ~. 1- City of Renton '"1, \J .-,,;; R -' v, ant . '"'"·-. or · ·, , , 1/r ](· r··,. . LAND USE PERMIT · i' '· ·''··1('.-'ion '"N ;;, -8 2aJ; MASTER APPLICATION 1RU§:1i'''fE;'r/i1,1, .. '"-J~~ PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: PNW Holdings, LLC -as to Parcel A Fieldbrook Commons 9725 SE 36" St., Suite 214 PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: ADDRESS: 17040 -108'" Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 206-588-114 7 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): TELEPHONE NUMBER: Parcel A -292305-9023 Parcel B -292305-9022 APPLICANT {if other than owner) Parcel C -292305-9168 EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: Vacant Land -Unimproved PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COMPANY (if applicable): Planned Urban Development EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: R-14 -Residential Medium Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CITY: ZIP: (if applicable) EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: R-14 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): Justin Lagers SITE AREA (in square feet): NAME: 469,158 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): PNW Holdings, LLC DEDICATED: 22,780 SF ADDRESS: 9725 SE 36 1 " St., Suite 214 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: -NA- CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET 98040 ACRE (if applicable) 162 units/ 9.05 AC= 17.90 units per acre TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 206-588-114 7 I 253-405-5587 Justin.pnwholdings@gmail.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 162 Units utilizing density bonus incentives C: \Users \AC l l\Documents \Projects \Field brook\Ficldbrook Reports \Applications \mm;terapp pnw .doc -I - Ph.-J ECT IN FORM A T~IO=--N:___::___!_( c=--o=-=-n-=-=t'--'--i .. :...:c ... :...:.e-=d,___) ______ ~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 0 PROJECT VALUE: $16,356,000.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): /-fi3Jtfs/ IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2400 sf-recreation building SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2400 sf -recreation building NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 0 D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO D FLOOD HAZARD AREA X GEOLOGIC HAZARD 8760 D HABITAT CONSERVATION D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES X WETLANDS 51 815 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY I Attach leaal descriotion on seoarate sheet with the followina information included) sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. SITUATE IN THE S.E. QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Robert Gladstein declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) __ the current owner of the property involved in this application or _2\__ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Owner/Representative Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ;f C:Dt~/c ;-fy / ,1'/( .5/e,/ /Z signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hislRer/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. I J . /.;!, -/ 9 -.2 r: ! I Dated 1 . . ... -/ ', ~ ,, ' -.... . {c <".Ice {! .. _ le r (/ J .. .i' Ej.~~l,s> '~ N ry Public in and for the State of Washington e,. Of§/i'•,,,,, .. ~1111,, C'.£..\ IA :'(AJi' .... ~'P-"'.i \ • _, ':t ~o . t~ ~ /. . /1 l I f8 · · . ~ 1 Notary (Print): \/1/1711('. C · ./JI(' A'('_ /( ~ ~ ~ ....... :::z_ Date '\ ~ ,::>U8\..' =E: .. ~,,, 1 ""'~ J 2·1 Jo!.5' 'I;,~ ..,,,~,t..->:..,.i'I';' appointment expires: _'I.-"-"-(,_/ lc..:lt.=··'-'( t:::i.c..:/!.:_-_·l;;.J.,_=:..-..,,,, ____ ..=-=----...... 10F W~~~~ ; ''H""""''' C: \U sers\A C H\Documents \Proj ccts\F icldbrook\Fiel db rook Reports \Applications \mastcrapp pnw. doc -2 - LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel A THE NORTH QUARTER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGES EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Tax parcel No. 292305-9168 Parcel B THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGES EAST, W.M., EXCEPT THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5-C; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON TAX PARCEL NO. 292305-9022 Parcel C THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Tax parcel No. 292305-9168 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION I NAME: Ray W. Lotto, as Trustee of the Marjorie L. Lotto Living Trust -as to an undivided 50% interest in Parcel B PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Fieldbrook Commons ' ADDRESS: 1250 Jones Street #1701 CITY: San Francisco, CA ZIP: 94109-4207 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 415-928-5482 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: PNW Holdings, LLC COMPANY (if applicable): · ADDRESS: 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214 CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-588-114 7 CONT ACT PERSON NAME: Justin Lagers COMPANY (if applicable): PNW Holdings, LLC ADDRESS: 9725 SE 36th St., Suite 214 CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: 206-588-1147 / 253-405-5587 Justin.pnwholdings@gmail.com I ' ' i PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 17040-1081h Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): Parcel A -292305-9023 Parcel B -292305-9022 Parcel C -292305-9168 EXISTING LAND USE(S) Vacant Land -Unimproved , PROPOSED LAND USE(S)· Planned Urban Development EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: R-14 -Residential Medium Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) EXISTING ZONING: R-14 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): 469,158 SF i SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 22,780 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: -NA- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 162 units/ 9.05 AC= 17.90 units per acre NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable) 162 Units utilizing density bonus incentives C: \Users \AC H\Documents \Proj ects\F icl d brook \i-: ieldbrook ReportslApp! icali ons\mastcrapp lotto_ doc -I - i Pl JECT INFORMA T~IO=----=N---=---i:( c'--'o__c_:n=ti-=--=-· .. -=---e=----=d=)-------~ - NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: <" $ !&, 3~b, COO· ,,_ SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable) / ,,t/, 3Jls f IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF 1:NVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable) 0 D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESl[)ENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 21./00 .Sf-rec.l"e<>l.t,Gn bl~ - D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO D FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 "'1 GEOLOGIC HAZARD 87 &o sq ft NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Z</CO :sf -\"e<.{t.<\,t,on bl<lg . D HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. PROJECT (if applicable): O !II WETLANDS SI IS l'>sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY I Attach leaal description on seoarate sheet with the following information included\ SITUATE IN THE .5,c, QUARTER OF SECTION Z.. 'l , TOWNSHIP Z:J ~ RANGE 5 I=, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON - AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) 'Ro,~ W. Lo+\:o -1,.-"'\ t(e,_ , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (p se check one)$,__ the current owner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained an e formation herewith in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. / Signature of w er/Representative Date Signature of Owner/Representative o..\i~0("1',o... STATE OF VVASI lll~~TOlq ) ) ss COUNTYOF~~t(r,. (.J:::, I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ~'\~\~IC )IJ lnito signed this instrument and acknowledge it to b~er/t~~nd voluntarycact for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. ~\lC'\l)_k ~'.2 )~Q\) Dated C:\Users\ACH\Documents\Projects\Fieldbrook\Fieldbrook Rcports\masterapp COR.doc Date -2 - LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel A THE NORTH QUARTER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Tax parcel No. 292305-9168 Parcel B THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., EXCEPT THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5-C; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON TAX PARCEL NO. 292305-9022 Parcel C THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Tax parcel No. 292305-9168 I NAME: ADDRESS: ' City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) I PROJECT INFORMATION William O'Neil as Executor of the Estate of Viola PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: T. O'Neil -as to an undivided 50% interest in Parcel B Fieldbrook Commons 215 N. 561 " Avenue #36 PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE 17040-1081" Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 'CITY: Yakima, WA ZIP: 98908 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 509-965-0573 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER($): Parcel A -292305-9023 Parcel B -292305-9022 APPLICANT (if other than owner) Parcel C -292305-9168 I NAME: PNW Holdings, LLC EXISTING LAND USE(S) Vacant Land -Unimproved PROPOSED LAND USE(S): COMPANY (if applicable): Planned Urban Development ADDRESS 9725 SE 36 1" St., Suite 214 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: R-14 -Residential Medium Density i PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION , CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 , (if applicable) EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-588-114 7 R-14 CONT ACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NAME: Justin Lagers SITE AREA (in square feet): ! 469,158 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): PNW Holdings, LLC DEDICATED: 22,780 SF ADDRESS: 9725 SE 36'" St., Suite 214 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: -NA- ! PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY, Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 ACRE (if applicable) 162 units/ 9.05 AC = 17.90 units per acre TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 206-588-1147 / 253-405-5587 Justin.pnwholdings@gmail.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 162 Units utilizing density bonus incentives ' C: \l Jsers \A CH\Documents \Proj ccts \Fie[ dbrook\F ieldbrook Keports \Appl i cati ons\masterapp o 'nei I. doc -] - ' i .. ..... NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable) Pl __ JECT INFORMAT~IO-'----N------'-'(c:....:o_n_ti_ .. _-e_d_,_I) _______ ~ .PROJECT VALUE: . ,>.1 ! $ / t,,1 5 5'(p, OO(} SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): / J/,3'Jg's,? IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSEi NON-RESID.ENTI~ BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2~ s -fecr=-h°"' lo • SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RE~NTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2'100 &f-re.uer.; bl~· NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO D FLOOD HAZARD AREA JI GEOLOGIC HAZARD 87&0 D HABITAT CONSERVATION D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. PROJECT (if applicable): C> ~ WETLANDS 51 1 e:16" sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach leaal description on seoarate sheet with the followina infonnation includedl SITUATE IN THE .S.£, QUARTER OF SECTION ll_, TOWNSHIP {;2Jj_, RANGE 5 t:, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) W,· \\ i 0, l'.)'.\ () ~e .. i \ -ex~C.V\. "to, , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) .x_ the current owner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained nd t information her ith ar in all respects true jl d correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF *IN& ) '1~\Lj ,...,._ I I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that (i)I l/ la.m O \'\ell signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and vollll1tary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. \-14-;)..C>\.\ -- Date and for the State of Washington Date No!OfY Public J LJ / State of Washlnglon / ~ <' JIM D URN6SS Notary (Print): _....:!i...!..!.'M-'-'--"""-·-'-'A'-'L(,_tl.,,;;...,S='.:::,"'-------- My Appolnlment Expires Dec 21. 20 l 3 ,1.. ___ _..,..._.._._.,...,_.,. ... ~' My appointment expires: _ _,.\-'J"--;)""-'L'----"';)_D'-'-l-3.,__ _________ _ C:\Users\ACH\Documents\Projects\Fieldbrook\Fieldbrook Reports\mastcrapp lotto.doc • 2 • ·' LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel A THE NORTH QUARTER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Tax parcel No. 292305-9168 Parcel B THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., EXCEPT THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5-C; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON TAX PARCEL NO. 292305-9022 Parcel C THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Tax parcel No. 292305-9168 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: City of Renton -as to Parcel C PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Fieldbrook Commons ADDRESS: 1055 South Grady Way PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 17040 -1081 " Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98057 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-430-6605 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): Parcel A -292305-9023 Parcel B -292305-9022 APPLICANT (if other than owner) Parcel C -292305-9168 NAME: PNW Holdings, LLC EXISTING LAND USE(S): Vacant Land -Unimproved COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Planned Urban Development ADDRESS: 9725 SE 361" St., Suite 214 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: R-14 -Residential Medium Density CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) R-14-Residential Medium Densitv EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: 206-588-114 7 R-14 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NAME: Justin Lagers SITE AREA (in square feet): 469,158 SF COMPANY (if applicable): PNW Holdings, LLC SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 22,780 SF ADDRESS: 9725 SE 36 1 " St., Suite 214 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: -NA- CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 162 units/ 9.05 AC= 17.90 units per acre TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 206-588-1147 / 253-405-5587 Justin.pnwholdings@gmail.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 162 Units utilizing density bonus incentives C:\Users\ACH\Documents\Projccts\Fieldbrook\Fieldbrook Reports\A.pplications\masterapp COR.doc -I • Pl __ J ECT I NFORMA Tr=---10=----=N-=---'--' (c'-=o_n-=-ti_ .. .:..:J_e:....:d=) _______ ~-~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 0 PROJECT VALUE: --tJ llP1 35C.C, 000 ·~ SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): /8~3f'f's,f IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2400 -recreation building D FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): X GEOLOGIC HAZARD 8760 sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2400 -recreation building D HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. PROJECT (if applicable): 0 X WETLANDS 51,815 sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY I Attach legal description on seoarate sheet with the following information included I SITUATE IN THE S.E. QUARTER OF SECTION 29. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST. IN THE CITY OF RENTON. KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Ve+cv· 'Re V\ V\ e V ' declare under penalty of perjury under th<rfaws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) __ the current owner of the property involved in this application or _V_ t the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contain and the information herewith are in all respects _,rue and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I _.;a::;y-L I Z. /13 / / 2,.--- ~ , Signature of Owner/Representative Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ? r; ,!::.Q( t Q (',-(\ -<c'J~ signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act fpr the uses and purpose mentioned 1n the 1nstrumen\._,////r..,-_, t , . ii ,..-_... ' ' /''-i.\:.I.·~.:::.~"'-__ '-"\ --! \ \ \ J--\ ~ ) d:: / . ..l.~-~~ss1CN ,,-~:·.?/-~ • • L ~ ~ - I U-~ '°•Y '-"'>... ~ /== Dated ~ / o ,,o-i AR y '?,, Na\ary Pumic ,n an\J for the State of Washington ",. ' :o ~: ~ Date ~ ! C-••-:o j ~ l1 :,i . ..., ~ Pusl ,e, • ' l (\,j~ ~ ~ \ ... , / ~l*ary (Print): _,,_'j-""~:::\:..\.. ·-'-'IA,..1cu..• _ __.=-_\..__,_ \\--= '-'''--"11-""------'s.1'.~ •,,f,,27-\~.--·.§ ,I' --<$' ........ ~:,,: ii / j ----Of" W~Y.!WJl<lintment expires:----=';;'--',__,_<['--· _:l..,_,..;p=-1_y.j_ ________ _ .... .,..i°J/////J/1· C: \ U sers\ACI l\Documents\Proj ects\F icldbrook \F ieldbrook Reports\Applications \masterapp COR. doc -2. • LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel A THE NORTH QUARTER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Tax parcel No. 292305-9168 Parcel B THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., EXCEPT THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5-C; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON TAX PARCEL NO. 292305-9022 Parcel C THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE WEST 230 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Tax parcel No. 292305-9168 ' • ' l t " ' :.1 1 ., ·.·! ., , ' J ,l -~ l ., { • ------·-·--.. ., -,• :.-:. / :' EXHIBIT A JAN . 3 20/i / .:· .,···· ;/ .--~ /:: ... ~·····,, ' l{ft~r i;'.eca'i;ding return to: \'-,,. .., .. ./~~:·;ICEi'I9(JG~· .JIARBER, ~ I -i ! if I § !I ! i ....... .D~ , .. ·Fo~, P.S, ... · ... ..,\. a>;p.d, 8(:>X.'6.26 r"•:, •:. ,.J i ~ WlSH~N:91!055,··",/ ·< .. ; __ ·_ .. r.. · ,. _/ ·· t.~:: ~-:.-.l_;,'tt:J··/· .. ---, .... _}· / . . . ~··/,./') · .. , . .,.,. , ... ,.,, .. ·· /. / ... ••·,;:< '} .r: .. ,.,..-- OOCtJIIBNT Tl~: / .i i~~ COVENANT REFERElfCK NlJNBBR >'OF .RBU.'rBQ>' DOCUIIU'l': n/a GRANTOR(S): KVel:yJf Plant/ Qc)r$hy•";'.l'bh1Json, .e~Y Boyden, George Starkovieh, Matilda »-a~ska,./ ~dolp.b\ Statk9'V'icb, Charles A, starkovich, and CRISTA .. Mj:'niritxJlli'i , .. ,········ i r, '•·/ ADDITIOIIAL GRAMTOR(S) dif' PAGE:' fl / i_ .i / \,,. =:~:l.=~(s~sP~~·i{ ( .. •',, .. .,_/! / ........ ~"""··, .. \ t·,,. ABBREV~Tl!:lhJ,BGAL DESCRIP'l'ION: i,>rtion <?,! ~e Sq~~~t Q~er of the ~theast:, Quarter of sectiono.; .. ~J .• ···· ~b/.P .... ~? ..... lfo~/ ¥11ge s Bast •. .:-:J·\ ··:: /' / ./ .:'-" / .-:' ADDI"nOJQL·':LEGl>L DBSCRIP'l'ION ON PAGE(SH_ / 2"-4 ...... "' :• / ,/ ./ ASS~'S t'AXjPARCBL lftlJ!BBR(S): 292305-901~-0,.aiid ?9~~05"-9051-04 .i/ /. 1 ~· RE$TBJ'.CTJVB CPYll!IT ·\ .. ,..; ....... ·y-· ... i· _,,,/ -~ .... .,· , .... -.. ,-., ·' '•,.. 'TH.is .. ~/Ji: ~~CTIVB COVBIWl'l' between EVELY~;'~, DOROTRY JOHNl;ION, )JAR¥ B!,IYDBH,iGBORGB STARKOVICH, MATILDA ANORASXA, RUDOLPH ST~ovia1, § ~s/ .,.-:-···"·1n1ARKOVICH and auSTA NilllSTRIBs, a Washington \no-f'.JrJ./ p~f:it/ 4,r public benefit corporation, (collectiveli'··~.ef~:t~,;(o ~a../~ika~tol:'."l, and BENSON DOWNS, L,P., a Washington limited t,ar'~shi~, {"c.t~i\tee"). \:·-... , ~x·t,I~ of ;@af··::._;_:· 1. The Grant~;--:is/th~ S~l.i~:i( arid .. the Grantee is the assignee of the Purchaser\. un;~ }t~t /c1U"talft°·t,gNement dated October 27, 1995 between the ~i~.(~ "~~se 'Agreement") for the P\U"Chase and sale of the Pr~i&'•s,/ ....... . . ....-) / .. , ................. , .. 