Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1W W 2 Z Z a LU u J m M 0o 0 N r -I a D J a� J `a r a Z 2 J W a V1 W a O O J d a �z 1i. a W W J a M c a +' CL 0 a LU 10 c w o w Z 0 n► 2 a y N LU rrr vvv Q ULn y ~ uj N 4 .t �1 LU Il PARTIES OF RECORD MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST PRELIM PLA LUA12-018, PP, ECF Sandy & Terry Taylor } r 15243 SE 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-5477 (party of record) Tiffiny Brown Burnstead Construction, LLC 11980 NE 24th Street ste: #200 Bellevue, WA 98005 tel: (425) 454-1900 (owner / applicant) Tom Zywicki 121 Shadow Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Robert D. Hagerman 15227 SE 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Avenue ste: #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 tel: (425) 285-2390 eml: matt@cphconsultants.com (contact) Jim & Linda St. John D.E. Blood 6009 NE 1st Circle 3711 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 eml: stjohncoug@comcast.net tel: (425) 255-9540 (party of record) (party of record) Douglas Bornstine 15235 SE 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Updated: 10/01/12 (Page 1 of 1) Denis Law Mayor r C1ty of; a .0- : r September 20, 2012 w"+' Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Avenue #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat / LUA12-018, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Hough Thank you for submitting the additional materials requested in the July 31, 2012 letter from the City. Your project has been taken off hold and the City will continue review of the Maplewood Park East project. The Preliminary Plat has been rescheduled for EIEC on September 24, 2012 and is tentatively scheduled to go before the Hearing Examiner on October 23,.2012 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, ^GAG Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: TifFiny Brown - Burnstead Construction, LLC/ Owner(s) Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov 4v- fsal rn�-n rno=r � Z n, m ' o D(n=3 (D 7 (p p rr -� Ir 4 Denis Law City of Mayor r C�fs July 31, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development C-E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Avenue #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT:"On Hold" Notice Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat / LUA12-018, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Hough: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on March 22, 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 October 30, 2012 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: The City has conducted an Independent Secondary Review/Reconnaissance (at the applicant's expense) of the wetland reconnaissance provided with the application. This secondary review included a site visit to determine.if a wetland and/or a wetland buffer does or does not exist on the subject site. Based on the findings of the independent Secondary site reconnaissance (Enclosed) three recommendations were provided as follows: • Mark the western property boundary of the Maplewood East project site. • Estimate the eastern potential wetland boundary on the parcel that is west of the site. • Ratethe wetland (if it exists) using the City's rating methodology to determine the location of the wetlbnd buffers in relation to the project site. RMC Section 4-3-050M.3.a.i. states that "the applicant shall be required to conduct a study to determine the classification of the wetland if the subject property or project area is within one hundred feet (100') of a wetland even if the wetlond is not located on the subject property but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the wetland in question or its buffer. Based on the above code reference and the conclusions provided in the Independent Secondary Review, that there may be a wetland on the south-southeast portion of the parcel to the west, the Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov Mr. Hough Page 2 of 2 July 31, 2012 applicant shall comply with the above recommendations provided 'by Otak, to determine if any portion of this wetland and/or its buffer extends onto the project site. Once the delineation is, completed please provide the City 5 copies of the report and delineation along with any updated plan sets that result from the wetland delineations. .If plan sets are updated please provide the required number. of copies identified in the submittal requirements and one.small 8.5 x 11 reduced copy of any large format plan set. At this time, your project has been' placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact meat (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions.'. Sincerely, . .Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner. Enclosed: Secondary Reconnaissance Findings, E=mail, Otak cc: Tiffiny Brown - Burnstead Construction, LLC / Owner(s) Party(ies) of Record Vanessa Do[bee From: Stephanie Smith [stephanie.smith@otak.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:37 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Darcey Miller Subject: Maplewood Fast wetland reconnaissance Follow up Fiag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed H1 Vanessa, We were out on site this morning. It does not appear that there is a wetland on the project site. However, it appears there may be a wetland on the south-southeast portion of the parcel to the west, possibly within the easement, associated with the residential development. Without the property boundaries marked, it is difficult to tell exactly where the potential wetland is located in relation to the site property boundary. Our recommendations: • Mark the western property boundary of the Maplewood East project site. • Estimate the eastern potential wetland boundary on the parcel that is west of the site. • Rate the wetland (if it exists) using the City's rating methodology to determine the location of wetland buffers in relation to the project site. Please call me if you have any questions regarding our findings. Steph FiiMillk'j+1?CIY F3s"Et Stephanie Smith I Wetland Biologist 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 1 Kirkland, WA 98033 v:425.739.7978 1 f: 425.827.9577 www.otak.com AReduce, Reuse, Recycle Disclaimer: The information transmitted in this e-mail message and attachments, if any, may contain confidential material, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Distribution to, or review by, unauthorized persons Is prohibited. In the event of the unauthorized use of any material in this transmission, neither Otak nor the sender shall have any liability and the recipient shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the sender, Otak and its principals, agents, employees and subconsultants from all related claims and damages. The recipient understands and agrees that any use or distribution of the material in this transmission is conditioned upon the acceptance of the terms stated in this disclaimer. If you have received this transmission In error, Immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this transmission including attachments, if any. * \� E E E E \ // %0 {2 E 2 k\ /06 0 � # %3 me t= E(nJ C)< ,®� tf L . ra20 z Ln > 0) ¢ 3 7F) U ¥ m \ � ~ f 2 / /z\ «zz\ my\\ 3 Z z@<� LU "J yqq>! o,C 1j; @ e o zu=\ sEz` g=mr® mR=R/ C, @ �- < / <_ > .. 0 \ 10` W _- E LU N Z CL. nA N y O I I Z'' I W~. z � ob � Q II 4R h N P 10` i YI ! I z Y II 4R h N P Lu J i r � h � I y Z M ...I 4 .: 1'I jI I I i I 7s 34vQNasr � LLIJ oe i YI ! I z Y II 4R h N P J i r � h � I y Z M ...I 4 .: 1'I jI I I i I 7s 34vQNasr a W� NOi-LonUISNOO UOJ iON'NV-ld AUVNIVqll3bd t Jig z Lu Lu m LLJ �4 Lu 0 E Lu )K XO V) U'D C3. CILJ I. J: ko t,4) C, x LU Y.4% 0- C :J + j z w w Ag CL LU fr _J w W --- ------------ J VAA NCiN3H IW1N3Mvld3H 3; M -L C) v7ci s v >PaVcj (IOCM711dVIN NOi-LonUISNOO UOJ iON'NV-ld AUVNIVqll3bd t Jig z Lu Lu m LLJ �4 Lu 0 E Lu )K XO V) U'D C3. CILJ I. J: ko t,4) C, x LU Y.4% 0- C :J + j z w w Ag CL LU fr _J w W --- ------------ J eaamaHOJ o.wV-ld INmm+d \ | mWm-LN�1 B NVId>emNVI aa+,w ,!! 2! T— { | ' ■ � | ,� | ||q :- | | 3 iv7d yM >ayd a 2avw ; � x! eaamaHOJ o.wV-ld INmm+d | | lit | ' ■ � | ,� | ||q | | | |||||� � 111111; 11S NO11DnUISNOO HOd iO1`4V1d kLJVN1VC13U.J � LQ VM'NOIN3311 NV-1d 3dVOSGNVI AHVNIWITN' I — 3 NO11DnUISNOO HOd iO1`4V1d kLJVN1VC13U.J LQ kit NiR I H-1 m .111 — 3 t� ta'fe hg `yH � a I s _.... m tL LU NY ac�i i zU as -I 11 3NIl HOIM r NOIiDflHiSNOD HOB ION'NVId AbVNIIMIl3Hd 09 5 c c o o E c m g E $ u a E �' a` c – 9 8 4 E – m 16 n u v 75 nK W L Y g 4 i a N E` •� � = c n � � o ° ` � Fe 8 � a � � m a' a � � N a �• � � 'o 2.� $ 2 L `a wq$ 9 i a �W a o ¢ 5 a $ a` u o J t ;' F y 6 �! VM 'NO1N3a Fra S1 V,06 6NV S310N NOIlOf1d1SNOO NVId 3dVOSON71 ,lkiVNlWll3kld � l�s f lL LLS r ., Z li s F res ivld 1SVI Advo GOCAA3�dVw ` 3vaygEa -- L a NOIiDflHiSNOD HOB ION'NVId AbVNIIMIl3Hd 09 5 c c o o E c m g E $ u a E �' a` c – 9 8 4 E – m 16 n u v 75 nK W L Y g 4 i a N E` •� � = c n � � o ° ` � Fe 8 � a � � m a' a � � N a �• � � 'o 2.� $ 2 L `a wq$ 9 i a �W a o ¢ 5 a $ a` u o J H lL LLS Z f � -- L Z J - a LU .—o --G- 111 I� �¢ VM'NO1N3)J _. ISIZIP 1181HX3 H0100 NVId 3dVOSONV1 : V�j 1Sd3 Nz�Hd cOGN,3lcHW ISIZIP c)- a- R b`S 1 � hf ij T G -y h� z I %:J 0 I E <% 3 Rg- ---------------- Z' @ z R b`S 1 � hf ij T G -y I %:J 0 3 --- ---------------- R I 0 E~ ° e sg bg 151 8C �o ?6`e� 62C q¢ 655 is' yY�g l SO 3 Giytt EEvg 1p E;ifpilgIc €a1;11 Eli h �3y Yiyppp ee S�esa< P � gg �� 3rRe T !/f l� tip^ 'p" E e 6 6 W H Q W j r� � `t��u I• I i I' I I I ' 1 i•-.-.�-.-J I III i� I L--! IL-7 z 0 H z w O U ,IL OrC 'z.0££n 65'fiLF =x m� a � w � �� .F�'ese I.co�6zc ,coez£ ^$ sa'9�ri 3.si,4zoon i ag�gs==o Y��$ aa¢woI Mpow_ n� P -V9 o aO z ^ ZO'46S1 y ^ 3„54,8 LOOM ,L Z'S ll (3rnrv},Zr'f li z ba L5 rV� jt =r P 3P dV/zI/� �� Z✓r� a CL aCL L'J� b Ei tx r m 4k"Zw ,S•,y. �U:S $gwW"agw� _ � o$�z baud F o pirtidn �aiu i��a¢ o==va Vl— ri M Z O p o ❑ E i' .w u s Mh wV A U o @V-]- o - c 0m 0•09910 +O u s Mh L92B655 '19;LL9i •Cfoserrrl y,3d 531]j�Bll Y �4✓�CyUJq��BOJUf3yN3peSlp'31L. f9�-p9£ L� I��`iT" ,W rc ,00 roL V ,IXI rL A 6L � ! I M- 5' � io LL� 3i 66 a L a':n I jl 1 f6'LSl .�Y.,71 a�aV ,roS':Ll � �gV f V 11V [[ll I rL ,ZO'hL ,6f'LUl B� SSI r w x —i'— ----� in—r------� 0 rvo $' qo .fOYll 3_6t,rozBOk �al W o e< un oZ N� ,LLYL O'rt m n be LK 3.61.i7 -00N ------------------- Eli 3,6t.pzouN Y m n VV3ii I z � too Jog � � 4 -Ez"-tL w t $ I F w 3 es.tiiaoW q m �� 1 n Qq It W o 4U It rim i I W Q4Q °°" _ ^a 6 N m no W r u [V7 H ------------------------------------ o .r[S1l�J 3_dV1.}L,Opk 'm k b LDL a V O d .� G M 6l ' _o ,91SCL _ 3,8G,rLOON gpp � w o a ry n Mtn w 3.8S,YZ.OBN ^' m m T m � I a9i i - (Yll,f-lif% f 0 O 6 Z::d » E 1 U r' 4 P n F iSV3 5 30NYN 'HEWN C2 dnL 1 'roL NOB035 W 153MNLWN -*a n 0 '14 LSV3N:NON 3NL d0 3Nfl Ism N E-1 L/D •'pF } II �a I3 oy 7T1, p H•J `all V (.LNzgT 1 �i I i Q O 4 O �i� q �a axe � �a�� N i�; � �¢ a J �� �� a-_ T \ z �� p� v � ww �d . � � R � ��hv R � S � F i 9 R o � e Denis Law Mayor Community & Economic Development C_ E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator April 21, 2017 Tiffany Brown Burnstead Construction, LLC 11980 NE 24" St., Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 SUBJECT: Maplewood Park East Plat (aka The Woods at Highland Park), LUA12-018 Dear Ms. Brown: As of the date of this letter, the subject plat has now been recorded and you can now apply to the City for Building Permits for each individual lot within the Maplewood Park East (aka The Woods at Highland Park) subdivision. This process (building permit review) is the time when staff will review your single family home designs for compliance with the Residential Design Standards, RMC 4-2- 115. Condition of approval Number 7 of the Preliminary Plat decision states "Staff will apply the design standards related to primary entry (RMC 4-2-115-3) during building permit review or whenever this issue is normally addressed by staff. Notice of the staff's decision on application of RMC 4-2-115(3) along with associated appeal rights shall be mailed to all property owners on the southern side of NE 211 St. that are facing the proposal at the time the decision is made." In order to comply with Condition of Approval Number 7, staff is issuing this formal determination as to how RMC 4-2-115E_3 Residential Design, will be applied to lots and building designs within the subject subdivision. RMC 4-2-115E.3 Residential Design includes standards for single family residential home design details such as, primary entry, facade modulation, windows and doors, scale bulk and character, architectural detailing, etc. Many of these standards apply to all facades of the home, however primary entry, facade modulation, and window and door standards have specific standards that are applied to the side of the home facing public spaces such a public road. The guidelines/standards that relate to building orientation and primary entry are as follows: Primary Entry Guideline: Front doors shall face the street and be on the facade closest to the street. When a home is located on a corner lot (i.e., at the intersection of two roods or the intersection of a road and a common space) a feature like a wrapped porch shall be used to reduce the perceived scale of the house and engage the street or open space on both sides. Fagade Modulation Guideline: Buildings shall not hove monotonous facades along public areas. Dwellings shall include articulation along public frontages; the articulation may include the connection of an open porch to the building, a dormer facing the street, or a well-defined entry element. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov PAs. Brown Wage 2 of 2 f6pril 21, 2017 Windows and Door Standards: Windows and doors shall constitute twenty five percent (25%) of all facodes facing street frontage or public spaces. Decision: Orientation of Facades: The above design standards of RMC 4-2-115E.3 shall apply to each of the lots as follows: Lots 2 — 5 and Lots 7 —10 only have one fa4ade facing a public street, these standards shall be applied to the facade facing the public right-of-way. Lots 1, 6, and 11 are corner lots and the standards shall be applied to the two fa+ ades facing the public right-of-way. Lots 12 and 13 face a public right-of-way to the north and a common open space and public right- of-way to the south. These standards shall be applied to both the north and south facades. Lot 14 has three sides facing public right-of-ways and common open space, to the north, east, and south. These standards shall apply to all three fa4ades. The above determination is intended to provide guidance for compliance with Condition of Approval Number 7 of the Preliminary Plat Hearing Examiner decision. This decision as to how the City of Renton will review submitted building permit applications will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the date of this letter. APPEAL: This administrative decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on May 5, 2017. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14 -day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680), together with the required fee to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. RMC 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Sincerely, Jennifer Henning Planning Director cc: Burnstead Construction, Owner; Matt Hough, PE, Contact; Parties of Record; 5 2nd 5t. property owners; C.E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator; Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager; Leslie Clark, Senior Assistant City Attorney 'S 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov �IT1F OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT ,OF,,.SERVICE: BY MAILING On the 21st day of April 2017, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ORIENTATION DETERMINATION LETTER documents. This information was sent to: _.......... ................F..:NamE <<{...F. CR reerii m .!!!��... SAKAGUCHI CHIKAI BILL+MITSU S. 2"d St. Property Owners CHAN SOCRATES+KAY KAY S 2nd St. Property Owners HAGERMAN ROBERT D S. 2nd St. Property Owners BORNSTINE DOUGLAS+JOANNE N S. 2nd St. Property Owners TAYLOR TERRY N S 2nd St. Property Owners NEWBURY GARY G S 2nd St. Property Owners Tiffany Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC Contact Owner, Burnstead Construction, LLC Contact Matt Hough, CP/H Consultants Contact (Signature of Sender): I STATE OF WASHINGTO ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gillian Syverson signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 1.LY 1t1 Dated: �.•�.{ �'�!�' ;_ ;� A Il Woary Public in and for the State of Washir�;'J►,,ry��i Notary (Print): 17 My appointment expires: u r'i f $ �tw 'ISHIt4 Maplewood Park East Plat (aka The Woods at Highland Park) LUA12--018 Denis Law - Mayor r January 13, 2015 To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: New Plats and Short Plats in the City of Renton Please see attached new plats, short plats and multi -building developments that have recently been addressed. Some of these have been recorded and I am supplying a list on new parcel numbers with the new addresses. If the plat is not recorded (NR), I am only giving you the plat map with the new potential addresses written on it. Please add these addresses to your City directories and maps. 2001 Union Short Plat (NR) NE 7�' North Short Plat NE 7sh East Short Plat NE 7th West Short Plat Avana Trails AKA Fieldbrook Commons Cascade Greens Short Plat (NR) La Rosa Meadows Plat (NR) Limelight Short Plat (NR) Maplewood Park East (NR) Merlino Short Plat (NR) Renton 7 Short Plat (NR) Shattuck West Short Plat Stevens Point Short Plat (NR) Whitman Court Townhomes (NR) Sincerely, tan Conklin Energy Plans Examiner Development Services Division Telephone: 425-430-7276 #1:platadd 3301ord Short Plat (NR) NE 7 North Phase 2 (NR) Ne 7��' Middle Short Plat NE 24th 3 lot Short Plat (N R) Carpenter Short Plat (NR) Kline Stromberg Short Plat (NR) Lim Short Plat (NR) Lund Lotline Adjustment May Creek Court Short Plat (NR) Piper's Bluff Plat (NR) Rylee's Place Plat (NR) Sheldon Short Plat (NR) Woodebridge Lane Plat (NR) ZK Short Plat (NR) Renton City Hall .1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov I ' I h c8 ~FUTATME U�iJla rw �CiiiHiu4r7�5o1' n;r fir r P1 I s ~FUTATME U�iJla rw �CiiiHiu4r7�5o1' Ar ' 4 Cynthia Maya From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 12:21 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat LUA12-018 Attachments: Rebuttal to Reconsideration-A.docx N , , From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:53 AM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: FW: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat LUA12-018 Bonnie, Please see below and attached a response to reconsideration received on Friday. Please retain for the project file LUA12-018 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat. Thank you, Vanessa 1Do(bee 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: rd ha4ermanCtcomcast.net [ma ilto:rdhagerman@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 4:01 PM To: olbrechtslaw(&amail.com; Vanessa Dolbee Cc: SHARA Subject: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat WA12-018 The purpose of this email is to inform you that we concur with the Examiners original decision in each of the 4 categories requested for reconsideration by CPH Consultants. Our detailed comments are included in the Attachment to this email. Thank you for your attention. Shara and Robert D Hagerman 1 . s 15227 SE 132nd Street Renton, Wa 98059 ph. 4252824162 cell 2536773181 or 2536773181 Rebuttal to "Reconsideration of Denial of Street Modification Approval" 1. We do not accept the logic that reducing the width of road B enhances the referenced woonerf concept of "shared pedestrian and vehicular facility." Quite the contrary, less road area increases congestion. 2. We agree that reducing road width does not directly affect lot width but it does increase lot length. It is also an arithmetic FACT that increasing lot length also increases the square footage of the lots which certainly supports/enables the argument for reducing lot width much to the advantage of the applicant not the future inhabitants nor the current neighbors. Rebuttal to "Reconsideration of Decisions and Discussion of Primary Entry (RMC 4-2-115.3) 1. RMC 4-2-115.3 states Front doors shall face the street". NE 2°a STREET is the southern border of this plat. ROAD B (NOT B Street) is proposed internally to the plat. There is no justification for prioritizing a proposed road (B) over an existing street (Ne 2nd/132nd). 2. We agree RMC does not require public notice however neither does it prohibit or disallow it. This is still a free and open country. Rebuttal to " Reconsideration of Application of Lot Width Standards and Allowable Reductions" Whether it was intended or not, to maximize the number of lots in this plat the Applicant first obtained a width reduction in the road to increase the length of the lots, then said the square footage of the lots are so large that they can reduce the width of the lots and add additional lots to the plat. By compromising the width of the road, the width of the lots are also proposed to compromised by the Applicant. This width reduction benefits only the Applicants not the future inhabitants nor the current neighbors. "Reconsideration for Condition Allowing Non -Alley Configuration" If including alleys enhances a plat with only north and south facing houses, we are in favor of it. There is no concern on the part of the Applicant to enhance neighborhood, there is a profit motive. It is the responsibility of the city to protect the sense of community — not to allow the language and intent of the city codes to be twisted to the advantage of the builders. The proposal to turn the crowded lots on to new internal roads is shortsighted for advantage of sale of those homes. Following the advice of the Examiner to place the roads on the exterior of the property will preserve neighborhood_ Denis Law City Of Mayor �# 4 it December 6, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SUBJECT: Reconsideration. Responses Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat / LUA12-018, ECF, PP Dear.Mr. Examiner: CITY OF RENTON DEC 0.6 2012 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Staff did not submit an initial reconsideration request as we are in full support of the decision issued by the Examiner_ However, the reconsideration provided to the Examiner from CPTH Consultants on November 21, 2012, includes comments reflecting staff's recommendations and requests for changes. As such, staff is providing this response to the reconsideration to clarify their position on the Reconsideration Request and Hearing Examiner's Decision_ Included in the first section of the Reconsideration Request under "Reconsideration of Denial of Street Modification Approval" it is -mentioned by the applicant that the street modification was approved by the City in order to allow the development to achieve minimum density. This is in fact not correct; the City recommended approval of the street modification initially because it was thought that Road B would not be extended to the west due to the presence of critical areas (wetlands) and the limited number of lots the road would be accessing. However, despite this reasoning the Examiner's recommendation in Condition of Approval 99; to move Road. B to the northern perimeter of the plat resulting in road improvements along the west, north, and east boundaries, would be the best configuration to meet City Code and public comments/testimony. Therefore staff concurs with the Examiner's decision. With regard to. the home orientation, staff concurs with the Examiner that the above recommended new road configuration would resolve the neighbors' concerns in regards to home orientation. With the Examiner's proposed modified road configuration, a through lot would not be created as is under the applicant's proposal. Without through lots RMC 4-2-115 dearly provides direction as to home orientation to the primary street, i.e. NE 2nd Street. The road alignment recommended in the Hearing Examiner's Decision fully addresses concerns expressed at the public hearing by neighbors of the proposed development. City staff supports the -Examiner's road modification proposal as shown in the original decision, specifically because it clarifies the home orientation concerns by the public and provides the required access to the site. If the Examiner chooses to amend the decision and allow for Road B, staff recommends that a condition be added to require the home orientation to face NE 2„d Street with vehicular access off of Road B. Renton City Hall • 1 D55 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Phii Olbrechts Page 2 of 2 December 5, 2012 Staff concurs with the Examiner's analysis and decision on lot width standards. Included in the .last section of the Reconsideration Request prepared by CPIH Consulting under "Reconsideration for Condition Allowing Non -alley Lot Configuration" the applicants are requesting the Examiner identify that "alley access is not the preferred street pattern". Additionally in the second to last paragraph of CPIH Consulting's Reconsideration Request, the applicant identifies that the City has directed the applicant to construct half street improvements at all boundaries of the site and bisect the site with an alley. This is a true statement, as City staff is supportive of the Examiner's decision and believes the recommended street configuration would be the best , configuration for the subject site. Staff has recommended an alley through the center of the site based on the criteria established in RMC 4- 7-150E.5. which states: Within the R-4 zone, alley access .may be required by the Reviewing Official based on one or more of the following criteria: a. Minimum lot widths are reduced; or b: An increase in density is allowed • or C. Alley(s) ore present in the surrounding area; or d. if significant trees and/or vegetation are preserved; or e. The clustering of homes is allowed, • or f if site characteristics allow for the effective use of alley(s). Based on the above criteria the development may or may not have reduced lot widths and the site characteristics allow for the effective. use of alleys. Additionally, alleys are not deducted from net density calculations therefore; the addition of alleys would not impact the applicant's ability to maximize the development potential of the site. Lastly, RMC 4-7-150E.5. states that "prior to approval of a plat without alley access the Reviewing Official sholl evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alleys is not feasible". Utilizing the recommended road configuration, moving Road 8 north, would result in a lot design that easily allows for the use of alleys making their addition to the development feasible. Based on the above criteria and analysis staff requests the Examiner deny the requested reconsideration to limit the use of alleys for the subject proposal. Sincerely, fig Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner t r�il Rebuttal to "Reconsideration of Denial of Street Modification Approval' kSCE.IVFD illy CLpJR"' OFFICE 1. We do not accept the logic that reducing the width of road B enhances the r rence woonerf concept of "'shared pedestrian and vehicular facility." Quite the contrary, less road area increases congestion. 2. We agree that reducing road width does not directly affect lot width but it does increase lot length. It is also an arithmetic FACT that increasing lot length also increases the square footage of the lots which certainly supports/enables the argument for reducing lot width much to the advantage of the applicant not the future inhabitants nor the current neighbors. Rebuttal to "Reconsideration of Decisions and Discussion of Primary Entry (RMC 4-2-115.3) 1. RMC 4-2-115.3 states Front doors shall face the street". NE 2"d STREET is the southern border of this plat. ROAD B (NOT B Street) is proposed internally to the plat. There is no justification for prioritizing a proposed road (B) over an existing street (Ne 2"d/132"d) 2. We agree RMC does not require public notice however neither does it prohibit or disallow it_ This is still a free and open country. Rebuttal to " Reconsideration of Application of Lot Width Standards and Allowable Reductions" Whether it was intended or not, to maximize the number of lots in this plat the Applicant first obtained a width reduction in the road to increase the length of the lots, then said the square footage of the lots are so large that they can reduce the width of the lots and add additional lots to the plat. By compromising the width of the road, the width of the lots are also proposed to compromised by the Applicant. This width reduction benefits only the Applicants not the future inhabitants nor the current neighbors, "Reconsideration for Condition Allowing Non -Alley Configuration" If including alleys enhances a plat with only north and south facing houses, we are in favor of it. There is no concern on the part of the Applicant to enhance neighborhood, there is a profit motive_ It is the responsibility of the city to protect the sense of community — not to allow the language and intent of the city codes to be twisted to the advantage of the builders. The proposal to turn the crowded lots on to new internal roads is shortsighted for advantage of sale of those homes. Following the advice of the Examiner to place the roads on the exterior of the property will preserve neighborhood. N 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 M� jjii r ii NECEIvEG CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat LUA 12-018 ) RECONSIDERATION DECISION The Applicant has requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above - captioned matter. Reconsideration on all issues is denied, except that the Applicant does not have to "round up" on densities in order to qualify for low width reductions under RMC 4-2-110(D). By order dated November 28, 2012, the Examiner authorized consideration of a reconsideration request filed by the Applicant on November 21, 2012. The Order required distribution of the reconsideration request to parities of record, with responses due 1217112 and a reply from the Applicant due 12112/12. A response was received from the City of Renton and from Shara and Robert D Hagerman by the December 7, 2012 deadline. A reply from the Applicant was received on December 12, 2012. The Applicant's requests for reconsideration will be addressed in the order presented: 1. Street Modification. Reconsideration denied. The Applicant justifies its request for a street modification on the basis that it would reduce pavement width, maximize lot count and to provide for a shared pedestrian and vehicular facility. None of these reasons satisfy the requirements of a modification waiver under RMC 4-7-210, which limits waivers to circumstances where required improvements are necessary due to critical areas, steep topography, negative impacts to surrounding properties or lack of similar improvements in the vicinity. The reasons put forth by the Applicant for the waiver could be applied to any subdivision proposal and are not attributable to any unique features of the proposal. Reconsideration - 1 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 2. PrimarEntry. Reconsideration denied. As noted in the Examiner's original decision on this application, the orientation of homes is an issue best left to building permit review where it is traditionally addressed. The Applicant raises a valid concern over having to orient its southern homes towards NE 2nd Street, which would potentially mean that the homes along the northern part of the project will have to face the back homes of the southern homes across an alley. Staff will be in a much better position than the Examiner with specific home design proposals in front of them to engage in the give and take necessary to address the orientation requirements of the code and the impacts to homes along the northern part of the proposal. Further, the record is still devoid of any information on how the orientation requirements have been applied in the past. At hearing, Ms. Dolbee's interpretation of the orientation requirements appeared to have been issued "off the cuff' due to the exigencies of the moment. A more thorough staff evaluation of the criteria along with some history on prior interpretation would be helpful in issuing an Examiner ruling on the issue. The notice requirement was imposed in order to provide an opportunity for neighbors to challenge the staff interpretation of the orientation requirements. Although notice is not typically associated with building permit review, the courts have found notice to be a fair requirement when a member of the public has expressed interest in and may be prejudiced by a related future administrative decision during a discretionary permit review. Cf Knight v. City of Yelm, 173 Wash.2d 325 (2011). 3. Lot Width. Reconsideration approved. RMC 4-2-110(D) shall be construed as authorizing lot width waivers to the extent necessary to reach a minimum density of four units per acre, without rounding up. The Applicant is apparently arguing that rounding up of a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre is not appropriate for RMC 4-2-110(D), which allows lot width to be reduced "...when, due to lot configuration or access, four (4) dwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved..." Condition 8 of the final decision on this application did require rounding up of densities exceeding 3.50 dwelling units per acre pursuant to the RMC 4-11-040 definition of net density. The net density definition computes net density by subtracting streets, right of way, easements and critical areas from the acreage of a development. This appears to be the same exercise in computing net acreage. Although the definition of net density arguably may not apply to computing net acreage, the code is otherwise silent on whether or not to round up on net acreage computations. RMC 4-2-110(D) appears to be based upon Growth Management Act administrative decisions, which provide that densities of at least four units per acre are desirable in urban areas in order to maximize the efficient use of infrastructure. Given this policy basis, it would appear that the liberal application of the lot waiver requirement, i.e. maximizing density by not rounding up, would be appropriate. Reconsideration - 2 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 4. Alley Access. Reconsideration denied. Staff have apparently recommended alley access to be added to the plat design if Road B is moved to the northern perimeter of the plat. The Examiner's comments on alley access in his original decision on this application was addressing the desirability of using Road B as an alley in its currently proposed configuration as opposed to moving Road B to the northern perimeter of the plat. The Examiner was not addressing alley access in addition to moving Road B to the northern perimeter of the plat. The latter plat design was not presented to or considered by the Examiner. Nothing in the original decision addresses whether alley access is appropriate or required if Road B is moved to the northern perimeter of the plat. The Examiner also does not have jurisdiction to provide on-going comment and opinion on design revisions for the plat. DATED this 2nd day of January, 2013. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(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 a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) 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 — 7`" floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Reconsideration - 3 AOL Denis Law City of Mayor V ,r 8 City Clerk -Bonnie I.Walton January 3, 2013 Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Ave, Suite 100 (Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: Reconsideration Decision for Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat LUA-12-07.8, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Hough: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 2, 2013, in the above -referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, �I , Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision cc: Hearing Examiner Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record (7) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425)430-6510/ Fax (425) 430-6515 • rentonwa.gov 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 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE. Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat } } LUA 12-018 } } ) RECONSIDERATION DECISION The Applicant has requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above - captioned matter. Reconsideration on all issues is denied, except that the Applicant does not have to "round up" on densities in order to qualify for low width reductions under RMC 4-2-110(D). By order dated November 28, 2012, the Examiner authorized consideration of a reconsideration request filed by the Applicant on November 21, 2012. The Order required distribution of the reconsideration request to parities of record, with responses due 1217112 and a reply from the Applicant due 12112112. A response was received from the City of Renton and from Shara and Robert D Hagerman by the December 7, 2012 deadline. A reply from the Applicant was received on December 12, 2012_ The Applicant's requests for reconsideration will be addressed in the order presented: Street Modification. Reconsideration denied. The Applicant justifies its request for a street modification on the basis that it would reduce pavement width, maximize lot count and to provide for a shared pedestrian and vehicular facility. None of these reasons satisfy the requirements of a modification waiver under RMC 4-7-210, which limits waivers to circumstances where required improvements are necessary due to critical areas, steep topography, negative impacts to surrounding properties or lack of similar improvements in the vicinity. The reasons put forth by the Applicant for the waiver could be applied to any subdivision proposal and are not attributable to any unique features of the proposal. Reconsideration - 1 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 2. Primary Entry. Reconsideration denied. As noted in the Examiner's original decision on this application, the orientation of homes is an issue best left to building permit review where it is traditionally addressed. The Applicant raises a valid concern over having to orient its southern homes towards NE 2nd Street, which would potentially mean that the homes along the northern part of the project will have to face the back homes of the southern homes across an alley. Staff will be in a much better position than the Examiner with specific home design proposals in front of them to engage in the give and take necessary to address the orientation requirements of the code and the impacts to homes along the northern part of the proposal. Further, the record is still devoid of any information on how the orientation requirements have been applied in the past. At hearing, Ms. Dolbee's interpretation of the orientation requirements appeared to have been issued "off the cuff' due to the exigencies of the moment. A more thorough staff evaluation of the criteria along with some history on prior interpretation would be helpful in issuing an Examiner ruling on the issue. The notice requirement was imposed in order to provide an opportunity for neighbors to challenge the staff interpretation of the orientation requirements. Although notice is not typically associated with building permit review, the courts have found notice to be a fair requirement when a member of the public has expressed interest in and may be prejudiced by a related future administrative decision during a discretionary permit review. Cf. Knight v. City of Yelm, 173 Wash.2d 325 (2011). 3. Lot Width. Reconsideration approved. RMC 4-2-110(D) shall be construed as authorizing lot width waivers to the extent necessary to reach a minimum density of four units per acre, without rounding up. The Applicant is apparently arguing that rounding up of a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre is not appropriate for RMC 4-2-1 I O(D), which allows lot width to be reduced "—when, due to lot configuration or access, four (4) dwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved..." Condition 8 of the final decision on this application did require rounding up of densities exceeding 3.50 dwelling units per acre pursuant to the RMC 4-11-040 definition of net density. The net density definition computes net density by subtracting streets, right of way, easements and critical areas from the acreage of a development. This appears to be the same exercise in computing net acreage. Although the definition of net density arguably may not apply to computing net acreage, the code is otherwise silent on whether or not to round up on net acreage computations. RMC 4-2-110(D) appears to be based upon Growth Management Act administrative decisions, which provide that densities of at least four units per acre are desirable in urban areas in order to maximize the efficient use of infrastructure. Given this policy basis, it would appear that the liberal application of the lot waiver requirement, i.e. maximizing density by not rounding up, would be appropriate. Reconsideration - 2 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 4. Alley Access. Reconsideration denied. Staff have apparently recommended alley access to be added to the plat design if Road B is moved to the northern perimeter of the plat. The Examiner's comments on alley access in his original decision on this application was addressing the desirability of using Road B as an alley in its currently proposed configuration as opposed to moving Road B to the northern perimeter of the plat. The Examiner was not addressing alley access in addition to moving Road B to the northern perimeter of the plat. The latter plat design was not presented to or considered by the Examiner. Nothing in the original decision addresses whether alley access is appropriate or required if Road B is moved to the northern perimeter of the plat. The Examiner also does not have jurisdiction to provide on-going comment and opinion on design revisions for the plat. DATED this 2nd day of January, 2013. ls1 Phil Dlbrechts (Signed original in of file) Phil A. Dlbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(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 4-8-110(E)(8) 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 — 7a' floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Reconsideration - 3 Denis Law - Mayor' r City o`AY City Clerk-Bonniel.Walton January 3, 2013 Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Ave, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: Reconsideration Decision for Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat LUA-12-018, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Hough: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration Decision dated January 2, 2013, in the above -referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 4507Z.Yt,�� IJ (C)�ov� Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision cc: Hearing Examiner Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record (7) 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-65101 Fax (425) 430516 • rentonwa.gov January 3, 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 3rd day of January, 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 Reconsideration Decision from the Hearing Examiner in the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat (LUA-12-018, ECF, PP) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 3rd day of January, 2013. Cynthia R. Moya 4� Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 Sandy & Terry Taylor Robert Hagerman Matt Hough, PE 15243 SE 132"d Street 15227 SE 132"d Street CPH Consultants 7337 th Ave, Suite 100 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Kirkland, WA 98033 Tiffiny Brown Jim &Linda St. John Burnstead Construction, LLC. 6009 NE 1 Circle 11980 NE 24th Street, #200 Renton, WA 98059 Bellevue, WA 98005 Tom Zywicki 121 Shadow Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 D.E. Blood 3711 Park Ave N Renton, WA 98056 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 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat } LUA 12-018 } RECONSIDERATION DECISION The Applicant has requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above - captioned matter. Reconsideration on all issues is denied, except that the Applicant does not have to "round up" on densities in order to qualify for low width reductions under RMC 4-2-110(D). By order dated November 28, 2012, the Examiner authorized consideration of a reconsideration request filed by the Applicant on November 21, 2012. The Order required distribution of the reconsideration request to parities of record, with responses due 12/7/12 and a reply from the Applicant due 12/12/12. A response was received from the City of Renton and from Shara and Robert D Hagerman by the December 7, 2012 deadline. A reply from the Applicant was received on December 12, 2012. The Applicant's requests for reconsideration will be addressed in the order presented: 1. Street Modification. Reconsideration denied. The Applicant justifies its request for a street modification on the basis that it would reduce pavement width, maximize lot count and to provide for a shared pedestrian and vehicular facility. None of these reasons satisfy the requirements of a modification waiver under RMC 4-7-210, which limits waivers to circumstances where required improvements are necessary due to critical areas, steep topography, negative impacts to surrounding properties or lack of similar improvements in the vicinity. The reasons put forth by the Applicant for the waiver could be applied to any subdivision proposal and are not attributable to any unique features of the proposal. Reconsideration - 1 a 1 2. Primary Entry. Reconsideration denied. As noted in the Examiner's original decision on 2 this application, the orientation of homes is an issue best left to building permit review 3 where it is traditionally addressed. The Applicant raises a valid concern over having to orient its southern homes towards NE 2'a Street, which would potentially mean that the 4 homes along the northern part of the project will have to face the back homes of the southern homes across an alley. Staff will be in a much better position than the Examiner with 5 specific home design proposals in front of them to engage in the give and take necessary to 6 address the orientation requirements of the code and the impacts to homes along the northern part of the proposal. Further, the record is still devoid of any information on how the 7 orientation requirements have been applied in the past. At hearing, Ms. Dolbee's interpretation of the orientation requirements appeared to have been issued "off the cuff' due S to the exigencies of the moment. A more thorough staff evaluation of the criteria along with 9 some history on prior interpretation would be helpful in issuing an Examiner ruling on the issue. 10 The notice requirement was imposed in order to provide an opportunity for neighbors to 11 challenge the staff interpretation of the orientation requirements. Although notice is not 12 typically associated with building permit review, the courts have found notice to be a fair requirement when a member of the public has expressed interest in and may be prejudiced 13 by a related future administrative decision during a discretionary permit review. Cf Knight v. City of Yelm, 173 Wasb.2d 325 (2011). 14 3. Lot Width. Reconsideration approved. RMC 4-2-110(D) shall be construed as authorizing 1 S lot width waivers to the extent necessary to reach a minimum density of four units per acre, 16 without rounding up. 17 The Applicant is apparently arguing that rounding up of a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre is not appropriate for RMC 4-2-110(D), which allows lot width to be reduced "...when, 18 due to lot configuration or access, four (4) dwelling units per net acre cannot be 19 achieved..." Condition 8 of the final decision on this application did require rounding up of densities exceeding 3.50 dwelling units per acre pursuant to the RMC 4-11-040 definition of 20 net density. The net density definition computes net density by subtracting streets, right of way, easements and critical areas from the acreage of a development. This appears to be the 21 same exercise in computing net acreage. Although the definition of net density arguably 22 may not apply to computing net acreage, the code is otherwise silent on whether or not to round up on net acreage computations. RMC 4-2-110(D) appears to be based upon Growth 23 Management Act administrative decisions, which provide that densities of at least four units per acre are desirable in urban areas in order to maximize the efficient use of infrastructure. 24 Given this policy basis, it would appear that the liberal application of the lot waiver 25 requirement, i.e. maximizing density by not rounding up, would be appropriate. 26 Reconsideration - 2 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 4. Alley Access. Reconsideration denied. Staff have apparently reconunended alley access to be added to the plat design if Road B is moved to the northern perimeter of the plat. The Examiner's comments on alley access in his original decision on this application was addressing the desirability of using Road B as an alley in its currently proposed configuration as opposed to moving Road B to the northern perimeter of the plat. The Examiner was not addressing alley access in addition to moving Road B to the northern perimeter of the plat. The latter plat design was not presented to or considered by the Examiner. Nothing in the original decision addresses whether alley access is appropriate or required if Road B is moved to the northern perimeter of the plat. The Examiner also does not have jurisdiction to provide on-going comment and opinion on design revisions for the plat. DATED this 2nd day of January, 2013. W Phil 01brechis (Signed original in official file) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(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 a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) 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 — 7`h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Reconsideration - 3 Cynthia Moya From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 8:01 AM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Maplewood Reconsideration Decision Attachments: Maplewood Reconsideration Decision.doc Ready for followup & distribution.... Thank you. Bonnie From: phil olbrechts [mailto:olbrechtslaw@gmaii.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 7:08 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee; Jennifer T. Henning; Chip Vincent; Bonnie Walton; Stacy Tucker Subject: Maplewood Reconsideration Decision Decision will be mailed out tomorrow. Let me know if you need anything else. I Cynthia Moya From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:29 PM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Reconsideration response for LUA12-018 Maplewood Park East Attachments: 20121212151543090.pdf fyi bw From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:54 PM To: Phil Qlbrechts Cc: Bonnie Walton Subject: FW: Reconsideration response for LUA12-018 Maplewood Park East F.Y.I. .. .. . ..... From: Tiffiny Brown [mailto:Tiffiny@burnstead.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:28 PM To: Bonnie Walton Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Matt Hough Subject: Reconsideration response for LUA12-018 Maplewood Park East Hi Bonnie, Attached is Burnstead's reconsideration response. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Tiffiny Brown Burnstead Construction LLC Director of Land Development 425.454.1900 ext 234 1 A tMNSTM December 12..20-12 Mr, Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady way Renton, WA 98057 SUBJECT: Reconsideration for Maplewood Park East LUA12-018 Mr. Examiner, L X Burnstead Construction remains committed to working with the City of Renton to produce a successful residential development at the Maplewood Park East site. That said, we find it important that your final decision and findings in reconsideration are based on the facts related to the City's communication with Burnstead during the formal preliminary plat process. We understand designs change and accommodations will be made during this process, however, inconsistent and last minute changes that negatively impact multiple existing and future homeowners should be avoided unless no other alternatives are feasible. This is not the case when looking at the facts, A letter from the city of Renton dated July 6, 2013 specifically says for Rosario Ave NE: "City code requires street improvements along all frontages; however, applicant may submit a request to waive the improvements since there are no plans to extend the roadway in the futures." On Novermber 30, 2011 an exhibit was sent to the city for review specifically showing the street width modification, lot width reduction and no future improvements on Rosario Ave. The City interpreted this as a formal request and we received a formal letter from Neil Watts on 1/5/2012 approving the modification with further requirements regarding Road B widths only. Because the city made this decision based on an exhibit proposing all requested dimensions we request the Hearing Examiner uphold the City's initial modification approval and not allow the City to rescind and suddenly act as if a misinterpretation had occurred when the city took it upon them self to approve it as submitted. We have suggested alternate layouts to the City that we believe address the concerns of the neighbors to the South of NE 2nd street and also accommodated the City's last minute request to improve the squth half of Rosario. However, the city denied each of those and with the statement that only an alley alternative will satisfy the Hearing Examiner's decision and Renton Municipal Code. Again, this statement by the City was provided last minute and unilaterally. The alley proposal would impact ever more neighbors --those most immediate to the site . Those residences are; Hanes, Durwoods, Uht's, McNaughton's, Rothtltan's, Nelson's, Harthshorn's, and eventually 3 more. Further, requiring the alley would require street parking ort NE 2nd which will impact all the neighbors on the south side of NE 2nd The proposed half street improvements would result in no on -street parking for the homes with front yards facing the North boundary of the project. Finally, tree retention will also be significantly and adversely impacted with the requirement for alley access and perimeter half -streets. Building a half street road around the entire plat will eliminate the majority of the healthy trees on site which we worked closely with staff during the normal preliminary plat process to retain - 12 6 etain_ 1215 i 20ilt zhenue i\`.L., Ste, 201 li<�i�'s��, 1141 9N 05 213.5 425 4-54 1900 {zit: 425) -4y4 4_)4t Mr. Examiner, the city is upholding your decision in its entifety and futther requiring Bllrnstead to redesign the entire flat_ This redesign will negatively impact even more neighbors While providing no future benefit or continuity to development in lhis area. Should you nol fccl BurtIst0ad has fully justikod ntti reasons for reconsideration, vire would like to discuss the options and additional information meeting the intent of your original decision but denied by the city it) a Remand Hearing for road modification and road layout. Regards, Tiffim, Brown Btmisteitd Consmiction LLC Director of Land Dc),ctopmem 425.454 1900 ext 231 CInthia Moya From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:29 PM To: Cynthia Moya Subject: FW: Reconsideration response for LUA12-018 Maplewood Park East Attachments: 20121212151543090.pdf fyi bw From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:54 PM To: Phil Olbrechts Cc: Bonnie Walton Subject: FW: Reconsideration response for LUA12-018 Maplewood Park East F.Y.I. .................. . From: Tiffiny Brown [mailto:Tiffinv@burnstead.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:28 PM To: Bonnie Walton ✓ Cc: Vanessa Dolbee(Matt Hough/ Subject: Reconsideration response for LUA12-018 Maplewood Park East Hi Bonnie, Attached is Burnstead's reconsideration response. Please let me know if you have any questions_ Thank you, Tiffmy Brown Burnstead Construction LLC Director of Land Development 425.454.1900 ext 234 1 From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:54 AM To: Phil Olbrechts (olbrechtslaw@gmail.com) Cc: Jennifer T. Henning; Vanessa Dolbee; Larry Warren Subject: Response to Request for Reconsideration-LUA-12-018 Attachments: iva12018 city req recon resp.pdf Attached is copy of a Response to Request for Reconsideration filed in this office for you on the Maplewood Park l=ast Preliminary Plat decision. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 Denis Law Cit of Mayor � Ufa r December 6, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip'Vincent, Administrator Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SUBJECT: Reconsideration Responses Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat / LUA12-018, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Examiner: CITY OF RENTON DEC 0 6 2012 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ed-, EXamk-', Vanessa bolba; Lally City Staff did not submit an initial reconsideration request as we are in full support of the decision issued by the Examiner. However, the reconsideration provided to the Examiner from CPTH Consultants on November 21, 2012, includes comments reflecting staff's recommendations and requests for changes. As such, staff is providing this response to the reconsideration to clarify their position on the Reconsideration Request and Hearing Examiner's Decision. Included in the first section of the Reconsideration Request under "Reconsideration of Denial of Street Modification Approval" it is mentioned by the applicant that the street modification was approved by the City in order to allow the development to achieve minimum density. This is in fact not correct; the City recommended approval of the street modification initially because it was thought that Road B would not be extended to the west due to the presence of critical areas (wetlands) and the limited number of lots the road would be accessing. However, despite this reasoning the Examiner's recommendation in Condition of Approval #9; to move Road B to the northern perimeter of the plat resulting in road improvements along the west, north, and east boundaries, would be the best configuration to meet City Code and public comments/testimony. Therefore staff concurs with the Examiner's decision. With regard to the home orientation, staff concurs with the Examiner that the above recommended new road configuration would resolve the neighbors' concerns in regards to home orientation. With the Examiner's proposed modified road configuration, a through lot would not be created as is under the applicant's proposal. Without through lots RMC 4-2-115 clearly provides direction as to home orientation to the primary street, i.e. NE 2"d Street. The road alignment recommended in the Hearing Examiner's Decision fully addresses concerns expressed at the public hearing by neighbors of the proposed development. City staff supports the Examiner's road modification proposal as shown in the original decision, specifically because it clarifies the home orientation concerns by the public and provides the required access to the site. If the Examiner chooses to amend the decision and allow for Road B, staff recommends that a condition be added to require the home orientation to face NE 2"d Street with vehicular access off of Road B. Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov Phil Dlbrechts Page 2 of 2 December 6, 2012 Staff concurs with the Examiner's analysis and decision on lot width standards. Included in the last section of the Reconsideration Request prepared by CPTH Consulting under "Reconsideration for Condition Allowing Non -alley Lot Configuration" the applicants are requesting the Examiner identify that "alley access is not the preferred street pattern". Additionally in the second to last paragraph of CPTH Consulting's Reconsideration Request, the applicant identifies that the City has directed the applicant to construct half street improvements at all boundaries of the site and bisect the site with an alley. This is a true statement, as City staff is supportive of the Examiner's decision and believes the recommended street configuration would be the best configuration for the subject site. Staff has recommended an alley through the center of the site based on the criteria established in RMC 4- 7-150E.5. which states: Within the R-4 zone, alley access may be required by the Reviewing Official based on one or more of the following criteria: a. Minimum lot widths are reduced; or b. An increase in density is allowed; or c. Alley(s) are present in the surrounding area; or d. If significant trees and/or vegetation are preserved; or e. The clustering of homes is allowed, • or f. if site characteristics allow for the effective use of alley(s). Based on the above criteria the development may or may not have reduced lot widths and the site characteristics allow for the effective use of alleys. Additionally, alleys are not deducted from net density calculations therefore; the addition of alleys would not impact the applicant's ability to maximize the development potential of the site. Lastly, RMC 4-7-150E.5. states that "prior to approval of a plat without alley access the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alleys is not feasible". Utilizing the recommended road configuration, moving Road B north, would result in a lot design that easily allows for the use of alleys making their addition to the development feasible. Based on the above criteria and analysis staff requests the Examiner deny the requested reconsideration to limit the use of alleys for the subject proposal. Sincerely, anc� 160 -et Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Denis Law Mayor November 30, 2012 Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Av Suite #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 City o y3. City Clerk -Bonnie I.Walton Re. Order Authorizing Reconsideration for Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat LUA-12-018, ECF, PIP Dear Mr. Hough: Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner's Order Authorizing Reconsideration dated November 28, 2012, along with the Request for Reconsideration letter dated November 21, 2012. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or the Development Services Division staff. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Hearing Examiner Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record (7) 1055 South Grady Way.• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510/ Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov I 2 A] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat � LUA12-018 ORDER AUTHORIZING RECONSIDERATION The Applicant has requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the above - captioned matter. Since the reconsideration request affect parties of record and. the interests of the City, the parties of record who testified at the hearing and City staff will be given an opportunity to respond to the request for reconsideration before a decision on. the reconsideration request is issued. Any responses must be based upon evidence that is already in. the record. No evidence that has not been recorded at the hearing or entered as an exhibit at the hearing will be considered in the reconsideration request. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Persons who .testified at the hearing on the above -captioned rriatter and City staff shall have until 5:oo pm; December 7, 2412 to provide written comments in response to the request for recomideration submitted by the Applicant, dated November 21, 2012. The Applicant shall have until December 12, 2012 at 5:00 pm to provide a written reply to the .responses authorized in the preceding paragraph. 3. All written comments authorized above may be emailed to the Examiner at olbrechtsla,.v -amail.corn and Vanessa Dolbee at VDolbeeau.Rentomva.goy- In the alternative written comments may be mailed or delivered to Jennifer Henning, City of Renton Planning Manager, at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Mailed or delivered comments must Reconsideration - 1 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 be received by the City by the deadlines specified in this Order. DATED this 28th day of November, 2012. iIA . �Olbre�chts City of Renton Hearing Exaniiner Reconsideration - 2 �W_ CONSULTANTS November 21, 2012 Mr. Phil A- Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk's Office 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Crry OF ARMN Site Planning Civil Engineering C,1%11 Project Management NOV 21 2012 �� �� Land Development Consulting RECEIVED L�t" CITY CLEWS OFFICE Re: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat City of Renton File LUA12-018, ECF, PP; CPH Project No. 000-12-008 Application for Reconsideration of Examiner's Decision Mr. Examiner, This correspondence is provided with attachments in accordance with City of Renton Municipal Code 4-9- 100(G)(4) as formal application for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat (City of Renton File No. LUA12-018, ECF, PP). Reconsideration is requested for the following items based on the Applicant's and my belief that some of the Examiner's decisions were made based on errors in judgment and/or errors of law or fact - Reconsideration of Denial of Street Modification Approval The decision erroneously denies the street modification that the Director of Development Services Division previously granted for the project to reduce the width and modify the edge treatments for local access Road B and Road C. This denial was based on an incorrect understanding and staff testimony that the modification was allowed in order to achieve minimum density (Conclusions of Low #20). The Applicant's intent in submitting for the road modification was not to achieve the minimum 4 dwelling units per net acre. Rather, its purpose was to maximize lot count and minimize paved surfacing as part of the low impact development efforts of the project. The unique configuration of Road B and Road C evolved from an initial woonerf concept that would provide a shared pedestrian and vehicular facility. The reduced section of Road B and Road C does not affect lot widths. It is not a fad that the street modification allowing for a reduced road section was granted based on the need to achieve minimum density or to facilitate lot width reductions. Although the decision provides for the opportunity for City staff to reconsider the street modification, there is no obligation for them to do so. The Applicant and I have no confidence that staff will approve a new modification given their demonstration to -date for providing inconsistent direction. We do, however, still see the modified section and concept as an important one for the project. As such, your reconsideration is requested to approve the previouslyranted street modification as written. Reconsideration of Decisions and Discussion of Primary Entry (RMC 42-115.3) The decision acknowledges that a key concern of neighbors was having homes with a rear -facing orientation toward NE 2^d Street, but also that such an issue was not within the purview of this preliminary plat application. Further, it stated that there was not sufficient information in the record to suggest that building facades fronting NE 2^d Street wouldn't meet applicable residential standards. Nonetheless, Decision #7 was still provided to stipulate that City staff notify residents on the south side of NE 2^d Street of the building orientation when such detail is known. These details are typically not known until the time of building or other site improvements permits neither of which has provisions for public notice for comment). 733 7th Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone: (425) 285-2390 - Fox: (425) 285-2389 www.;zhr,onsullonts.com Maplewood Park East Prelb. . ry Plot November 21, 2012 City File No. LUA 12-018, ECF, PP Page 2 of 3 Application for Reconsideration of Examiner's Decision RMC A-2-115.3 also states that "Entrances to homes shall be a focal point and allow space for social interaction. Front doors shall face the street..." It also provides specific dimensional criteria for porches and stoops in the R4 zone (and others)- None of these site design items suggests that front porgies should face NE 2°d Street. The plot orientation presented to the Examiner --both in the completed application and in the adjusted version provided with the staff report—does not preclude entry facades in compliance with RMC 4-2-115.3. Individual building designs with porches facing Road B or other street interior to the plat could comply with the applicable provisions of RMC d-2-1 14.3. Further, RMC does not require public notice with regards to individual single-family building or site improvement permits. It is hereby requested that Decision #7 be removed from the Final Decision as it has no basis in fact or relevance to the preliminary plat approval Reconsideration of Application of Lot Width Standards and Allowable Reductions In paragraph 1 1 of Section 4-2-1101), Conditions Associated with Development Standards Table for Residential Zoning Designations, it states that "...the lot size, width, and depth may be reduced by the Reviewing Official when, due to lot configuration or access, four (4) dwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved..." With the revised road layout, road dedication, and road configuration recommended by City staff at hearing, the net area would be 3.476 acres. With a total of 14 lots, the result is 4.4276 dwelling units per net acre. Any reduction in the number of lots will result in fewer than 4 dwelling units per net acre. This calculation is not a "net density" calculation which is defined elsewhere in the City code. It simply states that the proposed lot width may be reduced to 70 feet if the four (4) dwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved. This was the discussion and conclusion that was had with the Applicant and staff through the early design efforts of the project. As such, it remains our understanding and expectation that the lot size reduction provided by RMC 4-2-11 OD should be applied to this project. Allowing the reduced lot widths as shown in the preliminary site plan does not result in any reduction in the minimum lot areas. It does provide, though, greater flexibility in site planning, roadway/pedestrian access patterns, and lot configurations that fit better with the character of the community and market conditions. It is our opinion that the Examiner's findings and conclusions, as well as staff testimony, was in error in its 'requirement for not allowing use of the reduced lot widths made available by RMC 4-2-11 ODA 1 based on net density calculations. It is hereby r uested that Decision #8 be revised to remove the last sentence whid� makes reference to lot widths relative to densjly The revised Decision #8 would read: "Staff shall determine the net density of the proposed subdivision as defined by RMC 4-11-040." Reconsideration for Condition Allowing Non -alley Lot Configuration RMC 4-7-150(E)(5) states that alley access is the preferred street pattern exce for the R4 zone and below. Alleys can be required, though, by the reviewing agency in the R4 zone. The last sentence in the Summary section of your decision states, "...an alternative design would be contrary to regulations that "prefer' alley access, but given the unique circumstances of the plat (only one block of homes between a park and a street), this is one situation where alley access is not ideal." We agree with the Examiner that alley access is not the preferred or appropriate access configuration for this partioJlar project. 4 does not fit with the character of the neighborhood nor does it provide for efficient roadway patterns within the plat. That was the conclusion we came to early on in the site planning process and what we believed we were in agreement with City staff on when we developed the site plan as it was Maplewood Park East Preliy. ry Plat November 21, 2012 City File No. tUA72-018, ECF, PP Page 3 of 3 Application for Reconsideration of Examiner's Decision submitted with the final preliminary subdivision application. Unfortunately, it now appears that the City has changed their position based on your decision. City planning staff and the Director told the Applicant and I in a meeting subsequent to your decision that alley access to all lots will be required. We believe this direction is counter to your findings and conclusions and not in the best interest of this project or the public. It is therefore requested that your reconsideration response include the following new decision item to clarify the use of alleys for this Rroject, "AlleX access is not required nor is it the preferred street pattern for this project. Alley access may be prooposed by the Applicant and approved by the City with the roadway atterns for the final site plan, but use of aIle s is not necessary to conform with current and applicable City standards." The Applicant and I met with City staff subsequent to your decision and prior to preparing this request for reconsideration. Our intent with that meeting was to review some alternative site plan concepts that we prepared in response to the decision and that we believe conformed with the applicable City development standards and your findings of fact, responded to public testimony, and were generally in -keeping with the character of the neighborhood and spirit of the original site design. Unfortunately, the City would not entertain that discussion, and instead directed us to construct half street improvements at all boundaries of the site and bisect the site with an east -west alley. Such a layout has practical design and constructability challenges as well as significant roadway infrastructure costs that are unnecessary and unduly burdensome on the Applicant. The City claims that this configuration. is the only way to conform to City standards and your decision. However, we do not agree, and believe strongly that clearer direction will come from your reconsideration of the key items/topics addressed with this letter. Reconsideration of the items and decisions as summarized herein is respectfully requested in order to provide the clarity and flexibility necessary to advance this project forward. It remains our objective to work cooperatively with the City to establish a site plan that conforms to applicable development standards, including Examiner's conditions, while also meeting the Applicant's goals of a financially viable project with a sense of community. I appreciate your time and consideration, and look forward to your response. Thank you. Sincerely, Ca Ms. Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction (Applicant) . Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton November 30, 2012 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 30th day of November, 2012, 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 Request for Reconsideration letter and the Order Authorizing Reconsideration from the Hearing Examiner in the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat (LUA- 12-018, PP) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 30t�v'A .' IN- e nber, 2012. fr \ Cyn R_r oy Notary Puc in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2014 EaS;;'et Labels i 1 Bead along line to i p � � 5160® i Use Avery' Template 51600 Feed Paper '�` expose Pop-up EdgeTm 1 1 Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 7337 th AV #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Robert Hagerman 15227 SE 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 Jim & Linda St. John 6009 NE 1St Circle Renton, WA 98059 Tiffiny Brown 11980 NE 24th Street #200 Bellevue, WA 98005 Terry Taylor 15243 SE 132nd St Renton, WA 98059 D.E. Blood 3711 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 Shara Hagerman 15227 SE 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 Douglas Bornstine 15235 SE 132nd St Renton, WA 98059 Nquettes faciles a peter A Repliez 6 la hachure An de ; www.avery.com Utilisez le abarit AVERY 5160' Sens de r6v6ler le rebord Po -u me 1 -800 -GO -AVERY g j chargement p p j From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:30 PM To: Phil Olbrechts (olbrechtslaw@gmail.com) Cc: Vanessa Dolbee; Jennifer T. Henning; Neil R. Watts; Stacy Tucker; Larry Warren Subject: Request for Reconsideration -Maplewood Park East PP; LUA-12-018 Attachments: req recon lua-12-018.pdf A Request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision of 11/9 for the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat was filed in this office within the deadline. A copy of the Request is attached for your consideration. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 425-430-6502 CONSULTANTS November 21, 2012 Mr. Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk's Office 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 u co— -�iE--gr, N Site Planning Civil Engineering <7u �ti►d Projed Management NOV 1 1 2012 Land Development Consulting RECEIVEL) CITY CLEWS OFFICE Re: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat City of Renton File LUA12-018, ECF, PP; CPH Project No. 000-12-008 Application for Reconsideration of Examiner's Decision Mr. Examiner, This correspondence is provided with attachments in accordance with City of Renton Municipal Code 4-9- 100(G)(4) as formal application for reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat (City of Renton File No. LUA12-018, ECF, PP). Reconsideration is requested for the following items based on the Applicant's and my belief that some of the Examiner's decisions were made based on errors in judgment and/or errors of law or fact: Reconsideration of Denial of Street Modification Approval The decision erroneously denies the street modification that the Director of Development Services Division previously granted for the project to reduce the width and modify the edge treatments for local access Road B and Road C. This denial was based on an incorrect understanding and staff testimony that the modification was allowed in order to achieve minimum density (Conclusions of Law #20). The Applicant's intent in submitting for the road modification was not to achieve the minimum 4 dwelling units per net acre. Rather, its purpose was to maximize lot count and minimize paved surfacing as part of the low impact development efforts of the project. The unique configuration of Road B and Road C evolved from an initial woonerf concept that would provide a shared pedestrian and vehicular facility. The reduced section of Road B and Road C does not affect lot widths. It is not a fact that the street modification allowing for a reduced road section was granted based on the need to achieve minimum density or to facilitate lot width reductions. Although the decision provides for the opportunity for City staff to reconsider the street modification, there is no obligation for them to do so. The Applicant and I have no confidence that staff will approve a new modification given their demonstration to -date for providing inconsistent direction. We do, however, still see the modified section and concept as an important one for the project. As such, your reconsideration is requested to approve the previously granted street modification as written. Reconsideration of Decisions and Discussion of Primary Entry (RMC 4-2-115.3) The decision acknowledges that a key concern of neighbors was having homes with a rear -facing orientation toward NE 2w Street, but also that such an issue was not within the purview of this preliminary plat application. Further, it stated that there was not sufficient information in the record to suggest that building facades fronting NE 211d Street wouldn't meet applicable residential standards. Nonetheless, Decision #7 was still provided to stipulate that City staff notify residents on the south side of NE 2^d Street of the building orientation when such detail is known. These details are typically not known until the time of building or other site improvements permits—neither of which has provisions for public notice (or comment). 733 71 Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 - Phone: 1425 285-2390 - Fax: (425) 285-2389 www.cphconsulionts.com Maplewood Park Fast Prelr Iry Plat City File No. LUA 72-018, ECF, PP Application for Reconsideration of Examiner's Decision November 21, 2012 Page 2 of 3 RMC 4-2-115.3 also states that "Entrances to homes shall be a focal point and allow space for social interaction. Front doors shall face the street..." It also provides specific dimensional criteria for porches and stoops in the R4 zone (and others). None of these site design items suggests that front porches should face NE 2^d Street. The plat orientation presented to the Examiner both in the completed application and in the adjusted version provided with the staff report—does not preclude entry facades in compliance with RMC 4-2-115.3. Individual building designs with porches facing Road B or other street interior to the plat could comply with the applicable provisions of RMC 4-2-114.3. Further, RMC does not require public notice with regards to individual single-family building or site improvement permits. It is hereby requested that Delon #7 be removed from the Final Decision a_ is t haa no basis in fact or relevance to the preliminary plat approval. Reconsideration of Application of Lot Width Standards and Allowable Reductions In paragraph 11 of Section 4-2-11 OD, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Table for Residential Zoning Designations, it states that "...the lot size, width, and depth may be reduced by the Reviewing Official when, due to lot configuration or access, four (4) dwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved..." With the revised road layout, road dedication, and road configuration recommended by City staff at hearing, the net area would be 3.476 acres. With a total of 14 lots, the result is 4.0276 dwelling units per net acre. Any reduction in the number of lots will result in fewer than 4 dwelling units per net acre. This calculation is not a "net density" calculation which is defined elsewhere in the City code. It simply states that the proposed lot width may be reduced to 70 feet if the four (4) dwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved. This was the discussion and conclusion that was had with the Applicant and staff through the early design efforts of the project. As such, it remains our understanding and expectation that the lot size reduction provided by RMC 4-2-11 OD should be applied to this project. Allowing the reduced lot widths as shown in the preliminary site plan does not result in any reduction in the minimum lot areas. It does provide, though, greater flexibility in site planning, roadway/pedestrian access patterns, and lot configurations that fit better with the character of the community and market conditions. It is our opinion that the Examiner's findings and conclusions, as well as staff testimony, was in error in its requirement for not allowing use of the reduced lot widths made available by RMC 4-2-1 1013.11 based on net density calculations. It is hereby requested that Decision #8 be revised to remove the last sentence which makes reference. to lot widths relative to density. The revised Decision #8 would read: `"Sigff shall�e�rmine the net density of the proposed subdivision as defined by RMC 4-1 1-040." Reconsideration for Condition Allowing Non -alley Lot Configuration RMC 4-7-150(E)(5) states that alley access is the preferred street pattern exceat for the R4 zone and below. Alleys can be required, though, by the reviewing agency in the R4 zone. The last sentence in the Summary section of your decision states, "...an alternative design would be contrary to regulations that "prefer" alley access, but given the unique circumstances of the plat (only one block of homes between a park and a street), this is one situation where alley access is not ideal." We agree with the Examiner that alley access is not the preferred or appropriate access configuration for this particular project. It does not fit with the character of the neighborhood nor does it provide for efficient roadway patterns within the plat. That was the conclusion we came to early on in the site planning process and what we believed we were in agreement with City staff on when we developed the site plan as it was Maplewood Park East Preli iry Plat City file No. LUA 12-Q 18, ECF, PP Application for Reconsideration of Examiner's Decision November 21, 2412 Page 3 of 3 submitted with the final preliminary subdivision application. Unfortunately, it now appears that the City has changed their position based on your decision. City planning staff and the Director told the Applicant and I in a meeting subsequent to your decision that alley access to all lots will be required. We believe this direction is counter to your findings and conclusions and not in the best interest of this project or the public. It is therefore requested that your reconsideration response include the following new decision item to clarify the use of alleys for this ro'ect "Alley access is not required nor is it th _preferred street pattern for this project. Alley access may be proposed by the Applicant and approved by the City with the roadway patterns for the final site plan, but use of alleys is not necessary to conform with current and applicable City standards." The Applicant and I met with City staff subsequent to your decision and prior to preparing this request for reconsideration. Our intent with that meeting was to review some alternative site plan concepts that we prepared in response to the decision and that we believe conformed with the applicable City development standards and your findings of fact, responded to public testimony, and were generally in -keeping with the character of the neighborhood and spirit of the original site design. Unfortunately, the City would not entertain that discussion, and instead directed us to construct half street improvements at all boundaries of the site and bisect the site with an east -west alley. Such a layout has practical design and constructability challenges as well as significant roadway infrastructure costs that are unnecessary and unduly burdensome on the Applicant. The City claims that this configuration is the only way to conform to City standards and your decision. However, we do not agree, and believe strongly that clearer direction will come from your reconsideration of the key items/topics addressed with this letter. Reconsideration of the items and decisions as summarized herein is respectfully requested in order to provide the clarity and flexibility necessary to advance this project forward. It remains our objective to work cooperatively with the City to establish a site plan that conforms to applicable development standards, including Examiner's conditions, while also meeting the Applicant's goals of a financially viable project with a sense of community. I appreciate your time and consideration, and look forward to your response. Thank you. Sincerely, Cc. Ms. Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction (Applicant) Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Jr October 26, 2012 Tiffiny Brown Burnstead Construction 11980 NE 24th Street, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 Subject: Maplewood Park East Dear Tiffiny: LUAU-- OISS Last Tuesday, October 23rd, subsequent to the Hearing Examiner's public hearing, I kept thinking about the project the rest of the day on into the night. I couldn't sleep. So I got up and looked at the proposed plot plan more thoroughly. (As you may recall, my main concern was getting rid of the cottonwood trees, traffic safety problems, and land -locked situations. I had not given much attention to the proposed plot plan.) After due consideration I decided to come up with an alternate plot plan. My suggestion drawing is attached. The salient features in this suggestion concern roads, direction in which individual homes face, impacts on the neighborhood, and the land -lock question. You will see that I took the liberty of suggesting a shared and connected storm drain basin. I think this alternate plan has merit. It is logical and simpler. I do not intend for this to reflect negatively on you, your company, or CPH. It is just intended to be a new idea for consideration. I understand that there is a possibility for an application for RECONSIDERATION. I know you want to get this project on the way towards construction and out of your hair. I hope you will just consider this a sincere friendly gesture on my part and participation. I talked to Vanessa Dolbee about my idea and she said she was interested in looking at my suggestion. I am therefore sending to her copies of the suggested plan and letter to you. Sincer Doug ornstine A concerned neighbor (enclosure) 1 ,+ _ � s�`;. f �� T ��—� J "'S 9� .�i � � E~ _ _� � � �� �. �:�" T-��- � ry v �:� .. � _.__ _ _ ... .... ._ _ _ 7 7Y � ��._ —�---��...� _ _ .... i� +++yyy# . , .� f Z_ -- �'�1 r, 1� _ � h�• i_ Oil' 1 �' P.r4 �� ._ C' �! ,. � � ; ._ _ jj1!i?/1�� l.i _ .. � 1 ;eV �� T ��—� J �� � �;, ' "'S 9� .�i � � E~ _ _� � � �� �. �:�" � ry v �:� .. � 4,! .„Q� �( .� f Z_ -- �'�1 r, 1� h�• i_ Oil' _ �' P.r4 �� ._ C' 0- • Hearing Examiner's Decision C] 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 RECEIVED CITYCLERK'S OFF!ca BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON } RE: Maplewood Park East } FINAL DECISION Preliminary Plat } ) LUA12-018, ECF, PP ) Summary The Applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a fourteen lot residential subdivision. The preliminary plat is approved with conditions. Street modification requests for Road B are denied without prejudice due to lack of supporting information in the administrative record. Staff will be able to reprocess the request at the administrative level without adding any significant delay to processing of the application. Requests to face homes towards NE 2nd street is deferred to building permit review where it is normally addressed. Orientation cannot be addressed at this time because there is no information in the record as to how staff has applied the orientation standards in the past and the orientation criteria are at least partially dependent upon specific housing design, which is not review until building permit review. Ultimately, although the Applicant is understandably adverse to further design modifications, placing Road B along the northern perimeter of the subdivision would resolve the orientation issues of the subdivision. Such an alternative design would be contrary to regulations that "prefer" alley access, but given the unique circumstances of the plat (only one block of homes between a park and a street), this is one situation where alley access is not ideal. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 211City Staff 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Testimony Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Ms. Dolbee described the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE (Rosario Avenue NE). The site is a vacant 4.5 acres, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres and is in the Residential Low Density designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The net density is proposed to be 4.02 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes vary from 8,135 to 10,926 square feet. Two tracts are proposed, a stormwater tract (Tract A) and a landscape/utilities tract (Tract B). The site contains 271 protected trees of which 18 are proposed to be retained with 103 replacement trees. The site contains no critical areas. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. On September 24, 2012 the SEPA Responsible Official issued an MDNS with four conditions. No appeals were filed. One public comment related to traffic was received. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, as conditioned, will be compliant with the zoning code. The lot widths do no currently conform. The landscape plan does not currently meet the city code with respect to street trees or significant tree retention and/or replacement. There was a road modification request issued on January 3, 2012. New information was subsequently provided that demonstrated a lack of critical areas on the site. The lack of critical areas triggered street frontage requirements. Staff is recommending modifications to the requirements of the January 3`d letter. These include the elimination of Road C, the extension of Road B and the frontage and asphalt width requirements along the internal roads and on 152nd Avenue SE. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Dolbee stated that Road A will still be directly across the street from an existing house. The public comment letter expressed concern about headlight glare on their house from Road A. Staff recommends that landscape screening be provided around the stormwater detention facility on the outside of fencing or along the perimeter of the tract. Police, fire, school, water, sewer and stormwater facilities are adequate as conditioned. The Applicant is proposing both rain gardens and a stormwater pond in conformance to the 2009 King County Stormwater Manual. Staff recommends approval of the Maplewood Park Preliminary Plat subject to ten conditions (the original eleven recommended conditions minus condition #5). In response to the Examiner, Ms. Dolbee stated the Applicant will meet the City's required LOS. She also noted the definition of a significant tree is a 6" diameter tree as measured 4' above the ground. With respects to impacts to the house at the terminus of Road A, Ms. Dolbee stated MDNS measures were considered, but that the design as proposed is the best solution. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 With respect to the extensive changes recommended on the plat by the conditions of approval, Ms. Dolbee stated that though the changes were significant, the Staff felt that the potential impacts of the changes would be to reduce the project's impacts and that the Applicant would not need to apply for a plat alteration. Applicant Tiffany Brown, Burnstead Construction CompanX Ms. Brown stated they had only had the staff report for three days and that they were frustrated by the extensive conditions. Many of the conditions had not been mentioned in the year and a half since the project had started. They stated that the code table for the R-4 zone allowed lot size, width or depth could be reduced to achieve the allowable density. She stated the plat always looked as it did. Ms. Brown also stated the City said they had no pians for extending Rosario Avenue NE. Burnstead pointed out that extension of that road cannot go anywhere because of critical areas. The Applicant has always stated there are no critical areas on site or off-site buffer impacting the site. They did not learn until July 2012 that they had to prove there were no wetlands on site. Burnstead agreed to allow a third party reviewer, Otak, to analyze whether the off-site wetland buffer impacted the subject site. The wetland has since disappeared. The Applicant feels they have to completely change their plat at a very late date with little notice. They have gone back to the drawing board three days before a hearing. Ms. Brown stated there is no benefit in these conditions of approval which came out of left field. Ms. Brown stated they'd had many meetings with the City and feel they've been led astray by the Staff. Matt Hough, CP I H, Project Civil Engineer and Planner In response to the Examiner, Mr. Hough stated Rosario Avenue NE cannot be extended to the south because of existing development and critical areas south of NE 2"d Street. The same is true north of the project. The two northern parcels are parks parcels which are presently undeveloped. The City stated they had no intention of approving this road to the north. Road A was designed the way it was to allow for connectivity to the north in lieu of extending Rosario Avenue NE. Mr. Hough stated they had this plan layout for 18 months with the exception of modifications in response to the January 3`d letter. They do not see how the footnote to the R-4 table is not applicable here. Mr. Hough stated he could see where Staff had made an effort to minimize changes to the plat, but the changes they have asked for in the Staff Report are new and significant and coming very late in the process. The Applicant does not see a benefit to the proposed changes. They also note that improving Rosario Avenue NE to the Staff's recommendations will create an off -set intersection that may not be approved by Public Works. Mr. Hough stated they had done what they could do to reduce the impacts of this project while still meeting the density requirements. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 91 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Public Comment Shara Hagerman Ms. Hagerman stated she lived in a home on 132r1 (NF 2nd Street) in the County facing this development. Ms. Hagerman stated her neighborhood is established. She stated she had spoken with Staff about the orientation of the houses. Ms. Hagerman was hoping that the homes would face the street, rather than the backs of the houses. Ms. Hagerman said the City has assured them the houses would face them, but that the Staff Report makes it clear the houses will face internally to the plat. The neighborhood character would be improved by having the houses face the existing streets. Ms. Hagerman said she was worried about the drainage pond. She stated most of the drainage ponds in the area were ugly, large and insufficiently screened. Ms. Hagerman also noted the Staff Report stated the schools in the area are in the Renton School District when they are in fact in the Issaquah School District. Robert Ham Mr. Hagerman echoed his wife's comments. He wants to look at front doors and front yards, not back fences or driveways. Terry Taylor Mr. Taylor stated he was the person who wrote the public comment letter. He stated Road A is directly across from his house. He is concerned about excessive traffic from this road as they are trying to back out of their driveway. Mr. Taylor stated the location of Road A is very poorly located with respect to his house and the placement of his windows. He is concerned about traffic and headlight glare impacting his home. He also does not understand why Road A is located where it is. In response, Mr. Hough stated that the City required a north -south connection that was not Rosario Avenue NE. Mr. Taylor asked what will happen with Road A. The property north of Road A is where the Duwamish sludge was placed when the river was cleaned up. It is now pasture land, though it is designated by King County as park land. Mr. Taylor is not against development, just the impacts to his house. He would like to see Road A farther east to a location that is opposite a more suitable use, such as garages or vacant roads. This development represents a significant change from the way his property has functioned for the 38 years he has lived there. Mr. Taylor also noted that NE 2nd Street has become a cut through route and traffic has been increasing in recent years. Doug Bornstine Mr. Bornstine lives next door to the Taylors. Mr. Bornstine is also concerned about traffic. He's been working with King County to try to discourage cut through traffic on NE 2"d Street. The traffic is 1' '1 u110FO 'A1I:YM11 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 moving significantly faster than the posted 25 mph or the recommended 20 mph. The road is narrow, unlined and not traffic controlled. Some of the cut through traffic is moving at 60 mph. Mr. Bornstine is working with King County to get cameras installed or additional police presence on the road. Mr. Bornstine stated the parcel to the north of the subject is not landlocked. It extends to 156th Street. He does not see the need for a north -south connector here. Rebuttal Upon rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee stated that the R-4 zone has residential design standards. The homes are required to be accessed by Road B. The residential design guidelines for primary entries require the house to have wrapped porches and front doors facing and engaging the street. The fronts of the homes will face NE 2" d Street and Road B will function more as an alleyway for the three southern lots. NE 2°d Street is the primary street. Road B has been reduced through road modifications to function more as an alleyway. Lots 6-8 will face the rear of the houses on Lots 12-14. Staff requests a further condition of approval that requires houses to face NE 2nd Street. Ms. Dolbee agreed that the children from the houses would attend school in the Issaquah School District. Ms. Dolbee described the frontage improvements and road designs being recommended by Staff for NE 2nd Street. With respect to road alignment and the requirement for a north -south connector, the City anticipates there will be a connection to the property to the north. There are two large parcels there. The City is attempting to preserve the possibility of future connectivity. There is existing right of way on the west side of the parks properties, but north of there are housing developments. Therefore, 152"d Avenue SE cannot be feasibly extended. The location of Road A is in a much more feasible and likely location for future road connections. Ms. Dolbee read the requirements for reducing lot widths. She stated the City deducts road width when considering density. The City has already allowed two road width modifications to reduce the width of the internal roadway. If the City required the full roadway width of the code, there would be less land available to count toward the net density. Ms. Dolbee stated by allowing the roadway modifications and requiring standard lot widths, the plat is likely to maintain 13 of the 14 proposed lots. Whereas in the circumstance where the City denied the roadway modifications but allowed for reduced lot widths, the plat would likely be reduced to less than 13 lots. The Staff agreed to reduce the street widths to allow for the opportunity for increased density. Ms. Dolbee stated the road realignment was not a mitigation measure from environmental review and is more appropriately a condition of approval. Ms. Dolbee stated the realignment of Road B will allow for an additional entry to the King County Park land. Staff recommends that the improvements happen within the existing right of way plus an additional three feet. Rosario Avenue NE is currently unimproved. Ms. Dolbee stated the code favors alley configurations. There is no requirement to provide 15 feet of landscaping, the requirement is 10 feet. Kayren Kittrick, City of Renton, Lead Construction Inspector PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 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 Ms. Kittrick stated Applicants are required to provide frontage improvements along their entire frontage, but the City has recommended reduced requirements and a realigned internal road network. Staff also stated that the location for Road A could potentially be realigned to move it away from its present location. There will be sidewalks and street lights on NE 2nd Street. Tiffany Brown Ms. Brown stated the alley load requirement for Lots 12-14 is last minute. She stated they were required to put in a 10 foot landscape tract adjacent to all the public roads inside the sidewalk and landscape strips. The homes do not start for 50 feet beyond the landscaping. Also, the homes are at a different grade and behind privacy fencing and the street trees. The impact of alley loaded lots within the subdivision is much more significant than having the rear of the houses facing NE 2nd Street. She noted an alley is not an alley if only half of the homes utilize it as such and the others front on it. The Applicant is very concerned that down the road they will be penalized for the offset of the Rosario Avenue NE intersection that is being required here. Ms. Brown also stated that the code does not discuss rounding issues with density and that the requirements here are new. Matt Hough Mr. Hough stated that the plat has not changed and the City never brought up the lot width issues. The lot sizes are larger than required. Road C originally was just a hammerhead. They extended it through to provide pedestrian connectivity. Mr. Hough stated he does not understand the process and that information from the City has changed. The secondary connection is not needed because of intersection spacing and impacts significant trees. The design is better aesthetically and environmentally to leave the Rosario Avenue NE right of way vacant. The discussions with the City had always been a pedestrian connection on Rosario Avenue NE. The Applicant did originally have Road A in another location but the City had them move it. The Applicant thought the road modification they requested included the waiver for the lot width. They also said the City had initially and often stated they did not need to extend Rosario Avenue NE. Exhibits Exhibits 1-21 listed on page 2 of the October 16, 2012 staff report are admitted into evidence at the public hearing. The following additional exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: Ex. 22: Vanessa Dolbee's presentation. Ex. 23: Email correspondence between Staff and the Applicants dated October 23, 2012. Ex. 24: A revised interior road network. FINDINGS OF FACT PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 I Procedural: 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 I. Applicant. Bumstead Construction, LLC. 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on October 23, 2012 in the City of Renton City Council Chambers. 3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres. Lot sizes vary from 8,135 to 10,926 square feet. 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and a 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed. The net density is proposed to be 4.02 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 271 protected trees of which 18 are proposed to be retained with 103 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. The City granted a street modification request, with conditions, on January 3, 2012 to allow for modifications from the City's street code for the new internal streets. With the application the Applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The project site is surrounded on three sides by single-family development. The property adjoining to the north appears to be vacant from the aerial photograph included in the staff report. The surrounding property to the east is within the City of Renton and is zoned R-4. The subject is bordered by unincorporated King County land to the north, south and west. All of the unincorporated King County properties are zoned R-4 by the County. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. There are no critical areas on site and a mitigated determination of non -significance has been issued for the proposal. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the project will be served by adequate public services and infrastructure. One issue of significant concerns to neighbors was the orientation of the homes along NE 2"d Street. Adjacent property owners requested the houses on Lots 12-14 be required to face NE 2nd Street so that the existing neighbors did not have to look at the backs of houses across NE 2"d Street. Staff stated the Primary Entry guidelines (RMC 4-2-115(3)) would require the developer to construct the houses facing the street. The Applicant argued that requiring the houses on Lots 12-14 to face NE 2"d Street would be injurious to the houses on Lots 6-8 who would have to look directly across a reduced width road at garages and the backs of houses; whereas there will be a landscape strip, sidewalk, landscape buffer with street trees, a privacy fence and a grade change between the houses in the plat PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7 J 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 and the existing neighbors across NE 2"d Street. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 5, this issue will be deferred to the staff review level where the orientation of housing is more appropriately addressed. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. The site will be served by adequate water and sewer. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City prior to or along with Construction Permit Application. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main located in NE 2nd Street. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadways will be required. The subject parcel falls within the assessment area known as the Wyman latecomer Agreement. The Wyman final sewer assessment is $45,948.04. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. A 6 -inch sewer stub shall be provided to each lot. B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single-family lot with credit given for the existing single-family residence, was recommended as part of the SEPA review, in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. All new construction must have fire hydrants capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm. One primary hydrant is required within 300 feet of the buildings. Homes larger than 3,600 square feet will require an additional hydrant and may require sprinklers. Final determination will be made by the Fire Department. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. C. Drainage. Drainage has been adequately addressed through the preparation of a drainage report that proposes storm drainage facilities that staff have determined complies with the standards of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City of Renton. Under existing conditions the site drainage infiltrates as the site is currently undeveloped and forested. The storm drainage and TESL standards for the project are established by the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual (KCSWM) and City of PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8 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 Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The development site is required to provide Basic Water Quality treatment in addition to Level 2 flow control. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report ("TIR") prepared by CP I H Consultants, dated March, 8 2012 (Ex. 11). Based on the provided TIR the Applicant is proposing to develop an on-site combined detention and water quality pond in conjunction with a series of on-site rain gardens. The drainage report discusses meeting the area specific flow control requirement under Core Requirement #3. Additionally a Level 2 analysis will be required. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Department of Ecology and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (S W PPP) would be required for development of the subject site. The provided Geotechnical Report (Ex. 12) evaluated the on-site soils to determine their percolation rate. Based on the provided Geotechnical Report the whole scale infiltration of development stormwater would not be feasible as the silty -sand with gravel observed in the test pits has a low permeability and typically would not be suitable for infiltration of stormwater on a large scale. D. Parks/Open Space. The MDNS for the project requires the Applicant to pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee at the time of final plat recording. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. The proposal is served by adequate streets. There are currently no street improvements fronting the site on NE 2"d Street. An undeveloped public right of way borders the subject's western property line (152"d Avenue SE/Rosario Avenue NE). The proposed access to Lots 1-6 would be provided along a new public road, Road A. Lots l 1 — 14 would be accessed via a new public road, Road B. In addition to Road A and B, the Applicant has proposed a new public road, Road C. As proposed, both Road C and Road A would provide direct access from NE 2nd Street and Road B would connect Road C and Road A through the middle of the proposed development. The residential access road standard for a public street is a 53 -foot right of way including five-foot sidewalks and eight -foot landscaping strips on both sides, and two ten -foot travel lanes and a six foot parking lane on one side (RMC 4-6-060(F2)). The City's private street standards are applicable to streets that access six or fewer lots, provided that at least two of the lots abut a public right of way. Private streets are only allowed in the circumstance where there will be no future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the subdivision PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9 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 to or to serve adjacent property. The minimum standard from private streets is a 26 -foot easement with a twelve -foot pavement width and an approved turnaround. A street modification was recommended by a letter dated January 3, 2012 by the Development Services Division Director, modifying the street standards for the subject development (Ex. 10). The proposed modifications are summarized as a `pavement width of 20 feet, without separate sidewalks" for internal Roads B and C and a reduction in these right of way widths to 20 feet. The letter partially denied the requested modifications and recommended others for approval by the hearing examiner with conditions. The January 3, 2012 modification recommended a reduction in the street width on Roads B and C to 20 - feet of pavement with no parking or sidewalks, but with a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway marked on one side of the pavement area. The right-of-way was recommended to be a minimum of 26 feet in width. This modification is primarily consistent with the City's private street standards. The January 2, 2012 modification recommendation also required Road A to comply with City of Renton street standards, resulting in 53 feet of required right-of-way, consistent with a public residential access street. RMC 4-6-060(E1) requires the dedication of right of way where the existing width for any right of way adjacent to a development site is substandard. RMC 4-6-060(0) requires the extension full of street improvements along the entire border of any development site adjacent to a public right of way. In this case, the Applicant would be required to dedicate land and construct full street improvements along Rosario Avenue NE/152"d Avenue SE along its entire western border. Staff testified that when the Applicant first applied for the plat, they were under the assumption that a previously existing wetland to the west of the subject property still existed. The Applicant testified they had been under the assumption from the beginning that this wetland did not exist. They stated Staff had told them from the pre -application stage that street improvements along Rosario Avenue NE/152"d Avenue SE would not be required. The Staff testified they did not initially require extension of the street improvements because the presumed wetland and/or its buffer could have been impacted by the extension of Rosario Avenue NE/152"d Avenue SE. Staff requested proof that the previously existing wetland was still there. On July 15, 2012, the Applicant provided evidence that the wetland had indeed disappeared. At the hearing, Staff testified the lack of wetlands and buffers in the project vicinity triggered the code requirement to provide street improvements along all frontages, including Rosario Avenue NE/152nd Avenue SE. Frontage improvements are also required to be constructed along NE 2" d Street. Staff testified that they were now recommending modified half street improvements to Rosario Avenue NE/152"1 Avenue SE which would result in a street extension of only about half the depth of the plat and the need for a dedication of three feet along the western border. They also recommended Road C be eliminated entirely and the extension of Road B from Road A in the east to intersect with the newly constructed Rosario Avenue NE on the west. Staff justified this request by noting that even though there are no longer PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10 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 concerns about a wetland impacting the site, existing development patterns to the north would prohibit Rosario Avenue SE from ever being extended in that direction. Staff indicated the improved Rosario Avenue SE to Road B would provide an extra possibility for future connection to the King County park land to the north of the plat. Road A is already proposed to be a public street connecting NE 2"d Street to the King County park property to the north. Staff testified with the exception of these changes, they continue to support the road modifications recommended by the January 3, 2012 letter. Road B would now serve nine lots (Lots 6-11 and 12-14) and be connected to public roads on both terminuses (Road A and Rosario Avenue NE). The Applicant stated they had been in the design process for 18 months and only found out three days before the hearing that Staff was recommending an almost entirely new street layout and improvements to 152"d Avenue SE/Rosario Avenue NE. The Applicant stated the City had told them in the pre -application meeting and throughout the design process that they had no intention of requiring the Applicant to construct half -street improvements to 152"d Avenue; this is, in fact, why the Applicant had designed Road A to terminate at the northern property boundary. The design of Road A provided connectivity to the King County undeveloped park land to the north in a location that might be feasibly extended to the north. 152nd Avenue SE is located along an alignment that cannot be feasibly extended north due to existing development and critical areas. The Applicant also stated the construction of half street improvements to 152nd Avenue NE will create an intersection misalignment. The Applicant is concerned that the misalignment will not be allowed and that they will be required to once again redesign the plat at a later stage. Staff stated the requirement for the improvements on Rosario Avenue NE was triggered by the new knowledge that there was no wetland in the vicinity of 152"d Avenue NE as there had previously been. The Applicant noted that information was given to the City in July after an exhaustive attempt by the Applicant to prove the lack of the critical area. The Staff had over three months to provide the new road layout recommendations to the Applicant but did not so do before the Staff Report (Ex. 1) was issued three days before the hearing. Some comments were made at the hearing by adjoining property owners related to the location of Road A. Road A is currently designed in such a way that it aligns with the driveway and front windows of the house to the south across NE 2"d Street. The property owner expressed concern regarding his safety when attempting to back out of his driveway and also of the impact of headlights sweeping across his windows. Staff suggested studies show offsetting the new road from the existing driveway would be more dangerous than aligning the two. Another adjacent property owner expressed concern regarding the increasing cut through traffic on NE 2"d Street which has become hazardous in recent years with the increase in cars traveling at higher than posted speeds. Under the preponderance of evidence standard, the Examiner must side on the staff's conclusions on this issue. The City's public works department, which has extensive PRELIMINARY PLAT - 11 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 experience in traffic design and safety, has determined that the safest place for subdivision intersections is directly across from driveways and the department has also concluded that NE 2"d St. is adequately designed to accommodate traffic generated by the proposal. The neighbors have not provided any specific evidence to outweight this expert testimony. The location of the subdivisions access points and NE 2nd St. is determined to be adequate and to not create any significant adverse impacts on neighboring property owners. The City code requires extension of 152"d Avenue (Rosario Avenue NE) with full frontage improvements along the west boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing public right-of-way. City Staff has argued the development of Road A to the north, will accomplish the same purpose by providing a northern connection through the subject site but that they recommend improvements to Rosario Avenue NE to allow for a secondary access to the King County park land should it ever be developed. The Applicant argues the King County Land extends all the way to 156h Avenue SE and that Road A already functions as a secondary connection without the requirement to provide a less than full length, half street improvement that creates a misaligned intersection. Staff contents the elimination of Road C and extension of Road B to intersect with the newly improved Rosario Avenue NE will retain a secondary access into the plat while reducing the curb cuts on NE 2"d Street. The conditions of approval will require street extension along the west boundary of the site (along 152"d Avenue) to extend north from NE 2"d Street to the intersection with Road B. The street improvements in Rosario Avenue NE are further modified to require 20 feet of pavement, 8 foot planter and 5 foot sidewalk on the west side of the street. This would result in the need to provide 3 feet of dedication along the entire western property edge. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to provide an updated plat plan for review and approval by the Development Services Division with the re -designed road system prior to construction permit issuance. F. Parking. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. NE 2nd Street will accommodate parking on both sides. New Road A will accommodate parking on one side. New Road be will no accommodate on - street parking_ G. Tree Retention. The Applicant submitted two Arborist reports dated February 14, 2012 and July 24, 2012 (Ex. 16). The Arborist reported the site contains 271 significant trees. Of these, the Applicant's Arborist determined 91 are dead and/or dangerous. 78 of the trees are located in the proposed roadway and 18 are proposed to be retained. The City's Urban Forester and Natural Resources Manager, Terry Flatley, visited the subject site and PRELIMINARY PLAT - 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 reviewed the February 14, 2012 Arborist report. Mr. Flatiey presented his findings via e- mail on ,lune 27, 2012 (Ex. 21). Based on the City's Urban Forester's conclusions, 16 trees should be subtracted from the dead and/or dangerous Iist included in the February 14, 2012 Arborist report, resulting in a total of 75 dead and/or dangerous trees. Based on the number of significant trees, the Applicant must retain the 18 trees proposed to be retained, and provide an additional 114 replacement trees at 2 -inch caliper. The Applicant has proposed to plant only 103 replacement trees. The Applicant must provide an updated tree retention worksheet and planting plan that meets the minimum retention and/or replacement requirements. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-250(C)(2) grants the Community and Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee the authority to approve waivers to street improvements. The waiver is classified as a Type I permit by RMC 4-8-080(G). However, RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest - number procedure". Staff testified that the street waiver request has been consolidated with the preliminary plat application, which is classified as a Type III application by RMC 4-8-080(G). Consequently, the street waiver request is also classified as a Type III application, which is subject to hearing examiner approval pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(G). 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan map land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). 3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles ofaceeptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code, 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because offlood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction ofproteetive Improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 13 1 2 3 4 S I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 4. As noted in Finding of Fact 6, this criterion is not satisfied with respect to lot width requirements (RMC 4-2-110). The Applicant contends the lot layout and widths have not been altered in the 18 months since the plat was originally proposed. It is not clear from the administrative record whether Staff addressed this concern during the review process. The Applicant stated they had assumed their request for street modifications encompassed a request for the plat layout as presented and that the Staff's recommended approval of the street modifications represented tacit approval of the plat as presented. There is nothing in the administrative record or in the testimony that suggests the Staff was aware of or in agreement with the Applicant's assumption that the street modification represented approval of the plat as presented. The Applicant also argued that RMC 4-2-11OD- 11 should apply because a reduction in lot width is necessary to achieve the maximum density on the plat. Staff argues the opposite stating the Applicant could achieve the allowable density without it. In either case RMC 4-2-110 defines a maximum allowable density; it does not define either a minimum density or guarantee that all plats will achieve the maximum density permitted under the zone. 'While it is unfortunate that the issue of the lot widths was not addressed in a more timely fashion, the code requirements have not changed. Condition of Approval 3 requires the Applicant to re -design the plat plan to provide for lots that meet the minimum lot dimensional standards and submit the new plat plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. The proposed lots comply with all other requirements of the R-4 zoning district as detailed by staff at page 7-9 of the staff report, which is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in fall. As noted in the staff report and shown on the preliminary plat map (Ex. 2), each lot will access new Roads A or B. No access will be permitted from NE 2nd Street. As discussed in Finding of fact 6(E), proposed Road C will be eliminated and 152nd Avenue SE will be extended to meet Road B at the western property boundary. As noted in the Findings of Fact 5, there are no critical areas on the property. Consequently, the site has physical characteristics suitable for development. As determined in the Finding of Fact No. 7 and as conditioned, the proposal makes adequate provision for drainage, streets, water and sewer. RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 5. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Section I(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. The proposal is consistent with applicable subdivision regulations as outlined in detail in the other PRELIMINARY PLAT - 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 conclusions of law in this decision. The proposal is consistent with applicable zoning standards and design standards as outlined in Section I(2) and (3) of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full, excluding the staff's conclusions regarding lot width. One design standard that was raised during the hearing regarded house orientation. Members of the public expressed a desire to have the houses face NE 2'd Street as their front facade in order to provide a better aesthetic and community feel to the existing neighborhood. The Applicant notes that placing the front facade of the houses on Lots 12-14 towards NE 2nd Street is problematic, because then the lots on the north portion of the plat will be facing the rear of the houses on Lots 12-14 from a distance of only a 26' road, whereas the southern part of the property will have a landscape strip, sidewalk, 15' landscape buffer with street trees, a privacy fence and a grade change. Staff stated that the houses could be conditioned to face NE 2"d Street based on RMC 4-2-115-3, the primary entry guidelines. It is premature to address building orientation at this time. There is no information on proposed building design and orientation and none of this information is expected or required during subdivision review. RMC 4-2-115(3) regulates the orientation of single-family homes within subdivisions and provides that "front doors shall face the street and be on the facade closest to the street." Staff testified Road B is proposed to be less than a full street width, so they do not view it as a street in the sense envisioned by RMC 4-2-115-3. However, staff's interpretation of RMC 4-2-115(3) was "off the cuff' during the hearing and there is no indication whether this interpretation is consistent with past applications and whether the interpretation is supported by the legislative history of the regulation. Further, the required orientation of a home is dependent upon the location of building facades. There is no information in the record on building design or proposed building locations. None of this information is required or expected during subdivision review. RMC 4-2- 115(3) is a building design regulation that should be designed when building design is proposed and can be evaluated, which is the building permit review stage of development. Consequently, the resolution of this building design issue will be deferred to building permit review. The staff will be required to provide notice of this application of RMC 4-2-115(3) to affected neighbors, so that they have the opportunity to appeal the staff's application should they disagree with it. One option of dealing with the orientation issue would be to relocate Road B to the northern perimeter of the proposal. This would enable the Applicant to orient the homes along NE 2"d St. to their neighbors to the south and the homes along Road B to face the park property to the north. Of course, this redesign would have to comply with all City standards and staff would have to determine whether the redesign would trigger additional public review. Of course, moving Road B further north will require more frontage improvements along Rosario. If relocation of Road B is considered, staff and the Applicant will have to work out whether the added improvements are worth resolving the orientation issues. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 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 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City ,specifications) to an existing street or highway. 6. The internal circulation system of the subdivision, as conditioned, connects to NE 2"d Street and 152"d Avenue SE (Rosario Ave NE). RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 7. As discussed in Finding of fact 6(E), City code requires extension of 152"d Avenue (Rosario Avenue NE) with full frontage improvements along the west boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing public right-of-way. However, the development of Road A to the north will accomplish the same purpose by providing a northern connection through the subject site. As conditioned, proposed Road C will be eliminated and 152nd Avenue SE will be extended to meet Road B at the western property boundary. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. 8. The staff report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the vicinity. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the, following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of 'the State according to chapter 8.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4 -3 - PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16 1 2 3 4 5 711 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations_ 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies ofwater, and wetland areas. b. Method ff a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 9. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4, the land is suitable for development. The property is not designated as a floodplain and there are no streams or steep slopes on site. As discussed in Findings of Fact 8(G), there are significant trees on the site. The City's Urban Forester has made recommendations regarding the number of trees that must be retained or replaced. The Applicant has proposed to retain 18 trees and provide 103 replacement trees at 2 -inch caliper. The City code requires 114 additional trees. As conditioned, the Applicant must provide an updated tree retention worksheet and planting plan that meets the minimum retention and/or replacement requirements. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdividers dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 10. The MDN S requires the payment of Park and Recreation Impact fees. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17 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 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Oficial shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department_ 11. As discussed in Conclusion of Law 7, as conditioned, the proposed internal street system provides connectivity to NE 2nd Street and 152°1 Avenue SE (Rosario Avenue NE) via proposed Roads A and B. Proposed Road A stubs at the northern property boundary. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 12. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 13. The record does not contain any information on the classification of NE 2nd Street or 152nd Ave SE, though neither road appears to be a public highway or major or secondary arterial. The proposal as conditioned will eliminate proposed Road C, and extend proposed Road B to connect with 152nd Ave SE, reducing the number of connections to the higher traveled road, NE 2nd Street. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment ofall streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125) are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 14. As conditioned the road network will be redesigned and submitted for approval by the Public Works Department. As noted in Finding of Fact 5, the present alignment of Road A could impact the existing house across from the road's planned southern terminus. A condition will require the Applicant and City to review the road location to determine if a better location for the southern terminus can be found that will reduce potential impacts while maximizing traffic safety. RMC 4-7-150(E): I. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T -A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD -M and Policies CD -50 and CD -60. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 18 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 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid" by reducing the number of'linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; andlor ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity_ 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alleys) is not, feasible... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul -de -Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Oficial where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 15. As recommended by staff, the Applicant will be required to extend Road B to Rosario and eliminate Road C. This will eliminate the cul-de-sac discouraged by the regulations above and will also foster the grid system encouraged by the regulations. As testified by staff, the connection to Rosario was initially not required because it was believed that wetlands blocked the connection. Since those wetlands were ultimately determined to not be present, the connectivity required by the regulations above should be implemented. RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 16. As discussed in Conclusion of Law 30 and as conditioned, subject to the street modification approval (Ex. 10), as amended herein. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to he dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width boundary street shall he required in certain instances to_facilitatefuture development. 17. As conditioned and as discussed in Conclusion of Law 7. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 18. As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines as currently proposed are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. However, as noted in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusion of Law 3, the Applicant will be required to re -design and resubmit the lot plan for the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance to comply with lot dimensional requirements. Compliance with this criterion will be reassessed at that time. RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 19. As previously determined, each lot will have access to a public street or road via proposed private Roads A and B. RMC 4-7-170(0): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate .for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 20. Some of the lots of the proposed subdivision do not appear to comply with applicable lot width requirements. RMC 4-2-110(A) requires a minimum lot width of 70 ft for interior lots and 80 feet for corner lots. Eight of the fourteen proposed lots do not meet the lot width requirements. The Applicant testified that the lot configurations have not changed in 18 months and that Staff had never brought up the lot width consideration before. Additionally, the Applicant stated they felt that their request for street modification was also a request for relief from the requirement to meet the minimum lot widths. The Applicant noted the lots were larger than the minimum size and met depth requirements. The Applicant argued that RMC 4-2-110(D) Footnote No. 11 allows lots to be reduced to 60 feet wide if necessary to meet achieve a density of four dwelling units per net acre. Staff argued the Applicant will meet 4 dwelling units per acre without the variance and also that staff has granted some modifications to street width requirements in order to enable the Applicant to achieve the 4 du/acre density. RMC 4-2-110(D) does provide that "lot ...width... may be reduced ...when due to lot configuration or access, four (4) dwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved". It is fairly sell -evident from the PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 plat map of the proposal that the lot configuration cannot be altered in any meaningful way to achieve compliance with lot width requirements. Consequently, the Applicant must be permitted to reduce lot widths to 60 feet to the extent necessary to achieve a four dwelling per acre density. Staff testified that the proposal already has achieved a density of four units per acre. There is no information in the record that enables the Examiner to precisely verify that the density of the proposal has achieved a net density of four units per acre as defined by RMC 4-11-040. Further, if the Applicant is required to revise its plat to expand the lot widths to those required by RMC 4-2-110(A), there is nothing the record to suggest that the proposal would continue to have a net density at or more than four units per acre if it already does so presently. For these reasons, the proposal shall be conditioned to require staff to verify that the net density is at four units per acre or more and that if that density is currently achieved that the widths of substandard lots shall be reconfigured to required widths to the maximum possible until a maximum density of 3.501 dwelling units per acre or more is achieved. As noted in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusion of Law 4, this criterion is not satisfied with respect to lot width and lot width variation requirements (RMC 4-2-115). Condition of Approval 3, requires the Applicant to re -design the plat plan to provide for lots that meet the minimum lot dimensional standards and submit the new plat plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. The proposed lots comply with all other requirements of the R-4 zoning district. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i. e_, the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirtyfive feet (35). 21. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15). 22. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. ' RMC 4-11-040 provides that density calculations resulting in a fraction of 0.50 or greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21 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 23. With the exception of the tree retention requirements discussed in Finding of fact 6(G) and Conclusion of Law 9, no natural features as described above are located at the project site. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 24. As designed and as conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate sanitary sewer facilities in conformance with applicable City sanitary sewer standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 8 (A). RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 25. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 8 (C). RMC 4-7-200(0): The water distribution system including the locations of faire hydrants .shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees_ Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 27. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line PRELIMINARY PLAT - 22 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 by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 28. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision_ Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS. The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 29. As conditioned. RMC 4-9-250(C)(5): Decision Criteria for Waivers of Street Improvements: Reasonable justification shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a negative impact on a shoreline's area. b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible. c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties, such as restricting available access. d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood that the improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (10) years. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 23 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 e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not installed, and that the improvements are not needed, for current or future development_ 30. The dedication requirements of RMC 4-6-060(EI) and street improvement requirements of RMC 4-6-060(C) are waived to the extent that they apply to Rosario north of its connection with Road B. requires the extension full of street improvements along the entire border of any development site adjacent to a public right of way. The waiver is justified under RMC 4-9- 250(C)(5)(d) because Rosario is not improved to the north and as determined in the findings of fact it is unlikely that Rosario will ever be improved north of Road B because of development to the north. No detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are anticipated by the waiver and the waived improvements are not needed since connectivity to properties to the north is assured by Road A. The administrative record contains absolutely no justification for any modifications to the street standards of Road B. There is nothing apparent from the record that establishes how the proposed deviations from Road B standards satisfies the criteria of RMC 4-9- 250(C)(5). Especially as a through street that serves as part of the areas street grid system, there is no apparent reason why Road B should be designed differently than any other residential access street. It is far from clear, but one reason staff may have justified the Road B waiver is in order to enable the Applicant to achieve a higher density. This by itself does not serve as sufficient grounds to justify a waiver under RMC 4-9-250(C)(5). Since the RMC authorizes the staff to make a final decision on street waiver requests and there may be a valid reason why the requests for Road B deviations should be approved, the requested deviations to Road B standards are denied without prejudice so that staff may review the request on its own and make its own record for establishing compliance with RMC 4- 9-250(C)(5). DECISION The requested street modifications are approved and denied in part as outlined in Conclusion of Law No. 30. The proposed preliminary plat is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with the four mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated September 24, 2012. 2. The site contains two existing easements for road and utilities per LLA489033, 5872161, 5958267, and restated by Rec. No. 8410250053. The Applicant shall provide proof of relinquish of the subject easements to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording. 3. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24 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 4. The Applicant shall provide an updated tree retention worksheet, tree retention plan and planting plan that meet the minimum retention and/or replacement requirements of RMC 4- 4-130. The above plan sets and worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 5. The Applicant shall provide screening landscaping along the perimeter of Tract A. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. Screening landscaping shall be required to be installed and inspected prior to final plat recording. 6. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City prior to or along with Construction Permit Application. 7. Staff will apply the design standard related to primary entry (RMC 4-2-115-3) during building permit review or whenever this issue is normally addressed by staff. Notice of the staff's decision on application of RMC 4-2-115(3) along with associated appeal rights shall be mailed to all property owners on the southern side of NE 2nd St that are facing the proposal at the time the decision is made. 8. Staff shall determine the net density of the proposed subdivision as defined by RMC 4-11- 040. If the proposal exceeds 3.50 du/acre, the Applicant shall, to the maximum extent possible and as approved by staff, increase the substandard lot widths (up to required widths) to reduce the density to 3.50 du/acre. 9. Road C shall be eliminated and Road B shall be extended to Rosario. Road B shall comply with all applicable road standards unless a waiver is approved by staff. Road B may be moved to the northern perimeter of the plat in order to resolve the home orientation issues addressed in Finding of Fact No. 5 if determined by staff to comply with all applicable development standards and that the redesign would not trigger additional public review. DATED this 9th day of November, 2012. Plu .01 City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25 1 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 9 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) 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 7" floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 26 ''�)raj 0 v h LLJ I,:,- F �ZQiIC:f� = O �' 0. ZQ 3 - cLr a -w o E L ti azt C��ZE-'Z;�XZ c w•Js� "� a o.. ..]h F L F o pa - c:_c � v v c�„ y_ -',i- c�.y� '� V o UfXN U._ZZG=Z Czcefs7� V � % �� Z�, • "F� ^zry � �.�� �Q � F � Q �^A _�n a o[,�ni � � � r aF y Z Z> F•' s /. � %. � � F � � � � — N G r .� ' F v -n 3 •" y oo 'r, O a c`3 . � � � "'.� v Gal 0 Ls] . S. C "' -. Gj a 0. ,-. ':- a F r � o � 7 :a r•'s :� v — � v ri F � �' ✓: iir_�,=y._F rt�O '7 �� 'JEFF JFF�nG �O'� y Z �. � b ' ^C aJ cin. 3 • � � cd ° Cn i` U N OA �� ,vim' d] � i7.' � � � � ^ � � •_„ Mfl U � � o � q>✓j � � � R. 4i 124 o O � O17' 4. 1z-+ �A `� y � 3-d � `'o'er �,U4" �•Q � w r bA i C CL, as pq O y O CJ fC \ W °CF;ul. e�°�� Q O 0 pq � cs � U Ix � —Z .o vON V57 n Denis Law Cl Of Mayor City Clerk - Bonnie I. Walton November 9, 2012 Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Av Suite #100 Kirkland, WA' 98033. Re: Decision for Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat LUA-12-018, ECF, PIP Dear Mr. Hough: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated November 9, 2012, in the above -referenced matter. If 1 can provide -further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision cc: Hearing Examiner Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record (7) 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98057 . (425)430-6510/ Fax (425)430-6516* rentonwa.gov 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 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Maplewood Park East } FINAL DECISION Preliminary Plat } } LUA12-018, ECF, PP ) Summary The Applicant requests preliminary plat approval for a fourteen lot residential subdivision. The preliminary plat is approved with conditions. Street modification requests for Road B are denied without prejudice due to lack of supporting information in the administrative record. Staff will be able to reprocess the request at the administrative level without adding any significant delay to processing of the application. Requests to face homes towards NE 2nd street is deferred to building permit review where it is normally addressed. Orientation cannot be addressed at this time because there is no information in the record as to how staff has applied the orientation standards in the past and the orientation criteria are at least partially dependent upon specific housing design, which is not review until building permit review. Ultimately, although the Applicant is understandably adverse to further design modifications, placing Road B along the northern perimeter of the subdivision would resolve the orientation issues of the subdivision. Such an alternative design would be contrary to regulations that "prefer" alley access, but given the unique circumstances of the plat (only one block of homes between a park and a street), this is one situation where alley access is not ideal. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 1 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 Testimony City Staff Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Ms. Dolbee described the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE (Rosario Avenue NE). The site is a vacant 4.5 acres, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres and is in the Residential Low Density designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The net density is proposed to be 4.02 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes vary from 8,135 to 10,926 square feet. Two tracts are proposed, a stormwater tract (Tract A) and a landscape/utilities tract (Tract B). The site contains 271 protected trees of which 18 are proposed to be retained with 103 replacement trees. The site contains no critical areas. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. On September 24, 2012 the SEPA Responsible Official issued an MDNS with four conditions. No appeals were filed. One public comment related to traffic was received. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, as conditioned, will be compliant with the zoning code. The lot widths do no currently conform. The landscape plan does not currently meet the city code with respect to street trees or significant tree retention and/or replacement. There was a road modification request issued on January 3, 2012. New information was subsequently provided that demonstrated a lack of critical areas on the site. The lack of critical areas triggered street frontage requirements. Staff is recommending modifications to the requirements of the January 3rd letter. These include the elimination of Road C, the extension of Road B and the frontage and asphalt width requirements along the internal roads and on 152"d Avenue SE. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Dolbee stated that Road A will still be directly across the street from an existing house. The public comment letter expressed concern about headlight glare on their house from Road A. Staff recommends that landscape screening be provided around the stormwater detention facility on the outside of fencing or along the perimeter of the tract. Police, fire, school, water, sewer and stormwater facilities are adequate as conditioned. The Applicant is proposing both rain gardens and a stormwater pond in conformance to the 2009 King County Stormwater Manual. Staff recommends approval of the Maplewood Park Preliminary Plat subject to ten conditions (the original eleven recommended conditions minus condition #5). In response to the Examiner, Ms. Dolbee stated the Applicant will meet the City's required LOS. She also noted the definition of a significant tree is a 6" diameter tree as measured 4' above the ground. With respects to impacts to the house at the terminus of Road A, Ms. Dolbee stated MDNS measures were considered, but that the design as proposed is the best solution. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2 2 With respect to the extensive changes recommended on the plat by the conditions of approval, Ms. Dolbee stated that though the changes were significant, the Staff felt that the potential impacts of the changes would be to reduce the project's impacts and that the Applicant would not need to apply for a 3 plat alteration. 4 Applicant 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Tiffany Brown, Burnstead Construction Company Ms. Brown stated they had only had the staff report for three days and that they were frustrated by the extensive conditions. Many of the conditions had not been mentioned in the year and a half since the project had started. They stated that the code table for the R-4 zone allowed lot size, width or depth could be reduced to achieve the allowable density. She stated the plat always looked as it did. Ms. Brown also stated the City said they had no plans for extending Rosario Avenue NE. Burnstead pointed out that extension of that road cannot go anywhere because of critical areas. The Applicant has always stated there are no critical areas on site or off-site buffer impacting the site. They did not learn until July 2012 that they had to prove there were no wetlands on site. Burnstead agreed to allow a third party reviewer, 4tak, to analyze whether the off-site wetland buffer impacted the subject site. The wetland has since disappeared. The Applicant feels they have to completely change their plat at a very late date with little notice. They have gone back to the drawing board three days before a hearing. Ms. Brown stated there is no benefit in these conditions of approval which came out of left field. Ms. Brown stated they'd had many meetings with the City and feel they've been led astray by the Staff. Matt Hough, CP I H, Project Civil Engineer and Planner In response to the Examiner, Mr. Hough stated Rosario Avenue NE cannot be extended to the south because of existing development and critical areas south of NE 2nd Street. The same is true north of the project. The two northern parcels are parks parcels which are presently undeveloped. The City stated they had no intention of approving this road to the north. Road A was designed the way it was to allow for connectivity to the north in lieu of extending Rosario Avenue NE. Mr. Hough stated they had this plan layout for 18 months with the exception of modifications in response to the January 3'd letter. They do not see how the footnote to the R-4 table is not applicable here. Mr. Hough stated he could see where Staff had made an effort to minimize changes to the plat, but the changes they have asked for in the Staff Report are new and significant and coming very late in the process. The Applicant does not see a benefit to the proposed changes. They also note that improving Rosario Avenue NE to the Staff's recommendations will create an off -set intersection that may not be approved by Public Works. Mr. Hough stated they had done what they could do to reduce the impacts of this project while still meeting the density requirements. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 3 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 I Public Comment Shara Hagerman_ Ms. Hagerman stated she lived in a home on 132"d (NE 2"d Street) in the County facing this development. Ms. Hagerman stated her neighborhood is established. She stated she had spoken with Staff about the orientation of the houses. Ms. Hagerman was hoping that the homes would face the street, rather than the backs of the houses. Ms. Hagerman said the City has assured them the houses would face them, but that the Staff Report makes it clear the houses will face internally to the plat. The neighborhood character would be improved by having the houses face the existing streets. Ms. Hagerman said she was worried about the drainage pond. She stated most of the drainage ponds in the area were ugly, large and insufficiently screened. Ms. Hagerman also noted the Staff Report stated the schools in the area are in the Renton School District when they are in fact in the Issaquah Scbool District. Robert Hagerman Mr. Hagerman echoed his wife's comments. He wants to look at front doors and front yards, not back fences or driveways. Term Taylor Mr. Taylor stated he was the person who wrote the public comment letter. He stated Road A is directly across from his house. He is concerned about excessive traffic from this road as they are trying to back out of their driveway. Mr. Taylor stated the location of Road A is very poorly located with respect to his house and the placement of his windows. He is concerned about traffic and headlight glare impacting his home. He also does not understand why Road A is located where it is. In response, Mr. Hough stated that the City required a north -south connection that was not Rosario Avenue NE. Mr. Taylor asked what will happen with Road A. The property north of Road A is where the Duwamish sludge was placed when the river was cleaned up. It is now pasture land, though it is designated by King County as park land. Mr. Taylor isnot against development, just the impacts to his house. He would like to see Road A farther cast to a location that is opposite a more suitable use, such as garages or vacant roads. This development represents a significant change from the way his property has functioned for the 38 years he has lived there. Mr. Taylor also noted that NE 2"d Street has become a cut through route and traffic has been increasing in recent years. Doug Bornstine Mr. Bornstine lives next door to the Taylors. Mr. Bornstine is also concerned about traffic. He's been working with King County to try to discourage cut through traffic on NE 2"d Street. The traffic is PRELIMINARY PLAT - 4 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 moving significantly faster than the posted 25 mph or the recommended 20 mph. The road is narrow, unlined and not traffic controlled. Some of the cut through traffic is moving at 60 mph. Mr. Bornstine is working with King County to get cameras installed or additional police presence on the road. Mr. Bomstine stated the parcel to the north of the subject is not landlocked. It extends to 156`h Street. He does not see the need for a north -south connector here. Rebuttal Upon rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee stated that the R-4 zone has residential design standards. The homes are required to be accessed by Road B. The residential design guidelines for primary entries require the house to have wrapped porches and front doors facing and engaging the street. The fronts of the homes will face NE 2"d Street and Road B will function more as an alleyway for the three southern lots. NE 2"d Street is the primary street. Road B has been reduced through road modifications to function more as an alleyway. Lots 6-8 will face the rear of the houses on Lots 12-14. Staff requests a further condition of approval that requires houses to face NE 2nd Street. Ms. Dolbee agreed that the children from the houses would attend school in the Issaquah School District. Ms. Dolbee described the frontage improvements and road designs being recommended by Staff for NE 2"d Street. With respect to road alignment and the requirement for a north -south connector, the City anticipates there will be a connection to the property to the north. There are two large parcels there. The City is attempting to preserve the possibility of future connectivity. There is existing right of way on the west side of the parks properties, but north of there are housing developments. Therefore, 152nd Avenue SE cannot be feasibly extended. The location of Road A is in a much more feasible and likely location for future road connections. Ms. Dolbee read the requirements for reducing lot widths. She stated the City deducts road width when considering density. The City has already allowed two road width modifications to reduce the width of the internal roadway. if the City required the full roadway width of the code, there would be less land available to count toward the net density. Ms. Dolbee stated by allowing the roadway modifications and requiring standard lot widths, the plat is likely to maintain 13 of the 14 proposed lots. Whereas in the circumstance where the City denied the roadway modifications but allowed for reduced lot widths, the plat would likely be reduced to less than 13 lots. The Staff agreed to reduce the street widths to allow for the opportunity for increased density. Ms. Dolbee stated the road realignment was not a mitigation measure from environmental review and is more appropriately a condition of approval. Ms. Dolbee stated the realignment of Road B will allow for an additional entry to the King County Park land_ Staff recommends that the improvements happen within the existing right of way plus an additional three feet. Rosario Avenue NE is currently unimproved. Ms. Dolbee stated the code favors alley configurations. There is no requirement to provide 15 feet of landscaping, the requirement is 10 feet. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 5 1 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 Kayren Kittrick, City of Renton, Lead Construction Inspector Ms. Kittrick stated Applicants are required to provide frontage improvements along their entire frontage, but the City has recommended reduced requirements and a realigned internal road network. Staff also stated that the location for Road A could potentially be realigned to move it away from its present location. There will be sidewalks and street lights on NE 2 Street. Tiffany Brown Ms. Brown stated the alley load requirement for Lots 12-14 is last minute. She stated they were required to put in a 10 foot landscape tract adjacent to all the public roads inside the sidewalk and landscape strips. The homes do not start for 50 feet beyond the landscaping. Also, the homes are at a different grade and behind privacy fencing and the street trees. The impact of alley loaded lots within the subdivision is much more significant than having the rear of the houses facing NE 2°d Street. She noted an alley is not an alley if only half of the homes utilize it as such and the others front on it. The Applicant is very concerned that down the road they will be penalized for the offset of the Rosario Avenue NE intersection that is being required here. Ms. Brown also stated that the code does not discuss rounding issues with density and that the requirements here are new. Matt Hough Mr. Hough stated that the plat has not changed and the City never brought up the lot width issues. The lot sizes are larger than required. Road C originally was just a hammerhead. They extended it through to provide pedestrian connectivity. Mr. Hough stated he does not understand the process and that information from the City has changed. The secondary connection is not needed because of intersection spacing and impacts significant trees. The design is better aesthetically and environmentally to leave the Rosario Avenue NE right of way vacant. The discussions with the City had always been a pedestrian connection on Rosario Avenue NE. The Applicant did originally have Road A in another location but the City had them move it. The Applicant thought the road modification they requested included the waiver for the lot width. They also said the City had initially and often stated they did not need to extend Rosario Avenue NE. Exhibits Exhibits 1-21 listed on page 2 of the October 16, 2012 staff report are admitted into evidence at the public hearing. The following additional exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: Ex. 22: Vanessa Dolbee's presentation. Ex. 23: Email correspondence between Staff and the Applicants dated October 23, 2012. Ex. 24: A revised interior road network. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 6 211 Procedural: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant. Burnstead Construction, LLC. 2. Hearin. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on October 23, 2012 in the City of Renton City Council Chambers. 3. Protect Description. The Applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE comer of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R4) dwelling units per net acres. Lot sizes vary from 8,135 to 10,926 square feet. 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and a 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed. The net density is proposed to be 4.02 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 271 protected trees of which 18 are proposed to be retained with 103 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. The City granted a street modification request, with conditions, on January 3, 2012 to allow for modifications from the City's street code for the new internal streets. With the application the Applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. 4. Characteristics of the Area. The project site is surrounded on three sides by single-family development. The property adjoining to the north appears to be vacant from the aerial photograph included in the staff report. The surrounding property to the east is within the City of Renton and is zoned R-4. The subject is bordered by unincorporated King County land to the north, south and west. All of the unincorporated King County properties are zoned R-4 by the County. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. There are no critical areas on site and a mitigated determination of non -significance has been issued for the proposal. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the project will be served by adequate public services and infrastructure_ One issue of significant concerns to neighbors was the orientation of the homes along NE 2nd Street. Adjacent property owners requested the houses on Lots 12-14 be required to face NE 2nd Street so that the existing neighbors did not have to look at the backs of houses across NE 2'd Street. Staff stated the Primary Entry guidelines (RMC 4-2-115(3)) would require the developer to construct the houses facing the street. The Applicant argued that requiring the houses on Lots 12-14 to face NE 2nd Street would be injurious to the houses on Lots 6-8 who would have to look directly across a reduced width road at garages and the backs of houses; whereas there will be a landscape strip, sidewalk, PRELIMINARY PLAT - 7 I landscape buffer with street trees, a privacy fence and a grade change between the houses in the plat 2 and the existing neighbors across NE 2nd Street. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 5, this issue will be deferred to the staff review level where the orientation of housing is more appropriately 3 addressed. 4 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate 5 infrastructure and public services as follows: 6 A. Water and Sewer Service. The site will be served by adequate water and sewer_ Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City prior to or along with Construction Permit 8 Application. 9 Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main 10 located in NE 2nd Street. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadways will be 11 required. The subject parcel falls within the assessment area known as the Wyman latecomer Agreement. The Wyman final sewer assessment is $45,948.04. Payment of this 12 fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. A 6 -inch sewer stub 13 shall be provided to each lot. 14 B. Police and Fire Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient 15 resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, 16 based on new single-family lot with credit given for the existing single-family residence, 17 was recommended as part of the SEPA review, in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by 18 the Renton Municipal Code. 19 All new construction must have fire hydrants capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 20 gpm. One primary hydrant is required within 300 feet of the buildings. Homes larger than 21 3,600 square feet will require an additional hydrant and may require sprinklers. Final determination will be made by the Fire Department. Sewer service will be provided by the 22 City of Renton. 23 C. Drainage. Drainage has been adequately addressed through the preparation of a drainage 24 report that proposes storm drainage facilities that staff have determined complies with the 25 standards of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as amended by the City 26 of Renton. Under existing conditions the site drainage infiltrates as the site is currently undeveloped and forested. The storm drainage and TESC standards for the project are PRELIMINARY PLAT - 8 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 established by the 2009. King County Surface Water Manual (KCSWM) and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The development site is required to provide Basic Water Quality treatment in addition to Level 2 flow control. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report ("TIR") prepared by CP I H Consultants, dated March, 8 2012 (Ex. 11). Based on the provided TIR the Applicant is proposing to develop an on-site combined detention and water quality pond in conjunction with a series of on-site rain gardens. The drainage report discusses meeting the area specific flow control requirement under Core Requirement #3. Additionally a Level 2 analysis will be required. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Department of Ecology and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required for development of the subject site. The provided Geotechnical Report (Ex. 12) evaluated the on-site soils to determine their percolation rate. Based on the provided Geotechnical Report the whole scale infiltration of development stormwater would not be feasible as the silty -sand with gravel observed in the test pits has a low permeability and typically would not be suitable for infiltration of stormwater on a large scale. D. Parks/Open Space. The MDNS for the project requires the Applicant to pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee at the time of final plat recording. The impact fees provide for adequate parks and open space. E. Streets. The proposal is served by adequate streets. There are currently no street improvements fronting the site on NE 2"d Street. An undeveloped public right of way borders the subject's western property line (152"d Avenue SE/Rosario Avenue NE). The proposed access to Lots 1-6 would be provided along a new public road, Road A. Lots 11 — 14 would be accessed via a new public road, Road B. In addition to Road A and B, the Applicant has proposed a new public road, Road C. As proposed, both Road C and Road A would provide direct access from NE 2nd Street and Road B would connect Road C and Road A through the middle of the proposed development. The residential access road standard for a public street is a 53 -foot right of way including five-foot sidewalks and eight -foot landscaping strips on both sides, and two ten -foot travel lanes and a six foot parking lane on one side (RMC 4-6-060(F2)). The City's privdte street standards are applicable to streets that access six or fewer lots, provided that at least two of the lots abut a public right of way. Private streets are only allowed in the circumstance where there will be no future traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the subdivision PRELIMINARY PLAT - 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to or to serve adjacent property. The minimum standard from private streets is a 26 -foot easement with a twelve -foot pavement width and an approved turnaround. A street modification was recommended by a letter dated January 3, 2012 by the Development Services Division Director, modifying the street standards for the subject development (Ex. 10)_ The proposed modifications are summarized as a `pavement width of 20 feet, without separate sidewalks" for internal Roads B and C and a reduction in these right of way widths to 20 feet. The letter partially denied the requested modifications and recommended others for approval by the hearing examiner with conditions. The January 3, 2012 modification recommended a reduction in the street width on Roads B and C to 20 - feet of pavement with no parking or sidewalks, but with a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway marked on one side of the pavement area. The right-of-way was recommended to be a minimum of 26 feet in width. This modification is primarily consistent with the City's private street standards. The January 2, 2012 modification recommendation also required Road A to comply with City of Renton street standards, resulting in 53 feet of required right-of-way, consistent with a public residential access street. RMC 4-6-060(E 1) requires the dedication of right of way where the existing width for any right of way adjacent to a development site is substandard. RMC 4-6-060(0) requires the extension full of street improvements along the entire border of any development site adjacent to a public right of way. In this case, the Applicant would be required to dedicate land and construct full street improvements along Rosario Avenue NE/152nd Avenue SE along its entire western border. Staff testified that when the Applicant first applied for the plat, they were under the assumption that a previously existing wetland to the west of the subject property still existed. The Applicant testified they had been under the assumption from the beginning that this wetland did not exist. They stated Staff had told them from the pre -application stage that street improvements along Rosario Avenue NE/152nd Avenue SE would not be required. The Staff testified they did not initially require extension of the street improvements because the presumed wetland and/or its buffer could have been impacted by the extension of Rosario Avenue NE/152nd Avenue SE. Staff requested proof that the previously existing wetland was still there. On July 15, 2012, the Applicant provided evidence that the wetland had indeed disappeared. At the hearing, Staff testified the lack of wetlands and buffers in the project vicinity triggered the code requirement to provide street improvements along all frontages, including Rosario Avenue NE/152nd Avenue SE. Frontage improvements are also required to be constructed along NE 2nd Street. Staff testified that they were now recommending modified half street improvements to Rosario Avenue NE/152nd Avenue SE which would result in a street extension of only about half the depth of the plat and the need for a dedication of three feet along the western border. They also recommended Road C be eliminated entirely and the extension of Road B from Road A in the east to intersect with the newly constructed Rosario Avenue NE on the west. Staff justified this request by noting that even though there are no longer PRELIMINARY PLAT - 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 concerns about a wetland impacting the site, existing development patterns to the north would prohibit Rosario Avenue SE from ever being extended in that direction. Staff indicated the improved Rosario Avenue SE to Road B would provide an extra possibility for future connection to the King County park land to the north of the plat. Road A is already proposed to be a public street connecting NE 2"d Street to the King County park property to the north. Staff testified with the exception of these changes, they continue to support the road modifications recommended by the January 3, 2012 letter. Road B would now serve nine lots (Lots 6-11 and 12-14) and be connected to public roads on both terminuses (Road A and Rosario Avenue NE). The Applicant stated they had been in the design process for 18 months and only found out three days before the hearing that Staff was recommending an almost entirely new street layout and improvements to 152d Avenue SE/Rosario Avenue NE. The Applicant stated the City had told them in the pre -application meeting and throughout the design process that they had no intention of requiring the Applicant to construct half -street improvements to 152nd Avenue; this is, in fact, why the Applicant had designed Road A to terminate at the northern property boundary. The design of Road A provided connectivity to the King County undeveloped park land to the north in a location that might be feasibly extended to the north. 152n1 Avenue SE is located along an alignment that cannot be feasibly extended north due to existing development and critical areas. The Applicant also stated the construction of half street improvements to 152nd Avenue NE will create an intersection misalignment. The Applicant is concerned that the misalignment will not be allowed and that they will be required to once again redesign the plat at a later stage. Staff stated the requirement for the improvements on Rosario Avenue NE was triggered by the new knowledge that there was no wetland in the vicinity of 152nd Avenue NE as there had previously been. The Applicant noted that information was given to the City in July after an exhaustive attempt by the Applicant to prove the lack of the critical area. The Staff had over three months to provide the new road layout recommendations to the Applicant but did not so do before the Staff Report (Ex. 1) was issued three days before the hearing. Some comments were made at the hearing by adjoining property owners related to the location of Road A. Road A is currently designed in such a way that it aligns with the driveway and front windows of the house to the south across NE 2"d Street. The property owner expressed concern regarding his safety when attempting to back out of his driveway and also of the impact of headlights sweeping across his windows. Staff suggested studies show offsetting the new road from the existing driveway would be more dangerous than aligning the two. Another adjacent property owner expressed concern regarding the increasing cut through traffic on NE 2nd Street which has become hazardous in recent years with the increase in cars traveling at higher than posted speeds. Under the preponderance of evidence standard, the Examiner must side on the staff's conclusions on this issue. The City's public works department, which has extensive PRELIMINARY PLAT - 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 experience in traffic design and safety, has determined that the safest place for subdivision intersections is directly across from driveways and the department has also concluded that NE 2nd St. is adequately designed to accommodate traffic generated by the proposal. The neighbors have not provided any specific evidence to outweight this expert testimony. The location of the subdivisions access points and NE 2nd St. is determined to be adequate and to not create any significant adverse impacts on neighboring property owners. The City code requires extension of 152'd Avenue (Rosario Avenue NE) with full frontage improvements along the west boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing public right-of-way. City Staff has argued the development of Road A to the north, will accomplish the same purpose by providing a northern connection through the subject site but that they recommend improvements to Rosario Avenue NE to allow for a secondary access to the King County park land should it ever be developed. The Applicant argues the King County Land extends all the way to 156"' Avenue SE and that Road A already functions as a secondary connection without the requirement to provide a less than full length, half street improvement that creates a misaligned intersection. Staff contents the elimination of Road C and extension of Road B to intersect with the newly improved Rosario Avenue NE will retain a secondary access into the plat while reducing the curb cuts on NE 2nd Street. The conditions of approval will require street extension along the west boundary of the site (along 152nd Avenue) to extend north from NE 2nd Street to the intersection with Road B. The street improvements in Rosario Avenue NE are further modified to require 20 feet of pavement, 8 foot planter and 5 foot sidewalk on the west side of the street. This would result in the need to provide 3 feet of dedication along the entire western property edge. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to provide an updated plat plan for review and approval by the Development Services Division with the re -designed road system prior to construction permit issuance. F. Parkin. Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate required off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. NE 2nd Street will accommodate parking on both sides. New Road A will accommodate parking on one side. New Road be will no accommodate on - street parking. G. Tree Retention. The Applicant submitted two Arborist reports dated February 14, 2012 and July 24, 2012 (Ex. 16). The Arborist reported the site contains 271 significant trees. Of these, the Applicant's Arborist determined 91 are dead and/or dangerous. 78 of the trees are located in the proposed roadway and 18 are proposed to be retained. The City's Urban Forester and Natural Resources Manager, Terry Flatley, visited the subject site and PRELIMINARY PLAT - 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 reviewed the February 14, 2012 Arborist report. Mr. Flatley presented his findings via e- mail on June 27, 2012 (Ex. 21). Based on the City's Urban Forester's conclusions, 16 trees should be subtracted from the dead and/or dangerous list included in the February 14, 2012 Arborist report, resulting in a total of 75 dead and/or dangerous trees. Based on the number of significant trees, the Applicant must retain the 18 trees proposed to be retained, and provide an additional 114 replacement trees at 2 -inch caliper. The Applicant has proposed to plant only 103 replacement trees. The Applicant must provide an updated tree retention worksheet and planting plan that meets the minimum retention and/or replacement requirements. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-250(C)(2) grants the Community and Economic Development Administrator or his/her designee the authority to approve waivers to street improvements. The waiver is classified as a Type I permit by RMC 4-8-080(G). However, RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest - number procedure". Staff testified that the street waiver request has been consolidated with the preliminary plat application, which is classified as a Type III application by RMC 4-8-080(6). Consequently, the street waiver request is also classified as a Type III application, which is subject to hearing examiner approval pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(G). 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Residential 4 dwelling units per net acre (R-4). The comprehensive plan reap land use designation is Residential Low Density (RLD). 3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(5): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code_ 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall he noted on the f nal plat. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 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 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes_ 4. As noted in Finding of Fact 6, this criterion is not satisfied with respect to lot width requirements (RMC 4-2-110). The Applicant contends the lot layout and widths have not been altered in the 18 months since the plat was originally proposed. It is not clear from the administrative record whether Staff addressed this concern during the review process. The Applicant stated they had assumed their request for street modifications encompassed a request for the plat layout as presented and that the Staffs recommended approval of the street modifications represented tacit approval of the plat as presented. There is nothing in the administrative record or in the testimony that suggests the Staff was aware of or in agreement with the Applicant's assumption that the street modification represented approval of the plat as presented. The Applicant also argued that RMC 4 -2 -110D -1I should apply because a reduction in lot width is necessary to achieve the maximum density on the plat. Staff argues the opposite stating the Applicant could achieve the allowable density without it. In either case RMC 4-2-110 defines a maximum allowable density; it does not define either a minimum density or guarantee that all plats will achieve the maximum density permitted under the zone. While it is unfortunate that the issue of the lot widths was not addressed in a more timely fashion, the code requirements have not changed. Condition of Approval 3 requires the Applicant to re -design the plat plan to provide for lots that meet the minimum lot dimensional standards and submit the new plat plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. The proposed lots comply with all other requirements of the R-4 zoning district as detailed by staff' at page 7-9 of the staff report, which is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. As noted in the staff report and shown on the preliminary plat map (Ex. 2), each lot will access new Roads A or B. No access will be permitted from NE 2nd Street. As discussed in Finding of fact 6(E), proposed Road C will be eliminated and 152°1 Avenue SE will be extended to meet Road B at the western property boundary. As noted in the Findings of Fact 5, there are no critical areas on the property. Consequently, the site has physical characteristics suitable for development. As determined in the Finding of Fact No. 7 and as conditioned, the proposal makes adequate provision for drainage, streets, water and sewer. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 5. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Section 1(1) of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. The proposal is consistent with applicable subdivision regulations as outlined in detail in the other PRELIMINARY PLAT - 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 conclusions of law in this decision. The proposal is consistent with applicable zoning standards and design standards as outlined in Section 1(2) and (3) of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full, excluding the staff's conclusions regarding lot width. One design standard that was raised during the hearing regarded house orientation. Members of the public expressed a desire to have the houses face NE 2nd Street as their front facade in order to provide a better aesthetic and community feel to the existing neighborhood. The Applicant notes that placing the front facade of the houses on Lots 12-14 towards NE 2nd Street is problematic, because then the lots on the north portion of the plat will be facing the rear of the houses on Lots 12-14 from a distance of only a 26' road, whereas the southern part of the property will have a landscape strip, sidewalk, 15' landscape buffer with street trees, a privacy fence and a grade change. Staff stated that the houses could be conditioned to face NE 2"d Street based on RMC 4-2-115-3, the primary entry guidelines. It is premature to address building orientation at this time. There is no information on proposed building design and orientation and none of this information is expected or required during subdivision review. RMC 4-2-115(3) regulates the orientation of single-family homes within subdivisions and provides that "front doors shall face the street and be on the facade closest to the street." Staff testified Road B is proposed to be less than a full street width, so they do not view it as a street in the sense envisioned by RMC 4-2-115-3. However, staff's interpretation of RMC 4-2-115(3) was "off the cuff' during the hearing and there is no indication whether this interpretation is consistent with past applications and whether the interpretation is supported by the legislative history of the regulation. Further, the required orientation of a home is dependent upon the location of building facades. There is no information in the record on building design or proposed building locations. None of this information is required or expected during subdivision review. RMC 4-2- 115(3) is a building design regulation that should be designed when building design is proposed and can be evaluated, which is the building permit review stage of development. Consequently, the resolution of this building design issue will be deferred to building permit review. The staff will be required to provide notice of this application of RMC 4-2-115(3) to affected neighbors, so that they have the opportunity to appeal the staff's application should they disagree with it. One option of dealing with the orientation issue would be to relocate Road B to the northern perimeter of the proposal. This would enable the Applicant to orient the homes along NE 2nd St. to their neighbors to the south and the homes along Road B to face the park property to the north. Of course, this redesign would have to comply with all City standards and staff would have to determine whether the redesign would trigger additional public review. Of course, moving Road B further north will require more frontage improvements along Rosario. If relocation of Road B is considered, staff and the Applicant will have to work out whether the added improvements are worth resolving the orientation issues. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 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 RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replotting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 6. The internal circulation system of the subdivision, as conditioned, connects to NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE (Rosario Ave NE). RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 7. As discussed in Finding of fact 6(E), City code requires extension of 152nd Avenue (Rosario Avenue NE) with full frontage improvements along the west boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing public right-of-way. However, the development of Road A to the north will accomplish the same purpose by providing a northern connection through the subject site. As conditioned, proposed Road C will be eliminated and 152nd Avenue SE will be extended to meet Road B at the western property boundary. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. 8. The staff report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the vicinity. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40111o) or greater as measured per RMC 4 -3 - PRELIMINARY PLAT - 16 1 2 3 4 5 6i 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4_ Streams.- a. treams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every eff"ort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 9. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4, the land is suitable for development. The property is not designated as a floodplain and there are no streams or steep slopes on site. As discussed in Findings of Fact 8(G), there are significant trees on the site. The City's Urban Forester has made recommendations regarding the number of trees that must be retained or replaced. The Applicant has proposed to retain 18 trees and provide 103 replacement trees at 2 -inch caliper. The City code requires 114 additional trees. As conditioned, the Applicant must provide an updated tree retention worksheet and planting plan that meets the minimum retention and/or replacement requirements. RMC 4-7-144: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 10, The MDNS requires the payment of Park and Recreation Impact fees. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street PRELIMINARY PLAT - 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 11. As discussed in Conclusion of Law 7, as conditioned, the proposed internal street system provides connectivity to NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE (Rosario Avenue NE) via proposed Roads A and B. Proposed Road A stubs at the northern property boundary. I RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 12. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 13. The record does not contain any information on the classification of NE 2nd Street or 152nd Ave SE, though neither road appears to be a public highway or major or secondary arterial. The proposal as conditioned will eliminate proposed Road C, and extend proposed Road B to connect with 152nd Ave SE, reducing the number of connections to the higher traveled road, NE 2nd Street. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125) are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 14. As conditioned the road network will be redesigned and submitted for approval by the Public Works Department. As noted in Finding of Fact 5, the present alignment of Road A could impact the existing house across from the road's planned southern terminus. A condition will require the Applicant and City to review the road location to determine if a better location for the southern terminus can be found that will reduce potential impacts while maximizing traffic safety. RMC 4-7-150(E)- 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation EIement Objective T -A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD -M and Policies CD -50 and CD -60. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 18 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 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a 'flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow.future connectivity. S. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones_ Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul -de -Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 15. As recommended by staff, the Applicant will be required to extend Road B to Rosario and eliminate Road C. This will eliminate the cul-de-sac discouraged by the regulations above and will also foster the grid system encouraged by the regulations. As testified by staff, the connection to Rosario was initially not required because it was believed that wetlands blocked the connection. Since those wetlands were ultimately determined to not be present, the connectivity required by the regulations above should be implemented. RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 16. As discussed in Conclusion of Law 30 and as conditioned, subject to the street modification approval (Ex. 10), as amended herein. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot PRELIMINARY PLAT - 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 17. As conditioned and as discussed in Conclusion of Law 7. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 18. As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines as currently proposed are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. However, as noted in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusion of Law 3, the Applicant will be required to re -design and resubmit the lot plan for the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance to comply with lot dimensional requirements. Compliance with this criterion will be reassessed at that time. RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 19. As previously determined, each lot will have access to a public street or road via proposed private Roads A and B. RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 20. Some of the lots of the proposed subdivision do not appear to comply with applicable lot width requirements. RMC 4-2-110(A) requires a minimum lot width of 70 ft for interior lots and 80 feet for corner lots. Eight of the fourteen proposed lots do not meet the lot width requirements. The Applicant testified that the lot configurations have not changed in 18 months and that Staff had never brought up the lot width consideration before. Additionally, the Applicant stated they felt that their request for street modification was also a request for relief from the requirement to meet the minimum lot widths. The Applicant noted the lots were larger than the minimum size and met depth requirements. The Applicant argued that RMC 4-2-110(D) Footnote No. 11 allows lots to be reduced to 60 feet wide if necessary to meet achieve a density of four dwelling units per net acre. Staff argued the Applicant will meet 4 dwelling units per acre without the variance and also that staff has granted some modifications to street width requirements in order to enable the Applicant to achieve the 4 du/acre density. RMC 4-2-110(D) does provide that "lot ...width... may be reduced ...when due to lot configuration or access, four (4) dwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved". It is fairly self-evident from the PRELIMINARY PLAT - 20 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 plat map of the proposal that the lot configuration cannot be altered in any meaningful way to achieve compliance with lot width requirements. Consequently, the Applicant must be permitted to reduce lot widths to 60 feet to the extent necessary to achieve a four dwelling per acre density. Staff testified that the proposal already has achieved a density of four units per acre. There is no information in the record that enables the Examiner to precisely verify that the density of the proposal has achieved a net density of four units per acre as defined by RMC 4-11-040. Further, if the Applicant is required to revise its plat to expand the lot widths to those required by RMC 4-2-110(A), there is nothing the record to suggest that the proposal would continue to have a net density at or more than four units per acre if it already does so presently. For these reasons, the proposal shall be conditioned to require staff to verify that the net density is at four units per acre or more and that if that density is currently achieved that the widths of substandard lots shall be reconfigured to required widths to the maximum possible until a maximum density of 3.501 dwelling units per acre or more is achieved. As noted in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusion of Law 4, this criterion is not satisfied with respect to lot width and lot width variation requirements (RMC 4-2-115). Condition of Approval 3, requires the Applicant to re -design the plat plan to provide for lots that meet the minimum lot dimensional standards and submit the new plat plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. The proposed lots comply with all other requirements of the R-4 zoning district. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35). 21. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offfteen feet (15). 22. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. RMC 4-11-444 provides that density calculations resulting in a fraction of 0.50 or greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 23. With the exception of the tree retention requirements discussed in Finding of fact 6(G) and Conclusion of Law 9, no natural features as described above are located at the project site. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8� into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 24. As designed and as conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate sanitary sewer facilities in conformance with applicable City sanitary sewer standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 8 (A). RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of 'the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 25. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 8 (C). RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 26. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 27. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line PRELIMINARY PLAT - 22 1 by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley 2 improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to 3 bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider 4 shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to f nal ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the 5 subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 6 28. As conditioned. 7 RMC 4-7-210: 8 A. MONUMENTS: 9 Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of 10 the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys 11 shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. 12 B. SUR VEY.- 13 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 14 C. STREET SIGNS: 15 The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 16 17 29. As conditioned. 18 RMC 4-9-250(C)(5): Decision Criteria for Waivers of Street Improvements: Reasonable justif cation shall include but not be limited to the following: 19 a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a 20 negative impact on a shoreline's area. 21 b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible. 22 c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties, such as 23 restricting available access. 24 d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood that the 25 improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (10) years. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 23 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 e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not installed, and that the improvements are not needed for current or future development. 30. The dedication requirements of RMC 4-6-060(EI) and street improvement requirements of RMC 4-6-060(C) are waived to the extent that they apply to Rosario north of its connection with Road B. requires the extension full of street improvements along the entire border of any development site adjacent to a public right of way. The waiver is justified under RMC 4-9- 250(C)(5)(d) because Rosario is not improved to the north and as determined in the findings of fact it is unlikely that Rosario will ever be improved north of Road B because of development to the north. No detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are anticipated by the waiver and the waived improvements are not needed since connectivity to properties to the north is assured by Road A. The administrative record contains absolutely no justification for any modifications to the street standards of Road B. There is nothing apparent from the record that establishes how the proposed deviations from Road B standards satisfies the criteria of RMC 4-9- 250(C)(5). Especially as a through street that serves as part of the areas street grid system, there is no apparent reason why Road B should be designed differently than any other residential access street. It is far from clear, but one reason staff may have justified the Road B waiver is in order to enable the Applicant to achieve a higher density. This by itself does not serve as sufficient grounds to justify a waiver under RMC 4-9-250(C)(5). Since the RMC authorizes the staff to make a final decision on street waiver requests and there may be a valid reason why the requests for Road B deviations should be approved, the requested deviations to Road B standards are denied without prejudice so that staff may review the request on its own and make its own record for establishing compliance with RMC 4- 9-250(C)(5). DECISION The requested street modifications are approved and denied in part as outlined in Conclusion of Law No. 30. The proposed preliminary plat is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with the four mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated September 24, 2012. 2. The site contains two existing easements for road and utilities per LLA489033, 5872161, 5958267, and restated by Rec. No. 8410250053. The Applicant shall provide proof of relinquish of the subject easements to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording. 3. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. PRELIMINARY PLAT - 24 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 4. The Applicant shall provide an updated tree retention worksheet, tree retention plan and planting plan that meet the minimum retention and/or replacement requirements of RMC 4- 4-130_ The above plan sets and worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 5. The Applicant shall provide screening landscaping along the perimeter of Tract A. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. Screening landscaping shall be required to be installed and inspected prior to final plat recording. 6. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City prior to or along with Construction Permit Application. 7. Staff will apply the design standard related to primary entry (RMC 4-2-115-3) during building permit review or whenever this issue is normally addressed by staff. Notice of the staffs decision on application of RMC 4-2-115(3) along with associated appeal rights shall be mailed to all property owners on the southern side of NE 2nd St that are facing the proposal at the time the decision is made. 8. Staff shall determine the net density of the proposed subdivision as defined by RMC 4-11- 040. If the proposal exceeds 3.50 du/acre, the Applicant shall, to the maximum extent possible and as approved by staff, increase the substandard lot widths (up to required widths) to reduce the density to 3.50 du/acre. 9. Road C shall be eliminated and Road B shall be extended to Rosario. Road B shall comply with all applicable road standards unless a waiver is approved by staff. Road B may be moved to the northern perimeter of the plat in order to resolve the home orientation issues addressed in Finding of Fact No. 5 if determined by staff to comply with all applicable development standards and that the redesign would not trigger additional public review. DATED this 9th day of November, 2012. W Phil Olbrechts (Signed original in off tial file) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(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 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 25 I request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day 2 appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information 3 regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th floor, (425) 430-6510. 4 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 5 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT - 26 Matt Hough, PE Tiffiny Brown Shara Hagerman CPH Consultants 11980 NE 24th Street #200 15227 SE 132nd Street 7337 th Av #100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Renton, WA 98059 Kirkland, WA 98033 Robert Hagerman 15227 SE 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 Jim & Linda St. John 6009 NE 15t Circle Renton, WA 98059 Terry Taylor 15243 SE 132nd St Renton, WA 98059 D.E. Blood 3711 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 Douglas Bornstine 15235 SE 132nd St Renton, WA 98059 N_ cF J y- ry Z Z'> d C "�� 3 0 � a�� �LNb �' :a y.`o =�. u c � � h c- ., u.°-•". tkbz� T cry vZr sV� u y rc0� pu_ y_ n oo car -c C zoa o — �p v o ��U .'CtOpC:� o aR�a � y� nR 50 f� o. roc �s ❑ ptry CS��CL• �` u c ooz c cx v c� onn w `c Epi °R a Ct',Z V, �'C �'� ,q y �'_� o� �v'Q �._'� `'� �� y u.EL �F-y�mO� U'4? Y o v c �� 2 a rs � WA.WCt.cc-?'F=y p u- -.c v0.-5�vov v r wac Vy: �i a S MA J r v 0 oma, . bl) aA ae ro IJ bju ctb o X-"� O L Q 4' ^-' I.}I :� • •U--• bA r4�J di - y +Y Irl n0 , L Qa •� a C:1 m U >✓ ISI Qa.fJ :j Rs �0/� C bA c3 C d d� C tV, °-3 C- 4.) , � b � N �ova cu Q � QA �c >,U�� Gzl 04)ISI j�/ GI�� C'•' U C -n GA ^ud Q � CL ay L) t)= I.. C 47 U t In. 0 '�' u ) 0 0 Iz,C � cl :n 3 s~ o a� o Qp� cu f��d cs ono..,.C�U cn�F �i a S MA J r v 0 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 17th day of October, 2012, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Matt Hough Contact Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC Owner/Applicant Sandy & Terry Taylor Party of Record Robert D. Hagerman Party of Record Jim & Linda St. John Party of Record D.E. Blood Party of Record Tom Zywicki Party of Record Douglas Bornstine Party of Record (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) i Q� • ,r y certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker fit ►► � `r`'`te signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Notary 1111ublic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): H A , - My appointment expires: /.c,� _ al 6 0 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat LUA12-018, ECF, PP CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: October 17, 2012 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: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat LUA (file) Number: LUA-12-018, ECF, PP Cross -References: s AKA's: Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee Acceptance Date: March 22, 2012 Applicant: Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC Owner: Burnstead Construction, LLC Contact: Matt Hough, PE, CPH Consultants PID Number: 1423059003 f ERC Decision Date: September 24, 2012 ERC Appeal Date: October 12, 2012 Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: I Public Hearing Date: October 23, 2012 a Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 -lot single- family residential subdivision. Location: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street & 152nd Avenue SE (aka Rosario) Comments: Denis Law Mcity O Mayor ,��_ rd Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator October 17, 2012 Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Avenue ste: #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: . Maplewood Park East f_UA12-018, ECF, PP Dear Ms. Brown: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended October 12, 2012 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non -Significance -- Mitigated for the above -referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination therefore, this decision is final. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures outlined in the Report and Decision dated September 24, 2012. Also, a Hearing Examiner public hearing has been scheduled for October 23, 2012 at 10:00 a.m., where conditions of approval may be issued. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present. Enclosed is a copy of the Report to the Hearing Examiner for your review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, fajw�—DACQ_, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC / Owner/Applicant Sandy & Terry Taylor, Robert D. Hagerman, Jim & Linda St. John, D. E. Blood, Tom Zywicki, Douglas Bornstine/ Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 . rentonwa_gov DEPARTMENT OF COM„►.JNITY City of. „N AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT rt REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST REPORT DATE: October 16, 2012 Project !Name: Maplewood Park East Owner: Burnstead Construction, LLC, 11980 NE 24th Street, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98005 Applicant: Tiff iny Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC, 11980 NE 24th Street, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98005 Contact. Matt Hough, PE, CPH Consultants, 733 7th Avenue #100, Kirkland, WA 98033 File Number: LUA12-018, ECF, PP Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres in size. Lot sizes vary from 8,135 to 10,926 square feet, 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed resulting in a net density of 4.02 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 271 protected trees of which 18 are proposed to be retained with 103 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. With the application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. Project Location: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE (aka Rosario) Site Area: 196,188 SF (4.50 acres) Project Location Map HEX Report 12-018_2.doc City of Renton Department of Ca pity & Economic Development Preliminary Plat Report MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST tUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of October 16, 2012 Page 2 of 12 B. EXHIBITS. Exhibit 1: Staff Report, dated October 16, 2012 Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3: Plat Map (2 sheets) Exhibit 4: Conceptual Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 5: Tree Replacement Plan Exhibit 6: Preliminary Landscape Plan, sheets L1.1— L1.3 Exhibit 7: Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit 8: Roadway Sections Exhibit 9: Conceptual Utility Plan Exhibit 10: Street Modifications Exhibit 11: Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, 18 pages, 2 figures, and 3 appendices Exhibit 12: Geotechnical Report, 11 pages, 3 figures, and one appendix Exhibit 13. Wetland Reports; three prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc. dated July 15, 2011, June 28, 2012 and August 31, 2012, Exhibit 14: Otak, reconnaissance e-mail, dated August 14, 2012 Exhibit 15: Traffic Analysis, 6 pages, 3 attachments Exhibit 16. Arborist Reports, two prepared by International Forestry Consultants, Inc., dated February 14, 2012 and July 24, 2012. Exhibit 17: Public Comment, e-mail Exhibit 18: SEPA Determination Exhibit 19: ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Exhibit 20: Affidavit of Mailing Exhibit 21: Terry Flatley, City of Renton's Urban Forester and Natural Resources Manger's e-mail HEX Report 12-018 2.doc City of Renton Department of Cor nity & Economic Development Preliminary Plat Report MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST LUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of October 16, 2012 Page 3 of 12 C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: Z. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: S. Neighborhood Characteristics: Burnstead Construction, LLC 11980 NE 24th Street, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 9800S Residential — 4 du/ac (R-4) Residential Low Desnity (RLD) Vacant Land a. North: King County Parks property zoned (R-4 zone) b. East: Single Family Residential (R-4 zone) c. South: Single Family Residential (King County R-4 zone) d. West: Single Family Residential (King County R-4 zone) 6. Site Area: 196,188 SF (4.50 acres) D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No_ Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5099 11/01/04 Pre -zoning N/A 5254 01/17/07 Annexation N/A 5552 11/07/10 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities a_ Water: Water service will be provided by Water District #90. b. Sewer: Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in NE 2nd Street. c. Surface/Storm Water: There is no drainage conveyance fronting the site in NE 2nd Street; however, there is an 18 -inch culvert to the west. 2. Streets: There are no street frontage improvements in NE 2nd Street. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards HEX Report 11-018 1.doc City of Renton Department of Cor nity & Economic Development MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST Report of October 16, 2012 a. Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations b. Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations Preliminary Plat Report LUA12-018, ECF, PP Page 4 of 12 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards S. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions b. Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan — General Requirements and Minimum Standards c. Section 4-7-150: Streets — General Requirements and Minimum Standards d. Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks — General Requirements and Minimum Standards e. Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots —General Requirements and Minimum Standards S. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element H. FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat in order to subdivide a 4.50 acre site into 14 single family lots and two tracts; one tract for storm drainage and the other for landscaping and utilities (Tracts A and B). The proposal would result in a density of 4.02 du/ac. 2. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on March 13, 2012 and determined complete on March 22, 2012. The project was placed on hold on March 28, 2012 and reinstated on May 14, 2012; again the project was placed on hold June 7, 2012 and reinstated on September 20, 2012. The project complies with the 120 -day review period. 3. The proposed plat would be located on the north side of NE 2nd St just east of 152"d Avenue SE. 4. The property is in the Residential Low Density (RLQ) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Residential -4 (R-4) zoning classification. Lands in the RLD designation are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger -lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4 du/net acre, to its inventory. 5. The proposed subdivision would result in 14 lots ranging in lot size from 8,135 to 10,926 square feet and two tracts. 6. The site is currently vacant and forested. The current site contains 271 significant trees of which 98 are determined to be dead and/or dangerous by the applicants Arborist, 73 would be located in the proposed roadway and 18 are proposed to be retained. 7. The site is rectangular in shape. 8. The following table identifies the proposed approximate dimensions for Lots 1-14: As Proposed Lot Size Width Depth Lot 1 8,628 SF 80 feet 110 feet Lot 2 8,140 SF 74 feet 110 feet HEX Report 12-018 2_doc City of Renton Department of Cor inity & Economic Development Preliminary Plot Report MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST LUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of October 16, 2012 Page 5 of 12 Lot 3 8,140 SF 74 feet 110 feet Lot 4 8,135 SF 74 feet 110 feet Lot 5 8,247 SF 73 feet 113 feet Lot 6 8,325 SF 74 feet 113 feet Lot 7 9,195 SF 62 feet 147 feet Lot 8 9,263 SF 63 feet 146 feet Lot 9 9,093 SF 65 feet 140 feet Lot ID 9,048 SF 67 feet 135 feet Lot 11 10,926 SF 64 feet 145 feet Lot I2 8,469 SF 75 feet 113 feet Lot 13 8,139 SF 72 feet 113 feet Lot 14 8,438 SF 75 feet 113 feet Storm Drainage Tract A 24,971 SF - Landscape and Utilities Tract B No information provided - 9. Access to Lots 1-6 would be provided along a new public road, Road A, Lots 11 —14 would be access via a new public road, Road B. In addition to Road A and B, a new public Road C is proposed and frontage improvements along NE 2nd Street. Both Road C and Road A would provide direct access from NE 2nd Street and Road B would connect Road C and Road A through the middle of the proposed development. 10. The site grade descends to the west-southwest with approximately 30 feet of elevation relief from the parcels northeast to southwest corners. This relief is carried over a gentle slope gradient of about five to six percent. A geotechnical report for the site was submitted. Information on the water table and soil permeability with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options were included. 11. There are no critical areas on site. 12. The conceptual landscape plan submitted with the application includes the installation of street trees within a proposed 8 -foot planter along the frontage of NE 2nd Street and the new Road A. Along the proposed new Road B and C, trees are proposed in the 10 -foot landscape strip required along the front of each lot. Additional Shore Pine trees are proposed along the edge of the Drainage Tract (Exhibit 6). Vegetation proposed includes: deciduous and coniferous trees and a conceptual shrub and ground cover list including but not limited to sword fern, kinnikinnick Massachusetts, and dwarf red twig dogwood. 13. A street modification was issued, on January 3, 2012 by the Development Services Division Director, modifying the street standards for the subject development (Exhibit 10). 14. A drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted with the application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The Engineer proposes to develop an on-site combined detention and water quality pond in conjunction with a series of on-site rain gardens. The TIR indicates that on-site stormwater controls would maintain the existing drainage pattern and ultimate downstream discharge in accordance with current flow control standards. 15. Based on the provided Geotechnical Report the whole scale infiltration of development stormwater would not be feasible as the silty sand with gravel observed in the test pits has a low permeability and typically would not be suitable for infiltration of stormwater on a large scale 16. The site contains two existing easements for road and utilities per LLA489033, 5872161, 5958267, and restated by Rec. No. 8410250053. The applicant has proposed to relinquish these easements from title. HEX Report 12-018 2.doc City of Renton Deportment of Co, mitt' & Economic Development Preliminary Plat Report MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST LUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of October 16, 2012 Page 6 of 12 17. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on September 24, 2012, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- significance - Mitigated (DNS -M) for the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat (Exhibit 18). The DNS -M included 4 mitigation measures. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on September 28, 2012 and ended on October 12, 2012. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 18. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: 1) The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. dated February 21, 2012. Z) The applicant shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. 3) The applicant shall pay a Transportation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. 4) The applicant shall pay a Fire Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. 19. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report. 20..One public comment was received (Exhibit 17), regarding traffic concerns and no agency comments were received. I. CONCLUSIONS: PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies if all conditions of approval are complied with: Policy LU -147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for ✓ residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or areas identified as urban separators. Policy LU -157. Within the Residential du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density of 4 ✓ units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. Policy CD -12. Sidewalks or walking paths should be provided along streets in established ✓ neighborhoods, where sidewalks have not been previously constructed. Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic and, where practical, match existing sidewalks. Policy CD -15. Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established ✓ neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and /or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on HEX Report 12-018 2.doc City of Renton Department of Cor nity & Economic Development MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST Report of October 16, 2012 Preliminary Plat Report LVA12-018, ECF, PP Page 7 of 12 elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas. Policy CD -17. Setbacks and other development standards should not be reduced on newly platted lots through modification or variance to facilitate increased density. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING DESIGNATION: The subject site is classified Residential -4 du/ac (R-4) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. RMC 4-2-110A provides development standards for development within the R-4 zoning classification. The proposal is consistent with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are complied with: Density: The maximum density permitted in the R-4 zone is 4.0 dwelling units per net acre. All fractions which result from net density calculations shall be truncated at two (2) numbers past the decimal (e.g., 4.5678 becomes 4.56). Calculations for minimum or maximum density which result in a fraction that is 0.50 or greater shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. Those density calculations resulting in a fraction that is less than 0.50 shall be ✓ rounded down to the nearest whole number. Staff Comment: After subtracting approximately 44,654 square feet of road for proposed right-of-way dedications, the net square footage of the site is 151,534 square feet (3.48 net acres). The 14 lot proposal would arrive at a net density of 4.02 dwelling units per acre (14 lots / 3.48 acres = 4.02 du/ac), which falls within the permitted density range for the R-4 zone. Due to a number of recommended conditions of approval density calculations will be required to be "re -calculated" prior to construction permit issuance. Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot size permitted in the R-4 zoning designation is 8,000 square feet. A minimum lot width of 70 feet is required for interior lots and SO feet for corner lots. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of 80 feet. Not Staff Comment: As demonstrated in the table above under finding of fact 8, all lots meet the Compliant requirements for minimum lot size and depth. However, some of the proposed lot widths are less than the required 70 and/or 80 feet. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the plat be re -designed to provide for lots that meet the minimum lot dimensional standards. Setbacks: Setbacks in the R-4 zone are the following: front yard is 30 feet; a side yard along the street is 20 feet; interior side yard is 5 feet; the rear yard is 25 feet. J Staff Comment: The setback requirements for proposed Lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. However, due to the requirement to meet Lot Configuration Standards in RMC 4-2-115, setbacks are required to be varied at least five feet minimum for at least everyfour abutting street fronting lots. Building Standards: Building height is restricted to 30 feet. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story. The allowed building lot coverage for lots over 5,000 SF in size in the R-4 zone is 35 percent or 2,500 SF, whichever is greater. The allowed impervious surface coverage is 55 percent. Staff Comment. The building standards for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. Landscaping: Ten feet of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways per RMC 4-4-070. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover as approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development. Minimum planting strip widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060. Street trees and, at a minimum, groundcover are to be located in this area when present. Where there is insufficient right-of-way space or no public frontage, street trees are required in the front yard. A minimum of two (2) trees are to be located in the front yard prior to final inspection. HEX Report 12-018 2.doc City of Renton Deportment of Con nity & Economic Development Preliminary Plat Report MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST LUA12-01$, ECF, PP Report of October 16, 2012 Page S of 12 HEX Report 12-018 2.doc Staff Comment: As proposed the conceptual landscape plan does comply with the 10 foot wide on-site landscape requirement. However, there are no trees proposed in the portions of on-site street frontage landscaping located along Road A and NE 2nd Street as required. However, along the frontage of Road B and Road C trees are proposed in the on -side landscapes strip. Although, along Road A and NE 2nd street the street frontage improvements would require an 8 -foot planting strip between the back of the curb and the sidewalk where trees are required to be planted as well. The applicant has proposed to plant White barked Himalayan birch trees in the planting strips. As such, all lots would have trees along the frontage either in the on-site landscape strip or in the planting strip, therefore staff recommends approval of the proposed mix of shrubs and ground cover in the on-site landscape strips along Road A and NE 2nd Street. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. Parking: Each unit is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Staff Comment: Sufcient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. 3. DESIGN STANDARDS: RMC 4-2-115 provides residential and open space standards for development within the R-4 zoning classification. The proposal is consistent with the following design standards if all conditions of approval are complied with: Lot Configuration: One of the Fallowing is required: Lot width variation of 10 feet minimum of one per four abutting street fronting lots, or Partially Minimum of four lot sizes (minimum of 400 gross square feet size difference), or Compliant A front yard setback variation of at least five feet minimum for at least every four abutting street fronting lots. Staff Comment: As proposed the project would not meet the minimum standards for lot width variation or lot size variations, as such the development would be required to provide setback variation for street fronting lots. 4. COMMUNITY ASSETS: The proposal is consistent with the following community asset requirements if all conditions of approval are complied with: Tree Retention: RMC Thirty percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. Staff Comment: The current site contains 271 significant trees of which 98 are determined to be dead and/or dangerous by the applicant's Arborist, 78 would be located in the proposed roadway and 18 are proposed to be retained. The applicant submitted two Arborist reports the first dated February 14, 2012 and the second dated July 24, 2012 (Exhibit 16). The first report addressed dead and dangerous trees but excluded red alders and black cottonwood trees from the site. The second report Not addresses the red alders and black cottonwoods. Based on the provided reports 91 trees Compliant were identified as dead or dangerous. 57 are alders, 5 black cottonwoods, 22 big leaf maples, 3 western hemlocks, 2 cherry trees, and one Douglas fir and western red cedar. The City's Urban Forester and Natural Resources Manager, Terry Flatley, visited the subject site and reviewed the February 14, 2012 Arborist report and provided an e-mail dated June 27, 2012 including his findings (Exhibit 21). In the provided e-mail the Urban Forester identified 16 trees as having no immediate danger (reducing this number by two due to conflicts), 2 trees missing in the field, two trees questionable, and 9 trees which he agrees should be removed. Based on the City's Urban Forester's conclusions 16 trees should be subtracted from the dead and/or dangerous list included in the February 14, 2012 Arborist report. This deduction would result in 13 trees which would meet the deduction from the required tree HEX Report 12-018 2.doc City of Renton Department of Coity & Economic Development MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST Report of October 16, 2012 Preliminary Plat Report LUA12-018, ECF, PP Page 9 of 12 HEX Report 12-018 2.doc retention pursuant to the February 14, 2012 Arborist Report and 62 from the July 24, 2012 Report for a total of 75 trees. In the provided tree retention worksheet the applicant has included 98 trees which is inconsistent with the two provided Arborists reports and the recommendations made by the City's Urban Forester and Natural Resources Manager. if 75 dead and/or dangerous trees were utilized in the tree retention worksheet, with the proposed 18 trees to be retained, the applicant would be required to provide 114 replacement trees at 2 -inch caliper. At this time the applicant has proposed to provide 103 replacement trees as a part of the proposed development. As such staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant provide an updated tree retention worksheet and planting plan that meets the minimum retention and/or replacement requirements. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: RMC 4-7 Provides review criteria for the subdivisions. The proposal is consistent with the following subdivision regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with: Access: Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. Staff Comment: Proposed Lots 1 — 6 would have access from Road A, and Lots 7 —14 would ✓ have access from Road B. However, to reduce the impacts on the pedestrian circulation system along NE 2nd Street and eliminate curb cuts where sidewalks are required, staff recommends a condition of approval that a covenant shall be placed on the face of the plat restricting access far lots 12 -14 to be from Rood B. N/A Blocks: Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two tiers of lots. Streets: The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets per the Street Standards outlined in RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. Staff Comment: As mentioned in finding of fact 13 above, staff provided the applicant with documentation supporting a road modification as part of the preliminary plot recommendation. Subsequent to issuance of the modification evidence was provided by the applicant documenting the absence of previously recorded wetlands along the western boundary of the site. The lack of presence of wetlands and buffers results in the code requirement to provide street improvements along all frontages. Due to this change in circumstances, staff recommends the following street improvement modifications in -lieu of the previously approved modification: • Road B: The January 3, 2012 modification approved the reduction in the street width to be constructed with 20 feet of pavement and no sidewalks, with a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway marked on one side of the pavement area. The right-of-way Not was approved to be a minimum of 26 feet in width. This modification is primarily Compliant consistent with the City's private street standards. It is assumed; due to the lot width requirements, that 6lots would be developed along the north property line. As such, Road B would only be accessing 6 lots. However, to qualify far a private street 2 of the 6 lots are required to front a public road. This would most likely not be the case. As such, staff recommends approval of the modification as represented in the January 3, 2012 letter from Neil Watts, Development Services Director due to the existing City private street standards. + Extension of 152nd Avenue SE or Rosario Avenue NE: Street improvements would be required per code along the west boundary of the site, adjacent to the existing public right-of-way. However, due to the development of Road A to the north, which would provide the northern connection, staff recommends a modification to the frontage improvements along the west to terminate at the intersection of Road B. The street improvements in Rosario Av NE are recommended to be modified as follows: 20 feet of pavement, 8 foot planter and S foot sidewalk. This would result in the need to HEX Report 12-018 2.doc City of Renton Department of Ca nity & Economic Development MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST Report of October 16, 2012 Preliminary Plat Report LUA11-018, ECF, PP Page 10 of 12 HEX Report 12-018 2_doc provide 3 feet of dedication along the entire western property edge. Staff recommends that the improvements only be required to the connection with Road B. in addition to the above street modification staff recommends the elimination of Road C as the project would be required to provide street frontage improvements along the west boundary of the site. Road B should be extended to the west to connect with the new north south extension of 152nd Avenue SE or Rosario Avenue NE instead of connecting with Road C. Furthermore, Road A would be required to be built per City of Renton street standards which would result in 53 feet of required right-of-way. Please note, there was a calculation error in the provided street modification letter dated January 3, 2012, which stated the road width should be 52 feet. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide an updated plat plan for review and approval by the Development Services Division with the re -designed road system prior to construction permit issuance. Relationship to Existing Uses: The proposed project is compatible with existing surrounding uses. Staff Comment: The properties surrounding the subject site are single-family residences and are designated R-4 on the City's and King County's zoning maps. The proposal is similar to existing development patterns in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, which encourages large lot development. However, the applicant has proposed to develop a storm drainage tract, Tract A, in the northeast corner of the intersection of NE 21fd Street and 152"d Avenue SE. Typically storm ponds are large "holes in the ground" surrounded by a fence. This type of development would not be compatible with the surrounding residential development. The aesthetic impacts of a fenced storm pond could be relieved by the addition of screening landscaping around the perimeter of the pond. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide screening landscaping on the outside of the fence (if a fence is proposed) or along the perimeter of Tract A. 5. AVAILABILITY AND IMPACT ON PUBLC SERVICES: Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new single- family lots, was recommended as part of the SEPA review, in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Schools: It is anticipated that the Issaquah School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Briarwood Elementary, Maywood Middle School and Liberty High School. A School Impact Fee, based on new single- family lot, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to the Issaquah School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $3,568.00 per single family residence. Storm Water: An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Staff Comment: Under existing conditions the site drainage infiltrates as the site is currently undeveloped and forested. The storm drainage and TESL standards for the project are established by the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual (KCSWM) and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The development site is required to provide Basic Water Quality treatment in addition to level 2 flow control. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report ("TIR") prepared by CP I H Consultants, dated March, 8 2012 (Exhibit 11). Based on the provided TiR the applicant is HEX Report 12-018 2_doc City of Renton Department of Co nity & Economic Development MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST Report of October 16, 2012 Preliminary Plat Report LUA12-018, ECF, PP Page 11 of 12 I. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the four mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated September 24, 2012. 2. The site contains two existing easements for road and utilities per LLA489033, 5872161, 5958267, and restated by Ret. No. 8410250053. The applicant shall provide proof of relinquish of the subject easements to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording. 3. The plat plan shall be re -designed to provide for lots that meet the minimum lot dimensional standards. A revised plat pian shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. 4. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. 5. The development of the proposed lots would be required to provide setback variation for street fronting lots, pursuant to RMC 4-2-115. 6. The applicant shall provide an updated tree retention worksheet, tree retention plan and planting plan that meet the minimum retention and/or replacement requirements of RMC 4-4-130. The above plan sets and worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 7. The applicant shall place a covenant on the face of the plat restricting access for lots 12 -14 to be from Road B. 8. The pedestrian path markings along Road B shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance 9. The applicant shall provide an updated plat plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Development Services Plan Review with the re -aligned road system prior to construction permit issuance. HEX Report 12-018 2.doc proposing to develop an on-site combined detention and water quality pond in conjunction with a series of on-site rain gardens. The drainage report discusses meeting the area specific flow control requirement under Core Requirement #3. Additionally a Level 2 analysis will be required. Additionally, a Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Department of Ecology and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Pion (SWPPP) would be required for development of the subject site. The provided Geotechnical Report (Exhibit 12) evaluated the on-site soils to determine their percolation rate. Based on the provided Geotechnical Report the whole scale infiltration of development stormwater would not be feasible as the silty sand with gravel observed in the test pits has a low permeability and typically would not be suitable for infiltration of stormwater on a large scale. Water and Sanitary Sewer: Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City prior to or along with Partial Construction Permit Application. Compliance Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadways will be required. The subject parcel falls within the assessment area known as the Wyman latecomer Agreement. The Wyman final sewer assessment is $45,948.04. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. A 6 -inch sewer stub shall be provided to each lot_ I. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the four mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated September 24, 2012. 2. The site contains two existing easements for road and utilities per LLA489033, 5872161, 5958267, and restated by Ret. No. 8410250053. The applicant shall provide proof of relinquish of the subject easements to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final plat recording. 3. The plat plan shall be re -designed to provide for lots that meet the minimum lot dimensional standards. A revised plat pian shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. 4. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Plat recording. 5. The development of the proposed lots would be required to provide setback variation for street fronting lots, pursuant to RMC 4-2-115. 6. The applicant shall provide an updated tree retention worksheet, tree retention plan and planting plan that meet the minimum retention and/or replacement requirements of RMC 4-4-130. The above plan sets and worksheet shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. 7. The applicant shall place a covenant on the face of the plat restricting access for lots 12 -14 to be from Road B. 8. The pedestrian path markings along Road B shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance 9. The applicant shall provide an updated plat plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Development Services Plan Review with the re -aligned road system prior to construction permit issuance. HEX Report 12-018 2.doc City of Renton Department of Cor pity & Economic Development Preliminary Plat Report MAPLE'WOOD PARK EAST LUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of October 16, 2012 Page 12 of 12 10. The applicant shall provide screening landscaping along the perimeter of Tract A. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Construction Permit issuance. Screening landscaping shall be required to be installed and inspected prior to final plat recording. 11. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City prior to or along with Construction Permit Application. HEX Report 12-018_2.doc W � a � Z _ N CD — °-7 H w w 0 _' 0 Z � 0 I �L�w z o—. 2 l IEl H co x W i� , �--r- �I �- 11 1 I I I if W � a � Z _ N CD — °-7 H w w 0 _' 0 Z � 0 I �L�w z o—. 2 l IEl H co x W .16Vitl 3,st.sz oom ,sc SirI .6S'6Z£ € N = z # 3.L*A400N ,zZ"ELL 15;,. F, C T o Ccw6 r.� oy� q�n a�nri f'r'1k .�s' ,SON m '4 ^��a Pri S�jotn� 9 A L1 r9io ,VP £ x$ ��rigz YZN a�z8 F52, `ZZ"`^ w^•c,a��Fa6 a �F g i n W� mY 4LCi ��d Wa .'�' ZF Oii� qry zap z �U ,� HAI MOL I Yq�mOL6 � U V�aw 2 r 0 W g a �a�no awn Ilk 3.L*A400N ,zZ"ELL 15;,. F, C T 6 F€ X Z �9 W G ami zn^ �m m o EZgg o g a a W x ¢ m 9 A 6 �m Ilk 4 - C) 3.L*A400N ,zZ"ELL 15;,. F, Z dam L a Z T5 G ami zn^ �m m OK� UOm A 4 - C) I g ym g�,;az 9 �p ¢E ZUN Y� 3 �Fu�Wii Pg�€OEYi G�SV zad$ mos# z�w ZY �Wy�ja ✓�U L�< �"F E W z i_ j�� � xtclal��`'?a�yJZ Qy, t7BY �Z�[Lip —ADO—Nt�W � 3VI .. gw w so � I I Tl K.�WnW is (C�m-2Wy �UFY�hhL�,' N $� L a G ami zn^ �m r z¢�� < 1 6 11 m 1 isv<„W' UOm A 9 A 6 I g ym g�,;az 9 �p ¢E ZUN Y� 3 �Fu�Wii Pg�€OEYi G�SV zad$ mos# z�w ZY �Wy�ja ✓�U L�< �"F E W z i_ j�� � xtclal��`'?a�yJZ Qy, t7BY �Z�[Lip —ADO—Nt�W � 3VI .. gw w so � I I Tl K.�WnW is (C�m-2Wy �UFY�hhL�,' N /� 4'.• C'•�i 'Oa ■� v O FSI W Q�:'� c� ["1 L9L@56S '39i LL$S 'ECp6gW71 ii3d S3lFLlNlI � .D� E � LIYOa X03 1N3N?Sv? ,o'oC 4'll. ,69"6ZE �__�` 3,61,1Z.DON ,WYL �,OP'yL ci BE m � ' .O6'fL ,a0'f1 p0 -1L 9' ~w�—f4'b2[ 3.6i,fLAON o .C6LSl ��yS-ILl � 1 Qt' QR — =g� � ,4fT1 ,7A'4L .6LZOl gL� d n N b aM �` I N mr" ------------ ---3,6c,tiz.oaX r _ Q] y n ,LZ'f'C z r 3,6l,iyj}p - , - -- ,*Z -N---- 5Z'L�l r z P rU #' & ;g ______--___-sY2.00N _____________ U m . J¢n�� GdYY m � r ��m- T�SFIc , ggcc:r m rocso;wmA �mo� r ____________ 3.es.YZo6N "'___-______-- C) p KttZJy § m cm I f ¢ ow iigS �' a I� l I ,CD"6Z£ 3.61,iZ.ppN lsv3 5 39Nvtl 'HLNON SL du {y7L 4' w) YI Nossx� +,j 1536NL2XJN 3NL do Q S� 15Y3N1i N 3iU is 3Nf1ISA W 4-4 G tr s j4a I l _ 1 0 'R's 'HAV CKZ51 n MN z >I w m W _z1 � J 9' ~w�—f4'b2[ 3.6i,fLAON o .C6LSl ��yS-ILl � 1 Qt' QR — =g� � ,4fT1 ,7A'4L .6LZOl gL� d n N b aM �` I N mr" ------------ ---3,6c,tiz.oaX r _ Q] y n ,LZ'f'C z r 3,6l,iyj}p - , - -- ,*Z -N---- 5Z'L�l r z P rU #' & ;g ______--___-sY2.00N _____________ U m . J¢n�� GdYY m � r ��m- T�SFIc , ggcc:r m rocso;wmA �mo� r ____________ 3.es.YZo6N "'___-______-- C) p KttZJy § m cm I f ¢ ow iigS �' a I� l I ,CD"6Z£ 3.61,iZ.ppN lsv3 5 39Nvtl 'HLNON SL du {y7L 4' w) YI Nossx� +,j 1536NL2XJN 3NL do Q S� 15Y3N1i N 3iU is 3Nf1ISA W 4-4 G tr s j4a I l _ 1 0 'R's 'HAV CKZ51 n MN z >I w m W _z1 � J I f ¢ ow iigS �' a I� l I ,CD"6Z£ 3.61,iZ.ppN lsv3 5 39Nvtl 'HLNON SL du {y7L 4' w) YI Nossx� +,j 1536NL2XJN 3NL do Q S� 15Y3N1i N 3iU is 3Nf1ISA W 4-4 G tr s j4a I l _ 1 0 'R's 'HAV CKZ51 n MN z >I w m W _z1 � J ,CD"6Z£ 3.61,iZ.ppN lsv3 5 39Nvtl 'HLNON SL du {y7L 4' w) YI Nossx� +,j 1536NL2XJN 3NL do Q S� 15Y3N1i N 3iU is 3Nf1ISA W 4-4 G tr s j4a I l _ 1 0 'R's 'HAV CKZ51 n MN z >I w m W _z1 � J j4a I l _ 1 0 'R's 'HAV CKZ51 n MN z >I w m W _z1 � J 4 - r p .o a b i s I CL 1 1Ig 2R51e' , Q .^ 1 �O 4 - r p .o q CL 1 n Q , Q .^ 1 �O - Lu N i 4 - U 7. r r1 7 r p .o q Ir }.. Cr; k3 Q .^ 1 � N i ISI �. Ir. U 7. r r1 7 MH W X W q iInc.. .. MH W X W Im vnn'NolN�a NV]d 1N3W3D'd1131 I'lliA IV�d ISb3 QOOM3�dVh Cf91 r ;C;;b E - SSC {� 9; � i 9sl 4 9 Sg• f� it gy p� 3 �1 d i m frF= i II' i yy8.s $ e �. of .i I i "' ll �. of 1 :I. I 1 s. dr F I � 6 J Vi L4n' r C4 s x w z a J IL z LW 2 LU U LU w Q w T 1� O 111111111111 7 0 f C LM c f 11. >1 LL/Ll) 1� i ca a VAA NOLNM� Nd"ld 3dV'JSflNb-I hNVNIWk'13k3d gg iv ISV3 MVd COOM3�c 'VN �QO J c 1� a 'l—l".— NO11O(lalSNOO bO� lON `Nb'ld AYVNIWIIaHd O 111111111111 7 0 f C LM 11. >1 LL/Ll) Ek CL �QO a 'l—l".— NO11O(lalSNOO bO� lON `Nb'ld AYVNIWIIaHd O ( 7 0 f C LM 11. >1 LL/Ll) Ek CL �QO B-il i33NS 335 3NIl H71VN k. r.,.. i - coff o c 2 x ' W { 9 IqI N0110r]!l1SNOO bOJ lON'NVId AUVNIW1l31Jd c tt e 31 i'=A VM'NOlN3E- a I~ a N'dld 3dVOSONVi ALVNIWI13»d +, _ L' T ld,�d isbi AdVct c•Oom,]�Cvw N0110r]!l1SNOO bOJ lON'NVId AUVNIW1l31Jd c a I~ a I +, _ L' Q75 0 d I 9 Cia r� 111 r w .Q i g 1-1 1-1 U U LJ V Ff � g ------------------ I Jry o > R a woo n �•f W m m k ZD !1 Z ILS ¢d 0 i4Z2 I `✓ \ F90 ! 3NIl 110104 �f Y11 1 I .� ' _ _ ry ¢r •'_ - a� � +a - . aa Yv v�PenMi60QriMnTO i� tlM'NOiN3H '3,.. Sl[Yi34 (INV 5310N NOLU)PH1SNOO N71d 3dVOS©NVi hiiVNiWll3ad d s (Y)N Y ]j+ c a ivlcd ISVA Mvb OOOM3�d�/W J a R 0 G NOIIOMISNOO HOd 10N 'N'dld AfiVN1Wll3ad c 0 G � cq � ca f� N b CL- n Lij +� Of 3E F E BE na Ji— Pd E v m zm m W R o E = a m�oE�10m�mo ,G yyyV111 m� a c9 R9 Ew 6 .gm�° cr7 m� 86Sw8w` z°°�R aio �'.- c� LLv A � FF �g. tW 1 $ Q � w �3 � � � F� 3 ❑ i� � � w W o�g d J CL 3 � � � W CO N R SRg' C z„ ga s r LU b � S 04 pia 8 � aW �4 „ `3 t-, 9 C s r LU b � S 04 pia 8 � aW �4 „ `3 4` 9 cr .. i� E i i i V s r b � S _ z � aW i i i V s r �a I..�d - Ise Wd no - Et 2 O U N t7 4 � Z H wo �o � O y Ljj W L r) a SII ! 9C L y i I � •3�s�ilxrturcr.' ---- F----- - _. 7 -1 - Denis Law W. Cary ofMayor . % i, r n January 3, 2012 Department,of Community and Economic Development Nex Pietsch, Administrator nngtt dough, PE EXHIBIT 10 CP/H Consultants 733-7 th Avenue; Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033, RE: Street Modification for proposed Maplewood. East Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Hough: . We have.reviewed your request for modificatio.h.�f the:street requirements for t.h.e propased`iWlaplewood_East preliminary, plat. 'The request is to allow for a reduced street standardlor two short street sections internal to the plat. These streets.would provide primary emergency access'to five lots. The proposed .modification is to.allQwfor a . pavement width sof 20 feet; without separate sidewalks. The request is to also reduce the. right-of-way width for these street sections to 20 feet. Tire modification request.is granted in part„ and denied"in pal#. The reduction to a20 - foot pavement width. as proposed, with thickened edges in lieu of standard curb and gutter, is acceptable. The minimum eight -af wayw dth can only be reducedti) 26 fee.t in width., These modified standards are -consistent with City streetstandards for private: Streets With two points of access. In this situation the:stfeets will be public, not private. The street sections must also be signed for No Parkl ig an both sides of the-street;.and marked for a pedestrian walkway area;of six feet in 'Width.. The street requirements for this proposed plat are now modified as foliaws, . • . NE 24 Street - Parking both sides, .with a curb. and g:ritter-16 fleet from: centerline, &foot planting strip rnea5ureo from face of curb, attd°:a 5400t sidewalk. The sidewalk may meander only in front of the drainag6 tract, as long as the sidewalk is Within dedicated right-of-way. New north/south street—The alignment tothe-north edge of the property.as shown is acceptable.. Residential access road standards shall be utilized, including parking on one side,.. 76 feet.of pavement., 8 -foot planting strips both sides, and 5 -foot sidewalks both sides. Requires mini .mu.m of 5.2.feet of right -of way.. No meandering sidewalks_ o Remaining narrow streets — OK as shown, with 20 feet of pavement and no sidewalks. Parking will not be allowed .on these streets, and a`6 -foot. pedestrian Renton City. Hall • 1055 South Grady Way: • Renton;wasWhgton 93057 rentonwa.gav Mr. Matt Hough, PE Page 2 of 2 January 3,.2012 walkway area must be marked on one side of the pavement area. The right-of- way width for these street sections shall be a minimum of 26 feet. •.: LED street lighting shall be included along all street frontages for the plat. The street standards modification does not become official until the short plat is approved, at which point it can be appealed, etc. The modification listed in.tFis letter will be included as part of the CED staff recommendation for the preliminary plat decision. If you have further questions regarding street improvement, utility design, or drainage requirements for this project, please "contact Jan Illian at 425-430-7215 or iiil ian Prentonwa.eov. Sincerely, F Neil watts, Director Development Services Division [t: Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor Jennifer. Henning, Current Planning Manager Jan Illlan, Pian Reviewer Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner CPTH CONSULTANTS r --I m H x W Prepared for: Burnstead Construction Co. 11980 NE 241h St, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 Prepared by: CPH Consultants aCpe n 61 Jamie B. Schroeder, PE 733 Seventh Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 March 8, 2012 GEOTECHNICAL REFORT'-� Maplewood Park East SE 132nd Street Renton, Washington Project No. T-6678 N F ca ferra Associates, €rf 3 .LL Prepared farm Burnstead Construction Bellevue, Washington February 21, 2012 r Wetla#d Wom ve. g r 11foo Delirseation r Mitigation ! Restoration i Habitat creator I Permit Assistarice 9505 1 9th Avenue S.E, ff## Suite 106 July 15, 2011 Burnstead Construction Attn. Tiffiny Brown 1215 120th Avenue NE #201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Everett; Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 RE: Wetland & Stream Reconnaissance - 15240 SE 132nd St. Renton, WA Wetland Resources, Inc. completed a site investigation on July 13, 2011, to locate and evaluate jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the 4.5 -acre site located at 15240 SE 132nd Street in the City of Renton, Washington. The Washington State M `" Department of Ecology Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual March 1997, was used to determine wetland conditions. At the time of our site work, there were patchy clouds �..