2. The Purchase Agreement pr.;i~dji'; tiiat'°' u~ tl)e,cl~ill9' of the transaction the parties agree to ~J'it,riin~ ~···,~edotc1.::be • :( F .:.: .;: ····,:... .! } . .:/ . ·::. restrictive covenants as con_uainedfcp~n this il'Jllt~:;~ .. ·'./,:." ·····., :, /'/ ./ RESTRICTIVE COVENANT -1 i 1b ~Wf,f;Eiei>'""// . . . ;. ~~ >· .. ,/'-=-/ ·;:.{ ? .... . J~- ------... ·---··•1"'""" ' ... _ .... ___, ___ ;-~..,::i:-,..···"'!:.-. ","S,' ,:,:; i 1 -' ·1 ., • ,) ·• , ; .. ,. . -~ •• :·. =:, . .,· ,• ~ .,· ./ ,/· 3, The parties desire to execute and record this instrument .l _-, in/f)ilf:.illment of the obligation ot;. the parties in this respect '\ __ .,c/ +•~ thlii'·-~erms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement. \ /' .:· ~--191 ,cent '~. / .:· :: :: :: ·"'",-.. •. ~-·/ / / IJi c:c>N,IHO.,.TION of the mutual covenants contained herein, ;>~4io~er/~.-~·c'ifalUjllbi;···./ilonsideration, the sufficiency of which •;•. ... :· , .• ,' •••• ··:. :: ,:l*;,;· { Is• h~kJ1,,,'a~l9ll~!&d, ~ ~ies a1Jree as follows: <,Ji~ :' rka,'.i Diiiiprim;Irm'~ 'l'te.;J!!lrcel of real property burdened · :~ ··=,~···· ,,,· ,'." .• l7 .. ··=.:.~ / -~- 1:>y this reirtrictJv~·COll'ei)llnt (be~lter referred to herein as the ·!· ,. •. .; .,. ••• ·:· '.' ltPremises" 1'···1-s·ieg,i11t d~Cl'.i~·-@'s follows: Pats@l II An :/ .,t'~ i~~ /,,··-....~·./._... ./-r .. The Bast OU@rte1;' oi )Che/. ~li&~st Qji"~ of the southeast Quaru,r ol' ,Sec;,tion 29, ·:.~hip 23 North, Range s Bast, W!l.i~tti! /xe~t~ari, 1,t,king County, Washington 1 ·· ... ,, .i ,:'" i .i '\,,_ ;: / "\,- EXCEPT that portion dt.,j:be'' S®th 28'0 teei tbel'.eof lying W~ly of the East 135,; f"-1:',.of .!laid Baat'"tm.artei:t,-.,. @d ··\,:" \_.. ·:-.> . .t ./ ·\':,,. . ...... , .. _. \:. /' ;r _:BXcBPi',µiat portion tbereof,,,.iyJ.t1g;'so,u~r.ti ,i#£ ' lp~, .i42 ;f~t ·~ortherly of and parallet: tQ,· tlle cenwrli~ of ./P91!r0Yitjiky Road as surveyed l:>y K~ q'o~ty·;sur:jey' N~'· / 2$'-23-5-15. • ,. '.: '\ .. , ... / / _,/ _.i P./ .. 1 ,iB; a ........ ,. _/ .,/ --.,.. ., ara .--_; .. ~-... / :.. / .r _, {Th,-Noirt'1''·300·0(eet of the Bast Half of the ·W@St;;' Half of ·t11e Boil.t: Half o! the Southwest Quarter of the SQu1:beast \,, Qua11:ei of."sec:rl::lon 29, ToWnship 23 lforth, Range\§' Bast, ·:,, ... ,,Jj.ll'~t~ a;erfdi,!l,l'lp.),n King county, Washington. .. .,· ;,' ·: .,' •.,. Pa,rs;el nQ.a.-f· / _/' .. -·~. \ The so~th 28,li .teef( o(. t:!\a!f P9rtion of the East Quarter of tbe ·Sa.u:thwestr Quar\jJJ:"" of;' tbe Southeast Quarter of Section 29, 'l'Ciiwn~W 23 ltorth,_,lflln,ge 5 Bast, Willamette Keridian, in lting"C~ty, W.SSllingtoJI,, lying-terly of the Bast 135 r-.t tjl.eJ;'.&off; ./ ,· :" '·:; BXCEPT that poi't-iiin _:'of;' s~ld/~utl,./28_0 feet lying southerly of a line 4'_;! ftlet' Nort;he;-_!y 01;. ~d parallel to the centerline of -,~~itslty Jtoiid aiif stlrveyed by King County survey no. ·-2i, . .i;.23_.;;.5,;1!!{ · ,.,... · All situate in King coun;;/"'stiingfon'~ } ....... .. •:,:_.;-t :: -~· ·:\. 2. Diegl esure of Mining Act;iyi;t,it\o: ,· / ~' iGr-an;ee acknoWledges that the Grantor bas disclos~ ~a,( ;iil!rilJ:!lc;f,f;,id:1ur,,_ have occurred in the past on the ·Premises ·1'hi~ \11111,". '1f~~ .-,·:l:~ft i pJ .-.- ·:. .: .i· r. .~ :: .i' .,,~_,:..,,,,,.,_.,..-····' ·i:::;.. ... ,\, RBSTRIC'l'IVE COVENANT -2 ---------,-------. .. ==----:N1faa.l';, .. za . .....,.~-+·.r..;. :t'Gf."'lCT" ·· \, -:~:.. i j 1 J j ~ ; I l l ,( ' i I .,,. .,· .,· .t _.{ ,· ............ ~ ~ ... '" C') OI ~ i 0) -------·------ ~rt,i~ns of tbe Premises in a potentially dangerous and unstable _;" ,. ·co!Jd!'tion. The Grantee certifies to the Grantor that it haa made fu'll. ~··· .. ~etailed inspection of the Premises in light of this ,Jili~lps~e \and expressly agrees to assume all risk of loss with / .:· :: ;; .. r,es~t/to; apy···~ge, costs, injuries, whether to person or to p~ojerf.y ,/~{ ~'~es)which may be incurred by reaaon of any •:.. .• .:· .. ;• •• '•:, .-~i-,: ii:@ident/ c;ir inj.jlry' 1/o'" G:z:ant~., .. its employees and/or independent conti~s,{ i~ i,ji~ss~,.of a;,.1.p, or to any other person due to any l~feiit' .. ~ ,p;.t~i a.etfi/t.(~! dangerous condition of the PreDises oi'•,,any pc,rti~n tliereq(,.(''·•,. Grantee agrees and covenants to hold Granter hanil~ f~ ,,,;:J'.':t/' S!lk-clailllS, causes of action and ·\... .-.'' .:· { ;,'" .~: ...... ,...... /::,~. expenses of wllatsoever/na1tiJre. /I.n··the,~vent{~ any claim, suit, cause of action or lit).~ttbn_/iri. wJ>i<:b ''Gra.n&f is aade a party, Grantee agrees and ~al¢8 /f;c{ ~ena,t:iu/' s~ at its sole cost and ~' and to hold th~ i;rai)!f:!r h~~~·'"tri:JJI,. any 9Q.St or •. ··:, ,. ···-·' ,· ~ .. , t ··:· expense'wbat.oaver, including atl:9ffley/s ·fees di.Qb··'1)111i,. be ,d.no'urred :· ·:. 1· -I .• -· \· .. ,· ,) by tb!i Gr.~ptoi:', to protect the int6li'est/ of· t;lie"'eriuitot ~ this cov~~nt/~~/ot to compromis~ and/or d~teJid ~,:r~j; ~ /i'uc/,. clab,. .~/ :i{ /Rgpi;,rict.ion ppgn C9D@truction: \, The· G~~-'' further / :r :': { ·,: .... ,., ...... ,··;· i .,'. ,:: agrees· a11!! a~At;s, after survey of the Prem~~./not to build upon,·',.er~t/'9i. mai~~in any structures or any ~nts that ·::.. / t ,..--,:~-:: ···,:,.;; beal:,,. signit.l.cal\e ]bads or would present significant danger or are inhe;enti~ ~m.Ja~us:f ~---;~uld be made significantly dangerous by ·:. ·::. ,,·· l .I" ·:. land subsid6nce·-on ,.,t:Jie f.o'l;l.owing portions of the Pr8lllises: Parcel:'.~:~A 11 .:.,···'/ .( .,· -~· \\ • ./ ./' ''··:·_:. That portion 9f the Sou~t ~rter of the Southeast Quarter of 5GCFidn-"al)., ':l'OWJ1sh~'p ;1 ,or.th, Range s Bast, w .M. , in King co.unty/ Was!!d.fl#on, ¢ascribed as follows: Beginning at the.··Sou~st;i c~r /of. the southwest Quarter of the Southljast"-Quarle~': .... ,·. 'l'hence Korth 1•4s•os• :,,:Easj;.. al.~9 tJ:i'e··~sti···1ln,e of said subdivision a distance' Gf,,65!1~ ~,4 f.l!iet/toJ;be t,rue point of beginning; ····.,. / :.·· f ....-· i \ .. Thence south 84°00'00" west'· 1$3 •. .1,9 feat; ./ ,... ... ·· Thence Korth 6°00•00• west so/011 te'eti' i' Thence llorth 84°00•00• East 200.00' feet-' . ··: , .. ... .. -~ . -· ·'· .. ~ Thence South 1°45'08" west 50,46 feirt:' tq· tl;~e/tr}lll,'J)Oijli.t;:" ·.'-" of ._inni • d ·· · ·· ·· ·· f ·· •. ::';,.~····-· .. _,, ng, an < ..... ,.··"' .,· ,-....... , ,· •,; ·\,;' .... ;' l ·., -·.:, .... ,\. ·. .• .-· "" ~: .,/ .//"*:/ ,/ / ·:..,,,," .. , ....... /· RESTRICTIVE COVENANT -3 ' ,:i ~~:,. -i> _( ::" ..-."" ./'·., •. / l" ;; 1 ·:t- ' • 1 1 ' ] ----·----·----- ,: i ·' RESTRICTIVE COVENANT -4 I _ • ..., ... I l .. l ' • ; ' 1 ·: j ·j ., ·; ' ' , .; ' ! \ .. . ',• : . . .,· .,' . ·"' .( .. · / ' '/. I?-· f p (date) ":~~•:,, ....... , ...... ,.,· .. ,:;.··"~, .,,/'"':.; I certify that I '"...Jow,.i~;' Jve -~,ti~fJ~toey evidence that Bvelyn P,1'~13t is the person who ~l)l)e~~ l;!ef9i-e.,..-"ine, "'~d whq''~igned this i~~nt and acknowl~ 1~ t:O .. ~ ,,ier'·{~~ ~ v,Pl'J'l'ltary act to-,: the ~es and purposes -r.t.,~~.ne~ l.If ~e .... ;i,~-~~n~. / ,:, ~<::·i·· ,;·r'. -~pril (ft'tl,, 199~/,' ~:;_,il.{,,jj;? •: ,/ _./ ·" ~ ..' ,;-, , ;_;-, C~Cl-Lµ 'TJ: {, 'C ., ;:t~,.,<-/ : ., •' ....... ,, lfotaey Public Tn BM"f;)r ~ t / ., . . · , . ,,' of Washington, residing,,,,~t/ o ·· • •-.,,. ·\. . .. . ...,·' _,//' Hy appointment e:itpires: .. . ·· -~ ·:-. .,· ., .... "~ -··=:i' STAT'B.,OF .. 1JfASIIIJJGTQ)l / , ..... ).. , ......... ' . ~ ,,. ., .. ' ·' ) 81!1 COUNTY OF Kl~G\,/ , .. // /··\ ) .,· ·. I certi'£y •. ,tlla:t i know! or Jiav!il satisfactory evidence that Matilda Andrasta is t~e. person .-.whcf·appeared before me, and who signed this instruiiient'"'an!! li.ckiiowledged. it to ba her free and voluntary act for ·\~e /ti~s ./ and .~es mentioned in the instrument. ''•",. .. , .. · .,.., f, _/· -/ .c". .::>·····. ·.,. DATID: April -4-, l~~~::::·:·· Notary Pwil,i,;; ir{ ana . or/ of washingt'Oii, ;residing .,,. Hy appointment ·~~i:r;es ;,!id:' r.,..,~.p,1-~ '\• /,······, •. '·.~~··' ., .. ? ./ RES'l'RlC'l'IVB COVBNANT -5 {(!· ... /· ------~.-......... ~ ..... , ·-·· .... ,,..-~.,.·----·· C'"4alie:".····~oi:. .. ::::;:-,:-.' -~~-.·. ·····--·-· ------ J . .'" / .. ,STA?''~ OF WASHDfG'l'OJi ) ) ss / ~::•°,! KIHG ) J \ / ./ 'f ~ify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Mary · , ,/l3oydeif'o-is the person llho appeared before -. and llho signed this / '\.... ···· :liis~1; ~-·'llcp1owledgad it to be her free and voluntary act for , ... ... _:the/ us!is _ji:id purpc)!ies Jl!lffl'ti9ned in the instrument. r j ' ' I ' • l j l ' .; 1 : ; : . .-4 .-4 M ~ Q (Z) C, l ' 1 ' • ' <. :;" ~~:~r~,:·/jir;l<tfZs·:;,~a.,: . l. • Qt4::tf"'"it ··'\!' .. / ~· .· . l ~ .,.. . • u · : • -·• ·,. ; i . " ,F" ,-<Hotafy ~ ic in and for :_ ... ,." J>i,9\.1C.' ·,.) ,.,.·' ," / '1>f was.~hqton, residing at ~ , ,_ . _. •. : , Ky . A"-.ioi11tment expires: -.L..4'..£.:;IILJ!<--...> ...... , ... ,. ~ .. : ' . '..,.-.,...-' # -.. •••••.. ~ •.,,;... ,-.. . ;' . ' Carolann Hughes • "".IIIDn-'NGTOlf F .-, ' ··· '· · c' · .. ·• ........ ·· .~. · l. sS ... ,,· ~'. } COURTY OF KIHG •.(. ,i) / .: ... ,· /,.. ...... ,. .. '•-...,./ I certify that I i~,/of ~'lie ··;Jt,l~t:ict;pey, evidence that Dorothy /'11.Phnson is the personi,_ wlio ... /,~~ ~fore,,. me, ,.im!.i who signed "th.ts, instrument and acknowledged J;t ~ -·bi! her fr• and. voluntih-y a~ for the uses 'a11~_ .... ,p~e, ...... !!_~oii~·· !ti the ins~e~•-'.. ·•:. . / _./ :• ./ · i .. n•iiim: ~pril /-"} 1998 • ··.·.,,,/ .. _./ ·' ~ .. . +--f' .. ;/~~~,,, ;~~/·~" // ., i ~I• •'l'"it".,·::. ·, --',' .,. ....... · Rotary Public in and '~l: .. ;;,ic .. :.>-;:° . . of Washington, residing a ~, ,,-,, ti/{\ _../ · '.: My appointtnent expires; ....:::;£;;c..:;£+.f£/./ ~--~iu*6TON , ,.,...--·/·, caro1annHughes -..to-.,,.. ...• . ·'..:, ... / ,l~ ,.:.-'.. . ... }. s$ COOIITY OF KnJG ' ' / f .'i I certify·· ~a: l kn;;} .6r -•'hay4i;:.. satisfactory evidence that George Starkovich i~ tno\.periio11' ~ ~pp,;i.ared before -. and who signed this instrument alld .,~c):n~ledged ··it to be his free and voluntary act for 1:he-0 •••• u•esf' a~d ip!lrpQses·. mentioned in the instrument. ·· ......... . DATED: April L2. ................ ;.I, l ,'-I,':-.. ,• ...... "~ \ ~ ........ -, ••• •• ....... i • •• "" , ...... -,C\ 1 ,J, :.,-r .. -9.,.-. ,-'<,, l .: ..... :: 1 • ': "1191,.\~ : "' i .... • e . b. ... >. ·~. ",9-'! ··.;-: " ......... + . , -·~ii-,.·· RBS'l'IU<."l'llfi: COVENANT -6 . ... ,, ·.,,,., .... , .. , ...... , .. -.:· ./ / •:,j/ ' r J I ,,· ,, /: .:' ,,· . ---------.. ------- .r ·: ..•. /.:f; \: f •:,._}~ ------·-...... ----· .. -----·--.. ,-. '· .:.. .... '· '! ~· -· I'/',:• /" ./ ,. .,' } ) ) BS ) c~··oF KIHG il : .. .. ... ' ·' I cettify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that \~, .... l / PA.+·:s. lle.rlr<• .-e""-and are the ,,., ... , .... / ~ns.illll"O a~ before me, and who signed this instrument, on "··· .oat/i st;a~,,£bat they ~--·~thorized to execute the instrument and c>ji'*1t01f1e,iqed ~,:t\as*~9,,(lenefal Partner(s) of Benson Downs, L.P., to tilt ~e .f~ee .i~ ~o1unt:a.rY ~i::.t., .. of such party for the uses and P ses iienttoned 1p thli,, inatrui'.lle.nt. urpQ .. ,', :. ·: ,.. :' ,. -.,..-,:.,,.,' ;, ;?· ........ I ~., .. . ·2, •. -~it •'11.·' ·11~-i~'i'~g .... :. / > J ,,. ; ~· ..... !' -: ~·"---. :, ' ' ' f~T \ ( , · "7 -le ,~·nw.4 ..., __ f=-0-r-,.,th=-e--=s:-:-ta-t=-e-{ \ ~ ,·. ·J .-· .~ ... =i~;f:;::~~~ 85-W' os.2{,,'I.·~~& ·./ ' .. · ,.,... ·:, · .. ·"•· · ~-.. -' ···::,,,; ;! * h It .. --f 1 .. , ,..,.. "'---' .,-;•-:;,,. t e :~hn,n:+',... o Pa oma wp,,, ~ger qf Hgse_. L1.Ao';· .. /j,tt.~-§1-r-.. ' ... •,' ,. / ( . ;, .. ,,' .l ..' ·\·:. / ·;,_.1·.,r:-"""·"\ •::,,,~..,..····' ................. ,' .,· .,,··· :f:-, .... .1 .,' { .,· ,··········· "\, .... i" . ""···,,,, .. , .. " .. ,··········'/,,/ _,,,.--····,-,,. ··::':' \ .....• ~; . ..• ,,,•',;-:· ·•=o:,,.,. -:,,, .. ,.· · .. ,.,,:'·/ ,'::. .. ,,· ·-i-./' •: ·····' :.• .. ..-· ,, ,;,,r' >··-··· .. .......... / .r f /7 ,,• .,, ..... ,, .,::. ··~::/' .• .,,. ~-.. / ;: .. / .. -~··· .... .. ,/ / .,•'··'<·., •· / '\,,,,,.. .. , ........ · .:· ;: RESTRICTIVE COVENANT -8 ----------,-;,:.;o,:m,,,.... ____ ,,, __ ,..,i(. ~-~4'11,:• :~::-·· j . , • .j ' ' ; j 1 1 1 1 t ~ ] i ., . / ,,' § .,·· Dated:.'i',~,,20, 199&. _,,/.>:-..i_,=;, .:' ,; / .:'° ,, .......... ~,, ·:..: ...... -;,,... /' ·•:::,\:. ,,,,.,/ .. // /.,,•·"') ·•·,:,,,.,_ ...... DFI :ooATION OF AUTHORITY ,,.-·-··,,, . ,. , . ., . .,, . .,, .. , .. ,/ / ./''·=: .. ,: . .::'.',······ :; .. ,·-··· .,., . ..,. ,: .,.-··"·,,, / _________ ,,, ... , ... ......._,...,.. ____ llti''"'·~ .'.., ... ~-:,- •:.,, ···,,, I ! • l : ~: ···-~. '. ...... : -. ~1,·,i"· ; i • I ' i \_/! .. \ • .ll1m ~:~ ~.:·... ··::.,.s ... /· ""'~}-~~:~.")~<;)::.:· .:· .:• ·, .. I·· -. -----~·---;;-: -....:: .. -::.---:.: -- ... t FIELDBROOK APARTMENTS PREAPPLICATION iAN 110n 17100 BLOCK OF 108TH AVE SE CITY OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division Contact Information: Planner: Vanessa Dolbee Public Works Reviewer: Arneta Henninger Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas PRE11-020 May 26, 2011 ('Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430.7314 Phone: 425.430.7298 Phone: 425.430.7023 Phone: 425.430. 7290 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of It to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager (planner) to have it pre- screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting Is Informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned ttiat the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The Information contained in this summary Is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works r"'Adminlstrator and City Council). CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26, 2011 TO: Vanessa· Dolbee, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector Preliminary Comments for Fieldbrook Apartments SUBJECT: 1. The preliminary fire flow has not been determined due to lack of information. Minimum fire flow for commercial construction is 1,500 gpm. Fire flow for this complex will exceed that minimum. Minimum fire hydrant spacing is one hydrant within 150-feet and one.within 300-feet of each building. Final fire hydrant requirements are based on fire flow calculation and final access road configuration: A water availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. Fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $388.00·per multi- family unit and $0.52 for commercial space. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 3. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout all buildings. Separate plans and permits required by the .fire department. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fully addressable and full detection is required for all fire alarm systems. 4. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150-feet of all. points on the building. Fire lane signage required for the on site roadways. Required turning radius are 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide. Maximum grade on roadways-is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30-ton vehicle and 322-psi point loading. City street ordinance requires a full 90-foot cul-de-sac turnaround for streets exceeding 300-. feet dead end. City fire code ordinance requires two separate means of access roadways for complexes of three or more buildings. 5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre-fire planning purposes. See attached sheet for the format in which to submit your plans. CT:ct fieldbrookapts Renton Fire Department I PRE-FIRE PLANNING I In an effort to streamline our pre-fire process, we are requesting that you submit a site plan of your constructioo project in one of the following formats which we can then convert to VIS IO. vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy. ABC Flowcharter.af3 ABC Flowcharter.af2 Adobe Illustrator File.ai AutoCad Drawine.dwe - AutoCad Drawing.Mn C G,.,.nhics Metafile.cam Corel Clinart Format.cmx Corel ORA W! Drawinl! File Fonnat.edr Corel Flow.di Postscrint File . ..ns Enhanced Metafile.emf IGES Drawinl! File Format.ios Granh;cs lnterch•n•e Format.off Macintosh PICT Format.pct MicroOTafx Desi1mer Ver 3.1.drw Micro=fx Desioner Ver 6.0.dsf Microstatioo Draw;na don Portable Netwodc Granhics Format.mt Postscriot File.ns T•• Jmaae File Format.tu Text.tlct Text.csv VISJO.vsd Windows Bitmon.bmo Windows Bitmao.dib Windows Metafile.wmf Zsoft PC Paintbrush Bitmap.ncx - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORAN DATE: May 26, 2011 TO: Vanassa Dolbee, Planner DU M FROM: Arneta Henninger, Plan Review ,1'# SUBJECT: FIELDBROOK APTS PREAP PRE 11-020 17100 BLOCK OF 1081H AVE SE-(108th Ave SE & SE 112•• St) PARCEL 2923059022 NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non- binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision-makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. I have completed a preliminary review for the above-refere.nced proposal of 106 residential apartments in 11 buildings located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 108'" Ave SE and SE 172•• St in Section 29, Township 23N, Range SE. The following comments are based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant for multi family development. Water 1. This site is located in the Soos Water service area. 2. The applicant will need to submit a Soos Creek Certificate of Water Availability. 3. Per City of Renton code, if the fire flow exceeds 2500 GPM the fire hydrants are required to be served by a main which loops around the building or complex of buildings and reconnects back Into a distribution supply main. 4. Per the City of Renton Fire Marshal, the preliminary fire flow on this project is undetermined at this time as there was not enough Information supplied for this preapplication to calculate it. 5. All fire hydrants must be capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and be brought up to current code including a stortz fitting if not existing. 6. The project Is required to be sprinklered throughout the building. A backflow prevention device (DDCVA) is required for the fire sprinkler system (refer to City standard details for external DDCVA in vault or for special requirements for DDCVA inside the building). Sanitary Sewer 1. This site is located in the Soos Creek sewer service area. 2. The applicant will need to submit a Soos Creek Certificate of Sewer Available. 3. The parking area is subject to an oil water separator. H/CEO/Planning/Current Planning/PREAPPS/11·020.Vanessa/Plan Review Comments-PRE 11-020.doc Fieldbrook Apts-PRE 11-020 Page2 of2 May 26, 2011 Storm Drainage 1. There are storm drainage facilities in 108th Ave SE and SE 172nd St. \ 2. A conceptual drainage plan and report is required to be submitted with the formal application. The project shall comply with the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. All core and any special requirements shall be contained in the report. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The drainage report will need to follow the area specific flow control requirements under Core Requirement #3. 3. A geotechnical report for the site is required. Information on the water table and soil permeability, with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options with typical designs for the site from ttie geotechnical engineer, shall be submitted with the application. 4. The Surface Water SOC fees are $0.405 {but not less than $1,012) per square foot of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Street Improvements • 1. Additional offsite improvements to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting will be required to be installed for this project along the frontage of 108'" Ave SE and SE 172"' St. Frontage improvements on 108 Ave SE shall include 8' sidewalks and 8' plant.er strips per the current code. Frontage improvements on SE 172"" St shall include 32 feet of pavement from the south to the north then an 8' planter strip and (working to the north) a 5' sidewalk. 2. Additional right-of-way dedication of 15 1/2' on 108'" Ave SE will be required. The right-of-way dedication on SE 172"' St shall be calculated to be measured as necessary to meet the above described road section; that is atthe back of the proposed sidewalk. All dedications are required prior to closing out the project. 3. This project needs to extend SE 172"' St t to the east property line of the parcel being developed and provide for a temporary hammerhead turnaround. 4. The internal road needs to be in compliance with the Emergency Vehicle Turning Radii detail, which is a minimum of 25' Inside turning radius and 45' outside radius. 5. Traffic Mitigation Fees will apply. These fees are calculated per the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8,. Edition. General Comments 1. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Network. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. cc: Kayren Klttrlck, Development Engineering Supervisor H/CEO/Plannlng/Current Planning/PREAPPS/ll-020.Vanessa/Plan Review Comments -PRE 11·020.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26, 2011 TO: Pre-Application File No. 11-020 FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Fieldbrook Apartments General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues· are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal: The subject property is located in the north east corner of the intersection of 108th Avenue S~ and SE 172•d Street. The project site totals 9.12 acres in area and is zoned Resesidential-14 (R-14). The proposal is to develop the site with 106 units in 11 multi-family structures. Each structure is proposed to vary in size from 6 -12 units per building. In addition the multi-family units, comnion open space and a recreation center are proposed. The development would contain an internal circulation system including 12-foot wide alleys and 20-foot wide roadways. The internal vehicular circulation system would be accessed off of SE 172"d Street at two locations. Each unit is proposed to have one parking garage, with additional parking provided in driveways or along the internal street system. The site contains six wetlands, three each of Category 2 and Category 3, in addition to being located just north of a coal mine hazard and just west of a Class 4 stream. Current Use: The parcel is vacant Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-llOA, "Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as nR-14 standards" herein). h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11--020.vanessa\11--020 (r-14 fieldbrook-multi-family, wetlands, coalmine}.doc Reldbrook Apartments, PREll-020 Page2 of 10 May 26, 2011 Zoning / Density: The property is located within the Residential -14 (R-14) zoning designation. Attached residential development is permitted within the R-14 designation, provided the proposal complies with the density range specified by the zone. However, up to 18 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) are allowed as a bonus, subject to Density Bonus Review (RMC 4-9-065). The area of public and private streets and critical areas would be deducted from the gross site area to determine the "net" site area pnor to calculating density. Based on the submitted materials 1.62 acres are located in wetlands and 0.81 acres would be either dedicated as public roads or in access easements resulting in a net area of 6.70 acres. A 106 unit proposal would result in a net density of 15.82 du/acre (106 units/ 6.70 acres= 15.82 du/ac), which is above the permitted density range In the R-14 zone without Density Bonus Review. Density Bonus Review: The bonus provisions are intended to allow greater flexibility in the implementation of the purpose of the R-14 designation. A copy of the density bonus criteria has been attached to this memo. In order to qualify for the bonus density, the project must demonstrate that the same or better results will occur as a result of creative design solutions that would occur with uses developed under standard criteria at lower density. The applicant has not proposed to utilize the density bonus provisions in the project narrative, however based on the density of the site either the bonus density criteria would be required to be met or a reduction in the number of units would be required. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-llOF, "Development Standards for Multi-Family Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "R-14 standards" herein). A copy of these standards is included herewith. Type of Standard R-14 Minimum Standard Lot Size None Lot Width and Depth Not Applicable Min Front Yard Based upon street type -see R-14 standards handout Generally the setbacks are as follows: 0-8 ft to building, 5 ft to porch, or 7 ft to stoop. 18 ft to garage - Max Front Yard None Side Yard 4 ft. for unattached sides and Oft. for attached sides Rear Yard 12 ft., except when rear yard is abutting a common open sp<1ce, then 4 ft. Side Yard Along-A-Street n/a Building Coverage Ratio n/a h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11-020.vanessa\ll-020 (r-14 fieldbrook-multi-famlly, wetlands, coalmine).doc Fieldbrook Apartments, PREll-020 Page 3of 10 May 26, 2011 Impervious Surface Area Maximum Gross Floor Area Height LandscaR!ng Tree Retention 85% None 30 ft - 10 % of significant trees Setbacks -The proposal appears to comply with the setback requirements for the majority of the development proposal; however a few garages appear to be closer to the road then 10-feet. Impervious Surface Area -There was not enough information provided with the application for staff to determine compliance with this standard. A lat coverage analysis meeting the requirements in RMC 4-8·120D.12, shall be submitted at the time of format land use application. Height -There was not enough information proved with the application for staff to determine compliance with the maximum height standards. Access/Parking -The following ratios would be applicable to the site: Use !J.gJUnits Ratio Reg_uired soaces Attached Residential 8-3 bedroom A minimum and maximum 133 in R-14 or larger of: - 58-2 1.6 per 3 bedroom or bedroom large dwelling unit; 39 -1 1.4 per 2 bedroom bedroom dwelling unit; (The bedroom 1.0 per 1 bedroom or count is 1 unit studio dwelling unit. short of the proposed 106 units) Bicycle Parking 106 One-half (0.5) bicycle 53 parking space per one dwelling unit. Based on these parking requirements, a minimum and maximum of 133 parking spaces would be required in order to meet code. The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 163 (this calculation excludes street parking) parking spaces which exceeds the maximum permitted parking spaces per code. Because the proposal provides more h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11-020.vanessa\11-020 (r-14 fieldbrook-multi-family, wetlands, coalmine).doc Fieldbrook Apartments, PREll-020 Page4of 10 May 26, 2011 r parking than required by code, a request for a parking modification would need to be applied for and granted. This detailed written request should be submitted by the applicant along with or prior to the land use application process. The applicant will be required at the time of formal land use application to provide detailed parking information (i.e. stall and drive aisle dimensions) and calculations of the subject site. _____ -':Lsbould_be_noted_thaLth.e....par:kiag_cegulatioos_sp~cify: standa(d....sti11Ldime.osJ011s. ________ _ Surface parking stalls must be a minimum of 9 feet x 20 feet, compact dimensions of 8~ feet x 16 feet, and parallel stall dimensions of 9 feet x 23 feet; compact surface parking spaces shall not account for more than 30 percent of the spaces in the surface parking lots. Bicycle Parking-Bicycle parking shall be provided for secure extended use and shall protect the entire bicycle and its components and accessories from theft and weather. Acceptable examples include bike lockers, bike check-in systems, in-building parking,· and limited access fenced areas with weather protection. For attached dwellings, spaces within the dwelling units or on balconies do not count toward the bicycle parking requirement. However, designated bicycle parking spaces within individual garages can count toward the minimum requirement. The appficant will be required at the time of formal land use application to provide detailed bicycle parking information and calculations of the subject site. Pedestrian Access (R-14) Sidewalks shall be provided throughout the neighborhood. The sidewalk may disconnect from the road, provided it continues in a logical route throughout the development. Front yards shall have entry walks that are a minimum width of 3 feet and a maximum width of 4 feet. Pathways shall be used to connect common parks, green areas, and pocket parks to residential access streets, limited residential access streets, or other pedestrian connections. They may be used to provide access to homes and common open space. They shall be a minimum 3 ft. in width and made of paved asphalt, concrete, or porous material such as: porous paving stones, crushed gravel with soil stabilizers, or paving blocks with planted Joints. Sidewalks or pathways for parks and green spaces shall be located at the edge of the common space to allow a larger usable green and easy access to homes. A pedestrian circulation plan shall be provided with the site plan submittal. For all homes that do not front on a residential access street, limited residential access street, a park, or a common green a pedestrian entry easements that are at least 15 ft. wide plus a 5 ft. sidewalk shall be provided. Based on the provided floor plans, It appears that some units would not front on a street, park, or common green. Mall and Newspaper Boxes -All of the following are required: 1. Mailboxes shall be clustered and located so as to serve the needs of USPS while not adversely affecting the privacy of residents; and h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11·020.vanessa\11·020 (r-14 fieldbrook-multi-family, wetlands, coalmine).doc Fieldbrook Apartments, PREll-020 Page 5 of 10 May 26, 2011 2. Mailboxes shall be lockable consistent with USPS standard; and 3. Mailboxes shall be architecturally enhanced with materials and details typical of the home's architecture; and 4. Newspaper boxes shall be of a design that reflects the character of the home. Landscaping-Except for critical areas, all portions of the development area which are not covered by structures, required parkin& access, 'cfri:ulataoii or service'areas, -riiiisfbe landscaped with native, drought-resistant vegetative cover. The minimum on-site landscape width required along street frontages is 10 feet. When a Residential Multi- family Zone or Use is Abutting a Less Intense Residential Zone a fifteen-foot (15') wide partially sight-obscuring landscaped visual barrier, or ten-foot (10') wide fully sight- obscuring landscaped visual barrier, is required along the common property line. To the north and east of the subjer:t site are /e_ss intense residential zones there/are a landscape visual barrier is required. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070 and RMC 4-4-0SOF.7) for further general and specific landscape requirements (enclosed). A conceptual landscape plan and landscape analysis meeting the requirements in RMC 4-8-:1.20D.12, shall be submitted at the time of land use application. Open Space {R-14) For each unit in the development, three hundred fifty (350) square feet of common open space shall be provided. Open space shall be designed as a park, common green, pea-patch, pocket park, or pedestrian entry easement in the development and shall include picnic areas, space for small recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate. Open space shall be located in a highly visible area and be easily accessible to the neighborhood. Open space shall be contiguous, serve a minimum of four (4) homes, and be at least twenty feet (20') wide. A pedestrian entry easement can be used to meet the requirements if it has a minimum width of twenty feet (20') with a minimum five feet (5') of sidewalk. Pea-patches shall be at least one thousand {1,000) square feet in size with individual plots that measure ten feet by ten feet {10' x 10'). Additionally, if a pea-patch is used to fulfill the open space requirement it shall include a tool shed and a common area with space for compost bins. Water shall be provided to the pea-patch. Fencing that meets the standards for front yard fencing shall surround the pea-patch with a one foot (1') landscape area on the outside of the fence. This area is to be landscaped with flowers, plants, and/or shrubs. Grass-crete or other pervious surfaces may be used in the common open space for the purpose of meeting the one hundred fifty feet {150') distance requirement for Emergency Vehicle Access. Storm ponds may be used to meet the common open space requirement if designed to accommodate a fifty (SO) year storm and to be dry ninety percent {90%) of the year. Only permanent open space would be considered for the purposed of meeting the requirements outlined above. Based on 106 units 37,100 square feet of common open h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11-020.vanessa\11-020 (r-14 fieldbrook-multi-family, wetlands, coalmine).doc Fieldbrook Apartments, PREll--020 Page 6of 10 May 26, 2011 space would be required. Based on the provided p'roject narrative the proposed 46,800 square feet of public open space would exceed the minimum requirement. Private Yards (R-14) Each individual unit shall have a private yard that is at least two hundred fifty (250) ~g11a_r_e feet in size with no dimension less than eight feet (B') in width. Residential Design and Open Space Standards: Residential guidelines and standards are contained in RMC 4-2-115. A handout indicating the applicable guidelines and standards is enclosed. As applicable to the R-14 zone the guidelines are: Garages -Garages may be attached or detached. Shared garages are also allowed, provided the regulations of RMC 4-4-080 are met. Carports are not allowed. One of the following is required; the garage must be: 1. Recessed from the front of the house and/or front porch at least eight feet (8'), or 2. Detached. Additionally, all of the following is required: 1. Garage design shall be of similar design to the homes, and 2. A minimum eighteen feet (18') driveway length from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk or access easement/lane is required, unless accessed by an alley, and 3. If sides of the garage are visible from streets, lanes, sidewalks, pathways, trails, or other homes, architectural details shall be incorporated in the design. If shared garages are allowed, they may share the structure with other homes and all of the following is required: 1. Each unit has garage space assigned to it, and 2. The garage is not to be located further than one hundred sixty feet (160') from any of the housing units to which it is assigned, and 3. The garage shall not exceed forty-four feet (44') in width, and shall maintain an eight foot (8') separation from any dwellings. Primary Entry-Both of the following are required: 1. The entry shall take access from and face a street, park, common green, pocket park, pedestrian easement,or open space, and· 2. The entry shall include one ofthe following: a. Stoop: minimum size four feet by six feet (4' x 6') and minimum height twelve inches (12") above grade, or b. Porch: minimum five feet (S') deep and minimum height twelve inches (12") above grade. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\ll-020.vanessa\ll--020 (r-14 fieldbrook-multi-family, wetlands, coalmlne).doc Fieldbrook Apartments, PREll-020 Page 7 oflO May 26, 2011 Exception: in cases where accessibility (ADA) is a priority, an accessible route may be taken from a front driveway. Facade Modulation-Both of the following are required: 1. The primary building elevation oriented toward the street or common green shall have at least one articulation or change in plane of at least two feet (2') in depth; and 2. A minimum one side articulation that measures at least one foot (1') in depth shall occur for all facades facing streets or public spaces. Windows and Doors -All of the following are required: 1. Primary windows shall be proportioned vertically, rather than horizontally, and 2. Vertical windows may be combined together to create a larger window area, and 3. All doors shall be made of wood, fiberglass, metal, or glass and trimmed with three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum head and jamb trim around the door, and 4. Screen doors are permitted, and 5. Primary entry doors shall face a street, park, common green, pocket park, or pedestrian easement and shall be paneled or have inset windows, and 6. Sliding glass doors are not permitted along a frontage elevation or an elevation facing a pedestrian easement. Scale. Bulk. and Character-All of the following are required: 1. The primary building form shall be the dominating form and elements such as porches, princip·a1 dormers, or other significant_features shall not dominate, and 2. Primary porch plate heights shall be one story. Stacked porches are allowed, and 3. To differentiate the same models and elevations, different colors shall be used, and 4. For single-family dwellings, no more than two (2) of the same model and elevation shall be built on the same block frontage and the same model and elevation shall not be abutting. Roofs-Both of the following are required: 1. Primary roof pitch shall be a minimum six to twelve (6:12). If a gable roof is used, exit access from a third floor must face a public right of way for emergency access, and 2. A variety of roofing colors shall be used within the development and all roof material shall be fire retardant. Eaves-The following is required: Eaves shall be at least twelve inches (12") with horizontal fascia or fascia gutter at least five inches (5") deep on the face of all eaves. h:\ced\planning\current plannlng\preapps\11-020.vanessa\ll-020 (r-14 fieldbrook-multl-family, wetlands, coalmine).doc l Fieldbrook Apartments, PREll-020 Pages of 10 May 26, 2011 Architectural Detailing-All of the following are required: 1. Three and one half inches (3 1/2"} minimum trim surrounds all windows and details all doors, and 2. At least one ofthe following architectural details shall be provided on each home: shutters, knee braces, flower boxes, or columns, and 3. Where siding is used, metal corner clips or corner boards shall be used and shall be at minimum two and one half inches (2 1/2") in width and painted. If shutters are used, they shall be proportioned to the window size to simulate the ability to cover them, and 4. If columns are used, they shall be round, fluted, or strongly related to the home's architectural style. Six inches by six inches (6" x 6") posts may be allowed if chamfered and/or banded. Exposed four inches by four inches (4" x 4"} and six inches by six inches (6" x 6") posts are prohibited. Materials and Color-All of the following are required: 1. Acceptable exterior wall materials are: woo<t cement fiberboard, stucco, stone, and standard sized brick three and one half inches by seven and one half inches (3 1/2" x 7 1/2"} or three and five eighths inches by seven and five eighths inches (3 5/8" x 7 5/8"). Simulated stone, wood, stone, or brick may be used to detail homes, and 2. When more than one material is used, changes in a vertical wall, such as from wood to brick, shall wrap the corners no less than twenty-four inches (24"}. The material change shall occur at an internal corner or a logical transition such as aligning with a window edge or chimney. Material transition shall not occur at an exterior corner, and 3. Multiple colors on buildings shall be provided. Muted deeper tones, as opposed to vibrant primary colors, shall be the dominant colors. Color palettes for all new structures, coded to the home elevations, shall be submitted for approval. 4. Gutters and downspouts shall be integrated into the color scheme of the home and be painted, or of an integral color, to match the trim color. Tree Retention -A tree inventory and tree retention plan along with a tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 10% of significant trees on site, and indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would be retained. If the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a rate of 6:1. Refuse and Recycling Areas-Refuse and recycling areas are required to meet the requirements of RMC 4-4-090, "Refuse and Recyclables Standards" (enclosed). h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11-020.vanessa\ll-020 (r-14 fieldbrook-multi-family, wetlands, coalmine).doc Fieldbrook Apartments, PREll-020 Page9 of 10 May 26, 2011 Multi-family projects must provide screened areas for refuse and recyclables at a rate of 1.5 sq. ft. per unit for recyclables and 3 sq. ft. per unit for refuse. A total minimum area of 80 square feet shall be provided for refuse and recyclables deposit areas. There shall be at least one deposit area or collection point ·for every 30 dwelling units. Furthermore, when a residential development comprises of more than one building the required deposit areas shall be dispersed though out the site. They must not be located within the required setback areas. Trash and recycling containers shall be located so that they have minimal impact on residents and their neighbors and so that they are not visible to the general public. Additionally, a screened and roofed_ enclosure in which to keep containers shall be provided. Screened enclosures shall not be located within front yards. Utilities -Utility boxes that are not located in alleyways or away from public gathering spaces shall be screened with landscaping or berms. Fences -If the applicant intends to install any fences as part of this project, the location must be designated on the landscape plan. A fence detail should also be included on the plan as well. Critical Areas Critical areas have been identified on the subject property. A wetland report delineating and dassifying the wetlands an site is required ta be submitted with the /annal land use application. In addition, as there are proposed impacts to the wetlands, a mitigation plan should also be submitted. City staff may require secondary review of the wetland report and mitigation plan, at the expense of the applicant. Just east of the subject site is a Class 4 stream, which requires a 3S-foot buffer. At the time of land use application information shall be provided identifying the stream and its associated buffer verify if the buffer extends onto the subject site. - In addition, a Coal Mine Hazards has been identified just south of the subject parcel. The applicant shall provide a geotechnlcal study and cool mine assessment by a qualified professional. The geotechnical study must meet the requirements set forth In the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-3-050. Copies of the geologic hazards portions of the Critical Areas· regulations have been included in the folder of information given to the applicant at the pre-application meeting. Environmental Review The proposed project would be subject to Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review due to the number of proposed units and the presence of critical areas. Therefore, an environmental checklist is a submittal requirement. An environmental determination will be made by the Renton Environmental Review Committee. This determination is subject to appeal by either the project proponent, by a citizen of the community, or another entity having standing for an appeal. Permit Requirements: The proposal would require a Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval and SEPA Environmental Review. The fee for a Hearing Examiner Site Plan is h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11-020.vanessa\11-020 (r-14 fieldbrook-multi-family, wetlands, coalmine).doc Fieldbrook Apartments, PREll--020 Page lOof 10 May 26, 2011 $2,000 and the fee for Environmental (SEPA) Review is $1,000. Please note that each of these land use permits has an additional 3 percent Technology Surcharge Fee resulting in a total cost of $3,090. The land use permits would be reviewed in an estimated timeframe of 12 weeks. Additionally, the applicant can opt to subdivide the property via a Preliminary Plat or a Binding Site Plan. This can be reviewed concurrently with the Site Plan Review. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts. In ad.dition to the required land use permits, separate construction, building and sign permits would be required. The review of these permits may occur concurrently with the review of the land use permits, but cannot be issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods. Impact/Mitigation Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Impact fees. which wauld replace mitigation fees. may be adopted prior to building permit approval for which an applicant may vest ta impact/mitigation fees. Those fees have yet to be determined. Currently fees are the following: • A Transportation Mitigation Fee bas_ed on $75.00 per new dally trip attributed to the development; and • A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per new multi-family unit; and, • A School Mitigation Fee based on $1,2580.00 per unit; and • A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $388.00 per multi-family unit. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. Expiration: Upon site plan approval, the site plan approval is valid for two years with a possible two-year extension. cc: Jennifer Henning h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\11--020.vanessa\ll--020 (r-14 fieldbrook-multi-family, wetlands, coalmine).doc I -1 CA I I .. ~M i CA , 1 , , ~4-20T23NR5EEI!2 ~_:._:__ _uu_1 ' I i i !Ria' r >' r ·, i I . I l-s I I I I I : i I iJ I I I ! J I I I I I . ' ; ·-· I I I i ' ' I I R-14 i I CA, ' I I I ' I ----·'c.--=:_-J ' .. ' I·' I I I ' I R-J.4 ' I i ,-· I I ; ' I .,,ma• I I •.,;~ R-8 CA m " I, H4 29 T23N RSE E 1/2 5329 Habitat Data Report 4 im~~~ifiiij\:p~w:{::: Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 ~\9Wp,~:~t#!/1'l::, PLANNING DIVISION WA1vER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: fe\ \~tJl'Dol:: Apt. ?UD DATE: 11/15/ 11 1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning ----'t1'-----'=f--, ~--------- H:\CEO\Data\Forms-Templatas\.Setf-Help Handouts\Planning\walverofsubmlttalreqs.xls 06109 • PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER Or-SUBMITTAL REQUIREM .... ,.JTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2AND3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area , AND, Photosimulations 2 ANo, This requirement may be waived by; 1 . Property Services 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning PROJECT NAME: fie\ ~\)'(oc.,kfwl YI..JD DATE: \\ / )5 J If I I H:\CED\D3ta\Forms-Tsomplal:es\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs.xls 06/09 Greenforestlncorporated J ··-·· Vl{',i_, Consulting Arborist /4N o .•• 1077 9/8/2011 Justin Lagers, Director of Land Acquisition & Development PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 36th St Suite 214 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA Dear Mr. Lagers: You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect the surveyed significant trees at the above referenced site. Prior to development, a tree inspection and assessment is required to determine which trees are not viable for retention. The purpose of this report is to establish which surveyed trees are dead, diseased or dangerous'. I reviewed and used during my fieldwork a Boundary/Topographic Survey prepared by Concept Engineering, Inc., marking the location and point numbers of the significant trees. I visited the site July 11 and 12, 2011, and again September 6, 2011 to perform my field inspection. The trees on site are tagged identifying them as indicated on this survey. Summary: a tata/ of 786 trees are included in this inspection. 559 are viable; 227 are not viable. Limiting Conditions 1) Unless stated other wise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied that problems or deficiencies of the subject tree may not arise in the future. 1 City of Renton Tree Retention Worksheet 4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. 206-723-0656 Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 2 of 30 2) All trees possess the risk of failure. Trees can fail at any time, with or without obvious defects, and with or without applied stress. A complete evaluation of the potential for these trees to fail requires excavation and examination of the base of the subject tree, and is outside the scope of this report. Observations I visually inspected each tree, and confirmed tree species and DBH (trunk diameter 4.5 feet from grade.) with the data provided on page 4 of the survey. Any discrepancies to this data are corrected in this report (mostly tree specie identification). I assessed the current health and structural condition of each tree and indicated whether, in my opinion, the tree is viable or not. Non-viable trees are identified as dead or diseased (health), or dangerous (structure). Trees listed in this report as 'Dangerous' trees are deemed so for one or more of the following reasons: open wounds with internal decay, cracked trunks, multiple stems with included bark, previous stem failure, insufficient trunk taper relative to tree height, self-propagating cracks/seams visible on trunk, or the tree is a stump sprout. Any of these reasons pre-dispose the tree to failure and they are considered non-viable for retention given the proposed development. The following three tables summarize specific information about the subject trees. Table one lists the subject trees by species and quantity. Table two identifies the quantity of viable and non-viable trees, as determined by trees being dead, diseased or dangerous. Table three identifies trees for which removal is allowed for having invasive root systems, weak wood prone to breakage, or varieties which tend to harbor insect pests. Table No. 1-Tree Species Summary Red Alder 115 English Hawthorn 1 Apple 3 Western Hemlock 7 Oregon Ash 51 English Holly 1 Atlas Cedar 1 English Laurel 10 Cascara 4 Bigleaf Maple 255 Western Red Cedar 23 Scots Pine 1 Bitter Cherry 6 Lombardy Poplar 1 Black Cottonwood 215 Vine Maple 1 Pacific Dogwood 5 Willow (Native spp.) 7 Douglas-Fir 79 Total Trees 786 Greenforest @ Registered Consu I ting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 3 of 30 Table No. 2 -Viability of Trees Dead Trees 14 Diseased Trees 3S Dangerous Trees 178 Total Non-Viable Trees 227 Total Viable Trees 559 Total Trees 786 Table No. 3 -Viable Trees Allowed for Removal (See Attachment No. 2.) Viable Trees Remaining Viable Trees Allowed for Removal 2 for Retention Red Alder 71 Apple 3 Black Cottonwood 176 Oregon Ash 37 Lombardv Poolar 1 Atlas Cedar 1 Willow (Native spp.) 5 Cascara 4 Populus species including cottonwood Western Red Cedar 21 Bitter Cherry 5 (Populus trichocarpa), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), lombardy poplar Pacific Dogwood 2 (Populus nigra "ltalica"), etc. D0u1!1as-Fir 73 Alnus species which includes red alder Western Hemlock 4 (Al nus oregona), black alder (Al nus English Hollv 1 glutinosa), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), English Laurel 10 etc. Bigleaf Maple 143 And Salix species which includes weeping Scots Pine 1 willow (Salix babylonica), etc. Vine Maple 1 253 306 The attached table identifies each significant tree by number as tagged in the field and on the survey, tree name or species, DBH (trunk diameter 4.5 feet from grade), whether the tree is viable, and the reason, if not. 2 4-4-130 TREE RETENTION AND LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS(§ H7.d) Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Field brook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page4 of30 Thank you for your business. Please let me know if you have any further questions, or need additional information. Sincerely, GreenForest, Inc. h7~r~t- By Favero Greenforest, M. S. ISA Certified Arborist # PN -0143A ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist • #379 PNW-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor #579 Attachments: 1. Assumptions 2. 4-4-130 TREE RETENTION AND LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS 3. Table of Significant Trees Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 5 of30 Attachment No. 1-Assumptions 1) The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made. 2) Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 3) Unless required by law otherwise, possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. 4) This report and any values/opinions expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant's/appraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. S) Ownership and use of consultant's documents, work product and deliverables shall pass to the Client only when ALL fees have been paid. 6) Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser, particularly as to value, conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. 7) Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 8) Construction activities can significantly affect the condition of retained trees. All retained trees should be inspected after construction is completed, and then inspected regularly as part of routine maintenance. Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 6 of30 Attachment No. 2 - 4-4-130 TREE RETENTION AND LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS H7. Tree/Ground Cover Retention: The following measures may be used by the Reviewing Official in conditioning a land development permit or building permit proposal, to comply with the general review criteria of subsection H4 of this Section: a. Trees shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible on the property where they are growing. The Reviewing Official may require modification of the tree retention and land clearing plan, or the associated land development permits, to ensure the retention of the maximum number of trees. b. The Reviewing Official may require the applicant to replace trees, provide interim erosion control, hydroseed exposed soils, or other similar conditions which would implement the intent ofthis Section. c. Trees that shelter interior trees or trees on abutting properties from strong winds that could otherwise cause them to blow down should be retained. d. Except in critical areas or their buffers, unless enhancement activities are being performed, the removal of trees on the following list should be allowed in order to avoid invasive root systems, weak wood prone to breakage, or varieties which tend to harbor insect pests: i. All Populus species including cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), lombardy poplar (Populus nigra "ltalica"), etc. ii. All Alnus species which includes red alder (Al nus oregona), black alder (Al nus glutinosa), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), etc. iii. Salix species which includes weeping willow (Salix babylonica), etc. iv. All Platanus species which include London plane tree (Platanus acerifolia), American sycamore, buttonwood (Platanus occidentalis), etc. Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 7 of30 Attachment No. 3-Table of Significant Trees Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1424 Fir 30 Yes 1425 Fir 20 Yes 1426 Fir 24 No 1427 Poplar 36 Yes 1494 Cottonwood 11 No 1495 Cottonwood 13 Yes 1496 Cottonwood 8 No 1497 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1498 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1499 Cottonwood 15 Yes 1500 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1501 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1503 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1504 Cottonwood 6 Yes 1505 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1506 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1507 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1508 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1509 Fir 6 Yes 1510 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1511 Cottonwood 18 Yes 1512 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1513 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1514 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1515 Cottonwood 13 Yes 1516 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1517 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1518 Laurel 8 Yes 1519 Laurel 8 Yes 1520 Pine 11 Yes 1521 Laurel 12 Yes Reason not Viable Dead Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 8 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1522 Laurel 12 Yes 1523 Laurel 10 Yes 1524 Laurel 12 Yes 1525 Laurel 13 Yes 1526 Laurel 18 Yes 1527 Laurel 7 Yes 1528 Laurel 6 Yes 1529 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1530 Fir 36 Yes 1537 Fir 22 Yes 1538 Fir 29 Yes 1539 Cedar 12 Yes 1540 Maple 12 Yes 1541 Cottonwood 22 Yes 1542 Cottonwood 7 No 1543 Fir 24 Yes 1544 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1545 Cottonwood 20 Yes 1546 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1547 Maple 8 Yes 1548 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1549 Cottonwood 12 Yes 1550 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1551 Cottonwood 18 Yes 1552 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1553 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1554 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1555 Cottonwood 18 No 1556 Cottonwood 12 Yes 1557 Cottonwood 18 Yes 1558 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1559 Cottonwood 20 Yes 1562 Fir 24 Yes Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous G reenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 9 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1563 Fir 11 Yes 1564 Fir 24 Yes 1565 Fir 26 Yes 1566 Maple 10,10,16 No 1567 Cottonwood 22 Yes 1568 Alder 11 No 1576 Apple 6 Yes 1577 Cottonwood 19 Yes 1578 Cottonwood 12 Yes 1579 Cottonwood 18 Yes 1580 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1581 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1582 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1583 Maple 9 Yes 1584 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1585 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1586 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1587 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1588 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1589 Cottonwood 15 Yes 1591 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1592 Cottonwood 18 Yes 1593 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1594 Maple 10 Yes 1595 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1648 Fir 32 Yes 1649 Maple 18 No 1650 Maple 7 Yes 1651 Maple 10 Yes 1652 Fir 20 Yes 1653 Cottonwood 7 Yes 1654 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1655 Maple 20,20,20,30 No Reason not Viable Dangerous Diseased Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 10 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1656 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1657 Maple 10 No 1658 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1659 Cottonwood 13 Yes 1660 Fir 18 Yes 1661 Fir 11 Yes 1675 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1676 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1677 Maple 7 Yes 1678 Maple 8 Yes 1679 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1680 Cottonwood 22 Yes 1681 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1682 Cottonwood 14 No 1683 Maple 7 Yes 1684 Maple 7 Yes 1685 Maple 6 Yes 1686 Maple 9 Yes 1687 Cottonwood 26 Yes 1689 Maple 7 Yes 1690 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1691 Cottonwood 13 Yes 1692 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1693 Cottonwood 18 Yes 1694 Cottonwood 15 Yes 1695 Maple 8 Yes 1696 Maple 11 Yes 1698 Maple 7 Yes 1699 Cottonwood 24 Yes 1700 Cottonwood 20 Yes 1701 Maple 9 Yes 1702 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1703 Cottonwood 10 Yes Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 11 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1704 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1705 Cottonwood 7 No 1706 Maple 7 Yes 1707 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1708 Maple 30 No 1709 Alder 11 No 1710 Cottonwood 22 Yes 1711 Maple 10 No 1712 Maple 8 Yes 1713 Cottonwood 15 Yes 1714 Maple 15 Yes 1715 Maple 11 Yes 1716 Maple 24 Yes 1717 Cottonwood 15 Yes 1719 Maple 10 No 1720 Maple 7 Yes 1721 Maple 13,16 No 1722 Alder 14 No 1723 Maple 14,16,20 No 1724 Cottonwood 15 Yes 1725 Ash 8 Yes 1726 Ash 12 Yes 1727 Maple 10 Yes 1728 Maple 9 Yes 1730 Maple 14 No 1731 Hemlock 16 Yes 1732 Maple 14,16,16,16 No 1733 Hemlock 12 Yes 1734 Maple 6,8,10,12 No 1735 Maple 10 Yes 1736 Cottonwood 18 Yes 1737 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1738 Cottonwood 28 Yes Reason not Viable Diseased Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Diseased Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 12 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1739 Cottonwood 18 No 1740 Maple 12 Yes 1741 Cottonwood 12 Yes 1742 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1743 Cottonwood 8 No 1744 Maple 12 Yes 1745 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1746 Cottonwood 18 Yes 1747 Maple 8 No 1748 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1749 Cottonwood 6 No 1750 Fir 20 Yes 1751 Fir 14 Yes 1752 Fir 24 Yes 1753 Fir 24 Yes 1754 Cottonwood 18 Yes 1755 Fir 26 Yes 1756 Dogwood 8 No 1757 Cottonwood 8 No 1758 Cottonwood 10 No 1760 Fir 16 Yes 1761 Maple 10,18,18,24,24 No 1762 Maple 7 Yes 1763 Alder 16 No 1764 Cottonwood 8 No 1765 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1766 Cottonwood 10 No 1770 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1771 Ash 12 Yes 1773 Fir 22 Yes 1774 Fir 20 No 1775 Maple 9 No 1776 Maple 9 Yes Reason not Viable Dead Dead Dangerous Dead Diseased Diseased Diseased Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 13 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1777 Cottonwood 18 Yes 1778 Maple 7 Yes 1779 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1780 Cottonwood 16,16 No 1781 Cottonwood 6,12 Yes 1782 Maple 6 Yes 1783 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1784 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1785 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1786 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1787 Fir 8 Yes 1788 Maple 8 Yes 1789 Cedar 6 Yes 1790 Cottonwood 7 Yes 1791 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1792 Fir 8 Yes 1793 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1794 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1795 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1796 Hemlock 8 Yes 1797 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1798 Fir 20 Yes 1799 Maple 8 Yes 1800 Maple 11 Yes 1801 Cherry 9 Yes 1802 Dogwood 6 No 1803 Fir 11 Yes 1804 Fir 11 Yes 1805 Fir 10 Yes 1806 Fir 20 Yes 1807 Fir 11 Yes 1808 Maple 10 Yes 1809 Cottonwood 12 Yes Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborlst Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 14 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1810 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1811 Alder 6 Yes 1812 Ash 6 Yes 1813 Cottonwood 12 Yes 1814 Cottonwood 12 Yes 1815 Fir 10 Yes 1816 Fir 8 Yes 1817 Fir 6 Yes 1818 Fir 6 Yes 1819 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1820 Fir 8 Yes 1821 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1822 Fir 6 Yes 1823 Maple 6 Yes 1824 Cottonwood 10 No 1825 Cottonwood 8 No 1826 Cottonwood 10 No 1827 Cottonwood 13 Yes 1829 Cottonwood 18 Yes 1831 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1832 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1833 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1834 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1835 Cottonwood 8 No 1836 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1837 Cottonwood 6 Yes 1838 Cottonwood 14 No 1839 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1840 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1841 Fir 7 Yes 1842 Fir 6 Yes 1843 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1844 Cottonwood 11 Yes Reason not Viable Diseased Diseased Diseased Diseased Dead Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 15 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1845 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1846 Cottonwood 8,8,13,15 Yes 1847 Cedar 11 Yes 1848 Alder 8 No 1849 Cottonwood 20 Yes 1850 Cedar 7 Yes 1851 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1852 Cottonwood 9 No 1853 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1854 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1855 Cottonwood 7 No 1856 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1857 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1858 Cottonwood 6 Yes 1859 Fir 18 Yes 1860 Cottonwood 12 Yes 1861 Cottonwood 16 Yes 1862 Cottonwood 12 No 1863 Fir 14 Yes 1864 Maple 7 Yes 1867 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1868 Cottonwood 12 No 1869 Cottonwood 12 Yes 1870 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1871 Fir 10 Yes 1872 Cottonwood 12 Yes 1873 Cottonwood 6 No 1874 Cottonwood 12 Yes 1875 Cottonwood 10 No 1876 Cottonwood 13 No 1877 Fir 9 Yes 1878 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1879 Fir 8 Yes Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dead Dead Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 16 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1880 Hemlock 9 No 1881 Fir 7 Yes 1882 Cottonwood 12 Yes 1883 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1884 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1885 Cottonwood 8 No 1886 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1887 Cottonwood 6 Yes 1888 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1889 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1890 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1891 Cottonwood 8 No 1892 Cottonwood 12 No 1893 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1894 Cottonwood 15 Yes 1895 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1896 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1897 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1898 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1899 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1900 Cottonwood 11 No 1901 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1902 Fir 7 Yes 1903 Fir 7 Yes 1904 Fir 10 Yes 1905 Alder 6 Yes 1906 Cottonwood 9 Yes 1907 Fir 6 Yes 1908 Fir 7 Yes 1909 Cottonwood 11 Yes 1910 Cottonwood 7 Yes 1911 Cottonwood 8 No 1912 Cottonwood 10 No Reason not Viable Dead Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Diseased Dead Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 17 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1913 Cottonwood 10 Yes 1914 Cottonwood 7 Yes 1915 Fir 6 Yes 1916 Cottonwood 14 Yes 1917 Hemlock 8 No 1918 Alder 7 No 1919 Cottonwood 9 No 1923 Cottonwood 7 No 1924 Cottonwood 8 Yes 1925 Cottonwood 11 No 1926 Cottonwood 9 No 1952 Maple 8 No 1953 Maple 6,8,8,10 No 1954 Maple 28 No 1955 Maple 14,18 No 1956 Maple 34 Yes 1957 Maple 24 No 1958 Maple 24 Yes 1959 Alder 6 Yes 1960 Cascara 10 Yes 1961 Maple 7 Yes 1963 Maple 6,6, 7, 7 ,8, 14 Yes 1966 Maple 8 Yes 1967 Maple 7,8,8 No 1968 Alder 9 Yes 1969 Fir 28 Yes 1970 Fir 22 Yes 1971 Maple 7 No 1972 Dogwood 12 Yes 1973 Dogwood 12 Yes 1974 Fir 18 Yes 1975 Alder 12 Yes 1976 Maple 10 Yes Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dane:erous Diseased Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Diseased Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 18 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 1977 Maple 18,20 No 1978 Maple 18 No 1979 Maple 8,16,20 No 1980 Maple 14,16 Yes 1981 Maple 12 Yes 1982 Maple 14 Yes 1983 Maple 10 No 1984 Cascara 7 Yes 1985 Maple 6,22 No 1986 Maple 18,20 Yes 1987 Maple 9,14 Yes 1988 Maple 9 Yes 1990 Maple 6,7,8,9,9,9 No 1991 Maple 15 Yes 1992 Maple 14 Yes 1993 Maple 24 No 1994 Alder 14 No 1995 Maple 20 Yes 1996 Maple 12 Yes 1997 Maple 7 Yes 1998 Maple 8 Yes 1999 Maple 13 Yes 2009 Cottonwood 30 No 2010 Maple 8 Yes 2011 Maple 8 Yes 2012 Maple 28 No 2014 Alder 7 Yes 2015 Hemlock 14 No 2016 Maple 12,16,40 No 2017 Maple 6,6,6,8 Yes 2018 Maple 7,7 Yes 2020 Maple 8 Yes 2025 Maple 10,10 No Reason not Viable Dangerous Dane:erous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dane:erous Dangerous Dead Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 19 of30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 2029 Vine Maple 6 Yes 2030 Maple 10 Yes 2031 Cascara 6 Yes 2033 Maple 38 Yes 2035 Maple 10,10,24,28 No 2036 Maple 10 Yes 2037 Maple 8 No 2038 Maple 16 Yes 2039 Maple 12 Yes 2040 Maple 20 Yes 2041 Maple 12 No 2042 Maple 36 No 2043 Hemlock 20 Yes 2045 Maple 8 No 2046 Maple 12 No 2047 Maple 16 Yes 2048 Maple 8,8 Yes 2049 Ash 9 Yes 2050 Maple 10,12 No 2051 Maple 28 No 2053 Maple 18 Yes 2054 Alder 12 Yes 2055 Maple 15 No 2056 Maple 12,20 Yes 2057 Maple 12 Yes 2058 Maple 12,14,14 No 2059 Maple 14 Yes 2060 Cedar 7 Yes 2061 Maple 12,15 No 2062 Maple 8, 12, 12,14, 14, 14 No 2063 Maple 24 No 2064 Maple 8 Yes 2065 Maple 12 Yes Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 20 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 2066 Maple 16 Yes 2067 Maple 6,8,8 No 2068 Maple 6,8 No 2069 Maple 6,6,8,8,8, 10, 10 No 2071 Maple 22,24 No 2072 Maple 15,18 No 2073 Maple 8,15 No 2074 Maple 6 No 207$ Maple 6,8 No 2076 Maple 6,6 No 2077 Maple 24 Yes 2078 Ash 12 Yes 2082 Cherry 14 Yes 2083 Cherry 8 No 2084 Cherry 8 Yes 2085 Maple 6,9,10,14,15 No 2086 Maple 12 Yes 2087 Maple 7 Yes 2088 Maple 12,24 No 2089 Maple 8 No 2090 Cottonwood 36 Yes 2091 Fir 24 Yes 2092 Alder 6 Yes 2103 Maple 8,8,8,18 No 2104 Alder 12 No 2105 Maple 7,8,9,10,10,14,14,14 No 2106 Alder 10 Yes 2107 Alder 9 Yes 2108 Willow 12 No 2117 Alder 12 No 2118 Alder 12 Yes 2119 Alder 18 Yes 2120 Alder 12 No Reason not Viable Diseased Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Damzerous Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 21 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 2121 Alder 10 Yes 2122 Alder 12 Yes 2123 Alder 12 Yes 2124 Alder 8 No 2125 Alder 8 Yes 2126 Alder 8 Yes 2127 Ash 22 No 2128 Ash 10 Yes 2129 Willow 7 Yes 2130 Willow 7 Yes 2133 Alder 10 Yes 2134 Alder 11 Yes 2135 Alder 11 Yes 2136 Alder 9 No 2137 Alder 10 Yes 2138 Alder 10 Yes 2139 Alder 14 Yes 2140 Alder 8 Yes 2141 Alder 12 No 2142 Alder 10 Yes 2144 Alder 14 Yes 2145 Alder 14 Yes 2146 Alder 12 Yes 2147 Alder 12 Yes 2148 Alder 16 Yes 2149 Alder 12 Yes 2150 Fir 10 Yes 2151 Alder 16 Yes 2152 Alder 10 No 2153 Alder 16 Yes 2157 Alder 14 No 2158 Alder 14 Yes 2159 Alder 8 No Reason not Viable Diseased Diseased Dangerous Dead Dangerous Dangerous Dam!erous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 22 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 2160 Alder 8 Yes 2161 Alder 22 Yes 2162 Alder 22 Yes 2163 Alder 18 Yes 2164 Alder 7 Yes 2165 Cottonwood 38 Yes 2177 Willow 6 Yes 2178 Ash 16 Yes 2179 Apple 8 Yes 2180 Maple 24 Yes 2181 Cottonwood 16 No 2182 Alder 14 No 2183 Alder 10 Yes 2184 Alder 16 Yes 2185 Ash 12 No 2186 Alder 12 No 2187 Alder 14 Yes 2188 Alder 14 Yes 2189 Alder 16 Yes 2190 Alder 18 No 2191 Ash 6 Yes 2192 Alder 22 No 2193 Alder 18 No 2194 Alder 10 No 2195 Alder 16 No 2196 Alder 7 Yes 2197 Alder 16 Yes 2198 Cottonwood 26 No 2199 Alder 18 Yes 2200 Hawthorn 10 No 2201 Alder 16 No 2202 Alder 12 No 2203 Alder 18 No Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Diseased Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 23 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 2204 Maple 8 No 2205 Alder 16 No 2206 Alder 16 Yes 2207 Alder 14 Yes 2218 Fir 10 Yes 2219 Cedar 16 No 2220 Maple 20 Yes 2221 Cedar 10 Yes 2222 Cedar 18 Yes 2223 Alder 12 Yes 2224 Cherry 6 Yes 2225 Alder 12 Yes 2226 Alder 12 Yes 2227 Fir 20 Yes 2228 Maple 18 Yes 2229 Alder 12 No 2230 Cedar 28 Yes 2231 Cedar 36 Yes 2232 Cedar 28 Yes 2233 Alder 16 No 2234 Cedar 26 Yes 2235 Maple 18 Yes 2238 Ash 7 Yes 2239 Ash 7 Yes 2240 Alder 9 Yes 2241 Willow 10 No 2244 Ash 6 Yes 2245 Cedar 8 Yes 2246 Ash 12 Yes 2247 Ash 7 Yes 2249 Ash 7 Yes 2250 Cottonwood 40 Yes 2251 Ash 8 Yes Reason not Viable Dani:,erous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Diseased Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 24 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 2252 Ash 12 Yes 2253 Willow 8 Yes 2254 Ash 7 No 2255 Ash 6 Yes 2256 Ash 6 Yes 2257 Ash 6 Yes 2258 Ash 9 Yes 2259 Ash 8 Yes 2260 Ash 8 Yes 2261 Ash 9 No 2262 Ash 10 No 2263 Ash 12 No 2264 Ash 12 No 2265 Ash 9 Yes 2268 Ash 9 Yes 2269 Ash 20 Yes 2271 Ash 6 No 2273 Willow 7 Yes 2274 Ash 6 Yes 2277 Ash 14 Yes 2278 Ash 24 Yes 2279 Alder 8 No 2280 Ash 18 Yes 2281 Alder 6 No 2282 Cottonwood 12 Yes 2283 Cottonwood 6 Yes 2284 Fir 16 Yes 2285 Ash 8 Yes 2287 Alder 10 Yes 2288 Ash 6 No 2289 Maple 18 Yes 2290 Fir 18 Yes 2291 Ash 8 No Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Diseased Diseased Diseased Diseased Dangerous Diseased Diseased Diseased Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Field brook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 25 of30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 2292 Fir 14 Yes 2293 Cedar 12 Yes 2294 Cottonwood 10 Yes 2295 Fir 26 Yes 2298 Maple 9 Yes 2301 Alder 12 Yes 2302 Maple 6 No 2304 Alder 16 No 2305 Maple 8 Yes 2307 Alder 16 Yes 2309 Ash 6 Yes 2312 Ash 8 Yes 2313 Ash 8 Yes 2314 Alder 8 Yes 2315 Alder 8 Yes 2318 Alder 8 No 2320 Maple 20 No 2321 Maple 16 No 2322 Fir 18 Yes 2323 Fir 28 Yes 2324 Alder 8 Yes 2328 Alder 12 Yes 2329 Alder 8 No 2330 Maple 16,18,24 No 2331 Maple 8,12,14,14 Yes 2333 Alder 12 No 2336 Ash 10 Yes 2340 Alder 16 No 2343 Maple 16 Yes 2344 Maple 12, 18, 18,30 Yes 2345 Alder 16 Yes 2347 Fir 8 Yes 2349 Ash 12 Yes Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 26 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 2351 Fir 12 Yes 2354 Ash 12 Yes 2356 Alder 10 No 2359 Cedar 12 Yes 2360 Cottonwood 34 Yes 2361 Alder 8 Yes 2363 Maple 6 Yes 2364 Fir 22 Yes 2365 Maple 16,18,18,24 Yes 2366 Maple 20 Yes 2367 Maple 10 Yes 2368 Alder 6 Yes 2371 Alder 10 Yes 2372 Alder 10 No 2373 Alder 12 Yes 2374 Alder 14 Yes 2375 Alder 12 Yes 2376 Alder 12 Yes 2380 Alder 10 No 2382 Alder 10 No 2384 Maple 8,22,22 Yes 2385 Ash 6 No 2386 Maple 10 Yes 2389 Ash 10 No 2390 Ash 12 No 2391 Ash 24 No 2392 Fir 9 Yes 2393 Alder 12 Yes 2394 Maple 22 Yes 2398 Maple 36 No 2399 Alder 18 No 2400 Cascara 6 Yes 2401 Fir 24 No Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Diseased Diseased Diseased Diseased Diseased Dangerous Dangerous Dead Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 27 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 2407 Alder 6 Yes 2410 Maple 30 No 2413 Maple 10 Yes 2415 Alder 26 No 2417 Maple 6 Yes 2418 Maple 8 Yes 2420 Maple 8 Yes 2423 Fir 24 No 2424 Maple 8 Yes 2425 Cedar 18,26 Yes 2429 Cedar 32 Yes 2432 Cottonwood 55 Yes 2434 Maple 26 Yes 2435 Maple 20,20 Yes 2436 Maple 30,36,38 No 2437 Maple 27 Yes 2438 Fir 28 Yes 2439 Maple 6 Yes 2440 Maple 24 No 2441 Cedar 16 Yes 2442 Fir 28 Yes 2443 Maple 12,12,14,26 No 2444 Maple 12 Yes 2445 Maple 9 Yes 2446 Cedar 8 No 2447 Maple 6 No 2448 Maple 20,20 No 2449 Cedar 12 Yes 2450 Maple 10 Yes 2451 Maple 8 No 2453 Maple 12 No 2455 Maole 10,10,24,24 No 2456 Maple 20 No Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Diseased Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dead Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 28 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 2457 Maple 9 Yes 2458 Fir 30 Yes 2459 Fir 18 No 2460 Maple 20 Yes 2461 Fir 34 Yes 2463 Maple 9 Yes 2465 Cottonwood 14 Yes 2466 Cedar 10 Yes 2467 Maple 10 Yes 2468 Holly 6 Yes 2469 Alder 8 No 2470 Apple 7 Yes 2479 Atlas Cedar 9 Yes 8481 Cottonwood 20 Yes 8482 Cottonwood 10 Yes 8483 Cottonwood 16 Yes 8484 Cottonwood 9 Yes 8485 Cottonwood 16 Yes 8486 Maple 8 No 8487 Maple 6 Yes 8488 Maple 13, 4-12 No 8490 Maple 18 No 8491 Cherry 10 Yes 8499 Maple 11,11,16 No 8500 Cedar 32 Yes 8501 Maple 18,26 No 8502 Maple 16,20 No 8507 Maple 6 Yes 8508 Maple 18, 20,22, 12 No 8511 Maple 24 No 8513 Maple 10,12,16 No 8515 Maple 14 Yes 8516 Macie 10,17 Yes 8517 Maple 30 Yes 8518 Maple 18,18 No 8519 Maple 12 Yes Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dami:erous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Diseased Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 29 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 8520 Maple 12,12,18,24 Yes 8522 Maple 8 Yes 8523 Maple 8,8,12 No 8524 Maple 33 No 8525 Macie 8,8,10,12 No 8526 Maple 16 Yes 8527 Dogwood 9 No 8528 Fir 20 Yes 8529 Maple 22 Yes 8530 Maple 7 No 8531 Maple 26 Yes 8533 Manie 7,7 No 8534 Maple 14 No 8535 Cedar 6 Yes 8536 Alder 14 No 8537 Maple 16 Yes 8538 Maple 38 Yes 8539 Maple 10,lD,12 No 8540 Macie 20 No 8541 Manie 8 No 8542 Macie 14 No 8543 Maple 8 Yes 8544 Maple 10 Yes 8545 Macie 22 Yes 8546 Maple 9 Yes 8547 Manie 14 No 8548 Macie 14 No 8549 Manie 10,16 No 8550 Macie 9 No 8551 Manie 15 Yes 8552 Manie 9 Yes 8553 Maple 13 Yes 8555 Maple 12, 36 No 8556 Maple 15,28 No 8558 Macie 16 No 8559 Maple 22 Yes 8560 Maple 34 Yes 8561 Maple 9 Yes Reason not Viable Dangerous Dangerous Dam1erous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous DanRerous DanRerous Dangerous Dangerous Diseased DanRerous DanRerous DanRerous DanRerous DanRerous DanRerous Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist Justin Lagers, PNW Holdings LLC RE: Significant Tree Inspection, Fieldbrook Commons, Renton WA 9/8/2011 Page 30 of 30 Tree No. Tree Species Diameter Viable 8565 Maple 12 Yes 8571 Maple 26 No 8573 Maple 24 Yes 8574 Maple 12 Yes 8575 Fir 14 Yes 8576 Maple 20,22 Yes 8578 Maple 20,20,22,22 Yes 8579 Macie 14 No 8582 Fir 8 No 8583 Maple 8,12,20 No 8584 Maple 14,15,20 No 8585 Maple 15,15,20 No 8587 Cottonwood 30 Yes 8588 Maple 24 Yes 8589 Maple 24,20,18,16,12 No 8590 Maple 18,22 No 8607 Maple 24,26 No 8612 Maple 8,9,14,20 No 8613 Maple 9,9,12 No 8614 Maple 6,12 Yes 8615 Alder 10 Yes Reason not Viable Dangerous DanRerous Dangerous Dangerous Dangerous Diseased Dangerous Dangerous Diseased DanRerous Dead Greenforest @ Registered Consulting Arborist .. : Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD Statement Addressing Project's Compliance with Decision Criteria i/iN " -,, 2017 1. Demonstration of Compliance ond Superiority: !,~J {§; (~'/,£'Ii 1, 1 ,, ___ _ ' ~ , '--,,' .,;; ,t_:-. r·-.., ·--o ,, ,,, 'r' . .'I)' '·--=-· L':...·~) The project submittal exhibits, narratives, and supporting reports illustrate the design and benefits to the community of the Planned Urban Development approach to land planning. Please see submittal documents. 2. Public Benefit Required: a. Critical Area: There are existing wetlands on the property. There are some isolated pockets of wetlands in the central portion of the property. The proposal includes a request to remove these isolated wetlands in the center of the property. Mitigations to this wetland filling include: • The creation of new wetlands adjacent to existing wetlands • Enhancement of the existing wetlands to be retained. • Existing wetland buffers will be averaged and enhanced. • New wetland buffers will be created adjacent to the new wetlands being created. The benefit to the public is that the expanded and enhanced wetlands, along with their associated buffers, will protect and enhance the riparian habitats associated with wetlands because the wetlands will function in a superior fashion. A soft surface nature trail with arboretum signage is proposed in the wetland buffer area witch will provide a nature experience and educational walk area for the residents and public. b. Natural Features: The primary natural features of the property include existing trees and wetlands. As noted above, the wetland areas will be enhanced and protected. Existing trees will be retained in accordance with city requirements as well as numerous new tree plantings being incorporated into the design to provide a green canopy. The PUD will allow for the unified maintenance and protection of the trees and wetlands. c. Public Facilities: The perimeter public roadways and public pedestrian circulation systems will be improved with the project. The access to these roadways is limited to a few specific points. This provides the benefit of safer roadways, pedestrian ways, and limits the traffic flow to neighborhood. The Roundabout feature at the end of SE 172nd Street is a superior alternative to a traditional cul-de-sac as it allows for the coordinated flow of traffic through it. d. Overall Design: i. Open Space/Recreation: The building locations allow for the provision of greater quantity and better quality common outdoor spaces for the community. As an alternative to a traditional "fenced in backyard" environment, the common park and recreation spaces provide spaces for the enjoyment and community interaction of the entire project. , Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD ii. Circulation/Screening: Pedestrian circulation systems are superior to those in a traditional platted neighborhood because the pedestrian circulation is often time located away from vehicular paths, providing a safer pedestrian system. Over 50% of the parking garages are located on the rears of the buildings or are accessed from dead end alleys. Parking areas are either internal to the project or are setback from neighboring properties and are heavily landscaped to mitigate any possible impact. Garages located internally to the buildings greatly reduce the number of surface stalls on site. The onsite drive lanes are private. As such, they occupy less property that a dedicated roadway of a typical platted community. The reduction in space for the roads allows for a greater amount of open space and residential use of the property. Alley designs provide for the pocketing and isolating of automobiles, thus separating them from residential activities. iii. Landscape/Screening: Landscaping is superior to a traditional platted development in that fencing, perimeter buffer and building landscaping and parking buffer landscaping is provided in a comprehensive and cohesive design that seeks to provide four season interest, color, super screening, and selective plant species which are drought tolerant. A harmonious landscape design which seeks to de-emphasize building mass, provides the large open spaces and emphasizes pedestrian connections throughout the PUD has been provided. iv. Site and Building Design: Because the buildings are not limited to placement on individual lots, they are better able to be sited in clusters, oriented to open spaces, oriented for solar benefits and generally sited to provide a communal neighborhood environment. v. Alleys: Over 50% of the parking garages on site are located off either alleys or are accessed from the rear of the buildings, away from the primary building entrances. 3. Additional Review Criteria: a. Building and Site Design: i. Perimeter: The heights of the buildings adjacent to the neighboring properties are scaled as the same as the adjacent uses. The modulation of the buildings, both horizontally and vertically provide a dramatic building design that brings the scale of the buildings down to be similar to the neighboring properties. On the South perimeter, the buildings are positioned such that the narrow faces of the buildings face the street. This provides for generous open space park frontage along the public street. 2 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD On the West perimeter, the faces of the building that front the arterial contain the entries to the units. No parking is visible from the west. On the North perimeter, the parking is oriented away from the neighbors and the quiet sides of the buildings face to the North. This siting, coupled with fencing, dedicated landscape buffers, building modulation, and open spaces located between the buildings and the neighbors mitigate the slightly longer building sizes. On the East perimeter, there are two three story buildings. The East third of the subject property is wetland, and these wetlands extend off site to the east. The nearest neighbor is a significant distance away and the natural area to be preserves in posterity along with the natural vegetation ii. Interior Design: Building designs are all coordinated to interact and play against each other in an organized fashion. The four sided Architecture and detailing provide a quality building design from all view points. The building designs utilize a variety of exterior building materials which provides detail on all four sides of the building that is superior to a traditional platted community. A varied rich color palette that will be coordinated throughout the project will unify and tie the neighborhood together in an organized manner. Maintenance of the exteriors of the buildings will be on a project wide basis, providing a superior ongoing appearance to that of a traditional, individually owned set of houses. b. Circulation: i. The vehicular circulation system provides service and parking in the immediate proximity of the building being served (max. 200' walking distance from parking stall to entry). All drive aisles where fire department access is needed are sized in accordance with the fire department requirements. Both in terms of road width and turning radius. ii. Proper sight distances are provided at the connection with the public streets. Sidewalks are often separated from the auto drives for safety. The project has been laid out to avoid any steep grades. iii. The project's pedestrian circulation system links the building entrances to all the passive and active recreation areas on the site, the parking areas, and the offsite sidewalks that lead to public transit, schools, parks, and other community facilities. c. Infrastructure and Services: All of the utilities services, including water, sewer, power, and data services are provided. Emergency services and systems including fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are being provided. 3 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: The PUD has provided an appearance of openness throughout the project by siting the buildings around developed open spaces. With the site drive aisles being privately owned, the amount of right of way and impervious surfaces that a platted road would require is extremely reduced and therefore available to become additional open space. While the allowed impervious surface for a project in this zone is 85%, this project is approximately 50% (buildings, sidewalks, on site roadways). e. Privacy and Building Separation: The buildings are designed to provide privacy for each of the dwelling units. The placement of the buildings, oriented to open spaces, provides separation and privacy for the residents while maintaining a communal atmosphere. f. Building Orientation: The buildings are orientated toward the open spaces or toward the offsite view vistas afforded in the natural wetland setting. There is minimal orientation toward off site non view areas. g. Parking Area Design: i. Design: The parking has been designed to resemble a traditional neighborhood pattern with some driveways, some parallel parking stalls, alley access to garages, rear access (opposite side from primary building entries) parking areas. ii. Adequacy: The city code has a minimum and a maximum amount of parking in order to minimize the amount of roadway on site and provide adequate parking ratios. The project has been designed to meet the specific number of parking stalls required. These stalls have been provided in a mixture of garages, garage driveways, and open surface stalls, both angled, and parallel. Additionally, bicycle stalls have been provided in a greater number than is required by code. h. Phasing: The PUD has been designed to be an integral whole. As such, the project will be constructed in a single phase. All infrastructures will all installed along with the building construction thus insuring that all the facilities needed for the community will be available for all the residents. 4 • / Thi~ certificate provides information nec8SSary to evafuate development propOSals. Certificate : 4486 City of Ren>on Pl · · anrunq Divisi,x, SOOS CREEK WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY Type: Multi-family : App1ic:itnt1s Name: Justin Lagers Proposed Use: Multi-Family: 13 Buildings, 163 units. Location: Lot: Block: Development: Parcel: 292305 9022 Address: Information: Includes parcels 292305 9023 and 9168 WATER PURVEYOR INFORMATION Fronting water on the south and east side. 1. , a ;;?: Water v.ill be prov:ided by service connection only to an existing 8" water main, 10 feet from the site, Water service will require an improvemerrt to the wat~ system of: JAN -3 ZD11 Water mainline will be required to serve all the buildings. The e;dsting 12" AC main in 108th Ave SE will have to be replac~d with 12,: DL ,. The Hydraulic smdy done indicates a minumwn of3 hydrants wiJI .be,requir.ed.!O'achieve the fire flow of2,750 required by the Fire MarshaL The final water layout and fequiremens:will be determined based on the final site plans and the Fire Marshal requirements. 2. a~ b The water .system is in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan. The. water system improvement wi_ll require a water comprehens.ive plan amendment. 3. a~ The proposed project is within the corporate Jimii:s of th~ district, OT has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension ofseivice outside the disrrict or city, or is within the Coumy approveU service area of a private water purveyoL b ~~ Annexation or Boundary Review Board approval will be i1ecessary to provide service. 4. a :i?: Water is/or will be available at the rate of flow and duration indicated below at no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest tire hydrant 5 feet from the building/propeny (or as marked on the at1ached map}: Rate of Flow; 2,750• gpm .IJ,. [~ Water system ls not capable,ofproviding fire t.low, 5. Service is subject to the following: a ;:~ Corineccion Charge: Yes, induding latecomer#! i3. b L~ Easement{s}: Duration: 2 c ~ Other: SEPA, AC Abundonment Waiver, and R.O.\V. permit. Cr9ss Conneetion Control devices. must be in conformance with state laws~ hours Service is subject to the applicants agreement to comply and perform to make such instaJlation and/or connecdo,1s to the standards, regulations, require"inents and conditions of this District and sUCh.other agency or agencies having jurisdiction. This.District is not representing that its facilities will be extended or otherwise modified to make such sei:vice available to the applicant. It lS the responsibility of the applicant to make any required extension of facilities to serve their property. I hereby-certify that the above w.a~r purv<!yor information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year fro.m· dlltti of signature. SOOS CREEK V./ATER & SEWER DlSTR1CT Darci McConnell 12t5J20li · · · '.4.;,~,icy Name · · Oevctopment Coordinator -. _,, ______ -'fi'il~-'-~ ' This certificate provides information necessary to evaluate development proposals. C,:rtificatc: 5350 SOOS CREEK WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY Type: Multi-Family Applicant's Name: Justin Lagers Proposed Use: Multi-Family: l3 Buildings, 163 units. Location: Lot: Block: Developme:rit: Parcel: 292305 9022 Address: 'NO SITE ADDRESS'. RENTON Information: Includes parcels 292305 9023 and 9168. ( Attach map & Legal desi;;npticn 1f necessary J SEWER PURVEYOR INFORMATION There is fronting sewer on the south and east property boundaries. 1. a :v': Sewer service v.:ill be provided by service connection only to an existing sewer main Io· feet from the s.ite and the sewer sys1cm has the capacity to serve the proposed area. 2. 3. b ;/ Other (describe): ' " b • :?, b Sewer mainline will be required to servi! all buildings. Tii<:r~ is a latecomer l5(Jrt from the line to th.:: south. TI1e line to the east was pahl through an assessmenl for the first 150ft from the main. The final sewer layout will be detennined based on the final site developm,mt plans, buliding locations and outlet elevations. All plans must be approved by KCWTD and Soos Creek Water and Sewer Districi . The So;!wer system is in confomiance witl1 a County approved sewer comprehcnsivl! plan. The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendment. The proposed project is within 1hc corporate limits of the distric[, or has been grJnt-;::d Boundary Review Board approval for cxti.::nsion of service ou1s.idc the district or city. Annexation or Boundary Review Board approval will be necessary to pro\•ide scrvkc. 4. SerYice is subject to the following: a .-t. Connection Chargi!: Yes. induding Latecomer 87. b ,/ Easement (s): c ~. Other: See conditions la and b .ibovc and below. Seni:ice is subject to the applicants agreement to comply and perform ro make such installation and/or connections to the standards, regulations. requirements and conditions of thls District and such other agency or agencies having jurisdiction. This District is not representing that it's facilities will be extended or othem·ise modified to make such service available to the applicant. It is the responsibility of the applicant to make any required extension of focilities to serve their property. I hereby certify thal the above sewer pur'"cyor information ~ true. This certification shall be rnlid for 011c year from date of signature. SOOS CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT ------··--· Development Coordinator Title- Darci McConnell [1/5/201 ! o~u: I __ I. l:2r::o 11; D~1e · Field brook Commons Construction Mitigation Description /.~iV .. 1 201? .h;, .,:·;,\' The following narrative is provided to describe the mitigation measures the ::.~;1~i~{k(it~fJ; general contractor for Field brook Commons will implement during the duration of the site development and infrastructure period as well as during building construction. Proposed Construction Dates {Site Work/: June 2012 -November 2012 The developer anticipates on beginning clearing and site development work in the late summer of 2012 depending on the timing of approvals. Due to the planned wetland mitigation and creation area project on the site, the developer would prefer to begin the wetland creation and buffer enhancement work on the eastern side of the site in June 2012, in advance of the site infrastructure construction, to properly protect the sensitive areas from silt and construction impacts. This would include installation of the storm detention pond and its outfall which are located adjacent to the wetland complex. The developer anticipates a 120 day schedule to finalize all grading, storm, sewer, water and first lift of asphalt on the site. Frontage improvements along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172"' Street will be a priority to complete to minimize the impacts on the circulation and traffic flows in the area. The goal will be to have the site stabilized by October 31", 2012 before the wet season. Proposed Construction Dates {Building Construction/: August 2012 -May 2013 The developer plans on beginning construction of the Recreation and Leasing building in August of 2012 and anticipates starting three buildings per month with an average construction timeline of six months to complete. Hours & Days of Operation Normal site hours of operation will be in compliance with the allowable working hours in the City of Renton which are as follows: For the remodel or addition to a single-family residence, permitted work hours in or within 300 feet af residential areas are 7:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. For new single-family residences and non-residential construction, the permitted work hours ore 7:00 a.m. -8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. -8:00 p.m. Saturday, and no work shall be permitted on Sunday. Fieldbrook Commons Construction Mitigation Description Proposed Hauling I Transportation Routes The Field brook Commons site is located at the intersection of 108'h Avenue Southeast and Southeast 172"' Street. The contractor anticipates two haul routes, one to 1-405 and the other to State Route 167 (See the attached map for locations). To 1-405, heading south on 108'h Ave to Benson Dr. South, left at Benson Dr. South to the on ramp of 1-405 North. To SR 167, Heading south on 108" Ave to Benson Dr. South, right to SE Carr Rd, left to South 43'' St. (Northbound onramp to SR 167) South 43'' becomes South 180'h St, right onto 88'h Ave South, right on 41" St (to Southbound onramp SR 167). Measures ta Minimize Impacts The developer and contractor will make every effort to minimize the impacts from this project on the surrounding neighbors, the environment and the traffic circulation for the immediate area. Contractor and Developer contact information will be clearly posted at the site and the job trailer to insure communication and immediate responses to any questions or inquiries from the community. Dust/ Mud/ Erosion Impacts -The contractor will implement and maintain the TESC measures approved for the Fieldbrook Commons Project at all times. Measures such as water trucks, street sweepers and maintaining perimeter erosion fencing help to mitigate impacts. In addition, regular inspections by the City of Renton and the Department of Ecology as well regular meetings between the developer and contractor will insure compliance. Traffic I Transportation Impacts -The developer and contractor will secure all necessary Right-of-way use permits including providing traffic control measures to minimize the impact of the frontage improvements associated with the project. Haul routes and hours will be adhered to and the developer is attempting to minimize the amount of import used on the project through careful design of the site finish grades. Utilizing the on-site material and repurposing wood chips and top soil from the clearing activities minimize the need for ongoing truck and trailer loads. Sample traffic control plans are attached. Noise -The contractor will comply with the allowable working hours in the City of Renton (see above) to minimize the impact to neighbors during the site construction and building construction. S.v 19T,1 ST s.vt2nH sr "' ,: > .u ---·---------~ ····-----Sl/t,' 34fH Sf --·--.... -..... I 3: ;Q .u --isw.:!f~ _J.~.,.s~·~'--.,,... D Fie1dbrook Haul Routes Map < S 16T.'t S:T V '.5 S11T•J-ST ~ $ SXJT,1 ST l~ 0 " ,., o' ~ = S:[ l'32"l::: ST J ,., ~~ ,., · .• < .Sl::: i"tfH:J'/lrSKv ND ~ CJ ~ sc1an,, .sr < I st 131ST ST ,., <'.": ,_, ... ~ o' ;g ~1:i'i.N·::sr S[ 19S'frl -ST 1481ft "' (!) n' ----- = :.:~ -~ --. The-.in Included on this map has-been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and ~ subject to change without notice. King Cwnty makes no representations orwan:anlies, express or.implied, as to accuracy, o::,mpfefeness, timeliness, or n_ghts to the use of such information. lllis <locument is not intended for use as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general. special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, _but not limited lo, lost revenues or lost profits resulUng 1'roo1 the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or Information on this map is prohibited e><cept by written perm1SS1on of King County. Dale: 12/14/2011 Source: King County iMAP-Property lnformatkln {http:f/www.metrokc.gov/GIS/iMAP) ~ King County Fieldbrook Commons -Traffic Control Plan Watermain Replacement in lOB'h Ave SE IKJN IP.ACING-• X (1_~ _ ~---MINIMUII BHOULDU TAPER LENCmt • LIi (rNIJ RURALRIWlflli.URIWIARTERIAUI !fi_{«I~~--31111':t__ 8HOUL..OEA Pondlpeed(mpll) ---------j "'"'-__ "°"' "°"ftUIIIIMIARTSW.1.A 251,0MPH 200':t(2) WDn1 --· --~ ~ au•Nbl-lDfRIC'rs __ _ (tlilO ,40 ,41 ao m eo OG UIUWI S'fREETB :26 IIIPH OR L£88 100' :t . .. (1) AIJ. IIPACING MAY IE AD.IU8Tmro MlCOMMOQ,\TE INTERIECTION8 AND DRl'IIEWi\VS. 1cr lilO (2) ntll &PACINQ WtY BE REOUCED IN URIWt AREAS TO FIT ROADY,l,iY OONDITIOfl8. UBE A~ OE\IICES TAP!A FOR 8HOU.DER8 LEM TliEN ti ---------------. ------ ,_,. -.. -- ---~_--:- BUFFER DATA LONGIJUDINAL BUFFER IPA.Cl! • B t :::.: 1 ;;f: 1 : l;l ..:vr~-r., P·1 ,, BUFFER VEHICLE ROLL AHEAD DISTANCE• R ------ lMN8POJ0'"8\..E ATTENUATOR -IIOITVB!IQ.E WBlllfl" lfMIXI 1.81. 1k1! 1WC1M1.1,1 WEIQtfT IKl\l.l. If! INACcoRIWICEIMlll 1111! JIWIUl'ACTUREJl9 ~TION PROTECTNE V!::HICU: MA~ IIE A WOMVEtt<ll.E lffllAlmKIAU.Y Loe.l,ll;D ro .. 8.Jl ---~----I """ "" m 100 FOOT MM_ ·_0 SPECIFIED """"" REQUIRED /t)tJBArE s.€. I !J 0 Q Q g _ _g DD 0 " ' ~----~· ---=+ w. LEGEND to TEIIPORARY IIGN LOCATION D CHANNEUZINO D£VICEI r.::::EE PROTECTM! Vl!HlCLE ~-.-u1 ...... II.Pl, 1:11.AII -iOiiiiiio 1:-.:......,--:~ I- ffl-1 Ynl-6 .,~-ITC-1~w-.,· -DA.Tl! .r-~ 0 0 0 ·---t-u, t CH3 T~~M 0 00 ~-~f~ r-"' 1 11 b;; 1--..--- SHOULDER CLOSURE -LOW SPEED ('0 MPH OR LESS) NOT TO SCALE Feo..AID PROJ.NO. =-------- ' NOTES; 1. TI,E PROTECTIVE VEHICLE MAY DE A 'IIQRK VEHICLE ~-I 2. DEVICE 8PACIHG FOR lliE DOY.wST!U:.o.M TAPER 8HOIAD BE 'l!I 0.C, 3. All SfOMS AA!: BLACK ON ORNl~E G W..hlngton 8tat:e O.P11rtm•rrt cfTN111,port1.t1on ll~ ... r~1 llll'l'ER DATA LONGITUDINAL BUFFl!:•·~·~·~-=~•:...::•c,..-~-~-= ~.:: ±,:J:g f¥+:.J.: {:~I: I:/~ I IIUl'P:ER VEHICLE ROLL AHEAD DISTANCE • R ------------ TRANHPORTABtE ATTBIUATOR FEET MIN. .. -... HOJI' \/&ICU 'MIOlff 11,00D Ula 11E 1MDU1 -.r tlW.J. ltl • lN ACCOll:w«)E Mn1 11'1! -,Al1TUISl9 ~TION. OOT MM. ---------------------------- PROTEC11YE V&UCLE 8PECIFIED Fieldbrook Commons -Traffic Control Plan Work at 109" Place SE IIGN SPACING • X (1) IWIW. HIGHWII~ 10 /¥ MPt1 --411 fl6WH ~ ~ & ~-NfmUAI.S-·:_ • ,~ loFH r~ua=~ U /IICI MPH """'"""""" 215 MPH OR LEll8 1(1JAIJ. IIPACIN6 MAY BE UfflD TO o\CCOMMOMTE IN'TEIUIECTIONI AND DRIVEWftY8. ..,, "'" .... .... ., 100'11:~ (:I] lltll &PACING IIIIY BE REDUCED 1H URBAN AREA& TO FIT RCWJMV OONOfflONI. _,._.. .,-40 IIPH Oft: I.Qfl ~ MY IE A WON< VEHQ.E IIYRAT!GICAU.Y LOCAlED Tll IIIEUI ANCE 111! -N1PA REQUIRED ----. ----------- c.s.~~'zz-~-'s" __ -._ ~h~~~ra.,.J:l~r f¥?t. ""'~, I ? i __ &______ _ 0,2; ---t + X ... ., OD t • ~, ~~ i=~ • 1if {"~" ''~"" .,'~ ~ ~• • T ~" ' $.-'Oif i r------=::::::-: ______ --_ ----- ,..._, LEGEND .. FLAOGINO ITATION "1 Tf.MPORARY IIGIN LOCA TlON O CHAHN£UZJNO DEVICES CJ.ill PROTECTM! VEHICLE ..... ~ _,.w zy .,._,. wao-JB (OPTIONAL IF 40 lllflH OR l.eP) 111Mi'o4 -·1·:tll~~f 10 !WA• ~1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' a; bu ~ .. :"11~,-!1' • i~ ~~ 1,1 :o-,. :~ i"..12 : l : i • • • • ..... , ONE-LANE, TWO-WAY TRAFFIC CONTROL WITH FLAGGERS NOT TO &CALE l'f!O.AIO PROJ.NO. CHANNELIZATION DEV1CE SPACINO r..tl_ WI0-78 (OPTIONAL MPH TAPER __ TANGENT i IF 40 MPH OR LE!IS) -E-·: i-E I • Wuhlngton Btata NOTc8: 1. SEE SPECIAL PROVl8K»l8 FOR Y«>RK HOUR RE8TRICllONS 2. il!XTENDINO THE CHAHNEUZING DEVICE TAPER ACROSS SHOULDER 18 RECOMMEHOEO . 3. DEVICE SPACIHO OH THE oc,,,,,,,iantEAM liHOULD DE 20 FEE,T ~ ALL SIONB ARE BLACK ON ORANOE 0. NIOHT WORK REQUIRES J.DOmONAI.. ROAJ:JNAY LIGHTING AT fl.AGOING 8T"TIOM8, 8EE THE 8T.-.NOAAO 8PECIFIC.O.T10NS FOR ADDITIOtl,tJ. DETAILS. Fie./Jbroc,l:. &,tffl'YIC>,, s ... M1 TC1 ~-I --l----I , --1 -.... I I l"""'""'"'°'Tn"'po,ladoo I , --ADIL --------~ i=:o,;re---tSY , .. .,_.... .... ·&t·--------....-----. TRAFFIC ,.c __ o_N_T_R_O_L_P_LA_N ___ J_ _ _J -.. ! BUFFER DATA TYJ'ICAL ~ VEHICLI MTN TIIA. (8EE NOTE 1) WHICU!""'" I.CWlm WIIGIIT ! t --·--- 4 YARD DUMP TRUCt<, MINIMUM 11111:IOHT 16,000 UlS. SERVICE ~UCI<, (MAXIMUM WEIOHT SHA.LL IIE fl.AT BED, ETC. IN ACCOR~CE 'MTH MANU- FACTURf!l'I. RECOMMENOATlOt{) I <j> ROLL AHEAD aTOPPING DISTANCE • 30 FEET MIN. (DRY PAVEMENT A.88t.t.EO) r ..... [. ... , ... i 4J" --V:, ~i " r=-----= l-- ~ ~ ~ 1 ---~~--·· -~--x--~ ~ W,0.1 ~~::~",_ AHEAD 020-2A I• '11..:.::.~] ~ ----"-, I J_ LEGEND [)j SIGN LO~nON CHANNELIZING DEVICES Dill PROTECTIVE VEHICLE -RECOMMENDED ~1e10Dro0K Lommons -Trattic Control Plan Vault Excavation at intersectian of lOB'h Ave 5£ & 5£ 172"d Street MINIMUM TAPER Ll!NGTH • L (FEET} IIGN IPACINQ • X {1) I.MIE~DTtt POSTED SPEED {MPH) (FEET) " " .. .. ... .. .. ----1D ~-"' '"' "' 270 ... "' "' 11 ~--- 11, "' "' ,.. ... "" "' ~-" "' ,., ... "" ... "" ,., RURAL ROADS 46/MMPH "". RURAL RO,l,DS l URBAN ARTERlALS 1------S5/o40MPH ""' AURAL ROADS, URBAN ARTERIAL.8, RESIDENTIAL&. BUSINESS DISlRJCTS 25/MI MPH 20/1 t {2} -~ URBAN snaEET8 2-' MPH OR LESS 100' t {2) ALL SIGNS ARE BlACK ON OMN13E UNLESS DESIQNATED ODIERMaE (1) All SIGN SPACING JM.Y BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS ANO DR!VEWA.Y8. (2) THIS SIGN SPACING MA.Y BE REOUCEO 1H URBN'I AREAS TO FIT ROADWAY CONDITIONS. CHANNELIZING DEVICE SPACING ""'" " t_ ... ":. .. II POBTEll SPEEll IN TAPER IN TANGENT '""" {FEET) jFEET} 50/70 ., "' ·-~-- "' INHEN APPLICABLE ,., ... "' ., - ""' 20 ., -------- ($> r <1> _!I__ NOTES 1. A Protac:ttw, Vehlcle la raoommanded ragardle8a lf a Truck Mounted Attenuatcr (TMA) II avalable; a work vehfde may ha IHMKI. 11\/hen no TMA. la used, the Protective Vehlcle shall be atratlglcally located to shield warkara, with no apecfflo Rotl--Ahllad dlatanoe . 2. Fer long larm prcjacta conflicting pa\181llent markings that are no longer applicable shall be remowd. Temporary marking& ah11H be uaed as nacaasary and •lane ahall be poet mounted. 3. The algn MOTORCYCLES USE EXTREME CAUTION may bli UHd. 4. For algns alze refit to Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devtcu (MUTCD) and \IVSDOT Sign Fabrication Manual M56-05. :-~~-~1. S.c. /72~ s+-. ~ V, t-X - " .. a".._ --"------"--1 2I<~~ '"5/ ' --~--~---------------~-~ =------_ I ··------~ " G~2A 11 .... ~ •• J SHOULDER 'NORK AAEA~r'r-·-EXISTING LANE TEMPORARY "TRAFFIC I CONTROL DEVICE - __ ___.-/ _ ___-_rJ <IH:1V WEDOE OF COMPAC;~/-7. SECTION (A' STABLE MATERIAL -SEE 'NSOOT \:) S'TlJ. SPEC. 1-07-23(1) SHOULDER WORK AREA PROTECTION (NOT TO SCALE) 1 FOR LOCAL AGENCY USE ONLY NOT FOR USE ON STA TE ROUTES i!il111 11m,1 l !MI! I . l . ·1111111_ ' 'i. /t/_l'.FliS:.IJi~'.J~i ;_ 1,J~11 1hU INTl!RSl!CTION ~ SHOULDl!R WORK STANDARD PLAN K-36.20-00 SHEET f OF 1 SHEET ~ ---APPROVED FOR PUBUCA.TlON -----, Kan L. Smith 02-15--07 ----IT~TEPSIO!IIMIINEER -""-,,;--- eWmh1"P""-~~T-,..ilo,n . , December 14, 2011 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 36th Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 RE: Habitat Study -Fieldbrook Commons City of Renton, Washington SWC Job #11-121 Dear Justin, Sewall Vvetland Consultin , Inc. 27641 Covington Way SE #2 Covington, WA 98042 Phone: 253-859-0515 Fax: 253-852-4732 This letter is in reference to the City ofRenton's requirements for a Habitat Study for the Fieldbrook Commons project. The Fieldbrook Commons site is a 10.7 acre property on the east side of Benson Road South, and north of Cedar Avenue South (SE 172°d Street) in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Specifically, the site consists of three abutting parcels (Parcels# 2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023) located in a portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington. Typically a Habitat Study is required by the City when Critical Habitat as defined in the Code (RMC 4.03.050.K.1.a). Critical habitats are defined in Code as follows. a. Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the following criteria: i. Habitats associated with the documented presence of non-salmonid (see subsection L 1 of this Section and RMC 4-3-090. Shoreline Master Program Regulations, for salmonid species) species proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened. candidate, sensitive. monitor, or priority; and/or ii. Category 1 wetlands ( refer to subsection M 1 of this Section for classification criteria). b. Mapping: -• eldbrook Commons!#] 1-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 20 II Page2 i. Critical habitats are identified by lists, categories and definitions of species promulgated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Non- game Data System Special Animal Species) as identified in WAC 232-12-011; in the Priority Habitat and Species Program of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or by rules and regulations adopted currently or hereafter by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ii. Referenced inventories and maps are to be used as guides to the general location and extent of critical habitat. Critical habitat which is identified in subsection K1a of this Section, but not shown on the referenced inventories and maps, are presumed to exist in the City and are also protected under all the provisions of this Section. iii. The actual presence or absence of the criteria listed above, as determined by qualified professionals, shall govern the treatment of an individual building site or parcel of land requiring compliance with these regulations. c. Performance Standards: In addition to the general standards of subsection E of this Section, the following performance standards, subsections K2 to K5 of this Section, apply to all non-exempt activities on sites containing critical habitat areas per subsection K 1 a of this Section. 2. Habitat Assessment Required: Based upon subsection K1 of this Section, Applicability, the City shall require a habitat/wildlife assessment for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat, or that are adjacent to a critical habitat, and have the potential to significantly impact a critical habitat. The assessment shall determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation consistent with report requirements in RMC 4-8-1200. In cases where a proposal is not likely to significantly impact the critical habitat and there is sufficient information to determine the effects of a proposal, an applicant may request that this report be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection 04b of this Section. A review of the WDFW Priority Habiats Mapping was conducted for the project. This was detailed on Page 6 of our November 8, 2011 Critical Areas Report for the Fieldbrook Commons project and is reproduced as follows; 3.1.4 WDFW Priority Habitat Website Map According to the WDFW Priority Habitat Website with Public access layers activated, there is a wetland located along the east side of the site. f . ie/dbrook Commons!# 11-121 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 2011 Page 3 As shown above, WDFW has only identified a wetland (purple shading) along the east edge of the site. No state or federally listed species are identified or known to use the site. The wetland has been rated using the City of Renton methodology and is rated as a Category 2 wetland. Our review of the site did not reveal any state or federally listed species on or near the site. Conclusion There is no "critical habitat" as defined by Code on or near the site. If you have any questions in regards to this report or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 Sewall WeUand Consultin , Inc. December 14, 2011 Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 36th Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 27641 Covington Way SE #2 Covington, WA 98042 RE: Supplemental Stream Study-Fieldbrook Commons City of Renton, Washington swc Job #11-121 Dear Justin, ,lAN -., .. J LUl} This letter is in reference to the City ofRenton's requirements for a Supplemental Stream Study. Typically a Supplemental Stream Study is required for projects containing a stream within their limits, or within 100' of the study site. The Fieldbrook Commons site is a 10.7 acre property on the east side of Benson Road South, and north of Cedar Avenue South (SE 172nd Street) in the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"). Specifically, the site consists of three abutting parcels (Parcels# 2923059168, 2923059022, and 29230599023) located in a portion of the SE l/4 of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington. There are no streams on the site. As detailed on Page 8 of our November 8th, 2011 Critical Areas Report for the project, there is a portion of a wetland, identified as Wetland Bin the Critical Areas Report, that extends onto the east side of the site. This wetland forms a portion of the headwaters for Soos Creek. The paragraph below is from Page 8 of the Critical Areas Report under Wetland B; Wetland B (flags B 1-B22-10,300sf on-site) co11sists of the western edge of a relatively large (@4-5 acres) located primarily off-site to the east. This wetland is known as a headwater wetland to Soos Creek, which forms further to the east of the site several hu11dred feet. This wetla11d is primarily forested although also contains a scrub-shrub component a11d a small portion (10%-20%) of seasonally standing water to the southeast of the site. Investigation into this wetland to a distance of 100 · east of the eastem site boundary revealed no stream cha1111el. Although a stream is thought to form within this wetland, our investigation of the area over 100' to the east of the site revealed no stream channel. lfthere is a channel it is Fieldbrook Commons/# I 1-12 I Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 20 II Pagel >100' from the property boundary and the largest stream buffer that the City of Renton uses ( l 00 ') would not encroach onto the property. If you have any questions in regards to this report or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetlands Ecologist PWS #212 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FIELDBROOK COMMONS PRELIMINARY PUD PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a Proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable signifi- cant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your Proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the Proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide · whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your Proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your Proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your Proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your Proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your Proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. © 2011 o. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 1 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Fieldbrook Commons 2. Name of applicant: PNW Holdings LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 36th Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 (206) 588-1147 Contact Person: Justin Lagers PNW Holdings LLC 9725 SE 36th Street, Suite 214 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 (206) 588-1147 4. Date checklist prepared: December 27, 2011 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction will start upon the receipt of all required building and construction permits. This is estimated to occur in 2012. 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. © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 2 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton. Washington 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this Proposal. Geotechnical Engineering Study Wetland Assessment Report Arborist Report 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your Proposal? If yes, explain. None at this time. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your Proposal, if known. SEPA Determination City of Renton Preliminary PUD Approval City of Renton Final PUD Approval City of Renton Building Permit City of Renton Wetland Fill Permit Army Corps Other Customary Construction Related Permits City of Renton 11. Give brief, complete description of your Proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your Proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.). Construct a 162-unit apartment complex on 10.80 acres. 12. Location of the Proposal. Give sufficient informa- tion for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a Proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicin- ity map, and topographic map, if reasonably avail- able. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Project is located in the SE Quarter of Section 29, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 3 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington The Site is located at 17040 108TH Avenue SE in Renton, Washington. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. Gener escription of the site (circle one). Flat rolling steep slopes, mountainous other. In general, the majority of the property has slopes ranging from 5% to 15% with some pockets of greater slope. Generally, the land slopes to the East and West from the center of the site. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 43%. This is located within the wetland areas and is the slope of a manmade berm. Otherwise the steepest slope is approximately 15% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soils on the Site are mapped in the Soil Survey of King County, Washington, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and has classified the Site as Alderwood Series, slopes 6-15% (AgC), gravelly sandy loam, AmC, Arents, Alderwood material, slopes 6-15% and No, Norma Sandy Loam (northeast corner). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None to our knowledge. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose of the site grading will be to construct the access drive aisles, utilities and buildings. The grading is intended to be balanced on Site; © 2011 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 4 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington however, there is a possibility of importing select fill material as well as exporting unwanted soils. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. There could be a short-term increase in the potential for on-site erosion where soils are exposed during site preparation and construction; however, the Project will comply with all applicable erosion control measures, short term and long term. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 42.5% of the Site will be covered by impervious surfaces. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. 2. AIR A temporary erosion control plan will be implemented at the appropriate time. Erosion control measures may include the following: hay bales, siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds, controlled surface grading, stabilized construction entrance, and other measures which may be used in accordance with requirements of the City of Renton. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the Proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Short-term emissions will be those associated with construction and site development activities. These will include dust and emissions from construction equipment. Long-term © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 5 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington impacts will result from increased vehicle traffic. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your Proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources of emissions or odors are those that are typical of residential neighborhoods. These will include automobile emissions from traffic on adjacent roadways and fireplace emissions from nearby homes. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. The Washington Clean Air Act requires the use of all known, available, and reasonable means of controlling air pollution, including dust. Construction impacts will not be significant and could be controlled by measures such as washing truck wheels before exiting the site and maintaining gravel construction entrances. In addition, dirt-driving surfaces will be watered during extended dry periods to control dust. 3. WATER a. Surface. i. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, there are open water wetlands on the site as well as just east of the site. The offsite wetland to the east drains to Soos Creek. See Critical Areas Report for more information. ii. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 6 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington please describe and attach available plans. Yes, the project is proposing to work within 200 feet of the described waters. Preliminary PUD plans have been submitted to the City. iii. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Yes, approximately 9,262 s.f. of wetlands will be filled. Approximately 1,250 c.y. of fill material from the site will be used to fill said wetlands. iv. Will the Proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No, there will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. v. Does the Proposal lie within a 100- year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not to our knowledge. vi. 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, a public sanitary sewer system will be installed to serve the residential units. There will be no discharge of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground. i. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 7 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn. Public water mains will be installed to serve the development. No water will be discharged to the groundwater as the soils do not lend themselves to infiltration. ii. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; in- dustrial, containing the following chemicals .... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the num- ber of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material is proposed to be discharged into the ground. The Site will be served by public sanitary sewers and a public water system. c. Water Runoff (including storm water). i. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. See attached Level One Drainage Analysis Report. ii. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The proposed storm water system will be designed to minimize or eliminate entry of waste materials or pollutants to ground water resources and/or surface waters. Oils, grease, and other pollutants from the addition of paved areas © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 8 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington could potentially enter the groundwater or downstream surface water runoff. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. A City approved storm drainage system will be designed and implemented in order to mitigate any adverse impacts from storm water runoff. Temporary and permanent drainage facilities will be used to control quality and quantity of surface runoff during construction and after development. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _x_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, vine maple, cottonwood other: (birch, dog- wood, hemlock) _x_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, spruce, pine, other: _x_ shrubs _x_ grass (orchard grass) _x_ pasture crop or grain _x_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: _x_ other types of vegetation (Deer fern, blackberry, holly, scotch broom) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Vegetation within the development area will be removed at the time of development. Landscaping will be installed in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Zoning Code. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known or documented within the project area. © 2011 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 9 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. If necessary, replacement trees will be planted to mitigate for significant trees removed. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. birds: mammals: fish: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: crows deer, bear, elk, beaver, small rodents, raccoon, other: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish other: None. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None to our knowledge. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Western King County as well as the rest of Western Washington, is in the migration path of a wide variety of non- tropical songbirds, and waterfowl, including many species of geese. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. None proposed. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (el_ectric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and/or natural gas will serve as the primary energy source for residential heating and cooking within the development. Any wood stoves © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 10 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington incorporated into the new residential units will comply with all local and State regulations. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this Proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. The required measures of the Washington State Energy Code and the Uniform Building Code will be incorporated in the construction of the residential units. Energy conservation fixtures and materials are encouraged in all new construction. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL TH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this Proposal? If so, describe. There are no known on-site environmental health hazards known to exist today and none will be generated as a direct result of this proposal. i. Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required. ii. Proposed measures to reduce or b. Noise control environmental health hazards, if any. Special measures are not anticipated. i. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 11 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington The primary source of off-site noise in the area originates from vehicular traffic present on adjacent streets. ii. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term impacts will result from the use of construction equipment during site development and residential construction. Construction will occur during the day-light hours, and in compliance with all noise ordinances. Construction noise is generated by heavy equipment, hand tools and the transporting of construction materials and equipment. Long-term impacts will be those associated with the increased use of the property by homeowners. iii. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Construction will be performed during normal daylight hours. Construction equipment will be equipped with noise mufflers. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The Site appears undisturbed, as it is primary forested area. The current use of adjacent properties is listed as follows: North: Single Family Residential South: Single Family Residential/ Multifamily Residential, Undeveloped © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 12 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington East: Undeveloped, Sensitive Area West: Single Family Residential b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. c. Describe any structures on the site. Outbuildings d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the above-mentioned structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification is Residential, R-10 and R14. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? RMD -Residential Medium Density g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, wetlands. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 373 individuals will reside in the completed residential development (162 units x 2.3 persons per household = 372.6 individuals). j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None at this time. © 2011 D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 13 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington I. Proposed measures to ensure the Proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The proposed development is compatible with the prescribed land use codes and designations for this Site. Per the City Zoning Code, the development is consistent with the density requirements and land use of this property. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The completed project will provide 162 apartment units. Rent will be priced with a market orientation to the middle to income level homebuyer. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The maximum building height will be 38'- 3.75". b. What view in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views in the vicinity are not likely to be enhanced, extended or obstructed by development of this project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any? The location of the buildings adheres to or exceeds the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district. The © 2011 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 14 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington landscaping will be installed at the completion of building and paving construction. A Homeowners Association will maintain the landscaping and common elements. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the Proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare will be produced from building lighting. Light will also be produced from vehicles using the Site. The light and glare will occur primarily in the evening and before dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light and glare from the project will not cause hazards or interfere with views. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your Proposal? The primary off-site source of light and glare will be from vehicles traveling along the area roadways. Also, the adjacent residential uses and streetlights may create light and glare. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Street lighting will be installed in a manner that directs the light downward. The proposed perimeter landscaping will create a partial visual buffer between the proposed units and the surrounding neighborhood areas. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 15 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. Recreation space will be provided within the project. 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. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. There are no known impacts. If an archeological site is found during the course of construction, the State Historic Preservation Officer will be notified. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the proposed project will be from 108th Avenue SE and SE 172"" Street. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The nearest public transit stop is approximately 0.4 miles from the Site at the intersection of SE Carr Road & 108th Ave SE. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 16 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington 208 total parking stalls. No parking stalls would be eliminated. d. Will the Proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The existing public 1081" Avenue SE & SE 172nd Street right of ways will be improved per City of Renton road standards. The curb will remain in 108th Ave SE and a planter and sidewalk will be constructed. The pavement on 172"d will be widened and a planter and sidewalk will be constructed with a cul de sac at the east end. Private drive aisles will be constructed within the project limits. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Per the traffic report, approximately 1,084 trips will be generated on an average weekday with 83 occurring during the AM peak hour and 101 during the PM peak hour. Peak hours will generally be 7 AM -9 AM and 4 PM -6 PM. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Traffic mitigation fees in the amount of $75 per trip generated. © 2011 D. R STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 17 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, the proposal will result in an increase for those services typical of a residential development of this size and nature. The need for public services such as fire and police protection will be typical for a residential development of the size. School age children generated by this development will attend schools in the Renton No. 403 School District. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. In addition to payment of annual property taxes by homeowners, the proponent will mitigate the direct impacts of the proposal through the City's traffic and school mitigation programs, if required. 16. UTILITIES a. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity .......... Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas ........ Puget Sound Energy Water & Sewer .... Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Telephone .......... Verizon © 2011 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 18 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I unde stand the lead agency is relying on them to make its d DATE SUBMITTED: © 2011 0. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Environmental Checklist Page 19 of 19 Fieldbrook Commons Preliminary PUD City of Renton, Washington • I I ' I ' t I ' I i ' I ' I . " -A --------~-- I( 1\1 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ ~ n ~ BOLDDl'OS, I. RIEBE & ASSOCIATES.INC. ARCHITECTURE· PLANNING 1123 IIAPI.£ A\{Wl( SW -SUITE 279 RENTON, WASHINGTON 98857 PH,(425)226-5344 fAXc(425)226-5'44 EWAIC EDRIEBE-.COII ................................ -.. ............... -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . . · .................. -.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ --.. -........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------, ---------.-----,, )' , r·· , _____ ___ ........ -..... . .............. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . :::::: ::: : :: .: .: .:::::::::::: .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '• ............... · ............ . .. -..... . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . -........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . -..... . . . . . . . ........ -~ ··--y-.) ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii L±> \,/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -~ \ ---. ----· . ', '--~--'\ .•.: :.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ·,. \ \ \, J \ / \ ' \ I \ ' ' j ,' I I ' ' I ,, I / I I I \ \,, .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . · ..................... . ............ . . . . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ........ ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. '• ..... . . . . .. . ..... . ·.·.·.·.·.·.· . I I ---~--) \ ·-·--·-:::::::::::::::-I ', ' ·,., I -~'--------~--_____ / ;: '': '.' ' ;; ~ Pm.DIIROOJ[ COIOIOHll -- ~1\~~J/\ll•N ~~ ;st; ___/ ''"'''-: ,_ --o---,"--( ---'--9 l.11 NORTH """ .... T T T ; ; ¢ i - -11h4 II ~ -"' -~"-· ....... w " D! ' '>1 I I I ~ I L ~ t ~ ~ • ' ~ ' ' ~ ' •1 • I !, ~ I •• I 1• • d I I I ... I \ , ~ I I I II I I H • I •• I I II I I I I I I I VI ' C --: C .c ' •. ··: a I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ":xr'6f93&:mm :iMO ~-9U(i;lt):XV~ ~--mC~t}:fid £;e&'6 NCll~NIHSVM 'NOiN3t:I Ill ]UJ?i -.IS lfWJ\'t' lldVfl ml ONINNYld• 3~n~03~lHO~V 'JKI'S:UVIJOSSV 'Ii 3B:ml : ~ • !Ill --SNOIIJ'IOO JJSIIHXil IDIII.Qt m .... JIOCJll8Q'IIY )IICl)l 'M,j _, f-----+-+---f-+-----+---------1,- ~--------~ ---------------------71 I ' , I ' \ / ! ','-/ ,/ ' -l ), I , ' / I , ,/ I , • ' ' '· ~ -------------------r--------- 1 I I I ', I ' I ' I ---~ .-----/' i I I "· L ar I t;L,,,,,__. ---------lo\ IT ,,.~I> a. a P 1:1 o ' . : ; o o ti !_'o ___ , a..:.11 ' ; I .. . -.. . . . .· . . . . . .. ··.· .·. . . ····. , . ·.. . .. . . . It o:og~ooo~mol n 0 I ~-l I --------------- ~:5=F~;:iE~FF~=· .. . . o J:J P P P P Q t:J: ·e1 ,c,. q 'I Q' . ·, ,.,. • • Printed: 01-03-2012 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA 12-001 Receipt Number: Total Payment: 01/03/2012 01 :55 PM 3,090.00 Payee: PNW Holdings LLC Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 1094 3,090.00 Account Balances Amount 90.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000000.020.345 Park Mitigation Fee 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee 3954 650.000000.000.237 Special Deposits 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/Waivers 5008 ooo.ooooo0.007.345 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 5011 ooo.000000.007.345 Prelirn/Tentative Plat 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD 5014 ooo.ooooo0.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Horne Parks 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone 5018 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 ooo.oooooo.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) 5998 000.000000.000.231 Tax .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 City · ot Rent P/anni1•a o· .. on '.::-, IV/S1on !AN -3 Z011 R1200011 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00