� with scattered rain showers, and a temperature of approximately 65 degrees. m N � Site Description This site is mostly forested with a gentle south aspect. A lawn/cleared area is located in the LV _ eastern portion of the property. In the past, this clearing was the site of a single-family residence, which is no longer present. Access is from the south via SE 132nd Street. Surrounding land use is comprised of undeveloped, forested land to the north, with residential development to the south, east, and west. Vegetation over the site is represented by a canopy of big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU), red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FacU), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FacU-), and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata, FacU), with salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac+), vine maple (Acercircinatum, Fac-), hazelnut (Coryius cornuta, FacU), osoberry (Demleria cerasiformis, FacU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FacU), dewberry (Rubus ursinus, FacU), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FacU), filaree (Erodium cicutarium, Nol/Upl), and Pacific bleeding heart (Dicentra Formosa, FacU+) in the understory. Typical soils across the site have Munsell colors from very dark grayish brown (10 YR 3/2) to dark yellowish brown (10 YR 4/4) with textures of silt loam to sandy loam from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils across the site were dry to slightly moist during our July 2011 site investigation. No wetlands or streams are located on or adjacent to the subject property. Use of this Report This Wetland Reconnaissance Report is supplied to Burnstead Construction as a means of determining on-site wetland and stream conditions. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access, which may leas{ to observation or probing difficulties. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect_ The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Louis Emenhiser Senior Wetland Ecologist Professional Wetland Scientist #1680 2 Delineation / Mitigation 1 Restoration ! Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. ' Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 City of Renton (425) 337-3174 Planning Division Fax (425) 337-3045 June 28, 2012 Burnstead Construction Attn. Tiffiny Brown 1215 120th Avenue NE #201 Bellevue, WA 98005 JUN 2 9 2013 RE: Wetland & Stream Evaluation --15240 SE 132nd Street, Renton, WA Wetland Resources, Inc. completed a site investigation on July 13, 2011, to locate and evaluate jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the 4.5 -acre site located at 15240 SE 132nd Street in the City of Renton, Washington. The Washington ry State Department of Ecology Wetlands Identification and Delineation _ Manual- March 1997, (Delineation Manual) was used to determine wetland conditions. At the time of M r11 our site work, there were patchy clouds with scattered rain showers, and a temperature of approximately 65 degrees. � v Site Description c This site is mostly forested with a gentle south aspect. A lawn/cleared area is located in = --5the eastern portion of the property. In the past, this clearing was the site of a single- X family residence, which is no longer present. Access is from the south via SE 132nd W Street. Surrounding land use is comprised of undeveloped, forested land to the north, ry with residential development to the south, east, and west. Cr Vegetation over the site is represented by a canopy of big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU), red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FacU), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FacU-), and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata, FacU), with salmonberry (Rubus spectabifis, Fac+), vine maple (Acer circinatum, Fac-), hazelnut (Corylus comuta, FacU), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FacU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FacU), dewberry (Rubus ursinus, FacU), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FacU), flaree (Erodium cicutarium, NollUpl), and Pacific bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa, FacU+) in the understory. Typical soils across the site have Munsell colors from very dark grayish brown (10 YR 312) to dark yellowish brown (10 YR 4/4) with textures of silt loam to sandy loam from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils across the site were dry to slightly moist during our July 2011 site investigation. No wetlands or streams are located on or immediately adjacent to the subject property. Change in Site Conditions since March 1999 The previous delineation that was conducted (by others) for the off-site Maplewood Estates project occurred in the early growing season (March/April) of 1999 during a period of heavy precipitation. The 3.66 inches of rainfall recorded in the month preceding that field -work likely resulted in hydrology conditions that corresponded in a "false positive" wetland determination. While the original 1999 delineation data was not reviewed with this analysis, it is unlikely that the vegetation and soils have changed significantly since that time. With this in mind, .it is probable that the original consultant based their delineation primarily on hydrology and not on all three parameters. The July 13, 2011 investigation was the second reconnaissance conducted by Wetland Resources Inc. We again evaluated all three parameters as required by the Delineation Manual. The investigation resulted in a clear non -wetland determination based on lack of all three parameters. The wetland area located in the off site open space tract adjacent to the ROW of 132nd which was the subject of the plat of Maplewood, may still be present. While it was confirmed this wetland does not extend into tax parcel 1423059003, the buffer would likely extend into the ROW of 132nd Ave. If improvements are conducted within the ROW, buffer impacts will occur. By accessing the property at a location other than the 132nd ROW, direct impacts to buffer and potential indirect impacts to the Maplewood wetland can be avoided. Use of this Report This Wetland and Stream Evaluation Report is supplied to Burnstead Construction as a means of determining on-site wetland and stream conditions. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access, which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Scott Brainard, PWS Principal Wetland Ecologist E Wetlalfdl�e.�5o#lones Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance .� g 9505 19th Avenue S.E. r Suite 106 August 31, 2012 Burnstead Construction Attn. Tiffiny Brown 1215 120th Avenue NE #201 Bellevue, WA 98005 CttY +air Renton Planning Division SEP - 5 2011 U GE ll E10 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-30345 RE: Wetland & Stream Evaluation —15240 SE 132nd Street, Renton, WA Wetland Resources, Inc. completed a site investigation on August 22, 2012, to locate and evaluate jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the unimproved right of way (ROW) of 152nd Ave SE in the City of Renton, Washington. The Washington State Department of Ecology Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual March 1997, (Delineation Manual) was used to determine wetland conditions. The purpose of this report is to address Otak's findings and email summary, as well as address any concerns the City of Renton has as to why the wetland no longer exists. Site Description The ROW and areas to the west are mostly forested with a gentle southwest aspect. Portions of this area west of the ROW were previously delineated as wetland and designated as a sensitive area tract for the adjacent subdivision to the west. This area is generally undisturbed with the exception of a pedestrian trail located on the western most portion of the sensitive area tract. Vegetation within the investigation area is represented by a canopy of big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU), red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac), cascara (Rhamnus purshiana, Fac-), and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata, FacU), with salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac+), vine maple (Acer circinatum, Fac-), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta, FacU), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, Facq, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, Facq, dewberry (Rubus ursinus, FacU), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FacU), and Pacific bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa, FacU+) in the understory. Typical soils across the site have Munsell colors from very dark gray (10 YR 3/1) to dark brown (10 YR 3/3) with textures of silt loam to sandy loam from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils across the site were very dry during the August 22, 2012 site investigation. The attached data sites were taken in topographic depressions in areas with a higher probability of being wetland. In addition, multiple other soils samples were taken throughout the investigation area with similar results. No wetlands or streams are located on or immediately adjacent to the ROW. Change in Site Conditions since March 1999 The previous delineation that was conducted (by others) for the off-site Maplewood Estates project occurred in the early growing season (March/April) of 1999 during a period of heavy precipitation. The 3.66 inches of rainfall recorded in the month preceding that field -work likely resulted in hydrology conditions that corresponded in a "false positive" wetland determination. While the original 1999 delineation data was not reviewed with this analysis, it is unlikely that the vegetation and soils have changed significantly since that time. With this in mind, it is probable that the original consultant based their delineation primarily on hydrology and not on all three parameters. The August 22, 2012 investigation evaluated all three parameters as required by the Delineation Manual and the City of Renton. The investigation resulted in a clear non -wetland determination based on lack of all three parameters. The wetland area located in the off-site open space tract adjacent to the ROW of 132nd which was the subject of the plat of Maplewood, does not existing, nor does it extend into the ROW or tax parcel 1423059003. Use of this Report This Wetland and Stream Evaluation Report is supplied to Burnstead Construction as a means of determining on-site wetland and stream conditions. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely aflected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access, which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Scott Brainard, PWS Principal Wetland Ecologist 2 r Scott Brainard, PWS Principal Wetland Ecologist 2 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Size: Maplewood Park East City/County; King Sampling Date: 8/22112 Applicant/Owner. Bumstead Construction Company State: WA Sampling Point: Si Investigator(s): SB Section, Township, Range: S14, TWP23, R5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): A Let: 47.484995 Long: -122.137643 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 - 15% slopes NWl classification: None Are climatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ ✓ — No Are Vegetation , Sail , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No— _ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ _ No _ ✓ wetland? ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ within a Yes Na _ Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Acer macrophyllym 50 Y FacU 4 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Number of Dominant 2 Rhamnus purshiana 30 Y Fac- 3.7otal Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species a lintr (Plot size: } = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66% (A1B) 1 Rubus spectabilis 50 Y Fac+ Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:. Multiplybv: 2. Acer circinatum 30 Y Fac- OBL species x 1 = 3. 4. FACW species x2= 5. FAC species x 3 -- Total Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 UPL species x5= 1, Potystichum munitum 30 Y FacU 2. Atherium filix femina 30 Y Fac Column Totals: (A) (B) 3. Prevalence Index = B1A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Testis >50% 6. Prevalence Index is s3.o' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 7. S. 9. 10. 1' = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: l 1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2 =Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Interim Version SOIL Secondary Indicators 2 or more required) Sampling Paint: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) _ % Redox FQ@tures Color (moist) % Type Lac Texture Remarks 0-10" 10YR 311 90 Saturation (A3) fsl No observed redox 10-18+" 10YR 313 90 Water Marks (81) fsl No observed redox 'Type. C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Locabon: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators_ (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) — Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) Histic. Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (SB) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ _ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) J Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D 1) (LRR A) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) T Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type. Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary ndicator$ (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators 2 or more required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 46) 4A, and 48) Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (611) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) Hydrogen Sulfide odor (C1) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) , Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) , Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (64) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) — Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (65) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D 1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) T Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Surface Water Present? Yes No _ J _ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No __ v __ Depth (inches): includes ca ills fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes pections), if No indication of hydrology (seasonal or otherwise) was observed at the time of investigation. No V US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Maplewood Park East City/County: King Sampling Date: B/22112 Applicant/Owner Burnstead Construction Company State: WA Sampling Point: S2 Invesfigator(s): SB Section, Township, flange: 514, TWP23, R5E Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Siope (%): --3% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.484995 Long: -122.187643 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 - 15%slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Sail or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ ✓ _ No Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes—,/-- No— W Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ _ No _ f v ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: } % Cover Spggigs? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Populus balsamifera 30 Y Fac That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) s Acer macrophyllum 10 N FacU Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66°7° (AIB) SaplinglShr�a S(r,�tum {Plot size: ] 1 Rubus armeniacus 60 Y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet: Total Cover of: Multiply b]r: OBL species x 1 = 2. Rubus spectabilis 30 Y Fac+ 3 Spiraea douglasii 10 N FacW 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = FACU species x4= = Total Cover Herb Stratum {Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 = 1. Polystichum munitum 10 N FacU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Prevalence Index = BIA = 3, 4, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✓ Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 93.01 5. 6. 7, Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' s. 9. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes f No 2 Total Cover Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features. (inches) Color (moist) % Color !moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0-18+" 10YR 3/3 90 sit No observed redox 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De lebon RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosd (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (72) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except NILRA 1) J Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (At t) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (At 2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (St) Depieted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Soil take at the lowest portion of the site in a depressional area. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one require 7 check all that a Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) _ Water Marks (131) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (133) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Iron Deposits (135) Surface Soil Cracks (Bfi) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No V Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (613) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) T oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) Other (Explain in Remarks) V _ Depth (inches): V Depth (inches): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 413) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (02) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAG -Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) Saturation Present? Yes No r/ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, if ava No indication of hydrology (seasonal or otherwise) was observed at the time of investigation. No US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version Vanessa Dolbee From: Darcey Miller [darcey.miller@otak_com) Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:02 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Stephanie Smith Subject: Maplewood East wetiand reconnaissance Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Vanessa, We were out on the Maplewood East site the morning of July 26, 2012. Assuming we were estimating the location of the property boundaries correctly, we did not observe a wetland on the site. . It is highly probable that a wetland is located offsite, to the south-southeast portion of the parcel to the west, possibly within the easement associated with the residential development. Although we did not perform a wetland delineation, we observed conditions that likely indicate wetland presence. Without the property boundaries marked, it is difficult to tell exactly where the potential wetland is located in relation to the site property boundary. Our recommendations to the applicant: • Mark the western property boundary of the Maplewood East project site. • Estimate the eastern potential wetland boundary on the parcel that is west of the site. • Rate the wetland (if it exists) using the City's rating methodology to determine the location of wetland buffers in relation to the project site. Please call me if you have any questions regarding our findings. Darcey Darcey Miller, PWS I Senior Wetland Scientist 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 d: 425.739.7977 1 v: 425.822.4446 c: 206.427.9505 wtvsv.otak.c AReduce, Reuse, Recycle q* F H CO w X W MEMORANDUM DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Koyren Kittrick, City of Renton FROM: Jeff Schramm, TENW SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis Maplewood Park East 14 -Lot Plat — Renton, WA TENW Project No. 4566 TO TEN Transportation Engineering Northwesi This memorandum documents the traffic analysis completed for the proposed Maplewood Park East residential project. The project includes the development of 14 single-family residential lots located on the north side of SE 13 211d Street in the vicinity of 152nd Avenue SE a couple blocks south of the NE 4th Street corridor in Renton Highlands. The existing site is vacant. A Site Plan is included in Figure 1 . Based on the current site plan, access to the site would be provided at two locations onto SE 1 3211d Street at Road C and Road A. The anticipated date of occupancy is 2014. Based on scoping discussions with City staff, the following items are addressed in this traffic impact analysis: • Determination of weekday daily, AM, and PM peak hour trip generation. • Distribution and assignment of PM peak hour project trips to one study intersection at 156'h Avenue SE and SE 132rld Street. • Routing of project traffic to the NE 4th Street corridor. • Analysis of 2014 weekday PM peck hour LOS and queues at the study intersection. Findings & Conclusions • The proposed project is estimated to generate 134 new weekday daily trips, with 1 1 trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour (3 entering, 8 exitingj, and 14 trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour (9 entering, 5 exiting). • Based on the results of the LOS and queuing analyses, all movements at the . study intersection at 156th Avenue SE and SE 132nd Street are anticipoted to operate at LOS or better, and the project would not have a significant impact ,)n traffic operations. • A majority of the traffic generated by this project (approximately 70 to 75 percent of the project trips) is anticipated to be routed to/from the NE 4rl Street corridor. • The proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on the transportation system. The payment of transportation impact fees will adequately mitigate project impacts by funding the project's fair share of the cost of the City of Renton's planned transportation improvements. Based on the City's current impact fee rate of $75 per daily trip, the development's impact fee would be $10,050. Transportation Planning f Desion I Traffic Impact & Operations l 816 - 6'^ Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033 1 Office {4251 889-6747 February 14th, 2012 Ms. Tiffiny Brown Burnstead Construction Co. 11980 NE 24" ST, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Mr. Brown, International Forestry C 0 N S U L T A N T S, I N C. 11415 NE 128th Street, Suite 110, Kirkland, WA 98034 At your request, I have completed an assessment of the significant trees on the Maplewood Park East project site in Renton. The former address of the site is 15240 SE 132nd ST. My assignment is to evaluate the condition of the subject trees and report on my findings. The purpose of the report is to identify non-viable, high-risk trees that should not be retained during the development of the site. A large component of the trees at the site is comprised of red alder and black cottonwood trees. Renton Code RMC 4-4-130 H7 Tree/Ground Cover Retention allows for the removal of these species due to weak wood which is prone to breakage. When performing the condition assessment, these species were ignored. However, it was noted that a large percentage of the red alder that was surveyed is dead or in serious decline. Big leaf maple also makes up a large percentage of species composition at the site. Unfortunately, the majority has developed very poor trunk taper and form. These are young trees, estimated at less than 30 years of age and already have multiple structural defects which include broken tops, major crooks, and forked tops with codominant (equal diameter) sterns. Very few of the maple trees make good candidates for retention on a developed site. They all have a very high height to diameter ratio and are very prone to stem breakage during wind or ice/snow loads. They have developed very poor taper due to intense competition with adjacent trees for sunlight. A Tree Map is attached and part of this report. The map indicates the location of non-viable, high-risk trees, which are shaded in "red". A total of 29 trees were found to be in a non- viable condition, mainly due to compromising structural defects. A Tree Condition Summary Sheet its attached which provides specific tree information. The tree numbers correspond with the tag numbers found in the field. The tags on trees numbered #101 through #109 could not be found during the assessment. These trees can be identified in the field by a numbered piece of blue flagging tied near it. Red alder and black cottonwood trees are shaded in "orange" on the tree map. There are several high-risk cottonwood trees in the right-of-way of SE 132nd Street, many of which are completely dead. These are shaded in "blue" and should be removed from the site as soon OFs as feasibly possible. For a Forester Every Day is Earth Day r International Forestry �1�._.1►F" CONSULTANTS, INC. a subsidiary of American Forest Management, Inc. 11415 NE 126th Street, Suite 110, Kirkland, WA 98034 • (425) 824-3420 • Fax (425) 820-3437 + www.intorestry.com Memorandum Ta From: CC: Date: Re: Tiffiny Brown, Bumstead Construction LLC Bob Layton City of Renton Planning Division SEP - 5 151 RECO ME10 7/24/2012 Maplewood East - Alder and Cottonwood Assessment Ms. Brown, �J Per your request I have completed an assessment of the red alder trees and black cottonwood trees at !v the Maplewood East site in Renton, Tree Summary Tables are attached which identify all of the non- 7' viable trees assessed. H 3? The red alder on the property and on adjacent properties to the north and west is in very poor condition- m Very few alder trees in the subject area are expected to survive for another five years. The majority are = '7 showing signs of decline, evidenced by dead, broken and dying tree tops. Several of the surveyed "DOWN". X trees have died, rotted and have fallen down- These are indicated on the attached map as UJ, Non-viable trees are shown X'd in "blue" with a "blue" tree number. A total of 62 of the alder trees identified on the survey are considered non-viable and are either dead or in vast decline and are not expected to survive for another five years. OC These alder trees regenerated on the site after a clearing and grading event, likely 20 to 30 years ago. This pioneer species readily colonizes disturbed spaces. It is naturally designed to grow fast and to prepare the forest floor for the second generation of longer living tree species. On mechanically disturbed sites, longevity is highly decreased, with decline occurring at around 20 to 30 years or less. Trees at the end of their useful life -spans begin to decline and die back from the top downwards, Once this mortality spiral begins, there are no methods to reverse it. Five cottonwood trees were also found to be in a non-viable and dangerous condition. These small diameter trees have extremely high height to diameter ratios. These are considered dangerous trees as the risk of stem breakage is very high, especially with the development of basal decay as these subject trees have. As I discussed in my original assessment report, there are several high-risk cottonwood trees within the right-of-way of 132nd Street, many of which are completely dead. These need to be removed prior to fall windstorms to reduce the risk of damage or injury. You will note on the attached tree map that I made a few species corrections to the survey- Three of the trees on the subject property identified as alders are actually two big leaf maples and one bitter 3 jX�s; aifac h wal i 3 0 Page 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: tntillini@corncast. net Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 5.25 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Maplewood Park East To whom it may concern, 1 am writing concerning the development known as Maplewood Park East. After looking at the plot map on the display board, we have realized that the entrance to this development would be directly across from our driveway. This dirt road has been there since our house was built (1974) and was used to get water to the horses which resided nearby. When the property was sold and a single house was built on the property (approx_ 5 acres), the owner/builder used the dirt road which was already there. That presented no problem with just the traffic (2 cars)of a single home going in and out. A fourteen house development presents a whole new problem with our ability to exit our property, not to mention the traffic jam in front of our house. We cannot see or understand why the entrance cannot or should not be from 152nd ave where there is already a cross street and the volume of cars will go easily into the traffic already in the area. We would appreciate your consideration on this matter. Thank you, Terry & Sandra Taylor 15243 s.e. 132 st. Renton e-mail--tntillini(a-)_comcast.net N F- m X W DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY d Ciryof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT { 00 ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE im - MITIGATED (DNS -M) 2 X PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-018, ECF, PP W APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park East PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA ° and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4.(R-4) dwelling units per net acres in size. PROJECT LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street and 152"d Street SE LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 12, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. - PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: September 28, 2012 September 24, 2012 SIGNATURES: C Z-74 Z� Gregg Zim e mW, Administrator Mark eterson,dministrator Public Work Department Date Fire & Emergency Services Date Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Date Department of Community & Economic Development . g 2 Z�lz Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 't'Ran AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT {'�'•" DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-018, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park East PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres in size. PROJECT LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2"d Street and 152"d Street SE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. dated February 21, 2012. 2. The applicant shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. 4. The applicant shall pay a Fire Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. 0 H w m H 2 x W ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY cityof �h AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � 01 ' DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-018, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park East PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres in size. PROJECT LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Street SE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant. The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Plan Review—SanitarySewer: 1. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadways is required. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic waters to serve the new homes on the new lots. Sewer fee for a %- inch water meter is $1,591.00. Sewer fee for a 1 -inch water meter is $3,977.00. An "approved" water plan from Water District #90 will be required to be submitted to the City. 3. This parcel falls within the. assessment area known as the Wyman Latecomer Agreement. The Wyman final sewer assessment is $45,948.04. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. Plan Review—Surface Water: 1. Surface water system development fee is $1,012.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for the existing home. 2. A drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted by CPH Consultants with the site plan application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed 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 discusses meeting the area specific flow control requirement under Core Requirement #3. A Level 2 analysis is required. A combined detention and water quality pond is proposed. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 3 3. A geotechnical report, dated February 21, 2012, was submitted by Terra Associates, Inc. The report identifies the soils as glacial till. These soils will not support 100% infiltration; however, partial infiltration using rain gardens or other appropriate flow control BMP options may be an option with typical designs for the site. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Plan Review — Transportations/Street: 1. Transportation mitigation fees of $9,330.75 will be accessed. Credit has been given for the existing home. The rate is $75.00 x 9.57 trips x 13 lots. See Transportation Mitigation Fee sheet included. The fee is required to be paid pursuant to Renton Municipal Code either prior to recording of the plat or building permit issuance. 2. Street improvements are required to be constructed as part of this project. On January 3, 2012, Neil Watts, Director of Development Services, approved a request for a modification to the street standards. The modification will be granted subject to plat approval. Reduced roadway improvements would include: • NE 2nd Street — Parking both sides, with a curb and gutter 16 feet from centerline, an 8 -foot planting strip measured from face of curb, and a 5 -foot sidewalk. The sidewalk may meander only in front of the drainage tract, as long as the sidewalk is within dedicated right-of-way. • The new north/south street -- Residential access road will require 26 feet of pavement, an 8 -foot planting strip, and 5 foot sidewalk on both sides of the street. Parking will be allowed on one side only. Right-of-way width for this street shall be a minimum of 52 feet. No meandering sidewalks. • Internal narrow streets — Requires 20 feet of pavement and no sidewalks. Parking will not be allowed on these streets, and a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway area must be marked on one side of the pavement area. The right-of-way width for these street sections shall be a minimum of 26 feet. 3. Rosario Ave NE -- Existing right-of-way width is 30 feet. This unimproved street fronts the project site along the west side. City code requires street improvements along all frontages; however, applicant may submit a request to waive the improvements since there are no plans to extend the roadway in the future. 4. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 5. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. Fire and Emergency Services: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 -feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5 -inch storz fittings, which the one at the southwest corner of the plat currently does not have. The existing hydrant is not within 300 -feet of the furthest proposed dwelling, so new hydrants and water mains are required. Water is provided by King County Water District 90, a certificate of water availability is required to be provided. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within 150 -feet of all points on the buildings. Dead end streets that exceed 150 -feet in length require an approved turnaround. Dead end streets that exceed 300 feet long require a full 90 -foot diameter cul-de-sac turnaround. Hammerhead turnarounds are allowed for streets less than 300 -feet long. Roadway A as proposed to be a minimum of 26 feet wide with parking allowed only on one side of the street due to the potential for future road extensions is acceptable. Roadways 8 and C are proposed to be a minimum of 20 feet wide with in parking allowed on either side is acceptable. Property Services: See Exhibit 8 for comment memo. ERC Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 22nd day of March, 2012, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, Notice of Application, Environmental Checklist, Reduced Site Plan documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies — NDA, Env. Checklist, Site Plan See Attached Matt Hough - Accpt Ltr Contact Tiffiny Brown - Accpt Ltr, NOA Applicant/Owner 300' Surrounding Property Owners — NOA only See attached (Signature of Sender): AW 2V Juc P; �G�u'' r�`�fi STATE OF WASHINGTON ) -.,u _ - SS COUNTY OF ICING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker 'f 111114*.•��~ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: _ q)7 _ dpi Notary Public in ai(d for the State of Washington Notary (Print): N A_ My appointment expires: 4 S f f 0 Project Name: I Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat Project Number: f LUA12-018, ECF, PP template - affidavit of service by mailing C N H H m H X W Vanessa Dollbee From: Terrence J. Flatley Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Meeting Today for Maplewood East Trees Hi Vanessa, Leslie has jury duty today and I am supposed to fill in for her for some meetings. The first begins at 10:30 on budget, so I will not be able to attend the 11 am meeting. We can touch base if you like before my 10:30 appt, up to you. Sorry. Here is my overview of the trees on that property: Densely wooded on the west half, scattered on the east half with more open field -like conditions. Trees that were identified by number on the plan: Agree to remove — 7346, 107, 7370, 7676, 7672, 7500, 7600, 7635 Dead Trees —109 Questionables —101 (two stems can be removed, one is in good condition), 106 (it's a clump of maples with no obvious dangers and could be left but will not improve with time), Trees with no immediate dangers) — 7351, 7330, 7331, 102, 103, 7423, 104, 7416, 105, 7413, 7395, 106, 107, 108, 7378, 7667, 7525,7523, Missing trees not found on site —7275, 7663 (this tree was not numbered on the site plan so I didn't try to track it down but assumed it was ok to remove based upon condition description) Blue trees —some of the cottonwoods indicated as dead were live, roughly the eastern half of trees. Generally, the wooded area on the site is in good condition and contains younger age class bigleaf maple, alder (some in decline), cottonwood and a few cherry trees mixed with older D. fir, W. redcedar and hemlock. I did note that the diameters shown on the site plan seemed smaller than what l encountered in the field for many of the trees. Terry Flatley Urban Forestry & Natural Resources Manager ISA Certified Arborist #PN -7272A City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 TFlatlevf@RentonWa.Gov 425-766-6187 (ctrl -click to forestry web page) r� city 0, r rlf,i`. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED (DNS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTZRESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PRDIECTNAM E: Maplewood Parts Fast PRDIECTNDMBER: UJA12-01a,E0,PF LOCATION: NE Corner of HE 2n° Street and 152' 5Heet $E 0ES[WFTON: Ti,—ppllcanthrequesllrlg Emaren—ntaf ReviewlSEPAPand PrHlm3nary Plat appwvel for a 14 lot shale f -11Y residential subdirhlon. The site h buted on the HE comer of NE 2nd street antl 133rd Avenue SE, coned Retldeld-I a fR4) dwelllna unit, per net arra In eh.. Lot sins vary froom 1,135 to 10,926 square fact. 40,946 ,quale feet w.uld be dedkoled For new P.M. roedwaes, and 31,375 square fnet slom+water tract la proposed resulting le a net darrslty of 3.97 dwNNng uEib per etre. The she is currently uannt antl [ontalm no uHtI,aI peas. The she comeins 271 protected trek of which 13 arr proposed to be retained with 103 rtnia ent toes. The project wou17 result dr 11,000 cubic yards of—cavallon with 10,000 cubic yards al NII. Street frnrdage Improvements would be prodded a7,,, HE 2nd Streot and new Internal read sptems are proposed. With the applkatlan the applicant tubrnfned i .term drainage report, genterhnkaE ,apart, wetland __b_ e, and a traRk study. THE CITY Df RENTON ENVIRDNMENTAL REVIEW CDMM17TEE (ERE) HAS DETERMINED 1HATTHE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIG NIFICAN7 ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIAONMEN7_ Appea}s of the environmental determination moat be nled In writing a or before S:OO p.m, on October 12, 2012, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1053 South Grady Way, Renton, WA SROST Appeals to the Eaaminer are governed by City of RMC 46-110 -d information regerdina the eppeai process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Df 1, 1423} A30-0510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BL HELI] BY THE RENTON HEARING E%AMIN ER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE LOUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE TTH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, LOSS SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON OCTOBER 23, 2012 AT 10,00 AM TO CON51DER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONhAENTAU DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED, THE APPEAL W1LL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FDR FURTFtECOMMUN'I'fYl & ECONOO ENTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, NT OF MICEVELDPMENT AT (425j 430-7700. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTiPICATIOW CERTIFICATION f, ja -'J , hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted in _a_ conspicuous places or nearbythe des ibed property on Date: � Z Signed: =, c. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 1 SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Y } ' signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Z 0 R r -•+ r F� �iy� Notary Public i and for the State of Washington f� i Qsr air '; Notary (Print): . Ll My appointment expires: q a, f/ EffltMna��S�"'``iw CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 26th day of September, 2012, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Matt Hough Contact Tiffiny Brown Owner/Applicant Sandy & Terry Taylor Parties of Record Robert D. Hagerman Party of Record Jim & Linda St. John Parties of Record D.E. Blood Party of Record Tom Zywicki Party of Record Douglas Bornestine Party of Record plot (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ' SS1 COUNTY OF KING } 91- a� $ WA I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker 11�1ti��N��� signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 26 J6I2 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): P A My appointment expires:C� i '!lame: ' Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat _Proje_etNumber: LUA12-018, ECF, PP template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn. Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev, Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *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 Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template - affidavit of service by mailing I City of. OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park East PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-018, ECF, PP LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2" Street and 152,4 Street SE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPAP and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres in size. Lot sizes vary from 8,135 to 10,926 square feet, 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed resulting in a net density of 3.97 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 271 protected trees of which 18 are proposed to be retained with 103 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. With the application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 12, 2012, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON OCTOBER 23, 2012 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. Denis Law City of t Mayor September 26, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Avenue #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPAJ DETERMINATION Maplewood Park East, LUA12-018, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Hough: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in'writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 12, 2012, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Also, a public hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on October 23, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. to consider the Preliminary Plat. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff recommendation will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, -rvux4a,-D olbea-, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 . rentonwa.gov Matt Hough, PE Page 2 of 2 September 26, 2012 Enclosure CC" Burnstead Construction, LLC/ Owner(s) Tiffiny Brown - Surnstead Construction, LLC / Applicant Sandy & Terry Taylor, Robert D. Hagerman, Jim & Linda St. John, D.E. Blood, Tom Zywicki, Douglas Bornstine / Party(ies) of Record ERC Determination Ltr DNSM 12-018.docx Denis Law City of, Mayor r Department of Community and Economic Development September 26, 2012 C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on September 24, 2012: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park East PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-018, ECF, PP LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street and 152"d Avenue 5E DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 12, 2012, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 99057 0 rentonwa.gov Washington State Department of Ecology Page 2 of 2 September 26, 2012 cc: icing County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal Office Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program U5 Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D city of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-018, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park East PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres in size. PROJECT LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Street SE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES - 1 . EASURES: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. dated February 21, 2012. 2. The applicant shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. 4. The applicant shall pay a Fire impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D City of ' �, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 0 n =r °��+ DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-018, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park East PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres in size. PROJECT LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street and 152'd Street SE LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant. The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Plan Review —Sanitary Sewer: 1. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadways is required. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic waters to serve the new homes on the new lots. Sewer fee for a %- inch water meter is $1,591.00. Sewer fee for a 1 -inch water meter is $3,977.00. An "approved" water plan from Water District #90 will be required to be submitted to the City. 3. This parcel falls within the assessment area known as the Wyman Latecomer Agreement. The Wyman final sewer assessment is $45,948.04. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. Plan Review—Surface Water: Surface water system development fee is $1,012.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for the existing home. 2. A drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted by CPH Consultants with the site plan application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed 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 discusses meeting the area specific flow control requirement under Core Requirement #3. A Level 2 analysis is required. A combined detention and water quality pond is proposed. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 3 3. A geotechnical report, dated February 21, 2012, was submitted by Terra Associates, Inc. The report identifies the soils as glacial till. These soils will not support 100% infiltration; however, partial infiltration using rain gardens or other appropriate flow control BMP options may be an option with typical designs for the site. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Plan Review — Transportations/Street: Transportation mitigation fees of $9,330.75 will be accessed. Credit has been given for the existing home. The rate is $75.00 x 9.57 trips x 13 lots. See Transportation Mitigation Fee sheet included. The fee is required to be paid pursuant to Renton Municipal Code either prior to recording of the plat or building permit issuance. 2. Street improvements are required to be constructed as part of this project. On January 3, 2012, Neil Watts, Director of Development Services, approved a request for a modification to the street standards. The modification will be granted subject to plat approval. Reduced roadway improvements would include: NE 2nd Street — Parking both sides, with a curb and gutter 16 feet from centerline, an 8 -foot planting strip measured from face of curb, and a 5 -foot sidewalk. The sidewalk may meander only in front of the drainage tract, as long as the sidewalk is within dedicated right-of-way. The new north/south street — Residential access road will require 26 feet of pavement, an 8 -foot planting strip, and 5 foot sidewalk on both sides of the street. Parking will be allowed on one side only. Right-of-way width for this street shall be a minimum of 52 feet. No meandering sidewalks. Internal narrow streets — Requires 20 feet of pavement and no sidewalks. Parking will not be allowed on these streets, and a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway area must be marked on one side of the pavement area. The right-of-way width for these street sections shall be a minimum of 26 feet. 3. Rosario Ave NE —Existing right-of-way width is 30 feet. This unimproved street fronts the project site along the west side. City code requires street improvements along all frontages; however, applicant may submit a request to waive the improvements since there are no plans to extend the roadway in the future. 4. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 5. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. Fire and Emergency Services: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 -feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5 -inch storz fittings, which the one at the southwest corner of the plat currently does not have. The existing hydrant is not within 300 -feet of the furthest proposed dwelling, so new hydrants and water mains are required. Water is provided by King County Water District 90, a certificate of water availability is required to be provided. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within 150 -feet of all points on the buildings. Dead end streets that exceed 150 -feet in length require an approved turnaround. Dead end streets that exceed 300 feet long require a full 90 -foot diameter cul-de-sac turnaround. Hammer head turnarounds are allowed for streets less than 300 -feet long. Roadway A as proposed to be a minimum of 26 feet wide with parking allowed only on one side of the street due to the potential for future road extensions is acceptable. Roadways B and C are proposed to be a minimum of 20 feet wide with in parking allowed on either side is acceptable. Property Services: See Exhibit 8 for comment memo. ERC Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City of (e��U+ �, , �l AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-018, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park East PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres in size. PROJECT LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2"d Street and 152nd Street SE LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 12, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: September 28, 2012 September 24, 2012 SIGNATURES: mabi Gregg Zim e m , Admi istrator Mark eterson, Administrator Public Work Department Date Fire & Emergency Services Date V212 Z i Terry Higashiyama, Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Date Economic Development D o DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY city of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TO: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Mark Peterson, Fire & Emergency Services Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator/Planning Director FROM: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager MEETING DATE: Monday, September 24, 2012 TIME: 3:00 p.m. LOCATION: Sixth floor Conference Room #620 THE FOOL O W►NG IS A CONSENT AGENDA Maplewood Park East (Vanessa Dolbee) LUA12-018, ECF, PP Location: 6101 NE 2nd Street. Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. Atkinson Dock (Gerald Wasser) LUA12-069, ECF, SM Location: 3401 Lake Washington Blvd N. Description: The applicant is requesting SEPA Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for a 384 sq ft dock in association with a single-family residence in the R-8 zone on the shore of Lake Washington, a shoreline of the State. Christelle RidJ;e 2 Preliminary Plat Addendum (Rocale Timmons) LUA12-070, PP Location: SE 95`h Way & Duvall Avenue NE. Description: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a 20 -lot subdivision on a 3.53 -acre site. The proposal went before the City's Hearing Examiner, on February 1, 2005, for a 22 -lot preliminary plat and approval was granted on April 18, 2005 (LUA04-100) subject to conditions including a condition to reduce the number of lots down to 20. City Council adopted the Examiner's recommendations. However, the preliminary plat approval expired on August 18, 2010 and the applicant is now requesting preliminary plat approval in order to simply proceed to recording. Wells Primary Disinfection Proiect (Gerald Wasser) LUA12-075, ECF Location: 1715 Maple Valley Hwy & 1500 Houser Way N. Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for a project which would provide primary disinfection of source water from Wells PW -8, PW -9, and EW -3 prior to its entry into the water distribution system. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director 11 D. Jacobson, Deputy PW Administrator - Transportation C. Vincent, CED Administrator N. Watts, Development Services Director • L. Warren, City Attorney A P. Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal J. Medzegian, Council DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNE i I �� city°{'i � AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT r ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: September 24, 2012 Project Name: Maplewood Park East Owner: Burnstead Construction, LLC, 11980 NE 24th Street, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98005 Applicant: Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction, LLC, 11980 NE 24th Street, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98005 Contact: Matt Hough, PE, CPH Consultants, 733 7th Avenue #100, Kirkland, WA 98033 File Number: LUA12-018, ECF, PP Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPAP and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corner of NE 2"0 Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acres in size. Lot sizes vary from 8,135 to 10,926 square feet, 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed resulting in a net density of 3.97 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 271 protected trees of which 18 are proposed to be retained with 103 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2"1 Street and new internal road systems are proposed. With the application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. Project Location: NE Corner of NE 2"d Street and 152"d Avenue SE Exist. Bldg. Area SF: None Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 14 new single Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): family homes Site Area: 196,188 SF Total Building Area GSF: 14 new single (4.50 acres) family homes STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). Project Location Map FRC Report 12-018.doc City of Renton Department of Community " Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report MAPLEWOOD PARK ,EAST LUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of September 24, 2012 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review in order to subdivide a 4.05 acre site into 14 single family lots and two tracts for storm drainage and landscaping and utilities, resulting in a density of 4.02 du/ac. In addition to the Environmental Review a Preliminary Plat has also been requested. The proposed plat would be located on the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE. The site is bordered by single family residential development to the east, south and west. To the north is vacant property owned by King County Parks. The property is in the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Residential -4 (R-4) zoning designation. The proposed subdivision would result in 14 lots ranging in lot size from 8,135 to 10,926 square feet. Access to Lots 1-6 would be provided along a new public road identified herein as "Road A", Lots 11-14 would be access via a new public road identified herein as "Road B". In addition to Road A and B, a new public Road C is proposed and frontage improvements along NE 2nd Street. The site grade descends to the west-southwest with approximately 30 feet of elevation relief from the parcels northeast to southwest corners. This relief is carried over a gentle slope gradient of about five to six percent. Preparation of the project site would result in approximately 6,000 cubic yards of soil stripping, including non-structural soil or other organic materials. Once stripping has been completed, the overall projected is anticipated to result in 5,000 cubic yards of excavation and 10,000 cubic yards of fill. On-site soils will be used for site fills to the extent available and import fill would be used for the balance of the fill as required. The site is currently vacant and forested. The current site contains 271 significant trees of which 98 are determined to be dead and/or dangerous by the applicants Arborist, 73 would be located in the proposed roadway and 18 are proposed to be retained. The applicant provided three wetland and stream reconnaissance reports prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated July 15, 2011, June 28, 2012 and August 31, 2012, with their application. Based on these reconnaissances, no wetlands and/or streams are located on or adjacent to the subject property. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. dated February 21, 2012. FRC Report 12-018.doc City of Renton Department of Communi., — Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST LUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of September 24, 2012 Page 3 of 11 2. The applicant shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. 3. The applicant shall pay a Transportation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. 4. The applicant shall pay a Fire Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Zoning Map Exhibit 2 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3 Preliminary Plat Map Exhibit 4 Conceptual Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Replacement Plan Exhibit 6 Landscape Plan Exhibit 7 Public Comments Exhibit 8 Property Services Memo D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The site grade descends to the west-southwest with approximately 30 feet of elevation relief from the parcels northeast to southwest corners. This relief is carried over a gentle slope gradient of about five to six percent. Preparation of the project site would result in approximately 6,000 cubic yards of soil stripping, including non-structural soil or other organic materials. Once stripping has been completed, the overall projected is anticipated to result in 5,000 cubic yards of excavation and 10,000 cubic yards of fill. On-site soils will be used for site fills to the extent available and import fill would be used for the balance of the fill as required. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. dated February 21, 2012, with their application- Terra Associates excavated 11 test pits across the project site. The majority of the test pits contacted consistent soil materials which included 4 —12 inches of organic material overlaying 3 to 4 % feet of medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel overlaying dense to very dense silty sand with gravel. The exceptions included Test Pit 1 where one and one half feet of fill material was encountered and Test Pit 9 where 24 inches of organic silty sand topsoil was overlying the native till. The Geotechnical Report analyzed groundwater levels in all the test pits. Goundwater was observed in all 11 test pits at depths from 3 to 10 feet below existing site grades. This relatively shallow groundwater typically develops during normally wet winter months. Deeper zones of ERC Report 12-018.doc City of Renton Department of Communr-, — Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST LUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of September 24, 2012 Page 4 of 11 groundwater were also observed by Terra Associates at depths of 6 to 10 feet in Test Pits 1— 4 and 7 —11. This deeper groundwater seepage would not be affected by seasonal weather variations and would be present during the drier summer months. The Geotechnical Report concludes that once this layer is exposed by excavation, it is anticipate the rate and volume of flow would diminish as storage from the isolated sandier zones would be depleted. The Report identifies that it would be difficult to compact native soils to function as structural fill when the native soils are too wet. The Report recommends that if grading activates take place during the winter, the contract/owner should be prepared to import clean granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. The Report addresses Seismic Hazards, Erosion Hazards and Landslide Hazards. Terra Associates conclude the site does not contain any of the above mentioned geotechnical hazards. Additionally the applicant has indicated in their SEPA checklist that Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control {TESL} measures would be implemented during construction to limit erosion potential. The Report includes recommendations for site preparation and grading, excavation, foundation support, floor slabs -on -grade, site walls, infiltration feasibility, stormwater detention pond, drainage, utilities, and pavements. Based on the recommendations included in the provided report staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the recommendations included in the provided Geotechnical Report. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. dated February 21, 2012. Nexus, SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The applicant provided a wetland and stream reconnaissance prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated July 15, 2011, with their application. Based on this reconnaissance, no wetlands and/or streams are located on or adjacent to the subject property. However, based on the subdivision of land to the east, City file number LUA99-059 (Maplewood Estates), it appeared a critical areas tract had been set aside just to the west of the subject site. Staff's review of the previous land use file revealed at the time of such subdivision the site to the west contained a wetland, which buffer may extend on to the Maplewood East development site. Based on the conflicting information the project was placed on hold pending additional wetland analysis. During this time three additional studies were competed. The first by the applicant Biologist, Wetland Resources, who provided the City with an updated wetland letter dated June 28, 2012. This letter concluded that the wetland area located in the offsite open space tract adjacent to the un -improved right-of-way of 152nd may still be present. However, it was confirmed this wetland does not extend into tax parcel 1423059003, the buffer would likely extend into the right-of-way of 152nd Street. However, with the letter the applicant did not provide additional "wetland determination data forms" to support the provided conclusions. As such, the City conducted a secondary review by the City's contracted Biologist, Otak. Otak was tasked with visiting the subject site and determining if there was a wetland or if there was no longer a wetland located west of the subject site. Otak conducted a site visit on July 26, 2012 and concluded that it is "highly probable that a wetland is located off site, to the south-southeast portion of the parcel to the west, possibly within the easement associated with the residential development". However, Otak did not ERC Report 12-018. doc City of Renton Deportment of Communr_, _ Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report MAPLEWOOD PARK FAST LUA12-018, ECF PP Report of September 24, 2012 Page 5 of 11 complete any "wetland determination data forms". Otak did make a recommendation that the project Biologist Rate the wetland (if it exists) using the City's rating methodology to determine the location of wetland buffers in relation to the project site. As a result of the Otak recommendation, Wetland Resources, Inc. conducted a wetland evaluation dated August 31, 2012. Scott Brainard, Wetland Resources principal Wetland Ecologist, conducted a site visit on August 22, 2012 and investigated all three parameters as required by the Delineation Manual and the City of Renton. Included with the August 31" letter is a set of "wetland determination data forms". The results of this investigation are a clear non -wetland determination based on a lack of all three parameters. In addition, the wetland evaluation concludes that the land area located in the off-site open space tract adjacent to the un -improved right-of-way of 132nd does not exist nor does it extend into the right-of-way or tax parcel 1423059003. Based on the above analysis conducted by both Wetland Resources and Otak, staff agrees there is not wetland located off site to the west and therefore does not anticipate any impacts as a result of the subject development. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures required. Nexus: N/A b. Storm Water Impacts: The storm drainage and TESC standards for the project are established by the City of Renton Addendum to the 2009 King County Surface Water design Manual (KCSWDM). The development site is required to provide Basic Water Quality treatment in addition to Level 2 flow control. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report ("TIR") prepared by CP IH Consultants, dated March, 8 2012. Based on the provided TIR the applicant is proposing to develop an on-site combined detention and water quality pond in conjunction with a series of on-site rain gardens. All storm water runoff from the developed site would be collected, and released to the existing outlet located at the corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE. The TIR indicates that on-site stormwater controls would maintain the existing drainage pattern and ultimate downstream discharge in accordance with current flow control standards. All roads, building roof drains, on-site paved surfaces and most landscape areas on the site are collected and directed to the on-site combined detention and water quality pond. However, a portion of the frontage improvements along NE 2nd Street would be bypassed due to the grades within the road. Based on the provided TIR the project site currently slopes and drains southwesterly to a swale on the southern boundary of the site. The stormwater then flows west toward an existing 18 inch culvert. The flows continue south through several sensitive area tracks and culverts to its ultimate downstream discharge of the Cedar River approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the site. The TIR included recommendations for TESL including clearing limits, cover measures, perimeter protection, traffic area stabilization, sediment retention, surface water control, dust control, wet season requirements, sensitive area restrictions, maintenance requirements, and final stabilization. Additionally the provided Geotechnical Report (identified above under DA Earth) evaluated the on- site soils to determine their percolation rate. Based on the provided Geotechnical Report the whole scale infiltration of development stormwater would not be feasible as the silty sand with gravel observed in the test pits has a low permeability and typically would not be suitable for infiltration of stormwater on a large scale. However, the report concludes that the soils in the FRC Report 12-0I8.doc City of Renton Department of Communi_, — Economic Development ....ronmental Review Committee Report MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST _ LUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of September 24, 2012 Page 6 of 11 upper horizon would support limited infiltration of development stormwater using rain gardens or similar LID technologies. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation measures required. Nexus: N/A 3. Vegetation Impacts: Under current conditions the subject site is vacant and forested. Historically a single family residence was located on the subject site. The old development site for the single family home contains level ground and minimal trees and vegetation comparatively to the remainder of the site. The vegetation over the site is represented by a canopy of big leaf maple, red alder, Douglas fir, western hemlock, and bitter cherry. The current site contains 271 significant trees of which 98 are determined to be dead and/or dangerous by the applicants Arborist, 78 would be located in the proposed roadway and 18 are proposed to be retained. The applicant submitted two Arborist reports the first dated February 14, 2012 and the second dated July 24, 2012. The first report addressed dead and dangerous trees but excluded red alders and black cottonwood trees from the site. The second report addresses the red alders and black cottonwoods. Based on the provided reports 91 trees were identified as dead or dangerous. 57 are alders, 5 black cotton woods, 22 big leaf maples, 3 western hemlocks, 2 cherry trees, and one Douglas -fir and western red cedar. The City's Urban Forester and Natural Resources Manger, Terry Flatley, visited the subject site and reviewed the February 14, 2012 Arborist report and provided an e-mail dated June 27, 2012 including his findings. In the provided e-mail the Urban Forester identified 16 trees as having no immediate dangers (reducing this number by two due to conflicts), 2 trees missing in the field, two trees questionable, and 9 trees which he agrees should be removed. Based on the City's Urban Forester's conclusions 16 trees should be subtracted from the dead and/or dangerous list included in the February 14, 2012 Arborist report. This deduction would result in 13 trees which would meet the deduction from the required tree retention pursuant to the February 14, 2012 Arborist Report and 62 from the July 24, 2012 Report for a total of 75 trees. In the provided tree retention worksheet the applicant has included 98 trees which is inconsistent with the two provided Arborists reports and the recommendations made by the City's Urban Forester and Natural Resources Manger. If 75 dead and/or dangerous trees were utilized in the tree retention worksheet, with the proposed 18 trees to be retained, the applicant would be required to provide 114 replacement trees at 2 -inch caliper. At this time the applicant has proposed to provide 103 replacement trees as a part of the proposed development. Moreover, the development of a forested site would result in clearing of a large number of trees on the subject site. However, with compliance with the 30 percent retention ratio, which may require updated planting plans and/or tree retention plans, the impact would be mitigated as required by code, The proposed trees to be retained would provide for the retention of existing mature trees along both the north and east edges of the property where grading would permit their preservation and their chances of survival. Preservation of these existing trees would provide shade and habitat beyond the applicant original proposal which proposed the preservation of two trees. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation measures required ERC Report 12-018. doc City of Renton Department of Communi., — Economic Development E„ _.ronmental Review Committee Report MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST LUA11-018, ECF, FP Report of September 24, 2012 Page 7 of 11 Nexus: N/A 4. Parks and Recreation Impacts: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future demand on existing City parks and recreational facilities and programs. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay an appropriate Parks Impact Fee. Currently this fee is assessed at $530.76 per each new single-family lot with credit given for the existing single- family lot. However, the City is planning an adjustment to the Parks and Recreation impact fee in the near future. Therefore the fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Parks and Recreation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 3082, RMC 4-1 Administration and Enforcement. 5. Transportation Impacts: Access to Lots 1-6 would be provided along a new public road, Road A, Lots 11-14 would be access via a new public road, Road B. In addition to Road A and B, a new public Road C is proposed and frontage improvements along NE 2nd Street. Both Road C and Road A would provide direct access from NE 2"d Street and Road B would connect Road C and Road A through the middle of the proposed development. The applicant provided a Traffic Analysis prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest (TENW), dated February 27, 2012. The Traffic Analysis concluded that the project would generate 134 new weekday daily trips, with 11 trip occurring during the weekday AM peak hour and 14 trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour. In addition, the Traffic Analysis reviewed the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of 156`h Avenue SE and SE 2nd Street (also known as SE 132nd Street) under current condition and future developed condition. Based on the provided analysis, this intersection is anticipated to operate at a LOS C or better, which is the same LOS anticipated with or without the development for the study intersection in the anticipated development year of 2014. The Traffic Analysis concluded that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on the transportation system and that the payment of transportation impact fees would adequately mitigate project impacts by funding the project's fair share of the cost of the City of Renton's planned transportation improvements. An e-mail comment was received by a project neighbor located along SE 2nd Street (Exhibit 7). The neighbor was concerned about their ability to exit their property, as the proposed new Road B would be directly in front of their existing driveway. They expressed concern about the development resulting in a traffic jam in front of their home. The project would increase trips at this location resulting in a small increases in traffic in the vicinity of the neighbor's driveway. However, based on the provided Traffic Analysis the maximum amount of trips anticipated at a concentrated peak hour is 14. These 14 trips would then be distributed among the two access points proposed off of SE 2nd Street, Road C and Road B. Based on the provided Traffic Analysis, staff does not anticipate traffic jams in front of the neighbor's driveway. Additionally, the ERC Report 12-018.doc City of Renton Department of Communi-, — Economic Development £ onmentoi Review Committee Report MAPLEWOOD PARK FAST LUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of September 24, 2012 Page 8 of 11 comment questioned why the development was not accessed off an extension of 152nd street instead of a new Road B. Staff's review of the extension of 152nd street as the primary access point included the potential to continue the grid system in the future. The extension of 152nd Street at the location of the existing right-of-way (west) would result in a dead end. This is a result of land to the north of the existing right-of-way already being developed as single family residential neighborhoods. The proposed location for the new Street B allows for the potential continuation of the grid system. The development and extension of this street would result in a new impact to the resident's location immediately south of the new road. Particularly an increase in direct light from vehicle headlights. However, the overall impact of 67 new weekday daily "out" trips would not result in an adverse impact above and beyond existing vehicular traffic anticipated trips at the horizon year of 2014. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay an appropriate Transportation Impact Fee. Currently this fee is assessed at $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. However, the City is planning an adjustment to the Transportation impact fees in the near future. Therefore the fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment, shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Transportation Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 3100, RMC 4-1 Administration and Enforcement 6. Fire & Police Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay an appropriate Fire Impact Fee. Currently this fee is assessed at $488.00 per each new single-family lot with credit given for the existing single-family lot. However, the City is planning an adjustment to the Fire Impact Fee in the near future. The fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee shall be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Impact fee, as determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of payment. The fee small be payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code either at the time of Final Plat Recording or building permit issuance. Nexus: Fire Impact Fee Resolution 2895, SEPA Environmental Regulations, RMC 4-1 Administration and Enforcement. E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ERC Report 12-018.doc City of Renton Department of Communi,, -� Economic Development E_..ronmental Review Committee Report MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST LUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of September 24, 2012 Page 9 of 11 ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, October 12, 2012. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 6. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING — Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. Plan Review —Water: ERC Report 12-01 S. doc City of Renton Department of Commun' Economic Development F ' onmental Review Committee Report MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST LUA12-018, ECF, PP Report of September 24, 2012 Page 10 of 11 Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City with the site plan application. Plan Review — Sanitary Sewer: 1. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadways is required. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic waters to serve the new homes on the new lots. Sewer fee for a 3/- inch water meter is $1,591.00. Sewer fee for a 1 - inch water meter is $3,977.00. An "approved" water plan from Water District #90 will be required to be submitted to the City. 3. This parcel falls within the assessment area known as the Wyman Latecomer Agreement. The Wyman final sewer assessment is $45,948.04. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. Plan Review —Surface Water: 1. Surface water system development fee is $1,012.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for the existing home. 2. A drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted by CPH Consultants with the site plan application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed 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 discusses meeting the area specific flow control requirement under Core Requirement #3. A Level 2 analysis is required. A combined detention and water quality pond is proposed. 3. A geotechnical report, dated February 21, 2012, was submitted by Terra Associates, Inc. The report identifies the soils as glacial till. These soils will not support 100% infiltration; however, partial infiltration using rain gardens or other appropriate flow control BMP options may be an option with typical designs for the site. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. Plan Review — Transportations/Street: 1. Transportation mitigation fees of $9,330.75 will be accessed. Credit has been given for the existing home. The rate is $75.00 x 9.57 trips x 13 lots. See Transportation Mitigation Fee sheet included. The fee is required to be paid pursuant to Renton Municipal Code either prior to recording of the plat or building permit issuance. 2. Street improvements are required to be constructed as part of this project. On January 3, 2012, Neil Watts, Director of Development Services, approved a request for a modification to the street standards. The modification will be granted subject to plat approval. Reduced roadway improvements would include: NE 2nd Street -- Parking both sides, with a curb and gutter 16 feet from centerline, an 8 - foot planting strip measured from face of curb, and a 5 -foot sidewalk. The sidewalk may meander only in front of the drainage tract, as long as the sidewalk is within dedicated right-of-way. The new north/south street — Residential access road will require 26 feet of pavement, an 8 -foot planting strip, and 5 foot sidewalk on both sides of the street. Parking will be ERC Report 12-018.doc City of Renton Department of Commun' Economic Development onmental Review Committee Report MAPLEWDDD PARK EAST LUA12-018, ECF; PP Report of September 24, 2012 Page 11 of 11 allowed on one side only. Right-of-way width for this street shall be a minimum of 52 feet. No meandering sidewalks. Internal narrow streets — Requires 20 feet of pavement and no sidewalks. Parking will not be allowed on these streets, and a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway area must be marked on one side of the pavement area. The right-of-way width for these street sections shall be a minimum of 26 feet. 3. Rosario Ave NE —Existing right-of-way width is 30 feet. This unimproved street fronts the project site along the west side. City code requires street improvements along all frontages; however, applicant may submit a request to waive the improvements since there are no plans to extend the roadway in the future. 4. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 5. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. Fire and Emergency Services: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 -feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5 -inch storz fittings, which the one at the southwest corner of the plat currently does not have. The existing hydrant is not within 300 -feet of the furthest proposed dwelling, so new hydrants and water mains are required. Water is provided by King County Water District 90, a certificate of water availability is required to be provided. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within 150 -feet of all points on the buildings. Dead end streets that exceed 154 -feet in length require an approved turnaround. Dead end streets that exceed 300 feet long require a full 90 -foot diameter cul-de-sac turnaround. Hammer head turnarounds are allowed for streets less than 300 -feet long. Roadway A as proposed to be a minimum of 26 feet wide with parking allowed only on one side of the street due to the potential for future road extensions is acceptable. Roadways B and C are proposed to be a minimum of 20 feet wide with in parking allowed on either side is acceptable. Property Services: See Exhibit S for comment memo. FRC Report 12-018_doc N r N i L L a Q O O 3 7 a a a 5 -3 RLa v 3 `m `m a_' O ,v_ o a 5 m n E m m m c _� w j o E E E ti a d v a K CL m U o 0 0 m V U$$ $ V V U c o o a V v g -5--to Im U 4 5 2 9 'nJ V O ¢ O z }' 5 5 E O U y c [[ � CE � of Cf of K W U U > > U U c) u = ca ¢ Q w U D » J ❑ M x W v �i CV L_ CD r I 'u d Q v e� W P ry OwY ;W w uo � mp ..y.. • NLS.-� �,^� F Mi�Es 5-4i �FOz -K Fm Z o F z ms i$ gPp�60 <Ls S zrx u -C im �Kx Ui W o4 WW UV2� j g5g 6"-Z' m a �� ,��� �� m n�� zj J n CRO"K�V✓. ,.i �FJ� =FDDS Ko�¢Z El Wl YS OZfS 3_Bf.6L 00N - fiS 6L£ � 40O z ULT 7 fry - f 2C.. t4 m t s r5'Bsa �si£ �o'sia �i � � N .4L'9 iCt 3„61.YZOON 5 z� � z Fj Xv 6�G '•� off2. SK.�i>pn ❑ o w = ,14'829 � .6tZLS = ,Sr2Lit x U � .LU'66 t1 O� f 3SF,BLOOw ,LLY LS �--� a<o a s �o� �<p tim= 0 b u tN��gp ..y.. • NLS.-� j �ry � a.�� 9•fY �z�55z� �Q"o zUz, ao Z`Z R`W Sd 2j a OYm6 a O� !��R•�'LjGONaF nOON iN $O�O S��K �w Lti m<u JJA4c �n �� i5i(=C FTn 33nznuwn �ry SFF �[� rvh .hmr WEM 3j?a z rv� Y W� N � h ry u C p a `M o a i M HH m W W u W O��o• die ;Vg 6 w � 2 wJ 9 s ❑ .�� • f�rv`ryn W 1 F •ry lN orc§a ✓. ¢T< n - rcip„ Fizz wa X432¢0 - i. zt2'Cot HS " g$ is 4 a N�O�W`s uz€ ERE m o� co . -% m? w $ GY nod x�Kr� w d„W.ai�� �� ids goo w -o I w j i �x ❑ � Y�„ T 6 ., SNF 'HP g��i� i�o <St$Ew o ��A'J2 xd§4-d I! ■I G � o 31 ai L9Z656S '19 t2C% "fLL6B+Yi1 r� �{�ry� - i � 8 Q/ON k¢.i ilC3R3Stl3 .¢1°f 6s6zc _ 3.6LiFz' oN ,W YL A¢'t1Sm G .ar6L �t�7s 11� AM MW F W w �O m a I Ell ej ----------------- - I-- --------- �6L_+LO¢N ^I—wIi , V t ----------------------- l r o,ro"Cll 3,61,tZ¢¢N i# I - �sf f r n I�.y LLQ, � FZ'Lrl o m<J�t_o� I n l I .--II i6s.rZovN $i Ri I ,. In G j Tp� IL c j Zt4L}7 I 3.85.95.09N � r zeztL-- ! o u 3,65,+LpgN - (' fl O = r � _ r 1D, CEI'{,.� - Q w a ,BISCI u �z� --------------- Jmw I } Ik 1 1 1 i m --------------------F----------- ® iG 86,tLWN oi5 �q9.P F 3 l (MLIK) 1 1 1 i m --------------------F----------- ® iG 86,tLWN oi5 x. V F o� (MLIK) JSY3 s 37mw 'NLN¢N Li dYS 'VL HOLL035 r/f 153MN1N¢N 31LL x U 15Y3HLWN 3HL !¢ AN -1 MR V O .� -cc r. g t? ME JSY3 s 37mw 'NLN¢N Li dYS 'VL HOLL035 r/f 153MN1N¢N 31LL x U 15Y3HLWN 3HL !¢ AN -1 MR V O .� e 1,L1 0 E ''I - f Jl-f•'* :, x W NULL'IllblbNCIO a03ION -NV Id MJVNIM1313d J x LU -T) 0 z rri 0 4 IL z LLI Q N VM'NO-LN3U NVId 1N3N3UVld3b 33H -L 31 z LLI LL, m IV -1d ISNI �8vd CIOOMD Vh 15 Lu X IX Lu C) LU H eF cr NULL'IllblbNCIO a03ION -NV Id MJVNIM1313d 36 x LU -T) 0 z rri 0 4 IL z LLI Q 0 w Ir LIJ Lij z LLI LL, m Lu X IX Lu C) LU H eF cr j Is 36 H, x LU -T) 0 z rri 0 4 IL z LLI Q 0 w Ir LIJ Lij H, 1111011111 WA NOINBU 1191H}C3 JO103 NY1d 3db'�SON'dl s a LLI tt " oa ° U cL Z j a j IV16 i5'd3 M'dd C10GMJlcNV� i �j 1% Ij r J U) g INc: 1111011111 N a LLI tt oa ° U cL Z j < j I LL! �j 1% Ij r U U) g INc: o >2 LL4 ✓_T 711111111111111111111111 IN 31-11111111 HIM 1111011111 N a LLI tt oa ° U cL Z j < j I LL! �j 1% Ij r U U) g INc: o >2 LL4 ✓_T 711111111111111111111111 IN NQIlof1J-LSN00 JOA J -ON 'NV -;d ALIVNINFE'dd a 0 ------------- 67. o o �'o L a LLI tt oa ° U cL Z j < j I LL! �j 1% Ij r U U) g INc: o >2 LL4 ✓_T ! i a 0 ------------- 67. o o �'o T H m H x W LLI tt 3 ° T H m H x W LLI tt U � Z j < j I LL! �j a Ij r U U) T H m H x W Vanessa Dolbee Al2- From: 12 - From: tntillini@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 5:25 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Maplewood Park East To whom it may concern, I am writing concerning the development known as Maplewood Park East. After looping at the plot map on the display board, we have realized that the entrance to this development would be directly across from our driveway. This dirt road has been there since our house was built (1974) and was used to get water to the horses which resided nearby. When the property was sold and a single house was built on the property (approx. 5 acres), the owner/builder used the dirt road which was already there. That presented no problem with just the traffic (2 cars)of a single home going in and out_ A fourteen house development presents a whole new problem with our ability to exit our property, not to mention the traffic jam in front of our house. We cannot see or understand why the entrance cannot or should not be from 152nd ave where there is already a cross street and the volume of cars will go easily into the traffic already in the area. We would appreciate your consideration on this matter. Thank you, Terry & Sandra Taylor 15243 s.e. 132 st. Renton e-mail--tntillini(a7comcast.net w !m H X W DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D Cin of kir�' AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 4, 2012 TO: Vanessa Dolbee FROM: Bob Mac Onie rw SUBJECT: Maplewood Park East, LUA-12-0-18-PP Format and Legal Description Review I have reviewed the above referenced short plat submittal and have the following comments: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-12-018- PP and LND-10-0488, respectively, on the final short plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Please note that the Northwest.and North quarter corners of Section 14, Township 23 North, Rang 5 East, W.M., are respectively, City of Renton monument numbers 1852 and 2103. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-130-100. Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided upon submittal of the final plat. Note said addresses and the street name(s) on the short plat drawing. On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities, trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. h:Uel syslWd - land subdivision & surveying recordAnd-10 - plats10488(maplewood park east)1rv110404pp.doc .,, 1-- Ia H x W Page 2 of 2 04/04/2012 Do note encroachments. Remove from the "LEGEND" block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do include in said "LEGEND" block the symbols and their details that are used in on the final plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the properties to the north are platted, do note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the final plat drawing The project narrative states that the 30 -foot wide easement areas along the western and southern boundaries of the site "will be extinguished with the recording of the final plat." As the rights at issue aren't vested in the City of Renton and subject to release thereby, a quiet title action may be necessary to clear them from the title. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" block is signed by the City of Renton Administrator, Department of Public Works. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the king County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. All vested owner(s) of the subject short plat, at the time of recordin , need to sign the final short plat submittal. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner dated within 45 days of the final plat approval. Note: the Master Application was signed by Marylane Stye who indicated that she was the owner rather than the owner's authorized representative; the title report shows that Surnstead Construction is the owner. h:ne sysllnd - land subdivision & surveying rewrdsllnd-10 - plats104$$(maplewood park east)1rv110404pp.doe March 22, 2012 Gayle Morgan Routing Coordinator Issaquah School District #411 805 2nd Avenue NW Issaquah, WA 98027 Subject: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat LUA012-018, ECF, PP mit+, rpt Renton 'I inninc, nitilisi0r7 The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a 14 -lot single-family subdivision located at the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue, Renton, 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 April 5, 2012. Elementary School: BRiARWOOD ELEMENTARY Middle School: MAYWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL High School: LIBERTY 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_X_ No Any Comments: Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, C711� Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure Denis Law Mayor Cl1 of. '> Q') r !�., September 20, 2412`a .,,! Department of Community and Economic Development C. E."C h i p"Vi n cent, Administrator Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Avenue #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat / LUA12-018, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Hough Thank you for submitting the additional materials requested in the July 31, 2012 letter from the City. Your project has been taken off hold and the City will continue review of the Maplewood Park East project. The Preliminary Plat has been rescheduled for ERC on September 24, 2012 and is tentatively scheduled to go before the Hearing Examiner on October 23,.2012 at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner CC" Tiffiny Brown - Burnstead Construction, LLC / owner(s) Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Wash ington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Vanessa Dolbee From: Darcey Miller [darcey.miller@otak.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 12:02 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee cc: Stephanie Smith Subject: Maplewood East wetland reconnaissance Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Vanessa, r('IA 1z -Cl We were out on the Maplewood East site the morning of July 26, 2012. Assuming we were estimating the location of the property boundaries correctly, we did not observe a wetland on the site. It is highly probable that a wetland is located offsite, to the south-southeast portion of the parcel to the west, possibly within the easement associated with the residential development. Although we did not perform a wetland delineation, we observed conditions that likely indicate wetland presence. Without the property boundaries marked, it is difficult to tell exactly where the potential wetland is located in relation to the site property boundary. Our recommendations to the applicant: • Mark the western property boundary of the Maplewood East project site. • Estimate the eastern potential wetland boundary on the parcel that is west of the site. • Rate the wetland (if it exists) using the City's rating methodology to determine the location of wetland buffers in relation to the project site. Please call me if you have any questions regarding our findings. Darcey PX_I� Darcey Miller, PWS � Senior Wetland Scientist 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 d; 425.739.7977 1 v: 425.822.4446 c, 206.427.9505 wW1VoLak.com `,-'� Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Denis Law C1 of 5_ Mayorrl }+ July 31, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vi ncent, Administrator Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Avenue #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat / LUA12-11118, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Hough: The Planning .Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on March 22, 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 October 30, 2012 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: The City has conducted an Independent Secondary Review/Reconnaissance (at the applicant's expense) of the wetland reconnaissance provided with the application. This secondary review included a site visit to determine if a wetland and/or a wetland buffer does or does not exist on the subject site. Based on the findings of the Independent Secondary site reconnaissance (Enclosed) three recommendations were provided as follows: Mark the western property boundary of the Maplewood East project site. • Estimate the eastern potential wetland boundary on the parcel that is west of the site. • Rate the wetland (if it exists) using the City's rating methodology to determine the location of the wetland buffers in relation to the project site. RMC Section 4-3-050M.3.a.1 states that "the applicant shall be required to conduct a study to determine the classification of the wetlond if the subject property or project area is within one hundred feet (100') of a wetland even if the wetland is not located on the subject property but it is determined that alterations of the subject property are likely to impact the wetland in question or its buffer." Based on the above code reference and the conclusions provided in the Independent Secondary Review, that there may be a wetland on the south-southeast portion of the parcel to the west, the Renton City Hall. - 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - rentonwa.gov Mr. Hough Page 2 of 2 July 31, 2012 applicant shall comply with, the above recommendations provided by Otak, to determine if any portion of this wetland and/or its buffer extends onto the project site. Once the delineation is completed please provide the City 5 copies of the report and delineation along with any updated plan sets that result from the wetland delineations. If plan sets are updated please provide the required number of copies identified in the submittal requirements and one small 8.5 x 11 reduced copy of any large format plan set. At this, time, your project has been placed "on hold".pending receipts of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosed: Secondary Reconnaissance Findings, E-mail, Otak cc: Tiffiny Brown - Burnstead Construction, LLC / Owner(s) Party(ies) of Record Vanessa Dolbee From: Stephanie Smith [stephanie.smith@otak.com] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:37 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Darcey Miller Subject: Maplewood East wetland reconnaissance Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Vanessa, We were out onsite this morning. It does not appear that there is a wetland on the project site. However, it appears there may be a wetland on the south-southeast portion of the parcel to the west, possibly within the easement, associated with the residential development. Without the property boundaries marked, it is difficult to tell exactly where the potential wetland is located in relation to the site property boundary. Our recommendations: Mark the western property boundary of the Maplewood East project site. Estimate the eastern potential wetland boundary on the parcel that is west of the site. Rate the wetland (if it exists) using the City's rating methodology to determine the location of wetland buffers in relation to the project site. Please call me if you have any questions regarding our findings. Steph FSrhnY�+iCCrk �^. � �t# Stephanie Smith I Wetland Biologist 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 t Kirkland, WA 98033 v: 425.739.7978 1 f: 425.827.9577 %ww.otak.com AReduce, Reuse, Recycle Disclaimer: The Information transmitted in this e4nall message and attachments, If any, may contain confidential material, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Distribution to, or review by, unauthorized persons Is prohibited. In the event of the unauthorized use of any material in this transmission, neither Otak nor the sender shall have any liability and the recipient shall defend, Indemnify and hold harmless the sender, Otak and Its principals, agents, employees and subconsultants from all related claims and damages. The recipient understands and agrees that any use or distribution of the material in this transmission is conditioned upon the acceptance of the terms stated in this disclaimer. If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this transmission including attachments, if any. Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:50 AM To: 'Matt Hough' Cc: Terrence J. Flatley; 'TifFiny Brown'; Jamie Schroeder Subject: RE: Meeting Today for Maplewood East Trees Attachments: Maplewood East wetland reconnaissance Matt, Thank you for sending me this information via e-mail. However, we will need to receive an official submittal of the revised/updated information in hard copy including the number of copies required at submittal and a reduced 8.5 x 11 of any large plan set submitted. if the revised tree calculations have resulted in changes to other plan sets (i.e. landscape plan and/or tree retention plan) please submit revised documents as necessary. On a different note, we have received an e-mail from Otak with the results of their site reconnaissance as it relates to the potential wetland located off site. Please find this e-mail attached. Overall, their conclusions made three recommendations. We will be sending an official letter requesting compliance with the three recommendations made by Otak. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. 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 From: Matt Hough [ma iIto: Matt@cphconsultants.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:04 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Terrence J. Flatley; 'Tiffiny Brown'; Jamie Schroeder Subject: RE: Meeting Today for Maplewood East Trees Vanessa, Attached is the updated Tree Retention Worksheet for the Maplewood Park East project (LUA12-018, ECF, PP). The updates reflect the information provided by the City Forester as well as additional information provided by the project arborist specific to the Alder count. Here is a summary of the updates/revisions: 1. The project arborist completed a detailed accounting of the on-site Alders. His report is attached, and the dead or diseased count has been increased per his recent matrix. 2. Dead or diseased count increased by six based on e-mail from forester. 3. An additional 17 existing trees are proposed to be retained. These were selected based on the forester and arborists report at locations near the rear of lots where the grading could be adjusted to a point that it stili seemed reasonable the tree could be saved and not be a future danger to structures. 4. The arborist's original report stated that 90% of the existing maples were danger trees or in poor health and in decline. The attached worksheet suggests that only 50% of those maples located on proposed lots be discounted as dead or diseased. The rest are proposed to either remain or be accounted for in the project's replacement total. Please, let me know if you have questions, want to discuss, or need anything else to complete your process. I appreciate the time and look forward to your response. Thank you. Matt Hough, PE President CPTH Consultants 733 7th Avenue, Suite 100 1 Kirkland, WA 98033 direct: (425) 285-2391 I mobile: (425) 941-5180 www,cphconsultants.com From: Vanessa Dalbee [mailto:VDoibee@Rentonw_aa- ovl Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:25 AM To: Matt Hough; 'Tiffiny Brown' Cc: Terrence J. Flatley Subject: FW: Meeting Today for Maplewood East Trees Matt and Tiffiny, Please find below the e-mail from the City's Urban Forester below. Please feel free to contact Terry with any questions you may have about his analysis. If you can please cc me on all correspondence with Terry, so I can keep our files up to date. Thank you, Vanessa Dof6ee 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: Terrence J. Flatley Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Meeting Today for Maplewood East Trees 2 Hi Vanessa, Leslie has jury duty today and I am supposed to fill in for her for some meetings. The first begins at 10:30 on budget, so will not be able to attend the 11 am meeting. We can touch base if you like before my 10:30 appt, up to you. Sorry. Here is my overview of the trees on that property: Densely wooded on the west half, scattered on the east half with more open field -like conditions. Trees that were identified by number on the plan: Agree to remove — 7346, 107, 7370, 7676, 7672, 7500, 7600, 7635 Dead Trees —109 Questionables —101 (two stems can be removed, one is in good condition), 106 (it's a clump of maples with no obvious dangers and could be left but will not improve with time), Trees with no immediate dangers) — 7351, 7330, 7331, 102, 103, 7423, 104, 7416, 105, 7413, 7395, 106, 107, 108, 7378, 7667, 7525,7523, Missing trees not found on site —7275, 7663 (this tree was not numbered on the site plan so I didn't try to track it down but assumed it was ok to remove based upon condition description) Blue trees — some of the cottonwoods indicated as dead were live, roughly the eastern half of trees. Generally, the wooded area on the site is in good condition and contains younger age class bigleaf maple, alder (some in decline), cottonwood and a few cherry trees mixed with older D. fir, W. redcedar and hemlock. I did note that the diameters shown on the site plan seemed smaller than what I encountered in the field for many of the trees. Terry Flatley Urban Forestry & Natural Resources Manager ISA Certified Arborist #PN -7272A City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 95057 TF latley @ Re nto n W a . Gov 425-766-6187 (ctrl -click to forestry web page) Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:07 AM To: 'Tiffiny Brown' Cc: Matt Hough Subject: Otak site reconnaissance Tiffiny, Pursuant to our phone conversations, please find attached the scope of work from Otak on the site reconnaissance for Maplewood Park East. As you will see the maximum amount billed will be $900.00. However, the City will send the bill to the project contact (Matt Hough) once received from Otak. The cost may be less than $900 if Otak does not have to dig test pits. Please let me know if you have any question. Vanessa (UoC6ee 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 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 5:28 PM To: 'Stephanie Smith' Subject: RE: Maplewood East Reconnaissance Stephanie, Thank you for the scope of work, we authorize Qtak to proceed. Vanessa (DoC6ee 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: Stephanie Smith [mailto:stephanie.smith@otak.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:53 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Darcey Miller Subject: RE: Maplewood East Reconnaissance Hi Vanessa, Attached is our scope of work for the Maplewood East Reconnaissance. When you are ready for us to schedule our fieldwork you can reply to this email with a notice to proceed. I will be out of the office for a long weekend, but 1 will be able check email on Friday and Tuesday. We look forward to hearing from you and conducting this site visit. Stephanie Stephanie Smith Wetland Biologist v: 425.739.7978 f: 425.827.9577 From: Vanessa Dolbee fmailto:VDolbee(@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:18 PM To: Stephanie Smith Subject: RE: Maplewood East Reconnaissance Stephanie, 1 We would like you to prepare a scope of work for the Maplewood East Reconnaissance. Our goal with this one is quick and low cost, so an e-mail response with a "yes there is a wetland" or "no there is not a wetland" is what we are really looking for. I have attached the plat plan and a few other documents that are associated with the Maplewood East project. As usual, I can send you large format document of anything you would like. Thank you, Vanessa (Doffee 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: Stephanie Smith [mailto:stephanie.smith@otak.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:13 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Darcey Miller Subject: RE: Maplewood East Reconnaissance Hi Vanessa, We have reviewed the material and have come up with a budget of $900. This allows a total of 5 hours for 2 biologists (includes preparation, site visit, travel time, and interpretation). We only bill for time and materials — if it is very obvious that there is no longer a wetland present in this area then the amount of time needed will be reduced and you will only be billed for the time used. On the flip side, if the area is marginal and we have to dig several soil pits to support our conclusions, we may need the full time. Also, do you have a site plan for the proposed development and/or any attachments to go with the Wetland Resources memo? Please let me know if you would like us to prepare a scope of work. Thank you, Stephanie Stephanie Smith Wetland Biologist v: 425.739.7978 f: 425.827.9577 From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbeeCd)Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:29 PM To: Stephanie Smith Subject: RE: Maplewood East Reconnaissance 2 An e-mail is just fine. Thank you. r anessa (Doffiee 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: Stephanie Smith[mailto:stephanie.smith(&otak.com1 Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:06 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Maplewood East Reconnaissance Hi Vanessa, Thank you for the information. We will get back to you shortly with a cost estimate. Would you like an email or call with the budget number before we prepare an actual scope of work? Also, through what method did DOE and the tribes comment on the Fieldbrook Commons project? SEPA? 1ARPA? Other? Thanks! Steph Stephanie Smith Wetland Biologist v: 425.739.7978 f: 425.827.9577 From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDalbee(&Rentonwa.govl Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:49 AM To: Stephanie Smith Subject: Maplewood East Reconnaissance Stephanie, Per our phone conversation attached are a few items that should help with the cost estimate. In the PDF map I have circled the area that we are thinking there may be a wetland/buffer that extends onto the subject property. The development is proposed at 15240 SE 132nd Street. Please let me know if you need anything more to make an estimate. Thank you, Vanessa (Dofbee Senior Planner 3 Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 Vanessa Dolbee From: Stephanie Smith [stephanie.smith@otak.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 2:53 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Darcey Miller Subject: RE: Maplewood East Reconnaissance Attachments: 319890 Maplewood East Reconn SOW.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Vanessa, Attached is our scope of work for the Maplewood East Reconnaissance. When you are ready for us to schedule our fieldwork you can reply to this email with a notice to proceed. I will be out of the office for a long weekend, but I will be able check email on Friday and Tuesday. We look forward to hearing from you and conducting this site visit. Stephanie Stephanie Smith I Wetland Biologist v: 425.739.7978 1 f: 425.827.9577 From: Vanessa Dolbee [ma ilto:VDolbee(&Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:18 PM To: Stephanie Smith Subject: RE: Maplewood East Reconnaissance Stephanie, We would like you to prepare a scope of work for the Maplewood East Reconnaissance. Our goal with this one is quick and low cost, so an e-mail response with a "yes there is a wetland" or "no there is not a wetland" is what we are really looking for. I have attached the plat plan and a few other documents that are associated with the Maplewood East project. As usual, I can send you large format document of anything you would like. Thank you, Vanessa Ooffiee 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 Scope of Work City of Renton Maplewood East Reconnaissance Otak Project No. 31989C Proposal for Professional Services July 19, 2012 The following scope of work and cost estimate was developed by Otak, Inc. (Otak) to provide the City of Renton (City) with a wetland and stream field reconnaissance of a portion of the proposed Maplewood East development. The reconnaissance will include a site visit and a review of documents provided to Otak by the City. Our approach to this work is divided into three tasks: 1) background review, 2) wedand and stream reconnaissance site visit, and 3) a brief email with our findings. Scope of Work Task I—Background Review Otak staff will review documents provided by the City to gain project history regarding critical areas on or near the project site as well as to determine the reconnaissance approach, Task 2—Site Visit/Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance Two Otak staff members will conduct a site visit to the approximately 4.5 -acre site (parcel 1423059003), that is located on the north side of SE 132" Street (NE 2n� Street) and east of 152"' Avenue SE. The purpose of the site visit will be to verify whether any wetlands are located on or adjacent to the project site. Assumptions: We will dig test soil pits to inform our decision regarding the presence or absence of wetlands on the project site. We will perform only a reconnaissance (not a formal delineation) of the northwest portion of the site. The site reconnaissance can be completed by Otak biologists during a single, five-hour field day (including travel time). Task 3—Communication of Findings Based on our review of the project documents and information gathered during our field assessment, Otak staff will prepare a brief email that summarizes our findings regarding the presence or absence of wetlands and streams. If appropriate, this email may (but is not required to) include data sheets documenting our findings in the field. Alapleuood East Wletland Reconnaissance utak K;\project\31900\31989C\C:ontract\31989C Maplewood East Reeonn SOW.docx Scope of Work Continued Assumptions: • A technical memorandum will not be prepared for this portion of the project. Schedule and Fees Our proposed fee summary is as follows; Tasks 1 through 3—Review, Site Visit, Communication of Findings $880 Expenses (Estimated) $20 Proposed Fee Total $900 Otak proposes to complete the above Scope of Work for a time and materials amount of $900.00. 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. Maphn,00d East Wletland Reconnaissance K:\projcct\319UU\31989C�Con traet\31989C Maplewood Past Rcconn SOW.docx 2 otak Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:25 AM To: Matt Hough; 'Tiffiny Brown' Cc: Terrence J_ Flatley Subject: FW: Meeting Today for Maplewood East Trees Matt and Tiffiny, Please find below the e-mail from the City's Urban Forester below. Please feel free to contact Terry with any questions you may have about his analysis. If you can please cc me on all correspondence with Terry, so I can keep our files up to date. Thank you, anessa Oof6ee 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: Terrence J. Flatley Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:12 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Meeting Today for Maplewood East Trees Hi Vanessa, Leslie has jury duty today and I am supposed to fill in for her for some meetings. The first begins at 10:30 on budget, so will not be able to attend the 11 am meeting. We can touch base if you like before my 10:30 appt, up to you. Sorry. Here is my overview of the trees on that property: Densely wooded on the west half, scattered on the east half with more open field -like conditions. Trees that were identified by number on the plan: Agree to remove — 7346, 107, 7370, 7676, 7672, 7500, 7600, 7635 Dead Trees —109 Questionables —101 (two stems can be removed, one is in good condition), 106 (it's a clump of maples with no obvious dangers and could be left but will not improve with time), Trees with no immediate dangers) — 7351, 7330, 7331, 102, 103, 7423, 104, 7416, 105, 7413, 7395, 106, 107, 108, 7378, 7667, 7525,7523, Missing trees not found on site -- 7275, 7663 (this tree was not numbered on the site plan so I didn't try to track it down but assumed it was ok to remove based upon condition description) Blue trees — some of the cottonwoods indicated as dead were live, roughly the eastern half of trees. Generally, the wooded area on the site is in good condition and contains younger age class bigleaf maple, alder (some in decline), cottonwood and a few cherry trees mixed with older D. fir, W. redcedar and hemlock. I did note that the diameters shown on the site plan seemed smaller than what I encountered in the field for many of the trees. Terry Flatley Urban Forestry & Natural Resources Manager ISA Certified Arborist #PN -7272A City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 TFlatle RentonWa.Gov 425-766-6187 (ctrl -click to forestry web page) PI Vanessa Dolbee From: Tiffiny Brown [Tiffiny@burnstead. corn] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:31 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Matt Hough; Chip Vincent Subject: Maplewood Park East LUA12-018 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Vanessa, It seems we are missing each other after my voicemail to you on Monday. So, I'm sending this email to both document and to try to bring final resolution to our team's frustration with the conflicting comments and undue, prolonged process we have received from the City over the last year. After addressing your first "on hold" notice regarding right-of-way width. Burnstead then received a second with issues not mentioned in the first. These new issues were brought to our attention just two days before staff was to have their report finalized, which left our team no time to respond before the ERC and hearing date were cancelled. The City has had emails from the public since March, but waited until June to share them with Burnstead and to request us provide comment—again, without adequate time to respond before causing delay in the project's hearing date. I understand that the City now has concerns with what is being viewed as "conflicting information" from wetland reports that were prepared for two different projects and points in time. Burnstead does not have a full copy of the nearly 13 year old report that is cited in your latest notice, nor do we believe it is relevant to the project currently being reviewed. Wetlands change over time due to weather events and other environmental changes. Our wetland professional for the Maplewood Park East project has provided a report stating that current conditions show no evidence of wetland on our near our property. There was no question of this conclusion during when it was disclosed in our meetings and other site planning discussions and should not be an issue of concern now_ I also understand that the City, in response to a public comment, wants to cite the potential impacts to sensitive areas as justification or find some other reason for not extending 152nd Avenue East. This was not discussed in your "on hold" notice, but I want to respond here such that it does not become a basis for future delays for this project. We met with you and other staff on a number of occasions last summer regarding road layouts and future circulations. It was agreed through those efforts that dedication of right-of-way along the west boundary was not preferred or ideal for the City's future road network. I recall that the existing right-of-way corridor and adjacent open space tract was seen as more suitable for pedestrian access and connection to the King County Park tracts north of our site. The current site layout makes use of the current topography to maintain natural drainage patterns. The proposed lot configuration and orientation of public roads away from the off-site open space tract and wetland west of our site is also a reasonable response. We are evaluating the preservation of some of the existing maple trees along the north boundary of the project site with some revisions to the preliminary grading design. Regardless, though, our team maintains that the tree replacement worksheet as previously submitted accurately reflects what is in the field based on the evaluation provided by our certified arborist. Renton municipal code 4-4-130H(1.a) states that trees that "... are safety risks due to root, trunk or crown structure failure shall not be counted towards protected trees." Nowhere in Section 4-4-130 does it stipulate that the evaluation of whether or not a tree is a safety risk shall be determined in the pre -developed site condition as is suggested by your latest notice. Regardless, though, our arborist has categorized a number of trees as being "poorly developed", in "premature decline", and having "multiple structural defects including broken tops" in their current condition. As such, these would qualify as damaged and diseased trees to be excluded from the replacement tree count per 4-4-13OH(1.a). The arborist's report also concludes that most red alder and black cottonwoods on the project site are in poor condition and "...presently dead and/or in vast decline." RMC 4-4-130 H7.d classifies red alder and black cottonwood trees as species with weak wood and prone to breakage regardless of the current condition. These categorizations, both by the arborist and the code, clearly meet the definition of "...safety risks" per RMC 4-4- 130H(1.a) and would not be counted as protected trees. Please contact me directly to confirm that the responses provided with this email satisfy the City's concerns and that Burnstead's application can proceed immediately to the ERC for their review and approval. I want to avoid any further delays to this project. Thank you, Tiffiny Brown Burnstead Construction LLC Director of Land Development 425.454.1900 ext 234 Denis Law Mayor City Of.- r� June 7, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Interim Administrator Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Avenue #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat / LUA12-018, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Hough: The Planning Division of the. City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on March 22, 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 September 6, 2012 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: • During the development of Maplewood Estates Phase 2, City file number LUA99- 069, a wetland was identified and protected to the west of the subject site. Based on the Wetland Evaluation/Conceptual Mitigation Plan, competed by Terra Associates, Inc. dated July 20, 1999 for Maplewood Estates this wetland extended of the Maplewood Estates site and onto the subject property. However, with the subject application the applicant submitted a wetland reconnaissance that identifies that "No wetlands or streams are located on or adjacent to the subject property". Due to the conflicting information, staff requests that the applicant provide further analysis of the potential wetland located along the western boundary of the subject site. • The applicant submitted a tree retention work sheet and an associated Arborists Report. Based on the information provided in the Arborist Report, the calculations in the tree retention worksheet are not accurate and need to be adjusted to accurately reflect the current conditions on the site prior to development. Trees that are eligible for deductions from the replacement calculations. shall either be located in public streets, private .access easements/tracts, critical areas, or be determined to be dead, diseased or dangerous. Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous shall be dead, diseased or dangerous in their current condition prior to development. Additionally, the City of Renton Forester will be evaluating the provided Arborist Report and Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way . Renton,Washington 98057 rentonwa.gov City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 5, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-018, ECF, PP DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 22, 2012 APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown PROJECT TITLE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 196,188 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street & 152nd Avenue PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) None at this time SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corer of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acre and is 4.50 acres in size. Lot sizes vary from 7,869 square feet to 10,326 square feet, 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and a 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed resulting in a net density of 3.97 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas_ The site contains 232 protected trees, of which 2 are proposed to be retained with 89 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. With the application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Faith Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet We hove reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and hove identified areas of probable impact or areas where additigngl information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYD a c't�f AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 14, 2012 TO: Jan Illian, Plan Review and Corey Thomas, Fire FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner" �{' J SUBJECT: LUA12-018 Maplewood Park East, updated plan sets Please find attached updated plan sets for the subject project. The applicant has amended the plan sets based on the City's request. Please provide comments on the proposed modification by May 29, 2012, to Vanessa Dolbee. hacedlplanninglcurrent planninglprojects112-018.vanessalupdated submittal memo 12-018.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY G City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M RATE: May 14, 2012 TO: Bob MacOnie, Property Services ry FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner4' SUBJECT: LUA12-018 Maplewood Park East, updated plan sets Please find attached updated plan sets for the subject project. The applicant has amended the plan sets based on the City's request. Please provide comments on the proposed modification by May 29, 2012, to Vanessa Dolbee. hacedlplanninglcurrent planninglprojects112-018.vanessalupdated submittal memo—2 12-018_doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D a city of O' AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 14, 2012 TO: Jan Illian, Plan Review and Corey Thomas, Fire FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planne4 SUBJECT: LUA12-018 Maplewood Park East, updated plan sets Please find attached updated plan sets for the subject project. The applicant has amended the plan sets based on the City's request. Please provide comments on the proposed modification by May 29, 2012, to Vanessa Dolbee. h:lcedlplanninglcurrent planninglprojects112-018.vaaessalupdated submittal memo 12-018.doc Denis Law City of i Mayor \i , May 14, 2012 •�ti�,�-.�+ Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Interim Administrator Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Avenue #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat / LUA12-018, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Hough: Thank you for submitting the additional materials requested in the March 28, 2012 letter from the City. Your project has been taken off hold and the City will continue review of the Maplewood Park East project. The Preliminary Plat has been rescheduled for ERC on lune 11, 2012 and is tentatively scheduled to go before the Hearing Examiner on July 10, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. if you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, �lr'4rl (-,I- Vanessa Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: Tiffiny Brown - Burnstead Construction, LLC / Owner(s) Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law ty 01W Mayor 1� 1 March 28, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 733 7th Avenue#100 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat, LUA12-018, ECF, PP / LUA Dear Mr. Hough: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on March 22, 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 26, 2012 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: • . The provided plat layout did not reflect the approved road modification to Road B and C as approved by Neil Watts, Director of Development Services. Road B and C are to reflect 20 -feet of pavement and a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway on one side of the pavement area. The right-of-way width for these street sections shall be a minimum of 26 -feet in width. Please update the preliminary plat map to reflect the approved road modification and the street cross sections, in addition to any other submitted plan sheets that may be impacted by this change. Once modified, the City will need the same number of copies of each plan set as required at project submittal, in addition to an updated reduced 8.5 x 11 sheet of each plan set. 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, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: Tiff iny Brown - Burnstead Construction, LLC / Owner(s) Chris Hartshorn, sandy & ferry Taylor, Robert D. Hagerman / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way a Renton, Washington 98057 9 rentonwa.gov A In City of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY C` AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 26, 2012 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Planner FROM: Jan Illian, Plan Review SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments for the Maplewood Park E. Plat NE 2nd Street and 152 Ave SE LUA 12-018, ECF, PP I have reviewed the application for the Maplewood East Plat located at the NE corner NE 2nd Street and 152 Ave SE and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER Water service will be provided by Water District #90. SEWER Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in NE 2nd Street. STORM There is no drainage conveyance fronting the site in NE 2nd Street, however there is an 18 - inch culvert to the west. STREETS There are no street frontage improvements in NE 21h Street. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. Water service will be provided by Water District 4#90. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City with the site plan application. SANITARY SEWER 1. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadways is required. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic waters to serve the new homes on the new lots. Sewer fee for a 3/- inch water meter is $1,591.00. Sewer fee for a 1 -inch water meter is $3,977.00. An "approved" water plan from Water District #90 will be required to be submitted to the City. 3. This parcel falls within the assessment area known as the Wyman Latecomer Agreement. The Wyman final sewer assessment is $45,948.04. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PROJECTS/11-088.Rocale/Plan Review Comments LUA 11-088.doc Maplewood Park East — LUA12-018 Page 2 of 3 March 26, 2012 SURFACE WATER 1. Surface water system development fee is $1,012.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Credit will be given for the existing home. 2. A drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted by CPH Consultants with the site plan application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed 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 discusses meeting the area specific flow control requirement under Core Requirement #3. A Level 2 analysis is required. A combined detention and water quality pond is proposed. 3. A geotechnical report, dated February 21, 2012, was submitted by Terra Associates, Inc. The report identifies the soils as glacial till. These soils will not support 100% infiltration; however partial infiltration using rain gardens or other appropriate flow control BMP options may be an option with typical designs for the site. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. TRANSPORTATION/STREET 1. Transportation mitigation fees of $9,330.75 will be accessed. Credit has been given for the existing home. The rate is $75.00 x 9.57 trips x 13 lots. See Transportation Mitigation Fee sheet included. The fee is required to be paid prior to recording of the plat. 2. Street improvements are required to be constructed in the right of way fronting the site in NE 12`' On January 3, 2012, Neil Watts, Director of Development Services, approved a request for a modification to the street standards. The modification will be granted subject to plat approval. Reduced roadway improvements would include: • NE 2"0 Street— Parking both sides, with a curb and gutter 16 feet from centerline, an 8 -foot planting strip measured from face of curb, and a 5 -foot sidewalk. The sidewalk may meander only in front of the drainage tract, as long as the sidewalk is within dedicated right-of-way. • The new north/south street — Residential access road will require 26 feet of pavement, an 8 -foot planting strip and 5 foot sidewalk on both sides of the street. Parking will be allowed on one side only. Right-of-way width for this street shall be a minimum of 52 feet. No meandering sidewalks. • The remaining internal narrow streets — Requires 20 feet of pavement and no sidewalks. Parking will not be allowed on these streets, and a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway area must be marked on one side of the pavement area. The right-of-way width for these street sections shall be a minimum of 26 feet. 3. Rosario Ave NE — Existing right of way width is 30 feet. This unimproved street fronts the project site along the west side. City code requires street improvements along all frontages; however, applicant may submit a request to waive the improvements since there are no plans to extend the roadway in the future. 4. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. H./CED/Planning/Current PEanning/PROJECTS/12-018.Vanessa/Plan Review Comments LUA 12-018.doc A Maplewood Park East — LUA12-018 Page 3 of 3 March 26, 2012 5. Street lighting is required for this plat. Lighting plans will be included with the civil plan submittal. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer connection and storm connection will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PROJEC15/12-018.Vanessa/Plan Review Comments LUA 12-018.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: G�' l COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 5Jr 2012 —Ran APPLICATION NO: LUA12-018, ECF, PP 3 DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 22, 2012 APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECTTITLE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 196,188 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street & 152nd Avenue PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) None at this time SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corer of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acre and is 4.50 acres in size. lot sizes vary from 7,869 square feet to 10,326 square feet, 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and a 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed resulting in a net density of 3.97 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 232 protected trees, of which 2 are proposed to be retained with 89 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. With the application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LandfShoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14 000 Feet 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 odditional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Project Name: S# 893 TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number; Maplewood Park East PP NE 2"d Street & 152"d Avenue Tiffiny Brown LUA12-01 S Project Description: 14 -Lot SFR plat Land Use Type: X Residential ❑ Retail ❑Non -retail Calculation: 14 x 9.57 = 134 ADT 134 x $75.00 = $10,050.00 Transportation Mitigation Fee: Calculated by: Date of Payment: Method of Calculation: X ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition ❑ Traffic Study X Other - Letter Jeff Schramm 2/27/2012 (210) SFR 9.57 trips/DU $10,050.00 K. Kittrick 0 Date: 2/26/2012 A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: r COMMENTS DUE: APRIL S, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-018, ECF, PP DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 22, 2012 APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TiTLE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 196,188 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street & 152nd Avenue PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) None at this time SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corer of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acre and is 4.50 acres in size. Lot sizes vary from 7,869 square feet to 10,326 square feet, 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and a 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed resulting in a net density of 3.97 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 232 protected trees, of which 2 are proposed to be retained with 89 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. With the application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air water Plonts Land/shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Ma%or Information impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14, 00a Feet 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 r ' ;�4 Vanessa Dolbee (J,,: / z — From: Jan Illian Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 4:15 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Maplewood Park East Site Plan Review Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag States: Completed Vanessa, The applicant will need to revise the civil plans to reflect the modification to Road B and C as approved by Neil Watts, Director of Development Services. Road B and C are to reflect 20 feet of pavement and a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway on one side of the pavement area. The right-of-way width for these street sections shall be a minimum of 26 feet. City of Renton Development Services 1055 - S. Grady Way 6th floor Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7216 iillian@ rentonwa.gov ' ' , , Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:15 AM To: 'tntillini@a comcast.net' Subject: RE: Maplewood Park East Terry and Sandra Taylor, Thank you for your comments of the subject project, City file number LUA12-018. The comments will be added to the project file and will be taken into consideration as a part of the project recommendation and decision. in addition, you will be added to the party of record list for the project and will receive future correspondence and notification of Public Hearing information etc. If you have additional comments to submit, the official comment period will open soon. You will receive notice of this comment period as well. If you have further questions or would like to come in and look at the application materials please do so, we are located on the 6`h Floor of City Hall. Once again, thank you for taking the time to comment on the project application. Vanessa 1Doffee 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: tntilliniftcomcast.net fma1lto:tntillin1@comcast.netJ Sent; Saturday, March 17, 2012 5:25 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Maplewood Park East To whom it may concern, I am writing concerning the development known as Maplewood Park East. After looking at the plot map on the display board, we have realized that the entrance to this development would be directly across from our driveway. This dirt road has been there since our house was built (1974) and was used to get water to the horses which resided nearby. When the property was sold and a single house was built on the property (approx. 5 acres), the owner/builder used the dirt road which was already there. That presented no problem with just the traffic (2 cars)of a single home going in and out. A fourteen house development presents a whole new problem with our ability to exit our property, not to mention the traffic jam in front of our house. We cannot see or understand why the entrance cannot or should not be from 152nd ave where there is already a cross street and the volume of cars will go easily into the traffic already in the area. We would appreciate your coi eration on this matter. Thank you, Terry & Sandra Taylor 15243 s.e. 132 st. Renton e-mail--tntillini@comcast.net Vanessa Dolbee I ` " oi From: tntillini@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 5:25 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Maplewood Park East To whom it may concern, I am writing concerning the development known as Maplewood Park East. After looking at the plot map on the display board, we have realized that the entrance to this development would be directly across from our driveway. This dirt road has been there since our house was built (1974) and was used to get water to the horses which resided nearby. When the property was sold and a single house was built on the property (approx. 5 acres), the owner/builder used the dirt road which was already there. That presented no problem with just the traffic (2 cars)of a single home going in and out. A fourteen house development presents a whole new problem with our ability to exit our property, not to mention the traffic jam in front of our house. We cannot see or understand why the entrance cannot or should not be from 152nd ave where there is already a cross street and the volume of cars will go easily into the traffic already in the area. We would appreciate your consideration on this matter. Thank you, Terry & Sandra Taylor 15243 s.e. 132 st. Renton e-mail--tntilliniCa-,)comcast.net DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY p C't3'OF AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT` M E M 0 R A N D U M DATE: March 4, 2012 TO: Vanessa Dolbee FROM: Bob Mac Onie SUBJECT: Maplewood Park East, LUA-12-0-18-PP Format and Legal Description Review I have reviewed the above referenced short plat submittal and have the following comments: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-12-018- PP and LND-10-0488, respectively, on the final short plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Please note that the Northwest and North quarter corners of Section 14, Township 23 North, hang 5 East, W.M., are respectively, City of Renton monument numbers 1852 and 2103. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-130-100. Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided upon submittal of the final plat. Note said addresses and the street name(s) on the short plat drawing. On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities, trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. h:lfile sysllnd - land subdivision & surveying recordsllnd-10 - plats10488(maplewood park east)1rv110404pp_doc Page 2 of 2 ©4!04/7012 Do note encroachments. Remove from the "LEGEND" block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do include in said "LEGEND" block the symbols and their details that are used in on the final plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the properties to the north are platted, do note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the final plat drawing. The project narrative states that the 30 -foot wide easement areas along the western and southern boundaries of the site "will be extinguished with the recording of the final plat." As the rights at issue aren't vested in the City of Renton and subject to release thereby, a quiet title action may be necessary to clear them from the title. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" block is signed by the City of Renton Administrator Department of Public Works. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. All vested owner(s) of the subject short plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final short plat submittal. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner dated within 45 days of the final plat approval. Note: the Master Application was signed by Mary Jane Slye who indicated that she was the owner rather than the owner's authorized representative; the title report shows that Burnstead Construction is the owner. h:lfile sysUnd -land subdivision & surveying recordsllnd-10 - plats10488(maplewood park east)1rv110404pp.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:`` COMMENTS DUE: APRILS, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-018, ECF, PP DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 22, 2012 APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Iliian SITE AREA: 196,188 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street & 152nd Avenue PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) None at this time SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corer of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acre and is 4.50 acres in size. Lot sizes vary from 7,869 square feet to 10,326 square feet, 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and a 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed resulting in a net density of 3.97 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 232 protected trees, of which 2 are proposed to be retained with 89 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. With the application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 .OIL ^ Nx CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU ; MEMORANDUM DATE: March 26, 2012 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Comments for Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat Environmental Impact Comments: The fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 -feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5 -inch storz fittings, which the one at the southwest corner of the plat currently does not have. The existing hydrant is not within 300 -feet of the furthest proposed dwelling, so new hydrants and water mains are required. Water is provided by King County Water District 90, a certificate of water availability is required to be provided. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within 150 -feet of all points on the buildings. Dead end streets that exceed 150 -feet in length require an approved turnaround. Dead end streets that exceed 300 -feet long require a full 90 -foot diameter cul-de-sac turnaround. Hammer head turnarounds are allowed for streets less than 300 -feet long. Roadway 'A' as proposed to be a minimum of 26 -feet wide with parking allowed only on one side of the. street due to the potential for future road extentions is acceptable. Roadways 'B' and 'C' as proposed to be a minimum of 20 -feet wide with no parking allowed on either side is acceptable. C70 maplewoodsp .0 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 5, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-018, ECF, PP DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 22, 2012 APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Doibee PROJECT TITLE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 196,188 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street & 152nd Avenue PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) None at this time SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corer of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acre and is 4.50 acres in size. Lot sizes vary from 7,869 square feet to 10,326 square feet, 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and a 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed resulting in a net density of 3.97 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 232 protected trees, of which 2 are proposed to be retained with 89 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. With the application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants tand/Shorefine Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hVGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet _::5- _17� , , A_J 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 Re Date 4 A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS "It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreation facilities and programs. The City has adopted a Parks Mitigation Fee of $530.76 per each new single family lot to address these potential impacts." Parks Mitigation Fee City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: {— COMMENTS DUE. APRIL Sr 2012 ,r� APPLICATION NO: LUA12-018, ECF, PP DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 22, 2012 C' APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee �(; PROJECT TITLE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian e SITE AREA: 196,188 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street & 152nd Avenue PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) None at this time SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision_ The site is located on the NE corer of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue 5E, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dwelling units per net acre and is 4.50 acres in size. Lot sizes vary from 7,869 square feet to 10,326 square feet, 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and a 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed resulting in a net density of 3.97 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 232 protected trees, of which 2 are proposed to be retained with 84 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. With the application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study_ A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Q, WAC C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor molar Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hVGlore Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,0090 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or area here additional informa ' is needed to properly assess this proposal. Sign ure of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: r4o sm i -C, 11"'/ COMMENTS DUE: APRIL S, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12 018, ECF, PP DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 22, 2012 APPLICANT: Tiffiny Brown PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 196,188 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street & 152nd Avenue PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) None at this time SUMMARY of PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the NE corXr of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 14 (R -4j dwelling units per net acre and is 4.50 acres in size. Lot sizes vary from 7,869 square feet to 10,326 square feet, 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and a 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed resulting in a net density of 3.97 dwelling units per acre_ The site is currentlYvacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 232 protected trees, of which 2 are proposed to be retained with 89 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. With the application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plontr Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic,/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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. 12, Z Signature of re r or Authorized Representative pate C NOTICE OFAPPLICATION CANCE MOPDETERMINATION OF Cipi DNS -My t2AT E. March 22, 201Z LAND USE NUMBER! LUAll-018, ECF. PP PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appikant Is regveslln8 Envimnmenlal III ISEPAI and Prellminary Pla! ,—t and 1S21rt approval for a 14 Int single family resdenWi subdlvHien. The a�sa E IsIs 4.50 accnel 1,ost e. Lot Esizes sri From 1,869 AYenue SE, coned Residemdal 4 (R-0) dwe@ng units per ne square Feet to 10,316 square feet, 40,946 sgwre het woukd he dedkated for new ptruN' d es�" is "'n"try square foot stmmwater tact 4 Pr.1.1. 14,1= In a net density of 3.97 dwelling un, Per recant and contains no trakal areas. The site contains 237 protected trees, of which 1 ase se m 4e repined wllh 89 rcpiecement trees. The Prof wouid nsuit In 11,000 cubic verde of excaratlon with 10,000 cubic yards of- street 89 rta8e Int rrorememts would be Welded ailing HE inti Street and new Internal toed systems art prcposed. With She application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, Iii- chintsI report, wetland reconnsis4amu, and a traffic study. PROJECT LOCATION: NE WrneraF NE 1"d Street and 152'r Arenue Op'nMAL DETERMINATION OF NON-S4GNIFIUfILE, MITIGATED ONS-rarh AS the Lead agency, the City of Penton has determined that s1{rFNcant erwlronmenta{ Imp•cis are imllkely to resWt from the propaead pro]ect. Therefore, as permittedpoderahe PCW 43.21C.110, the UtY or Renton is using the OPW-1DQS-� IoM Bret Integrated Into aa single h5 Is Ilke Fr t9 he issued. Comment pe aids for the project and the propose omment pefi0d. Ther! will be rw cOit—L Wed rollowing the issuance or the Threshold Ceterroln Ilion or Mom ggniFicanc,Mltlgated IDNII A 14 d" appeal period wlRfoliow the Issuance afthe Drvir+l. PERMIT APPNUTION DATE: NOTIcs; OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSONI Plrmlb/Renew Ra9uesled: floor mnatiltswhich may be r•cuii Requested Studies: tauUan where aPpllotVan may be mlewed: March 13, 2011 March 22, 2012 Matt HoW h, PEI 'PH Consultants, 733 7's AYenue 8100: Ittrlland, WA 590331 1 matt�Whconsulbnn.som Envimnmanul (Si Pedlar, Preliminary Plat 0.rrfew C,rsstresdUan and Building Parmhe Gaatechnlcat Study, Srormerater Report, Transportation Analysb, Wefland Reconalssann RePort noriciP DWS19n, Sixth float Random City Mail,t10ic sssSouth Graady�Way, Rani WA 48057 IE you would the t0 br, made a party of record to rt[!Ne hlnher fnfOmnallon on the pmwSed Pro}ec[, cample[e thh loom anb mum to: City of Renton, CED— Punning 0ivismir,1055 So. Grady Way. Renton. W A 99057. Name/Pik No.: Maplewood I East PreliMr-Y PlatlLUAlvni ECF, PP NAME' MAILING ADDRESS. TEU:PHONE Ni rui HEARING: Public heath, is tmratlK•h'vM1.dvin6 lorMry ss. 1013 before the Renton Hetrirne Examiner In Renton CPGnCII Chambers. Heanni begin at 1:00 p.m. on the i th tioor of the new Rennin City hall lamina it toss south Grady Way. C➢N5157ENCT UYEMAEW: ioninaflanl Ilse! The suli site l5 deslgnated Resldentlonal Low Density IRLD)on the City of Aenton Cemprehensire Land Use Map and Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre {041 on the City's zoning Map, EnNmnm,Mal Documentsthat Eraivatetlr Proposed Projeni Environmental lSEPAI Chei Oewlopment flegulallons Used F-Prolast MI11gatldn: The ami wiEl he subj-[ to the City's SEPI ordinance, RMC 4-1-201g, AMC 4. 7-1 RMC 4,14M, RMC 4.9-070 and other applicable codes and reguiadons is app,dP tste- Pr.00.11 Mitigation Measures: The foll9wing Mitigation Measures will likely be Imposed on the proposed project. Thew recommended Mitigation Measures address Project impacts not cwend by eclsting codes and regulations ascited above. ' The oppifptwM be ",,ad to Por the upproplate ihmrporterian Mttlpetion Far, • The oppilcii.Rl1 returned ro pay rhe appropti Ffre MMgntlen Fee; end • The opp'kurst IN be required m I the epprpp,kntr PcrAs MihPutfon Far • The applicant shod r—ply with the recomme0d0tbn in the Geotechrricaf Report. The applicant shell comply with chi recommendcshcros in the TmjfcShsdy. Comments on the above appikii most he submitted In writing m Vanessa tralbaa, senior Punnet, CEO — Planning prNslon, 1055 South Grady Way, Ramon, WA gMS7, by 5:00 PM Om Apr{ 5, 2011. Thi matter h abo tentathely scheduled for a whik hearing on May 15, 2011, at 1c00 p.m., Council Chamber; Seventh P{Oor, Renton City Ham, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If You are Interened In atterviingthe hini please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has rent beenrescheduled at (425) 430-7202. 0 comments onnot be submitted In -Aing by the date - 'odieated above, you may still appear at the hearlog and present your —scene on the proppaal before the Head% Eeaminer. it you have quii about this Propssi,L or wish to be made a Party of record and re additional Infonmede. by mall, please contact the project manager. Anyone who sp 1, written mmme.1, will aulomalevily became a Parry of record and will he not fled of any deevinnon this Prefect CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Wiliest, Senior Planner, Tel: (425) 430-7314; Ernl: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER PILE IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATION hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted in _7S 'conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date:Signed: 1 l STATE OF WASHINGTON } } S5 COUNTY OF KING } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that -� aa- Lo signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and Dumoses mentioned in the instrument. A: -Z ,�+ s fig Ave eY `yr ISR. a HE►n►Vaua�•* 2 Notary Public in And for the State of Washington Notary (Print): / My appointment expires: caa (, 54 a q 0- f� CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 22nd day of March, 2012, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, Notice of Application, Environmental Checklist, Reduced Site Plan documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies — NOA, Env. Checklist, Site Plan See Attached Matt Hough - Accpt Ltr Contact Tiffiny Brown - Accpt Ltr, NOA Applicant/Owner 300' Surrounding Property Owners — NOA only See attached (Signature of Sender): 'Aw STATE OF WASHINGTON- ) 55 COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker 411 tt»%� ��•`` signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: �yyj�C Notary Public in a4d for the State of Washington Notary (Print): _ LC1142-eK My appointment expires: c= s f r 2 c�3 Project Name: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat Project Number: LUA12-018, ECF, PP template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn; Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172od Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev- Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: %RD -01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *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 Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template - affidavit of service by mailing 512631063009 AHMED SULTAN+BEGUM RAHIMA 251 QUINCY AVENUE NE RENTON WA 98059 144260005000 BORNSTINE DOUGLAS+JOANNE N 15235 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 98059 512631051004 BUSIAN CLIFFORD N+BERNADETTE BERNARDO 6012 NE 2ND CT RENTON WA 98059 144260008004 DURWOOD E BLOOD 3711 PARK AVE N RENTON WA 98056 512631054008 GARCIA GREG M+PATTI CUTLER 270 QUINCY AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 512631055005 GOMEZ-ELEGIDO JOSE MANUEL 264 QUINCY AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 142305906901 HANES ROGER L 15402 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 98059 512631065004 JOHNSON DOUGLAS 265 QUINCY AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 142305907206 KING COUNTY -PARKS ADM -ES -0800 500 4TH AVE SEATTLE WA 98004 144260010000 LESLIE MICHAEL N+ANNETTE N 15413 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 98059 512630081002 943275010008 ALGER GREGORY J+MARISSA S ANTONESCU ILIE I+MARIANA 6008 SE 1ST CIR 15316 SE 133RD CT RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 144260011008 142305900300 BOSSE MITCHELL E BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION LLC 15421 SE 132ND ST 11980 NE 24TH ST #200 RENTON WA 98059 BELLEVUE WA 98005 512630085003 512630078008 DENG WEN BIAO+SHUTING LI DONTHI MANJESHWAR T 6011 NE 2ND ST 6003 NE IST CIR RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98055 512631061003 144260003005 ENLOE ERIN M EPSTEIN JASON G+ADRIENNE B 225 QUINCY AVE NE 15219 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 943275012004 142305911406 GIANG PAUL GODSOE CARL T & KATHLEEN R 15336 SE 133RD ST 3010 STRAWBERRY RD RENTON WA 98059 ANCHORAGE AK 99502 144260004003 512630087009 HAGERMAN ROBERT D HAMM MARK 15227 SE 132ND ST 177 QUINCY AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 943275011006 512630079006 HERMAN ROBERT M & MICHELLE HERNANDEZ MANUEL F JR+LISA F 15324 SE 133RD CT 6015 NE 1ST CIR RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 512631062001 142305907909 KELLERMAN ISAAC S+SHARON L KELLONIEMI DANIEL L+HOLLY A 231 QUINCY AVE NE 18412 SE 133RD PL RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 512631064007 943275020007 KRUZICH BOYD+ANGELA LEACH GARRY K+KATHERINE E 257 QUINCY AVE NE 15308 SE 133RD CT RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 512630083008 512631058009 LUC JULIE M+TIEN M MCNAUGHTON JOHN C+SHEREE C 6002 NE IST CIR 236 QUINCY AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 943275009000 512631056003 144260007006 MIER MARTIN A NELSON GEOFFREY+KAREN NEWBURY GARY G 15300 SE 133RD CT 258 QUINCY AVE NE 15251 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 512630086001 PHAM IDA NGA 6017 NE 2ND ST RENTON WA 98059 512631053000 SNOOK JOEL E+SHEREE A 6024 NE 2ND CT RENTON WA 98059 512631050006 TESSIER STEPHEN R 6006 NE 2ND CT RENTON WA 98059 943275014000 TROUT KAREN L 15412 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 512630082000 WILSON JAMES W+MELINDA R 6014 NE IST CIR RENTON WA .98059 512631057001 ROTHMAN JASON L 252 QUINCY AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 512630080004 ST JOHN JAMES M+LINDA J 6009 NE IST CIR RENTON WA 98059 144260001009 SAKAGUCHI CHIKAI BILL+MITSU 15203 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 98059 144260006008 TAYLOR TERRY N 15243 SE 132ND RENTON WA 98055 512631052002 943275013002 THACKER LEE R+ERIN K THOMAS KIM H 6018 NE 2ND CT 15404 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 512631059007 943275015007 UHT TERRY L+LAURA J WANLESS ROBERT G+CATHERINE 232 QUINCY AVE NE 15420 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 512630084006 WONG SUZANNE F K+WONG WING K+WONG SHARON 6005 NE 2ND ST RENTON WA 98059 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS -M) DATE: City of LAND USE NUMBER: , t PROJECT NAME. Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Revlew, Preliminary Plat Review NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS -M) DATE: March 22, 2012 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA12-018, ECF, PP PROJECT NAME. Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA) and Preliminary Plat approval for a 14 lot single family residential subdivision. The site is located on the N£ corer of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, zoned Residential 4 (R-4) dweding units per net acre and is 4-50 acres in size. Lot sizes vary from 7,869 square feet to 10,326 square feet, 40,946 square feet would be dedicated for new public roadways, and a 31,376 square foot stormwater tract is proposed resulting in a net density of 3.97 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently vacant and contains no critical areas. The site contains 232 protected trees, of which 2 are proposed to be retained with 89 replacement trees. The project would result in 11,000 cubic yards of excavation with 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Street frontage improvements would be provided along NE 2nd Street and new internal road systems are proposed. With the application the applicant submitted a storm drainage report, geotechnical report, wetland reconnaissance, and a traffic study. PROJECT LOCATION: NE Corner of NE 2nd Street and 152d Avenue 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 singie comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated (DNS -M). A 14 -day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS -M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 13, 2012 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: March 22, 2012 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Matt Hough, PE; CPH Consultants, 733 7th Avenue 6300; Kirkland, WA 98033; Eml: matt@cphconsultants.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Revlew, Preliminary Plat Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction and Building Permits Requested Studies: Geotechnical Study, Stormwater Report, Transportation Analysis, Wetland Reconaissance Report Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 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. Name/File No.: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat/LUA12-018, ECF, PP NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for May 15. 2012 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 1:00 p.m. on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hail located at 1055 South Grady Way. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residentianal Low Density (RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-1106, RMC 4- 7-080, RMC 4-3-050, RMC 4-9-070 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: 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 recommendation in the Geotechnical Report. ■ The applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the Traffic Study. Comments an the above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolbee, Senlor Planner, CED — Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on April 5, 2012. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on May 15, 2012, at 1:00 p.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 I Denis Law Ci Mayor u Department of Community and Economic Development March 22, 2012 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Matt Hough, PE CPH Consultants 7337 th Avenue ##100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Subject: Notice of Complete Application Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat, l_UA12-018, ECF, PP Dear Mr. Hough: 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_ It is.tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on April 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 May 15, 2012 at 1:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the 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, _rVLO�-Dol be-a-.. Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: Tiffiny Brown - Burnstead Construction, LLC/ owner(s) Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor �i`7 1�1���� rte; ..�.a► �..t'•....► March 22, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Gayle Morgan Routing Coordinator Issaquah School District #411 805 2"d Avenue NW Issaquah, WA 99027 Subject: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat LUA01z-018, ECF, PP The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a 14 -lot single-family subdivision located at the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue, Renton. Please seethe 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 April 5, 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: Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, -- ramo�-D Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosure Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 9 rentonwa.gov CONSULTANTS September 5, 2012 City of Renton Development Services Division Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat City of Renton, File No. LUA 12-018, CPH Project No. Dol 1-11-008 Response to "On Hold" Notice and Request to Continue Approval Process Vanessa, Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development Consulting This letter and enclosures are provided in response to your "On Hold" Notice (July 31, 2012 letter) for the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat project (City of Renton File No. LUA1 2-018). It also includes an updated tree inventory and revised preliminary plat plans to replace those submitted previously for the preliminary subdivision application. The updated plans reflect the additional tree retention (i.e., saved trees) and associated grading revisions. The following information has been updated and is intended to replace the corresponding, previously submitted application materials such that the City can release the "hold" and proceed with the preliminary subdivision approval process: UPDATED PRELIMINARY PLAT PLANS 5 — Conceptual Utility Plan 12 —Conceptual Grading Plan S — Conceptual Drainage Control Plan 5 — Conceptual Landscape Plans 4 — Tree Cutting /Land Clearing — Tree Retention Worksheet Plan 1 — Landscape Plan -Colored Map for Display 2 — Plan Reductions of all revised sheets ADDITIONAL INFORMATION /REPORTS 2 — Supplemental Arborists Report — Alder and Cottonwood Assessment 2 — Wetland and Stream Evaluation — Site Investigation Specific responses to the comments in your "On Hold" letter of July 31St are as follows: • Mark the western property boundary of the Maplewood East project site. The western boundary of the site was not marked as there was no wetland or associated buffer located onsite or offsite in the vicinity of the property. • Estimate the eastern potential wetland boundary on the parcel that is west of the site. The project biologist, Scott Brainard of Wetland Resources, re -visited the offsite area identified by the City's consultant, Otak as potentially containing a wetland. He confirmed by way of his reconnaissance that an offsite wetland in the existing open space tract no longer exists. A copy of his letter report with welland rating sheet is attached for your reference. 733 7th Avenue, 50e 100 - Kirkland, WA 98033 - Phone: (425) 285-2390 • Fax: (4251 285-2389 www.cphconsuliants.com Maplewood Park Fast Preliminary Plat City of Renton File No. l.UA 12-018 CPN No. 001 1-1 1-008 September 5, 2012 Page 2of2 + Rate the wetland (if it exists) using the City's rating methodology to determine the location of the wetland buffers in relation to the project site. The project biologist, Scott Brainard of Wetland Resources, re -visited the offsite area identified by the City's consultant, Otak as potentially containing a wetland. He confirmed by way of his reconnaissance that an offsite wetland in the existing open space tract no longer exists. A copy of his letter report with wetland rating sheet is allached for your reference. Please, contact me directly at (425) 285-2391 or by e-mail at mattOk-phconsultants.com if you have questions or need any additional information to complete your review and approval of the project. Your time and prompt response is appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, CPH_ Cons t6nts, LLC Mafthew �ough,K, President_ Enclosures co Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction Copy to file A IN„�F0 International Forestry CONSULTANTS, INC. a subsidiary of American Forest Management, Inc. 11415 NE 128Ih Street, Suite 110, Kirkland, WA 9BO34 • (425) 820-3420 • Fax (425) 820.3437 • www.inforesiry.com Memorandum To: Tiffiny Brown, Bumstead Construction LLC From: Bob Layton CC: Date: 7/24/2012 Re: Maplewood East — Alder and Cottonwood Assessment Ms. Brown, itY Of Renton Planninq Division SEP - 5 2012 ArEcimu Per your request I have completed an assessment of the red alder trees and black cottonwood trees at the Maplewood East site in Renton. Tree Summary Tables are attached which identify all of the non- viable trees assessed. The red alder on the property and on adjacent properties to the north and west is in very poor condition. Very few alder trees in the subject area are expected to survive for another five years. The majority are showing signs of decline, evidenced by dead, broken and dying tree tops. Several of the surveyed trees have died, rotted and have fallen down. These are indicated on the attached map as "DOWN". Non-viable trees are shown X'd in "blue" with a "blue" tree number_ A total of 62 of the alder trees identified on the survey are considered non-viable and are either dead or in vast decline and are not expected to survive for another five years. These alder trees regenerated on the site after a clearing and grading event, likely 20 to 30 years ago. This pioneer species readily colonizes disturbed spaces. It is naturally designed to grow fast and to prepare the forest floor for the second generation of longer living tree species. On mechanically disturbed sites, longevity is highly decreased, with decline occurring at around 20 to 30 years or less. Trees at the end of their useful life -spans begin to decline and die back from the top downwards. Once this mortality spiral begins, there are no methods to reverse it. Five cottonwood trees were also found to be in a non-viable and dangerous condition. These small diameter trees have extremely high height to diameter ratios. These are considered dangerous trees as the bsk of stem breakage is very high, especially with the development of basal decay as these subject trees have. As I discussed in my original assessment report, there are several high-risk cottonwood trees within the right-of-way of 132`d Street, many of which are completely dead. These need to be removed prior to fall windstorms to reduce the risk of damage or injury. You will note on the attached tree map that I made a few species corrections to the survey. Three of the trees on the subject property identified as alders are actually two big leaf maples and one bitter • Page 1 cherry, all of which appear to be in a viable condition. I also made comments on trees existing within the utility easement along the west perimeter. There are no trees within this easement that have a high retention value. Utilizing the tree map, you should be able to re -work the Tree Retention Worksheet for the property. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance or you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Bob Layton ISA Certified Arborist #PN -2714A Certified Tree Risk Assessor #233 • Page 2 , Qryr„�4 PA+R rw5 , 7,rYy A' N'1x'12"W 46 10* ire 1 , % , a� 3a.o}r �t- �f ,e y 7Ff"T 4ZIP + ,o.• • ,� _,7° iYA, r � �DOCs C 5 ` +taxi �Y _ 0® : \ ? ti gyp'„. ` Irpot PDR'+r� �lrarl \ \ s]r taor + i'µ� —1� +� \ .. A j'"•'. } 1 � ') j � +�i r�� � �.?+Tk•."'-"��' }exp '.. Q „Pt'.r Q � , W. 30.0' WCUENT F?R RW Ii `J ti +' yO V I t 73JJJf� uF Es PER U-AAM3). 5672161, 5068267 4 } + ? 1 r r.wv WA6}rjx �• � �� � � :rim =-' �'• {� -' 76'7 I t "1 1 � a 'y 1►='y � � �(f'j,. _ ' ;. � tip'` ti \ , r \ iz te•„ 10-7 xqXF FBF •�v I N' ,' '1 1 :.t \\ � I �� —�>�� '�'.� `�^/,� � - 18114 (1 •� � � G7� ti �' .,.' ��' 'o�°°'r7 is �' '4 PIr 00 F--fPU W. END E. EMO - — ., .... Al -- _- Ili -u 1E -- ,1E 12` CONC - 469.3' IE 12' CGNC . 471.1' 5Pffp L1111Y °b FOUND }dj' RV ARY SURVEY FUJINO PUW-HMA" IN OUND .r MASS ow As SMACE SEC-n( W/110/2007 71 ti A. aww� UN� OF SWTA J� Or THE SOUT4 H E ;TOOQ tW A S T )4' 00 'C� THE NORDfOCST fl IrA SE 14. TWP 23" NORTH. RANGE 3 t14 IrA AW 'Pq rrl allp pli wwF J131- TPK*l 42305.9003 Nil AV4 105.15$ SO1 Fl. PARCEC A ItECORDINC #64082$0719 h. --uo c % JW ,I,wv v N SFE DETAIL ti ON RCHT F *Tam 9 FKBAR RED AJOS COMMOL CAP ELEV - 4W79' % Wo sit 33o ,-SSW 7059 N TYPE 1 46-v- w 1� RQ . 484 53, IL 0" PVC W . 473.63w 11WENTER CHANNEL 473.71' NO JE EAST W-W W. 6ik ODNC LA w END ti- D�+17)001Fav *k.!-2 D ---------- 7— E. IS' I? COW- - 4a7.8' .4 L N d? m N O iI 1 w O CO c O U LU CO ❑ r U)d CN Z M O 0 r 0 L ❑ m o 0 Q' N = (.) Lu LU io nnumn■mn■ MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMME . �ao�a�eaaa�maa��aa� _ z L L L L L L L L L L L 4, L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L -q- A-1-IM14,6­6 OO O It M Q Ln '061-1- m T�"- r r r r T T T r T T T m N [O [O O N 0 N M 01 N co co OQ 0 C) ti LO O (p [*) C0 � C4 f� I- (d v I� I+ � 00 00 00 0 C! � � CD T n ti ti ti ti ti n �� ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti N ` y 00 Oa O N d O c E IL1 qr M N r j!ja a o 0 o 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 0 0 a T C -it C0 !-- IOlecoNv-01 A a O W M O '4O aU �U U w N m 0 'c0 (D m y' 0 z0?0� of i9 Q L y � ac CV 0 LO T A .� 0 Qi �t 00 �' m:ra O N L c GI> M Q GI L ❑ ❑ LU .� 0 L 41 O O a 0= EEEEo�° L t�i�aa�tgg X W w m O y "O N N C •M y' U QI T N "O c R N � pa � N Q C t O O c C O 0 C 0 O •C U U R - c c V p L Q O C C Y O Y p N Y O Y O C R G N N '8 N 'C -0.__ a a YI R /ll R y N D 8-0 v Q v 9 O N N L L to Y m R a a m o 0 Q N y Y 'R '8 'V V Y-0co U r �" L Vl L '0 V m `c� o � a a�� a v v am, v �C) nnumn■mn■ MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMME . �ao�a�eaaa�maa��aa� _ z L L L L L L L L L L L 4, L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L -q- A-1-IM14,6­6 OO O It M Q Ln '061-1- m T�"- r r r r T T T r T T T m N [O [O O N 0 N M 01 N co co OQ 0 C) ti LO O (p [*) C0 � C4 f� I- (d v I� I+ � 00 00 00 0 C! � � CD T n ti ti ti ti ti n �� ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti N ` y 00 Oa O N d O c E IL1 qr M N r j!ja a o 0 o 0 0 0+ 0 0 0 0 0 a T C -it C0 !-- IOlecoNv-01 A a O W M O '4O aU �U U w N m 0 'c0 (D m y' 0 z0?0� of i9 ODUR'U L y � ac CV 0 LO T A .� 0 Qi �t 00 �' m:ra a L N L c GI> M N GI L ❑ ❑ LU .� 0 L 41 O O a 0= EEEEo�° L t�i�aa�tgg X W w m N a N M N ti C M O Q C m w cn Y � C CL N r O LLJ 0 U) Wo .0+ Q N(D r N 0 LL N C G! E E O U ICJ V M N T- 0000+ 0 6 N 19t W Crl- 47 -e " N •+ Gi l 0 Z A R C O C. O O 0 LO N _O A V O Gs ev N � d L E E' +7 � O 2 Q. 0 v is w CL a N C t {U� N C L S U tm dS C m d i6 m N c, 'o c c -0 '� 7 "" '� , -0 CD cn CD 10 O C 0 O N UI az.-I Nl N O N N N N 4 C � � O 'a Q� 41 C L O � 'O "O Q7 4 ICJ V M N T- 0000+ 0 6 N 19t W Crl- 47 -e " N •+ Gi l 0 Z A R C O C. O O 0 LO N _O A V O Gs ev N � d L E E' +7 � O 2 cr' Q D U) z 0 z rO V W NW N O U d Q EO C N H W fq N C a C" O w p U) N O p O LO N /GCy1 m T /V p LL C tv E E O U w N Q O C E Lo Nr M N � a 0 0 0 O O d C + 0 OO O 0 0 � N 'C (D I- LO V M Cf r 01 M W 7 O 7E m N L Em N wetlaffd1�e4gomol-eeg,IWO, Delineation / Mitigation ? Restoration 1 Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance August 31, 2012 Burnstead Construction Attn. Tifliny Brown 1215 120th Avenue NE #201 Bellevue, WA 98005 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 o-� Renton Fax (425) 337-3045 Planning Di,,rrsiorn SEP - 5 201; RE: Wetland & Strea rn Evaluation —15240 SE 132nd Street, Renton, WA Wetland Resources, Inc. completed a site investigation on August 22, 2012, to locate and evaluate jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the unimproved right of way (ROW) of 152nd Ave SE in the City of Renton, Washington. The Washington State Department of Ecology Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual March 1997, (Delineation Manual) was used to determine wetland conditions. The purpose of this report is to address Otak's findings and email summary, as well as address any concerns the City of Renton has as to why the wetland no longer exists. Site Description The ROW and areas to the west are mostly forested with a gentle southwest aspect. Portions of' this area west of the ROW were previously delineated as wetland and designated as a sensitive area tract for the adjacent subdivision to the west. This area is generally undisturbed with the exception of a pedestrian trail located on the western most portion of the sensitive area tract. Vegetation within the investigation area is represented by a canopy of big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU), red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac), cascara (Rhamnus purshiana, Fac-), and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginate, FacU), with salmonberry (Rubes spectabdis, Fac+), vine maple (Acer circinatutn, Fac-), hazelnut (Co ylus cornuta, FacU), osoberry (Oemleria cerasifonnls, FacU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FacU), dewberry (Rubus ursinus, FacU), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FacU), and Pacific bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa, FacU+) in the understory. Typical soils across the site have Munsell colors from very dark gray (10 YR 3/1) to dark brown (10 YR 3/3) with textures of silt loam to sandy loam from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils across the site were very dry during the August 22, 2012 site investigation. The attached data sites were taken in topographic depressions in areas with a higher probability of being wetland. In addition, multiple other soils samples were taken throughout the investigation area with similar results. No wetlands or streams are located on or immediately adjacent to the ROW. Change in Site Conditions since March 1999 The previous delineation that was conducted (by others) for the off-site Maplewood Estates project occurred in the early growing season (March/April) of 1999 during a period of heavy precipitation. The 3.66 inches of rainfall recorded in the month preceding that field -work likely resulted in hydrology conditions that corresponded in a "false positive" wetland determination. While the original 1999 delineation data was not reviewed with this analysis, it is unlikely that the vegetation and soils have changed significantly since that time. With this in mind, it is probable that the original consultant based their delineation primarily on hydrology and not on all three parameters. The August 22, 2012 investigation evaluated all three parameters as required by the Delineation Manual and the City of Renton. The investigation resulted in a clear non -wetland determination based on lack of all three parameters. The wetland area located in the off-site open space tract adjacent to the ROW of 132nd which was the subject of the plat of Maplewood, does not existing, nor does it extend into the ROW or tax parcel 1423059003. Use of this Report This Wetland and Stream Evaluation Report is supplied to Burnstead Construction as a means of determining on-site wetland and stream conditions. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access, which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Scott Brainard, PWS Principal Wetland Ecologist 2 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Maplewood Park East City/County: King Sampling Date: 8/22112 Applicant/Owner: Burnstead Construction Company State: WA Sampling Point: S1 Investigator(s): SB Section, Township, Range: S14, TWP23, R5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): '-3% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.464995 Long: -122.137643 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 - 15% slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ ✓ _ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes +r No _ _ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No _ ✓ ✓ within a Wetland? Yes No V(Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ver Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) ver Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophyllym 50 Y Facli 4 That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant 2 Rhamnus purshiana 30 Y Fac - 3. Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66% (A/B) 5aolinolShrub Stratum (Plot size: } t Rubus spectabilis 50 Y Fac+ Prevalence Index worksheet - Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2, Acer circinatum 30 Y Fac- OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = 3, 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: } UPL species x 5 1 Polystichum munitum 30 Y FacU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2 Atherium filix femina 30 Y Fac Prevalence Index = B1A = 3. 4, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test is X50% Prevalence index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 6, 7_ 8. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 9 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 11. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: } 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators_) Depth Matrix _ _ Redox Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TypeLoc2 Tgxtyre Remarks 0-10" 10YR 311 90 1, 2, 4A, and 413) fsl No observed redox 10-18+" 10YR 313 90 Salt Crust (1311) — fsl No observed redox C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. -'Type: Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) — Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) (except MLRA 1) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Surface Water Present? Yes No_ _ Depth (inches): Type: Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches)_ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No +� Remarks: ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No V HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) _ Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 413) 4A, and 46) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (1311) — Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (613) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (132) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (134) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (66) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No_ _ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No V Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No V includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indication of hydrology (seasonal or otherwise) was observed at the time of investigation. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast– Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Maplewood Park East CitylCounty: King Sampling Date: 8122112 ApplicanL/Ownor: Burnstead Construction Company State: WA Sampling Point: S2 Investigator(s): SB Section, Township, Range: S14, TWP23, R5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): —3% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: 47.484995 Long: -122.137643 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 6 - 15% slopes NWI classification: None Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes— +� _ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Vr No— _ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ _ No _ V( _ within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ° Cover Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) ° Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1 Populus balsamifera 30 Y Fac That Are 08 L, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) z Acer macrophyllum 10 N FacU Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66% (AIS) Saolingl5hrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Rubus armeniacus 60 Y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of MultiDly bv: 2 Rubus spectabilis 30 Y Fac+ g Spiraea douglasii 10 N FacW OSL species x 1 = FACW species x2= FAC species x3= 4. 5. = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 = 1. Polystichum munitum 10 N FacU Column Totals: (A) (6) 2. Prevalence Index = B!A = 3 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is s3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5 ti 7. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Welland Non -Vascular Plants' g. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 10 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 11. be present, unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: } 1. Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation Present? Yes No = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix —Redgh Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) 3U j1ptL Loc Texture Remarks 0-18+" 10YR 313 90 Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, sil No observed redox Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation; PL=Pore Lini , M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (except MLRA 1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (178) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Field Observations: Type: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: Depth (inches): Soil take at the lowest portion of the site in a depressional area. Saturation Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indic5jjprq 2 or more re uired Surface Water (A1) _ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (except MLRA _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, — High Water Table (A2) 1, 2,4A, and 413) 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No _ J _ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No J Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No J includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No indication of hydrology (seasonal or otherwise) was observed at the time of investigation, US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version T�esow rec. . .......... .. ..", , /hc, Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration I Habitat Creation I Permit Assistance City of Renton Planning Division June 28, 2012 JUN 2 9 niz Burnstead Construction tn]E�IIE V [E© Attn. Tiffiny Brown 1215 120th Avenue NE #201 Bellevue, WA 98005 I ci? 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 RE; Wetland & Stream Evaluation — 15240 SE 132nd Street, Renton, WA Wetland Resources, Inc, completed a site investigation on July 13, 2011, to locate and evaluate jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the 4.5 -acre site located at 15240 SE 132nd Street in the City of Renton, Washington. The Washington State Deuartment of Ecoloav Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual March 1997, (Delineation Manual) was used to determine wetland conditions. At the time of our site work, there were patchy clouds with scattered rain showers, and a temperature of approximately 65 degrees. Site Description This site is mostly forested with a gentle south aspect. A lawnlcleared area is located in the eastern portion of the property. In the past, this clearing was the site of a single- family residence, which is no longer present. Access is from the south via SE 132nd Street. Surrounding land use is comprised of undeveloped, forested land to the north, with residential development to the south, east, and west. Vegetation over the site is represented by a canopy of big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU), red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FacU), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FacU-), and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata, FacU), with salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac+), vine maple (Acer circinatum, Fac-), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta, FacU), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FacU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FacU), dewberry (Rubus ursinus, FacU), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FacU), filaree (Erodium cicutarium, NollUpl), and Pacific bleeding heart (Dicentra Formosa, FacU+) in the understory. Typical soils across the site have Munsell colors from very dark grayish brown (10 YR 312) to dark yellowish brown (10 YR 414) with textures of silt loam to sandy loam from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils across the site were dry to slightly moist during our July 2011 site investigation. No wetlands or streams are located on or immediately adjacent to the subject property. Change in Site Conditions since March 1999 The previous delineation that was conducted (by others) for the off-site Maplewood Estates project occurred in the early growing season (March/April) of 1999 during a period of heavy precipitation. The 3.66 inches of rainfall recorded in the month preceding that field -work likely resulted in hydrology conditions that corresponded in a "false positive" wetland determination. While the original 1999 delineation data was not reviewed with this analysis, it is unlikely that the vegetation and soils have changed significantly since that time. With this in mind, it is probable that the original consultant based their delineation primarily on hydrology and not on all three parameters. The July 13, 2011 investigation was the second reconnaissance conducted by Wetland Resources Inc. We again evaluated all three parameters as required by the Delineation Manual. The investigation resulted in a clear non -wetland determination based on lack of all three parameters. The wetland area located in the off site open space tract adjacent to the ROW of 132nd which was the subject of the plat of Maplewood, may still be present. While it was confirmed this wetland does not extend into tax parcel 1423059003, the buffer would likely extend into the ROW of 132nd Ave. If improvements are conducted within the ROW, buffer impacts will occur. By accessing the property at a location other than the 132nd ROW, direct impacts to buffer and potential indirect impacts to the Maplewood wetland can be avoided. Use of this Report This Wetland and Stream Evaluation Report is supplied to Burnstead Construction as a means of determining on-site wetland and stream conditions. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access, which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Scott Brainard, PWS Principal Wetland Ecologist 2 Site Planning Civil Engineering CP H Project Management CONSULTANTS Land Development Consulting April 27, 2012 City of Renton CITVDF REN'raN Development Services Division R E C E I V E D Attn: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way APR 21 2012 Renton, WA 9$057 BUILDING DIVISION RE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat City of Renton, File No. LUA 12-018, CPH Project No. 001 1-11-008 Response to "On Hold" Notice and Request to Continue Approval Process Vanessa, This letter and enclosures are provided in response to your "On Hold" Notice (March 28, 2012 letter) for the Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat (City of Renton File No. LUA12-018). The following information has been updated and is intended to replace the corresponding, previously submitted materials such that the City can release the "hold" and proceed with the preliminary subdivision approval process: 12 — Plat Plan 5 — Conceptual Utility Plan 12 —Conceptual Grading Plan 5 — Conceptual Drainage Control Plan 11 — Street Cross-sections 1 — Site Plan -Colored Map for Display 1 — Plan Reductions of all revised sheets 12 —Density Worksheet 3 — Closure Calculations Specific response to the comment in your March 28th letter is as follows: 1. The provided plat layout did not reflect the approved road modification to Road B and C as approved by Neil Watts, Director of Development Services. Road B and C are to reflect 20 -feet of pavement and a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway on one side of the pavement area. The right of way wi_�th for these street sections shall be a minimum of 26 -feet in width. Road B and C have been revised to provide the 26 -foot of right-o'•way and 20 -Foot pavement section as described in the Street Modification for proposed Moplewo ad Fast Preliminary Plat approval letter from Mr. Neil Watts dated January 3, 2012. It remains our proposal, however, to provide a 4 -foot wide marked pedestrian path within the pavement section instead of the 6 - foot wide walkway specified in the approved modification. The 4 -foot width provides adequate width For the limited number of lots it would serve and more proportionate with the overall 20 -foot pavement section. The specific method of marking this path has been deferred to final engineering design as noted in the updated sections provided with this re -submittal. Please, contact me directly at (425) 285-2391 or by e-mail at mattCcDcl2hconsultants.com if you have questions or need any additional information to complete your review and approval of the project. Your time and prompt response is appreciated. Thank you. 733 7th Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 - Phone: (425) 285-2390 - Fox: (425) 285-2389 www.cphconsullants.com I wood Park Fast Preliminary Plat City of Renton He No. LUA 7 2-018 CPN No. 001 1-1 1-008 April 27, 2012 Page 2of2 Sincerely, cnaosures CC: Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction Copy to file icy ot € �ent;on DENSITY APR -'7 2°i' WORKSHEET City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. 196,188 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 43,550 for net acreage 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned 44,654 square feet 0 square feet 0 square feet 2. 44,654 square feet 3. 151,534 square feet 4. 3.48 acres 5. 14 units/lots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. 4.02 = 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. R;lPW1DEV5ERV1Forms\Planningldensity.doc Last updated: 11!0812000. 1 LOT SUMMARY City of Renton Planning Division ,SPR. �.7 ?D12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------Ir r - Parcel name: LOT 1 North: 507724.79 Line Course: N 88-09-10 w North: 507728.33 Line Course: S 00-24-19 w North: 507673.14 Curve Length: 38.64 De�ta: 88-33-29 Chord: 34.91 Course In: S 89-35-41 E RP North: 507672.96 End North: 507647.97 Line Course: S 88-09-10 E North: 507645.21 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507724.79 East : 1646625.02 - - --- - Length: 110.03 East 1646515.05 Length: 55.20 East 1646514.66 Radius: 25.00 Tangent: 24.38 Course: S 43-52-26 E Course out: S 01-50-50 w East 1646539.66 East 1646538.85 Length: 85.66 East 1646624.47 Length: 79.58 East 1646625.03 Perimeter: 369.12 Area: 8,628 SQ. FT. 0.1981 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: N 82-42-47 E Error North: 0.001 East : 0.009 Precision 1: 36,911.00 Parcel name: LOT 2 North: 507798.79 Line Course: S 00-24-19 w North: 507724.79 Line Course: N 88-09-10 w North: 507728.33 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507802.33 Line Course: S 88-09-10 E North: 507798.79 East : 1646625.55 Length: 74.00 East : 1646625.02 Length: 110.03 East : 1646515.05 Length: 74.00 East : 1646515.57 Length: 110.03 East : 1646625.55 Perimeter: 368.07 Area: 8,140 SQ. FT. 0.1869 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure. 0.00 Course: S 90-00-00 E Error North: 0.000 East : 0.000 Precision 1: 368,060,000.00 Page 1 Parcel name: LOT 3 North: 507872.78 Line Course: S 00-24-19 w North: 507798.79 Line Course: N 88-09-10 w North: 507802.33 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507876.33 Line Course: S 88-09-10 E North: 507872.78 LOT SUMMARY East : 1646626.07 Length: 74.00 East : 1646625.55 Length: 110.03 East 1646515.57 Length: 74.00 East 1646516.10 Length: 110.03 East 1646626.07 Perimeter: 368.07 Area: 8,140 SQ. FT. 0.1869 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error closure: 0.00 Course: S 90-00-00 E Error North: 0.000 East : 0.000 Precision 1: 368,060,000.00 Parcel name: LOT 4 North: 507872.78 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507946.78 Line Course: N 88-12-12 w North: 507950.23 Line Course: S 00-24-19 W North: 507876.33 Line Course: S 88-09-10 E North: 507872.79 East : 1646626.07 Length: 74.00 East : 1646626.59 Length: 110.03 East : 1646516.62 Length: 73.90 East : 1646516.09 Length: 110.03 East : 1646626.07 Perimeter: 367.97 Area: 8,135 SQ. FT. 0.1867 AC. Mapcheck closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: N 38-47-24 W Error North: 0.003 East : -0.002 Precision 1: 367,960,000.00 Parcel name: LOT 5 Page 2 North: 507955.39 Line Course: S 00-24-19 w North: 507882.12 Line Course: S 88-08-45 E North: 507878.48 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507951.86 Line Course: N 88-12-12 w North: 507955.39 LOT SUMMARY East : 1646352.18 Length: 73.27 East : 1646351.66 Length: 112.50 East 1646464.10 Length: 73.38 East 1646464.62 Length: 112.50 East 1646352.18 Perimeter: 371.65 Area: 8,247 SQ. FT. 0.1893 AC. Mapcheck closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error closure. 0.00 Course: S 44-42-55 w Error North: -0.003 East : -0.003 Precision 1: 371,650,000.00 Parcel name: LOT 6 North: 507882.12 Line Course: S 88-08-45 E North: 507878.48 Line Course: S 00-24-19 w North: 507804.46 Line Course: N 88-08-45 w North: 507808.10 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507882.12 East 1646351.66 Length: 112.50 East 1646464.10 Length: 74.02 East 1646463.58 Length: 112.50 East 1646351.14 Length: 74.02 East 1646351.66 Perimeter: 373.05 Area: 8,325 SQ. FT. 0.1911 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: S 90-00-00 E Error North: 0.000 East : 0.000 Precision 1: 373,040,000.00 Parcel name: LOT 7 North: 507957.35 Line Course: S 00-24-59 w North: 507810.12 Line Course: S 8808-45 E North: 507808.10 East : 1646289.77 Length: 147.23 East : 1646288.70 Length: 62.47 East : 1646351.13 Page 3 LOT SUMMARY Line Course: N 00-24-19 E Length: 147.29 North: 507955.39 East : 1646352.18 Line Course: N 88-12-12 W Length: 62.44 North: 507957.34 East : 1646289.77 Perimeter: 419.44 Area: 9,195 SQ. FT. 0.2111 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (uses listed courses, radii, and--deltas)--- Error Closure: 0.00 Course: S 02-19-49 W Error North: -0.003 East : -0.000 Precision 1: 4197430,000.00 Parcel name: LOT 8 North: 507957.35 Line Course: N 88-12-12 w North: 507959.32 Line Course: S 00-24-59 W North: 507813.51 Curve Length: 23.20 Delta: 6-38-44 Chord: 23.19 Course In: N 08-29-59 E RP North: 508011.31 End North: 507811.41 Line Course: S 88-08-45 E North: 507810.12 Line Course: N 00-24-59 E North: 507957.35 East : 1646289.77 Length: 63.02 East 1646226,78 Length: 145.82 East 1646225.72 Radius: 200.00 Tangent: 11.61 Course: S 84-49-23 E Course out: 5 01-51-15 w East : 1646255.28 East 1646248.81 Length: 39.91 East : 1646288.70 Length: 147.23 East 1646289.77 Perimeter: 419.17 Area: 9,263 SQ. FT. 0.2127 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error closure: 0.00 Course: N 02-46-50 E Error North: 0.003 East : 0.000 Precision 1: 419,180,000.00 Parcel name: -LOT 9 North: 507961.36 Line Course: S 88-12-12 E North: 507959.32 Line course: 5 00-24-59 w North: 507813.51 East : 1646161.79 Length: 65.02 East 1646226.78 Length: 145.82 East 1646225.72 Page 4 Curve Length: 26.97 Delta: 7-43-37 Chord: 26.95 Course in: N 08-29-59 E RP North: 508011.31 End North: 507819.28 Curve Length: 39.27 Delta: 12-09-44 Chord: 39.20 Course In: S 16-13-36 W RP North: 507641.65 End North: 507826.18 Line course: N 00-24-59 E North: 507961.36 LOT SUMMARY Radius: 200.00 Tangent: 13.51 Course: N 77-38-12 w Course Out: 5 16-13-36 W East : 1646255.28 East : 1646199.39 Radius: 185.00 Tangent: 19.71-- Course: 9.71-- Course: N 79--51-16 w Course Out: N 04-03-52 E East : 1646147.70 East : 1646160.81. Length: 135.1.8 East : 1646161.79 Perimeter: 412.27 Area: 9,093 SQ. FT. 0.2088 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: S 08-54-39 E Error North: -0.003 East : 0.001 Precision 1: 412,260,000.00 Parcel name: LOT 10 North: 507961.36 tine Course: N 88-12-12 w North: 507963.46 Line Course: S 00-24-59 w North: 507828.42 Line Course: S 88-12-12 E North: 507826.55 Curve Length: 7.32 Delta: 2-16-04 Chord: 7.32 Course In: S 01-47-48 w RP North: 507641.64 End North: 507826.18 Line Course: N 00-24-59 E North: 507961.36 East : 1646161.79 Length: 67.02 East 1646094.81 Length: 135.04 East : 1646093.82 Length: 59.70 East : 1646153.50 Radius: 185.00 Tangent: 3.66 Course: 5 87-04-10 E Course Out: N 04-03-52 E East : 1646147.69 East : 1646160.81 Length: 135.18 East : 1646161.79 Perimeter: 404.27 Area: 9,048 SQ. FT. 0.2077 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: S 32-40-37 W Error North: -0.005 East : -0.003 Precision 1: 40,426.00 Page 5 LOT SUMMARY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel name: LOT 11 North: 507826.97 Line Course: S 01-47-48 w North: 507805.98 Line Course: N 88-12-12 w North: 507809.42 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507965.47 Line Course: S 88-12-12 E North: 507963.47 Line Course: S 00-24-59 w North: 507828.43 Line Course: S 88-12-12 E North: 507826.98 East : 1646140.13 Length: 21.00 East : 1646139.47 Length: 109.64 East : 1646029.89 Length: 156.05 East : 1646030.99 Length: 63.85 East : 1646094.81 Length: 135.04 East : 1646093.83 Length: 46.33 East : 1646140.14 Perimeter: 531.91 Area: 10,926 SQ. FT. 0.2508 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: N 50-51-26 E Error North: 0.003 East : 0.004 Precision 1: 531,910,000.00 Parcel name: LOT 12 North: 507780.88 Line Course: S 88-08-45 E North: 507778.45 Line Course: S 00-24-19 W North: 507676.07 Curve Length: 10.92 Delta: 25-01-12 Chord. 10.83 Course in: N 89-35-41 W RP North: 507676.24 End North: 507665.51 Line Course: N 88-09-10 W North: 507667.85 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507780.88 East : 1646388.41 Length: 75.02 East 1646463.39 Length: 102.39 East 1646462.67 Radius: 25.00 Tangent: 5.55 Course: S 12-54-55 W Course out: S 64-34-29 E East : 1646437.67 East : 1646460.25 Length: 72.68 East 1646387.61 Length: 113.03 East 1646388.41 Perimeter: 374.04 Area: 8,469 SQ. FT. 0.1944 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: 5 79-31-37 w Page 6 LOT SUMMARY Error North: -0.001 East : -0.007 Precision 1: 37,404.00 Parcel name: LOT 13 North: 507780.88 Line Course: s 00-24-19 w North: 507667.85 Line Course: N 88-09-10 W North: 507670.17 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507783.21 Line Course: S 88-08-45 E North: 507780.88 East : 1646388.41 Length: 113.03 East 1646387.61 Length: 72.02 East 1646315.63 Length: 113.04 East 1646316.43 Length: 72.02 East 1646388.41 Perimeter: 370.12 Area: 8,139 SQ. FT. 0.1868 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: N 09-24-09 w Error North: 0.001 East : -0.000 Precision 1: 370,110,000.00 Parcel name: LOT 14 North: 507783.21 Line course: s 00-24-19 w North: 507670.17 Line Course: N 88-09-10 W North: 507672.60 Line Course: N 00-56-58 E North. 507781.01 Curve Length: 13.98 Delta: 33-31--55 Chord: 13.78 Course In: S 34-26-39 E RP North: 507761.31 End North: 507785.19 Line Course: s 88-08-45 E North: 507783.21 East : 1646316.43 Length: 113.04 East 1646315.63 Length: 75.38 East 1646240.29 Length: 108.42 East 1646242.08 Radius: 23.88 Tangent: 7.19 Course: N 72-19--18 E Course Out: N 00-54-44 W East : 1646255.59 East : 1646255.21 Length: 61.25 East : 1646316.43 Perimeter: 372.07 Area: 8,438 SQ. FT. 0.1937 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.00 Course: S 55--05--57 E Page 7 LOT SUMMARY Error North: -0.000 East : 0.000 Precision 1: 372,070,000.00 Parcel name: ROW 1 North: 507647.97 Line Course: N 88-09-10 W North: 507651.26 Line Course: N 88-09-10 W North: 507657.93 Line Course: N 88-09-10 W North: 507658.76 Line Course: N 88-09-10 W North: 507664.41 Line Course: S 00-24-19 W North: 507636.41 Line Courser S 88-09-10 E North: 507617.20 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507645.21 Line Course: N 88-09-10 w North: 507647.97 East 1646538.85 Length: 102.03 East 1646436.87 Length: 206.94 East 1646230.04 Length: 26.00 East 1646204.05 Length: 175.28 East 1646028.86 Length: 28.01 East 1646028.66 Length: 595.91 East : 1646624.26 Length: 28.01 East : 1646624.46 Length: 85.66 East 1646538.85 Perimeter: 1247.84 Area: 16,685 SQ. FT. 0.3830 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error closure: 0.00 course: N 90-00-00 W Error North: 0.000 East : -0.000 Precision 1: 1,247,840,000.00 Parcel name: ROW 2 North: Curve Length: Delta: Chord: Course In: RP North: End North: Curve Length: Delta: Chord: Course In: RP North: 507651.26 28.98 66-25--19 27.39 N 01-50-50 E 507676.24 507665.51 10.92 25-01-12 10.83 N 64-34-29 W 507676.24 East : Radius: Tangent: Course: Course Out: East : East : Radius: Tangent: Course: Course Out: East Page 8 1646436.87 25.00 16.37 N 58-38-10 E S 64-34-29 E 1646437.67 1646460.25 25.00 5.55 N 12-54-55 E s 89-35-41 E 1646437.67 End North: 507676.07 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507778.45 Line Course: N 88-08-45 W North: 507785.19 Curve Length: 35.21 Delta: 84-29-25 Chord: 32.11 Course In: S 00-54-44 E RP North: 507761.32 End North: 507763.23 Line Course: S 00-56-58 w North: 507657.92 Line Course: N 88-09-10 w North: 507658.76 Line course: N 00-56-58 E North: 507773.63 Curve Length: 28.89 Delta: 74-47-22 Chord: 26.88 Course in: N 89-54-25 W RP North: 507773.66 End North: 507795.01 Curve Length: 37.48 Delta: 13-30-25 Chord: 37.40 Course in: S 15-18-13 w RP North: 507641.65 End North: 507800.57 Line Course: N 88-12-12 w North: 507800.99 Line Course: N 01-47-48 E North: 507826.97 Line Course: S 88-12-12 E North: 507826.55 Curve Length: 46.59 Delta: 14-25-48 Chord: 46.47 Course In: 5 01-47-48 w RP North: 507641.65 End North: 507819.28 Curve Length: 50.17 Delta: 14-22-21 Chord: 50.04 Course In: N 16-13-36 E RP North: 508011.31 End North: 507811.41 Line Course: S 88-08-45 E North: 507804.46 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507951.86 Line Course: S 88-12-12 E LOT SUMMARY East : Length: 102.39 East : Length: 208.30 East : Radius: Tangent: Course: Course Out: East : East : Length: 105.32 East : Length: 26.00 East : Length: 114.88 East : Radius: Tangent: Course: Course Out: East : East : Radius: Tangent: Course: Course out: East : East : Length: 13.37 East : Length: 26.00 East : Length: 13.37 East . Radius: Tangent: Course: Course out: East : East : Radius: Tangent: Course: Course out: East : East : Length: 214.88 East : Length: 147.40 East : Length: 52.02 Paae 9 1646462.67 1646463.40 1646255.21 23.88 21.69 S 46-50-34 W N 85-24-09 w 1646255.59 1646231.78 1646230.04 1646204.05 1646205.96 22.13 16.92 N 37-18-06 N 15-18-13 1646183.83 1646189.67 159.00 18.83 N 81-27-00 N 0147-48 1646147.70 1646152.69 1646139.32 1646140.14 1646153.50 185.00 23.42 S 80-59-18 N 16-13-36 1646147.70 1646199.40 200.00 25.22 S 80-57-35 S 01-51-15 1646255.28 1646248.81 1646463.58 1646464.62 W E w E E E E w North: 507950.23 Line Course: S 00-24-19 W North: 507673.12 Curve Length: 38.64 Delta: 88-33-29 Chord: 34.91 Course In: S 89-35-41 E RP North: 507672.95 End North: 507647.96 Line Course: N 88-09-10 W North: 507651.25 LOT SUMMARY East : Length: 277.11 East : Radius: Tangent: Course: Course Out: East East Length: 102.03 East 1646516.62 1646514.66 25.00 24.38 s 43-52-26 E 5 01-50-50 W 1646539.66---- 1646538-85 - 1646538.85 1646436.87 Perimeter: 1679.96 Area: 27,969 SQ. FT. 0.6421. AC. Mapcheck Closure - (uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: S 42-05-42 E Error North: -0.007 East : 0.006 Precision 1: 1.67,995.00 Parcel name: TRACT A North; 507809.42 Line Course: 5 00-24-19 w North: 507664.41 Line Course: S 88-09-10 E North: 507658.76 Line Course: N 00-56-58 E North: 507773.63 Curve Length: 28.89 Delta: 74-47-22 Chord: 26.88 course In: N 89-54--25 W RP North: 507773.66 End North: 507795.01 Curve Length: 37.48 Delta: 13-30-25 Chord: 37.40 Course In: S 15-18-13 w RP North: 507641.65 End North: 507800.57 Line Course: N 88-12-12 W North: 507800.99 Line Course: N 01-47-48 E North: 507805.99 Line Course: N 88-12-12 W North: 507809.42 East : 1646029.89 Length: 145.01 East 1646028.86 Length: 175.28 East 1646204.05 Length: 114.88 East 1646205.95 Radius: 22.13 Tangent: 16.92 Course: N 37-18-06 w Course out: N 15-18-13 E East 1646183.82 East :. 1646189.66 Radius: 1.59.00 Tangent: 18.83 Course: N 81-27-00 w Course out: N 01-47-48 E East 1646147.70 East 1646152.68 Length: 13.37 East 1646139.32 Length: 5.00 East : 1646139.48 Length: 109.64 East : 1646029.89 Perimeter: 629.55 Area: 24,971 SQ. FT. 0.5732 AC. Page 10 LOT SUMMARY Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: N 55-26-50 E Error North: 0.003 East : 0.004 Precision 1: 62,955.00 Parcel name: TRACT B North: 507781.01 East : 1646242.08 Line Course: 5 00-56-58 w Length: 108.42 North: 507672.60 East : 1646240.28 Line Course: S 88-09-10 E Length: 220.08 North: 507665.51 East : 1646460.25 Curve Length: 28.98 Radius: 25.00 Delta: 66-25-19 Tangent: 16.37 Chord: 27.39 Course: S 58-38-10 w course In: N 64-34-29 w Course out: S 01-50-50 w RP North: 507676.24 East 1646437.67 End North: 507651.26 East 1646436.86 Line Course: N 88-09-10 w Length: 206.94 North: 507657.93 East 1646230.03 Line Course: N 00-56-58 E Length: 105.32 North: 507763.23 East 1646231.78 Curve Length: 21.24 Radius: 23.88 Delta: 50-57-30 Tangent: 11.38 Chord: 20.54 Course: N 30-04-36 E Course In: S 85-24-09 E Course Out: N 34-26-39 w RP North: 507761.32 East : 1646255.58 End North: 507781.01 East 1646242.07 Perimeter: 690.98 Area: 4,379 SQ. FT. 0.1005 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: N 68-44-39 w Error North: 0.002 East : -0.006 Precision 1: 69,098.00 Parcel name: TRACTB North: 507784.14 East : 1646242.43 Line Course: S 00-24-19 w Length: 111.59 North: 507672.56 East : 1646241.64 Line Course: S 88-09-10 E Length: 218.72 North: 507665.51 East : 1646460.25 Page 11 Perimeter: 694.12 Area: 4,383 SQ. FT. 0.1006 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: N 65-21-20 W Error North: 0.003 East : -0.007 Precision 1: 69,412.00 Parcel name: BOUNDARY North: 507946.78 Line Course: N 88-12-12 W North: 507965.46 Line Course: 5 00-24-19 w North: 507636.40 Line Course: S 88-09-10 E North: 507617.19 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507946.78 East : 1646626.59 LOT SUMMARY 595.90 Curve Len the 28.98 Radius: 25.00 De ta: 66-25-19 Tangent: 16.37 Chord: 27.39 Course: S 58-38-10 w Course In: N 64-34-29 W Course Out: S 01-50-50 w RP North: 507676.24 East 1646437.67 End North: 507651.25 East 1646436.86 Line Course: N 88-09-10 W Length: 205.44 North: 507657.88 East 1646231.53 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E Length: 105.37 North: 507763.24 East 1646232.28 Curve Length: 24.02 Radius: 27.00 Delta: 50-58-38 Tangent: 12.87 Chord: 23.24 Course: N 25-53-38 E Course in: S 89-35-41 E Course Out: N 38-37-03 w RP North: 507763.05 East 1646259.28 End North: 507784.15 East 1646242.42 Perimeter: 694.12 Area: 4,383 SQ. FT. 0.1006 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: N 65-21-20 W Error North: 0.003 East : -0.007 Precision 1: 69,412.00 Parcel name: BOUNDARY North: 507946.78 Line Course: N 88-12-12 W North: 507965.46 Line Course: 5 00-24-19 w North: 507636.40 Line Course: S 88-09-10 E North: 507617.19 Line Course: N 00-24-19 E North: 507946.78 East : 1646626.59 Length: 595.90 East : 1646030.98 Length: 329.07 East : 1646028.66 Length: 595.91 East : 1646624.26 Length: 329.59 East : 1646626.59 Perimeter: 1850.46 Area: 196,188 SQ. FT. 4.5039 AC. Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.01 Course: S 27-25-01 W Error North: -0.006 East : -0.003 Precision 1: 185,047.00 Page 12 Vanessa Dolbee From: Neil Buchanan [buchanan@isomedia.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:17 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Jamie Schroeder; Matt Hough Subject: Maplewood Park East Proposed Tree Quantities Attachments, Maplewood Park East Plant Schedule (3-21-12).pdf Vanessa, Please see attached plant schedule that lists the proposed tree quantities. Shrub and groundcover quantities will be determined later at the final design phase. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Neil Buchanan GHA Landscape Architects 1417 NE 80th St Seattle, WA 98115 206-522-2334 buchanan@isomedia.com --- Original Message ---- From: Jamie Schroeder To: Neil Buchanan Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:12 AM Subject: FW: Maplewood Park East Hi Neil, Question on the landscape plans from the planner. Can you take a look at this- his_ Thanks- Thanks_ Jamie Jamie Schroeder, PE Vice President CPM Consultants 733 T" Ave, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Ma in: 4 25.285.2390 Fax: 425.285.23$9 Direct: 425.285.2392 ... . . .. ........ . From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbeeCd)Rentonwa.govl Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 10:04 AM To: Matt Hough Subject: Maplewood Park East Matt, I have a quick question about the provided landscape sheets L1.1— L1.3 for the subject project. In the Plant schedule the quantities all show "0". My assumption is this is incorrect? Please let me know if this is a mistake. I need to know I ti how many trees are proposed to planted for the project narrative, in orc ) accept the project. If my assumptions are correct, could you please provide us with correct landscape plan sheets? 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 4 "F Q .,' /Z- J/ CONCEPTUAL TREE PLANT SCHEDULE Off 9 1 2+111 QUANT- BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SHRUBS DECIDUOUS REPLACEMENT TREE 16 AMELANCHIER'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE' AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 2" CAL 0 STREE TREE KINNIKINNICK MASSACHUSETTS 4" POT 24" O.G. 17 BETULA UTILIS JACQUEMONTII WHITEBARKED HIMALAYAN BIRCH 2" CAL 0 BERBERIS'CRIMSON PYGMY' CRIMSON PYGMYJAPANESE BARBERRY 1 GAL STREET TREE 12 PYRUS CALLERYANA'ARISTOCRA7 ARISTOCRAT FLOWERING PEAR 2" CAL 0 MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM COMPACTA COMPACT OREGON GRAPE 1 GAL EVERGREEN REPLACEMENT TREES 16 PINUS CONTORTA SHORE PINE 6-6' 14 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS FIR, UNCLIPPED 6-6' 14 THUJA PLICATA'EXCELSA' EXCELSA WESTERN RED CEDAR 6-8' 0 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS FIR EXISTING TO REMAIN 1 GAL 0 PRUNUS L. MT. VERNON. MT. VERNON LAUREL 1 GAL REPLACEMENT TREES MUST BE 2" CALIPER, UP SIZE IN HEIGHT IF NECESSARY TO MEET CALIPER REQUIREMENT CONCEPTUAL SHRUB and GROUNDCOVER PLANT SCHEDULE QUANT- BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING/HT. SHRUBS 0 ARONIA MELANOCARPA'MORTON' IROQUOIS BEAUTY ARONIA 2 GAL 0 ARCTOSTAPHYLLOS UVA URSI KINNIKINNICK MASSACHUSETTS 4" POT 24" O.G. 0 BERBERIS'CRIMSON PYGMY' CRIMSON PYGMYJAPANESE BARBERRY 1 GAL 0 CORNUS S KELSYII DWARF RED TWIG DOGWOOD 1 GAL 0 MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM COMPACTA COMPACT OREGON GRAPE 1 GAL 0 PANICUM V. REHBRAUN RED SWITCH GRASS 1 GAL 0 PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA VIRGINIA CREEPER, TRAIN TO TRELLIS 1 GAL Q POTENTILLA'ABBOTSFORD WHITE' WHITE FLOWERING POTENTILLA 2 GAL 0 POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SWORD FERN 1 GAL 0 PRUNUS L. MT. VERNON. MT. VERNON LAUREL 1 GAL 0 ROSA FLORAL'CARPET CORAL' CORAL COLORED CARPET ROSE 2 GAL 0 RUBUS CALYCINOIDES'EMERALD CARPET' CREEPING RUBUS 1 GAL 24" O.C- SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER QUANTITIES TO BE DETERMINED DURING FINAL DESIGN PHASE Maplewood Park East 3-21-12 A i T February 14th, 2012 Ms. Tiffiny Brown Burnstead Construction Co. 11980 NE 24'" ST, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Mr. Brown: International Forestry CONS U L T A N T S, I N C. 11415 NE 128th Street, Suite 110, Kirkland, WA 98034 At your request, I have completed an assessment of the significant trees on the Maplewood Park East project site in Renton. The former address of the site is 15240 SE 132"d ST. My assignment is to evaluate the condition of the subject trees and report on my findings. The purpose of the report is to identify non-viable, high-risk trees that should not be retained during the development of the site. A large component of the trees at the site is comprised of red alder and black cottonwood trees. Renton Code RMC 4-4-130 H7 Tree/Ground Cover Retention allows for the removal of these species due to weak wood which is prone to breakage. When performing the condition assessment, these species were ignored. However, it was noted that a large percentage of the red alder that was surveyed is dead or in serious decline. Big leaf maple also makes up a large percentage of species composition at the site. Unfortunately, the majority has developed very poor trunk taper and form. These are young trees, estimated at less than 30 years of age and already have multiple structural defects which include broken tops, major crooks, and forked tops with codominant (equal diameter) stems. Very few of the maple trees make good candidates for retention on a developed site. They all have a very high height to diameter ratio and are very prone to stem breakage during wind or ice/snow loads. They have developed very poor taper due to intense competition with adjacent trees for sunlight. A Tree Map is attached and part of this report. The map indicates the location of non-viable, high-risk trees, which are shaded in "red". A total of 29 trees were found to be in a non- viable condition, mainly due to compromising structural defects. A Tree Condition Summary Sheet is attached which provides specific tree information. The tree numbers correspond with the tag numbers found in the field. The tags on trees numbered #101 through #109 could not be found during the assessment. These trees can be identified in the field by a numbered piece of blue flagging tied near it. Red alder and black cottonwood trees are shaded in "orange" on the tree map. There are several high-risk cottonwood trees in the right-of-way of SE 132"d Street, many of which are completely dead. These are shaded in "blue" and should be removed from the site as soon as feasibly possible. For a Forester Every Day is Earth Day February 10", 2012 Page 2 Methodolo9Y The tree assessment procedure involves the examination of many factors; • The crown of the tree is examined for current vigor. This is comprised of inspecting the crown (foliage, buds and branches) for color, density, form, and annual shoot growth, limb dieback and disease. The bole or main stem of the tree is inspected for decay, which includes cavities, wounds, fruiting bodies of decay (conks or mushrooms), seams, insects, bleeding, callus development, broken or dead tops, structural defects and unnatural leans. Structural defects include crooks, forks with V-shaped crotches, multiple attachments, and excessive sweep. • The root collar and roots are inspected for the presence of.decay, insects and/or damage, as well as if they have been injured, undermined or exposed, or original grade has been altered. Inspection methods included examining the trees with binoculars and sounding the trunks with a mallet. No invasive measures were used to assess tree conditions. Based on these factors a determination of viability is made. Trees considered not viable are trees that are in a poor condition due to disease, extensive decay and/or cumulative structural defects, which exacerbate failure potential. A "viable" tree is a tree found to be in good health, in a sound condition with minimal defects and is suitable for its location. Also, it will be wind firm if isolated or left as part of a grouping or grove of trees. Findings A Tree Condition Summary Sheet is attached which provides specific tree information. This sheet indicates species, size, height to diameter ratio and specific defects. Tree condition is scored based on an array of factors. All trees listed in the summary sheets are considered non-viable. The majority of the big leaf maple trees are not suitable for retention on a developed site. The development of very poor trunk taper (height to diameter ratios) is high. Isolating these trees or removing clusters of trees adjacent to them will subject them to stem breakage and top failure. 90% of them have a significant crook in the lower trunk from past top failures. The bitter cherry also has developed poor taper similar to the maple. The red aider trees at the site are in poor condition. Many of the surveyed trees are presently dead and/or in vast decline. Discussion Although I did not report on every big leaf maple tree at the site, I consider 90% of them to be non-viable for reasons discussed above. The subjects are simply too tall and skinny to ever develop into structurally sound trees. INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. February 10'' 2012 Page 3 As indicated in the Renton Code, the alder and cottonwood trees should be removed from the site. These species are not suitable for retention on developed sites. The western hemlock trees at the site are also not the best candidates for retention either. Two large hemlock trees at the front of the property were wind -thrown in recent years, indicating a root rot issue. Two others (#7370 and #7676) at the front of the property have developed extensive internal stem decay from past top and codominant stem failures; and are considered non-viable. The Douglas -fir trees at the site are the best candidates for retention. These appear structurally sound, wind firm, and in good health. There is no warranty suggested for any of the trees subject to this report. Weather, latent tree conditions, and future man -caused activities could cause physiologic changes and deteriorating tree condition. Over time, deteriorating tree conditions may appear and there may be conditions, which are not now visible which, could cause tree failure. This report or the verbal comments made at the site in no way warrant the structural stability or long term condition of any tree, but represent my opinion based on the observations made. Nearly all trees in any condition standing within reach of improvements or human use areas represent hazards that could lead to damage or injury. Please call if II can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Bob Layton ISA Certified Arborist 4PN-2714A Certified Tree Risk Assessor #233 INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. w N i (D X 3 p] (D 0 0,. +cn c + -n -a 0 O o CL 0 0 Q i N W 4�-L Nle 1 N W ,P 3 "Mo , 0 o m CD 45 CD 0 < CL w (jl m 1 �v-111_[-4V '.r N -.vim- o) W •a A- A. -s N w w co w vvv00 �ioi t�o1,48114wtcn,w �Q7 LA A to cm w -� Cn -? .0 Im 1 31 1 w 1 0 0 coA c, o ca ca m c.� c ii o ti E2: LY *-Cs �O UU Ep rs rs vOi - COD _ Srto - -• o m _ m — c cc Lo co 0 _ - - - mm@m0mcomcm m wmm mmmm v� m (u m a� y m n� m n� �Zo 3 �-3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m as m a� v a� m� � m 3- 3- R R a- te a �05m00mmm m 00on 00100 0 0 x ;v rw o n � u -o S r� ~'CD a t03333 to CD CD CD m G m ao�7m 0 @ moo ID 3 rn a. v CD � a 0 0 O U1 ¢1 ._* (D z Q CDO V N � N O C *� ° ° own N aaoo nz 0 N o 0 m m n Na � n a 0 CL O �oa) p-0 =3 ��II�S�S��S■���110 0 Q i N W 4�-L Nle 1 N W ,P 3 "Mo , 0 o m CD 45 CD 0 < CL w (jl m 1 �v-111_[-4V '.r N -.vim- o) W •a A- A. -s N w w co w vvv00 �ioi t�o1,48114wtcn,w �Q7 LA A to cm w -� Cn -? .0 Im 1 31 1 w 1 0 0 coA c, o ca ca m c.� c ii o ti E2: LY *-Cs �O UU Ep rs rs vOi - COD _ Srto - -• o m _ m — c cc Lo co 0 _ - - - mm@m0mcomcm m wmm mmmm v� m (u m a� y m n� m n� �Zo 3 �-3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m as m a� v a� m� � m 3- 3- R R a- te a �05m00mmm m 00on 00100 0 0 x ;v e�eeee�eeeeeeee���ee rw o n -o o to t n Q eeeeeee�eee��ee�eeee 9099�9�9999■9W999 ra.n C 0 0 c_0 ID m mm ��II�S�S��S■���110 0 0 3 � w - co �' 0 y C B �, o s� m o Cb n ��eeeeeeeeeeeee�e��� i .=. Q_ T1 N — C.si 0 7 Arai R �[a Q CD C'i w a0c O 700*0 cmn0.co 00 N mm@ y c C 0 0 3 m y N y n C d. N 'O O N) CD a a w o m 0❑ 0 2 rn 0 0 C, 'a y o _ v 7 C T Q 01 o O n @CD mnmmm■mm n■mmmmm v � m N @ e�eeee�eeeeeeee���ee rw o n -o o to t n Q eeeeeee�eee��ee�eeee ra.n C 0 0 c_0 ID m mm 0 0 0 3 � w - co �' 0 y C B �, o s� m o Cb n e�eeee�eeeeeeee���ee rw o n -o o to t n Q ��ee�e�eeeeee�e��e�� ra.n C 0 0 c_0 ID m mm 0 0 0 3 � w - co �' 0 y C B �, o s� m o Cb n ��eeeeeeeeeeeee�e��� i .=. Q_ T1 N — C.si 0 7 Arai R �[a Q 4 C'i w a0c O c rw o n -o o to t n Q ra.n C 0 0 c_0 ID m mm 0 0 0 3 � w - co �' 0 y C B �, o s� m o Cb n CL i .=. Q_ T1 N — C.si 0 7 Arai R �[a Q 4 C'i w a0c O 700*0 00 N mm@ y c C 0 0 3 m y N y n C d. N 'O O N) CD a a w o m 0❑ 0 2 rn 0 0 C, 'a y o _ v 7 C T Q 01 o O n @CD v � m N @ @ w n E C m m O 3 3 (D M 0 C7 0 CD N 0 0 0 a a+ CD n 0 r N 0a 0 N 7 0 N WN gym/ \ e mf\ + = E \E o«� � o + 0 0 E$ / Io-LNWALn /E?\\ /%6«PO + c o 0 0 ///$ N W # ■| �*�� w CD 05 oCD w 0- �k�■k�x (D /LD. fƒƒƒƒ fn =- a ] =1e _ 0 0 0 0 CD e mƒ m O O Q C 6 E § & CD � M - ■tttttttt \ (A CD CO k m o E CD�/ 0 R M � ID CD In In � o E *=oZ = e o 770 _ % \ § m % \ ° r © nm o E 0 G 2 § § ƒ < Io-LNWALn /E?\\ /%6«PO + c o 0 0 ///$ N W # ■| �*�� w CD 05 oCD w 0- W." G : 11111111111111ml \ \ \ M \ ■tttttttt W." G 11111111111111ml \ \ \ M \ -Q R M E \ W." G q� �f c / \ Cl s \ \ \ M \ / -Q R M E \ N' 41 - % \ - o_ e m \ \ 2 ® % CD 0 CL q� �f c / \ Cl s February 10`x, 2012 Page 5 INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. of splitting off I girth and height OU NDARY S3" BR3- R Pt1NCSASS pISC Ai AT W SVRfACE SEMI(03/19/2007 10 S' WA OR N 'i LINE 1 , i E OF SOIJ Tl1 j� OF THE SOV74 rn ► THE 11iEASx' 0� T►1H NORTHWEST SE TION 14. TMP 25 " Y4 b z TH, itANGE EA S S ` ♦ w b"i � y, # �yw�+� ��r�1.319, TPrA1!' 172305.9 03 Sr y i 196.188 SO� FT, j 4.50 ACA o ; ' PARCEe A ' LLA /489033 %'' s� • � �tq X� 1 PECORMC 084082$0719 �. k y 4r ` t r� + \ C¢1+CRETt 7►[ ��� �' '` ,` `'t, .�� rye. �• stir +. fes_ SFE DETAIL } ON RIGHT F * 4b T8M B , OPENS1ONS REBAR RED AMS t CONTROL CAP ELEV - 498.74' l Iry Wt i `SSW ,7089 T 33C' -,• 4 ' n - 7 ` I r irPE r 48' 1 find .. 48455 avlC w .. 47563' ' i5 IE\C(NMRR CHAWWt r 473.71' Wo ,EAST "A W, i IE 3CONC 487.6' �y:rf .� 0 4 �► _� _ k 's`! K, _,� — "�� W. END AA W -V .......... an, r ir AD \ 10:k .- k " lr"-Z _j VV 300 72— 4r,4 10. ar Y4 CIT V� )K $pro ev ) S2 , wm N trA Ck rA sod It JrA JWA IVA N WA I 4WSd FPR ROAD & S wrld tr L)TVM PER UA4aM)- 58721451. SMA267 73 r W -A . r d t ION irk 30j), 'Iry „2— -79 yo}' 7.1 lows, % D ENDE. END 12, CONC 460,3.1 JE 12m COmC - 471. 1. SPFFD LUI Olte �r�Wl��DY2- REl' WON A ®R W Ww 19, 01Rl ,01 Ls Te C7Enis L�Lv Ci tv of - , i r I January 3, 2012 Department of Comrr Urn ty and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Ad m inistratcr Matt Hough, PE CP/H Consultants 733-7 th Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 RE: Street Modification for proposed Maplewood East Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Hough: We have reviewed your request for modification of the street requirements for the proposed Maplewood East preliminary plat. The request is to allow for a reduced street standard for two short street sections internal to the plat. These streets would provide primary emergency access to five lots. The proposed modification is to allow for a pavement width of 20 feet, without separate sidewalks. The request is to also reduce the right-of-way width for these street sections to 20 feet. The modification request is granted in part, and denied in part, The reduction to a 20 - foot pavement width as proposed, with thickened edges in lieu of standard curb and gutter, is acceptable. The minimum right-of-way width can only be reduced to 26 feet in width. These modified standards are consistent with City street standards for private streets with two points of access. In this situation the streets will be public, not private. The street sections must also be signed for No Parking on both sides of the street, and marked for a pedestrian walkway area of six feet in width. The str ecct rc^qulrernents for this proposed plat are no -vv modified as fo";Gws. * NE 2nd Street — Parking both sides, with a curb and gutter 16 feet from centerline, 8 -foot planting strip measured from face of curb, and a 5 -foot sidewalk. The sidewalk may meander only in front of the drainage tract, as long as the sidewalk is within dedicated right-of-way. New north/south street — The alignment to the north edge of the property as shown is acceptable. Residential access road standards shall be utilized, including parking on one side, 26 feet of pavement, 8 -foot planting strips both sides, and 5 -foot sidewalks both sides. Requires minimum of 52 feet of right-of- way. No meandering sidewalks. a Remaining narrow streets -- OK as shown, with 20 feet of pavement and no sidewalks. Parking will not be allowed on these streets, and a 6 -foot pedestrian Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 a rentorwa.gov Mr'. Matt Hough, PE Page 2 of 2 January 3, 2012 walkway area must be marked on one side of the pavement area. The right-of- way width for these street sections shall be a minimum of 26 feet. • LED street lighting shall be included along all street frontages for the plat. The street standards modification does not become official until the short plat is approved, at which point it can be appealed, etc. The modification listed in this letter will be included as part of the CED staff recommendation for the preliminary plat decision. If you have further questions regarding street improvement, utility design, or drainage requirements for this project, please contact Jan Illian at 425-430-7216 or iillianC�rentonwa.�ov. Sincerely, Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Jan Illian, Plan Reviewer Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner CPTH CONSULTANTS February 21, 2012 Ms. Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Maplewood Park East Preliminary Plat City File No. PRE 11-031; CPH Project No. OOT 1-11-008 Statement of Conformance with Public Roar! Standards Ms. Dolbee, Site PlQnning {ivil Engineering Land Use Consulting Projed Management This correspondence is provided in support of the preliminary plat application for the Maplewood Park East project to summarize how the proposed roadway improvements conform to the established standards for public roads. The enclosed Figures illustrate the preliminary site plan and typical road sections for the project. The road standards for the Maplewood Park East project were established through the pre -application process which included several meetings and a number of e-mail correspondence with you and other City staff. Ultimately, the City summarized the standards—and allowable modifications—for the project's roadway improvements in a January 3, 2012 letter from Neil Watts, Director of the Development Services Division. Those standards are reiterated below along with an explanation of how the project's road design meets the standard or, in the case of Road 6, provide a functional equivalent. NE 2N°_STREET—Parking both sides, with a curb and gutter 16 feet from centerline, 8 -foot planting strip measured from face of curb, and a 5 -foot sidewalk. The sidewalk may meander only in front of the drainage tract, as long as the sidewalk is within dedicated right-of-way. The project proposes to construct a half -street improvement along the north side of NE 2^1 Street as described with the face of curb at least 16 feet from the center of the current pavement. No meander to the sidewalk is proposed. All of the proposed improvements for this frontage roadway will be contained within a 28 -foot width of new right-of-way to be dedicated with the project. NEW NORTH/SOUTH STREET (ROAD A)—The alignment to the north edge of the property as shown is acceptable. Residential access road standards shall be utilized, including parking on one side, 26 feet of pavement, 8 -foot planting strips both sides, and 5 -foot sidewalks both sides. Requires minimum of 52 feet of right-of-way. No meandering sidewalks. This residential access road is proposed as described including 8 -foot wide planter strips (measured from face of curb) and 5 -foot wide sidewalks ail within a 52 -foot wide right-of-way. No meandering sidewalks are proposed. The right-of-way limit is located at the back of sidewalk on each side of the roadway. REMAINING NARROW STREET (ROAD 61—Okay as shown, with 20 feet of pavement and no sidewalks. Parking will not be allowed on these streets, and a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway area must be marked 733 7th Avenue, Suite 100 1 Kirkland, WA 1 98033 www.cphconsultants.com I p= (425) 285-2390 1 f: (425) 285-2389 Maplewood Park Fast Preliminary Plat CPH Project No. 0011-11-008 February 27, 2012 Page 2 of 2 on one side of the pavement area. The right-of-way width for these street sections shall be a minimum of 26 feet. These modified standards are consistent with City street standards for private streets with two points of access. In this situation the streets will be public, not private. The street sections must also be signed for No Parking on both sides of the street, and marked for a pedestrian walkway area of six feet in width. The project proposes a 20 -foot wide rood pavement section, which includes a 4 -foot concrete pedestrian path (flush with the adjacent asphalt) along the frontage of the lots. A continuous 12 -inch wide concrete edge is proposed where there is no sidewalk. The reduced width of the pedestrian path (i.e., less than b feet) is preferred aesthetically and is more proportionate to the overall pavement width. The 4 -foot concrete width clearly delineates a path and the "shared" condition of the road. The 20 -foot paved roadway is proposed within a 2 T -foot minimum right-of-way width. Coincident with that right-of-way is a 30 -foot public utility easement. The purpose of the overlapping public right-of-way and utilities easement is to provide the necessary access for the City to install, use, and maintain the public facilities without affecting the allowable residential density of the project. The combined public right-of-way and utility easement is functionally equivalent to, and actually provides greater flexibility than, a 26 -foot right-of-way for access, installation, and maintenance of the road and all other necessary public utilities including storm drainage, water, sanitary sewer, and street lighting. The Road B alignment maintains two points of access to public right-of-way and "no parking" signs are proposed along the north and west sides of the road as required by the modification approval. LED STREET LiGHTINC,—Shall be included along all street frontages for the plat. Street lighting will be provided in accordance with City of Renton standards. Details of the light locations will be included with the final engineering design package for the project. Please, contact me directly at (.425)2$5-2391 or by e-mail at matt@cphconsultants.com if you have questions or need any additional information to complete your review and approval of the project. Your time and prompt response is appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, atthew J. Bough, PE President Encl.. Figure 1 — Preliminary Site Plan Figure 2 — Typical Road Sections cc. Copy to file D -I mpation Mitigation ; Restoration ` Habitat Creation; Permit Assistance July 15, 2011 Burnstead Construction Attn. Tiffiny Brown 1215 120th Avenue NE ##201 Bellevue, WA 98005 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 RE: Wetland & Stream Reconnaissance - 15240 SE 132nd St. Renton, WA Wetland Resources, Inc. completed a site investigation on July 13, 2011, to locate and evaluate jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the 4.5 -acre site located at 15240 SE 132nd Street in the City of Renton, Washington. The Washington State Department of Ecology Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual March 1997, was used to determine wetland conditions. At the time of our site work, there were patchy clouds with scattered rain showers, and a temperature of approximately 05 degrees. Site Description This site is mostly forested with a gentle south aspect. A lawn/cleared area is located in the eastern portion of the property. in the past, this clearing was the site of a single-family residence, which is no longer present. Access is from the south via SE 132nd Street. Surrounding land use is comprised of undeveloped, forested land to the north, with residential development to the south, east, and west. Vegetation over the site is represented by a canopy of big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU), red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, FacU), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FacU-), and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata, FacU), with salmonberry (Rebus spectabilis, Fac+), vine maple (Acer circinatum, Fac-), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta, FacU), osoberry (Oemleria cerasiformis, FacU), Himalayan blackberry (Rebus armeniacus, FacU), dewberry (Rubes ursinus, FacU), sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FacU), filaree (Erodium cicutarium, Nol/Upl), and Pacific bleeding heart (Dicentra Formosa, FacU+) in the understory. Typical soils across the site have Munsell colors from very dark grayish brown (10 YR 3/2) to dark yellowish brown (10 YR 4/4) with textures of silt loam to sandy loam from 0 to 18 inches below the surface. Soils across the site were dry to slightly moist during our July 2011 site investigation. No wetlands or streams are located on or adjacent to the subject property. Use of this Report This Wetland Reconnaissance Report is supplied to Burnstead Construction as a means of determining on-site wetland and stream conditions. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access, which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Louis Emenhiser Senior Wetland Ecologist Professional Wetland Scientist #1680 2 TO TENW Transporfafion Engineering NorthWesf MEMORANDUM DATE: February 27, 2012 TO: Kayren Kittrick, City of Renton FROM: Jeff Schramm, TENW SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis Maplewood Park East 14 -Lot Plat — Renton, WA TENW Project No. 4566 This memorandum documents the traffic analysis completed for the proposed Maplewood Park East residential project. The project includes the development of 14 single-family residential lots located on the north side of SE 132nd Street in the vicinity of 152"d Avenue SE a couple blocks south of the NE 4th Street corridor in Renton Highlands. The existing site is vacant A Site Plan is included in Figure i . Based on the current site plan, access to the site would be provided at two locations onto SE 132r� Street at Road C and Road A. The anticipated date of occupancy is 2014. Based on scoping discussions with City staff, the following items are addressed in this traffic impact analysis: • Determination of weekday daily, AMS, and PM peak hour trip generation. • Distribution and assignment of PM peak hour project trips to one study intersection at 156,h Avenue SE and SE 1 3214 Street. • Routing of project traffic to the NE 41h Street corridor. • Analysis of 2014 weekday PM peak hour LOS and queues at the study intersection. Findings & Conclusions • The proposed project is estimated to generate 134 new weekday daily trips, with 1 1 trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour (3 entering, 8 exiting), and 14 trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour (9 entering, 5 exiting}. • Based on the results of the LOS and queuing analyses, all movements at the study intersection at 156'h Avenue SE and SE 132rd Street are anticipated to operate .:it LOS or better, and the p--)ject would not have a significant impact on traffic operations. • A majority of the traffic generated by this project (approximately 70 to 75 percent of the project trips] is anticipated to be routed to/from the NE 0 Street corridor. • The proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on the transportation system. The payment of transportation impact fees will adequately mitigate project impacts by funding the project's fair share of the cost of the City of Renton's planned transportation improvements. Based on the City's current impact fee rate of $75 per daily trip, the development's impact fee would be $10,050. Transportatior. Planning j Dosign j Traffic Impact 8, Operations 816 - 6", Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033 1 Office (425) 889-6747 Maplewood Park Fast lk Preliminary site plan provided by Bumstead 1P24QO12. (5 Transportation Engineering Northwest Figure I Preliminary Site Plan Maplewood Park East Plat Renton, WA T TEN 2 February 27, 2012 :7 Preliminary site plan provided by Bumstead 1P24QO12. (5 Transportation Engineering Northwest Figure I Preliminary Site Plan Maplewood Park East Plat Renton, WA T TEN 2 February 27, 2012 Mapluwoo I Park East Trip Generation The trip generation estimate for the proposed i 4 -lot Maplewood Park East development was based on trip rates documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE1 Trip Genercfion Manual using Land Use Code 210 (Single Family Residentialj. The weekday daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 1 . As shown, the project is estimated to generate a total of 134 weekday daily trips, with 1 1 trips occurring during the AM peak hour, and 14 trips during the PM peak hour. Detailed trip generation calculations are provided in the Attachment A. Table 1 Heritage Hills Apartment Community Trip Generation Summa Time Period In Out Total Weekday Daily Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution and Assignment 67 67 134 3 8 11 9 5 14 Based on existing travel patterns in the area, the weekday PM peak hour project trips were distributed and assigned to the street network. Figure 2 illustrates the assignment of project - generated traffic volumes during the weekday PM peak hour. Future 2014 Year of Opening Traffic Volumes A weekday PM peak hour traffic count was conducted at the intersection of 156th Avenue SE and SF 132r'd Street on Thursday February 2, 2012 by All Traffic Data, lnc. The detailed count sheet is included in Attachment B. The existing traffic volumes represent the highest hour of traffic at that intersection between 4.00 and 6.00 p.m. The existing 60-minule peak hour occurred from 4.45 to 5:45pm, and the resulting traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. A two percent annual growth rate was applied to the existing volumes at the intersection to estimate year 2014 baseline traffic volumes for the future year operations analysis. Future 2014 with project traffic volumes were estimated by adding the trip assignmenf from the proposed 14-lat Maplewood Park Fast project to the year 2014 baseline volumes. The resulting PM peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 2. w TEN W 3 February 27, 2012 Maplewood Par E Ec3st N NOTTOSCALE ; SITE SITE . . . . ... . . . . . . SESt ... . ... ��� .. . .. .. . = m SE1 a St ° � LU: /; � � � Cf) @ \ LO $ LO 2012 Existing 2014 Without Pr@C| SITE m o} S . 77E CO w. �a nin, 5out ........... St .....\ 6 ; SE] .. 0 ..\ .. .......... ...\k1 n St , $ & CO: n; UJ 2 / c4 o u} ?)_ 13 CO: t-- < « ?} X: 7 z: e; PM Trip Assignment 2014 With Project Transportation Figur 2 Maplewood Park East m2■E,ng PM Peak Hour Tr ffl{ PlatNorthwest Volumes Renton, WA T ƒENW 4 ¥077202 Maplewood Park East Traffic Routing to NE 40r Street The nearest roadway arterial to the project site is NE 411' Street, a primary east -west arterial in the Renton Highlands. It is anticipated that 70 to 75 percent of the project -generated traffic is anticipated to be routed to/from the NE 4th Street corridor. This would result in approximately 100 new daily trips to/from the NE Ott' Street corridor, and 10 during the PM peak hour. About 50 to 5.5 percent of the project -generated trips are estimated to/from NE 4'1' Street via Nile Avenue located two blocks to the west. Approximately 20 percent are anticipated to be routed to/from NE 41h Street via 1 561t Avenue NE, and the remain Ag 20 to 2,5 percent south. Intersection LOS Analysis Level of service ILOSj and queue analyses were conducted at the study intersection of 15616 Avenue SE and SE 132nd Street for I'M peak hour condition using the methodology and procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Special Report 209, Transportotion Research Board, and the Synchro software program. At an unsignalized intersection, LOS and delays are reported for individual approaches or turning movements rather than for the entire intersection. 156'h Avenue SE and SE 1 32r1d Street are both two-lane roads with single lanes in each direction and no turn canes. The SE 13210 Street approach to I56'h Avenue SE is controlled by a stop sign. Table 2 summarizes the results of the LOS/queue analysis at this study intersection during the weekday PM peak hour. The detailed LOS calculation sheets are included in Attachment C Table 2 15611h Avenue SE / SE 132nd Street SE Intersection PM Peak Hour LOS and Queue Summary r l Uittt�f]# Izu u1 h Controlled Movement LOS' Northbound Approach (main street) A Eastbound Approach (side -street) C Delayz Queue3 LOS Delay Queue 0.2 0 ft A 0.3 0 tt 15.5 0 ft C 15.5 0 ft LOS = Level of Service. a Delay refers to average control delay for each stop -controlled movemenf. Queues are 951" Percentile queues rounded to the neo rest 25 feet. Assumes 1 vehicle = 25 foot queue. The LOS results in Table 2 indicate that the side street approach from SE 132nd Street of its intersection with 1560' Avenue SE is anticipated to remain at LOS C during the PM peak hour in 2014 with or without the project. The proposed 14 -lot Maplewood Park East project is not expected to have a significant impact on LOS and queuing at this location. V TENW 5 February 27, 2012 Maplewood Park East Mitigation To mitigate long-term traffic impacts, the City of Renton requires payment of a traffic impact fee based on the number of trips a project is estimated to generate during a typical weekday. The City's adopted impact fee is $75 per net new average daily trip. The proposed 1 Mot Maplewood East Plat development is expected to generate 134 daily trips which would result in an impact fee of 10,050. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this traffic analysis, please contact me at 206-396-8286 or schramm@ienw.com. cc: Tiffiny Brown, Burnstead Construction Company Jeff Haynie, P.E. — TENW, Principal T TENW February 27, 2012 Attachment A Maplewood Park East (Renton) TENW Project No. 4566 Maplewood Park East Trip Generation Summary (14 Lots) Land Use Size Units' ITE LUC z Directional Split In Out Trip Rate In Trips Generated Out Total Weekday Daily Trip Generation Single Family Res. 14 DU 210 50% 5G% 9.57 67 67 134 Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Single Family Res. 14 DU 210 25% 75% 0.75 3 8 11 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Single Family Res, 14 DU 210 63% 37% 9.01 9 5 14 1. DU =Dwelling Units. 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 8th edition land use code. 2/2712012 Maplewood Park East - TGEN Attachment B Peak Hour Summary A Mark Skaggs {206} 251-0300 156th Ave SE & SE 132nd St 4:45 PM to 5:45 PM Thursday, February 02, 2012 Lu U) ,v � [727 4� [346 6 721 de y SE 132nd St Peds 0 17 X "i o N YI Q J Ji 12 11 ]i Peds 1 R T 5 345 732 0 F LU &n m m 4� Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.75 0.0% 12 WB 0.00 0.0% 0 NB 0.87 0.3% 350 SB 0.94 0.3% 727 Intersection 0.94 0.3% 1,089 Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM ;nap=e�ecr1 Pcrr Em7 ATTACHMENT C LOS Analysis Results HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: SE 132nd Street & 156th Ave SE 2/27/2012 EBLEBR Lane Configurations Y 4 1+ Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 1 11 5 359 750 6 Peak Flour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 15 6 413 798 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1225 801 804 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1225 801 804 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 96 99 cM capacity (vehlh) 198 388 824 1 ffB Volume Total 16 418 804 Volume Left 1 6 0 Volume Right 15 0 6 cSH 359 824 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.01 0.47 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 1 0 Control Delay (s) 15.5 0.2 0.0 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 15.5 0.2 0.0 Approach LOS C Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Maplewood Park East (Renton) Synchro 6 Report 2014 Without -Project PM Peak Hour Page 1 Transportation Engineering Northwest HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: SE 132nd Street & 156th Ave SE 2(2712012 Movement EBL" 'NBL`.BC: Lane Configurations ' T T Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh) 1 13 7 359 750 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 17 8 413 798 9 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1231 802 806 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1231 802 806 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 96 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 196 387 823 z„ Volume Total 19 421 806 Volume Left 1 8 0 Volume Right 17 0 9 c5H 362 823 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.01 0.47 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 1 0 Control Delay (s) 15.5 0.3 0.0 Lane LOS C A Approach Delay (s) 15.5 0.3 0.0 Approach LOS C �:....... _._.. Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Maplewood Park East (Renton) 5ynchro 6 Report 2014 With -Project PM Peak Hour Page 1 Transportation Engineering Northwest CPTH CONSULTANTS Prepared for: Burnstead Construction Co. 11980 NE 24thSt, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 Prepared by: CPH Consultants Jamie B. Schroeder, PE 733 Seventh Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Prepared for: Burnstead Construction Co. 11980 NE 241" St, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 Prepared by: CPH Consultants Jamie B. Schroeder, PE 733 Seventh Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 March 8, 2012 CP fT CONSULTANTS 7337TH AVENUE KIRKLAND, WA 98033 P: (425) 285-2390 1 E: (425) 285-2389 www.cl2hconsultcjnts.com MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST RENTON, WASHINGTON PRELIMINARY STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT March 8, 2012 Prepared For: Rick Burnstead Construction Company Prepared By: CFH Consultants Jamie B. Schroeder, PE CPH Project No. 0011-11-008 Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development Consulting CP H CONSULTANTS PRELIMINARY STORMWATER DRAINAGE REPORT FOR MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST CITY OF RENTON, WA TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A — PROJECT OVERVIEW --------------------------------------------------------- FIGURE 1 --VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 —TIR WORKSHEET SECTION B— MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY SECTION C — OFF-SITE ANALYSIS SECTION D — FLOW CONTROL DESIGN SECTION E -- CONVEYANCE DESIGN ------------------------------------------------------- SECTION F — CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN SECTION G —WATER QUALITY DESIGN SECTION H — OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL ---------------------------------- FIGURES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIGURE 3 — EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS FIGURE 4 —SITE PLAN (DEVELOPED CONDITIONS) I APPENDICES ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- APPENDIX A — DEVELOPED LAND USE AND KCRTS MODEL INPUT SUMMARY APPENDIX B — PRELIMINARY KCRTS MODEL RESULTS SUMMARY (FLOW CONTROL) APPENDIX C — PRELIMINARY DETENTION FACILITY SIZING Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development Consulting Maplewood Park East SECTION A -- PROJECT OVERVIEW Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report This Stormwater Drainage Report (SDR) is provided to describe the stormwater conditions and proposed drainage improvements for the Maplewood Park East project. The project proposes to subdivide and redevelop an existing property into fourteen individual single-family residential parcels within the City of Renton. This preliminary report is provided to identify the applicable storm drainage standards and to summarize the analyses and design provisions proposed for the project to comply with City surface water standards. The information provided with this SDR represents the basis of design for the storm drainage systems/surface water conditions for the project. The project is located on the boundary of the City of Renton. The vicinity map provided below as Figure 1 illustrates the general location of the property along the north side of NE 2nd Street and east of 152nd Ave SE. The street address of the project site is 6101 NE 2nd St (ICC tax parcel no. 1423059003). More generally, the site is located in the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 14 of Township 23 North, Range 5 East, in King County, Washington (see Vicinity Map below). Fr ',R ]VE i' 1M OWNE47HST1 ET Figure J — Not to Scale CPH Project No. 001 1-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 3 Figure J — Not to Scale CPH Project No. 001 1-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 3 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report The project site is comprised of 1 parcel; approximately 4.5 acres. No existing structures are currently on the project site. A number of trees of varying type, age, and health condition exist on the site. Figure 3 in Appendix A represent the existing site condition. The proposed subdivision will create a total of fourteen (14) single-family residential lots. In addition, the project will include frontage improvement on NE 2nd Street to widen and add concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Total site impervious coverage is limited to fifty-five percent by the current site zoning. The preliminary storm drainage analysis performed for this report considered this maximum coverage with provisions for the use of rain garden facilities. The proposed preliminary site plan is shown in Figure 4. The developed site is required to provide Basic Water Quality treatment in addition to Level 2 (i.e., conservation) flow control per current City of Renton surface water standards. These requirements are proposed to be achieved by means of a series of on-site rain gardens. Detention storm volumes are proposed with a combined storm detention/water quality pond. Release rates to the City's storm drainage system would be controlled by a single -orifice control riser within the overflow structure. All storm water runoff from the improved site will be collected, controlled, and released to the existing outlet located at the corner of NE 2nd Street and 152^d Ave SE. Storm drainage controls for this project are proposed in accordance with City of Renton surface water standards, including recent adoption of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the COR Addendum to that manual (CKSWDM). On-site Soil Conditions The soils of the area are characterized generally by the Natural Resource Conservation Services (NCRS) as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgC). CPH Project No. 0011-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 4 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report Figure 2 — Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet, 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Part I PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER ❑ Project Owner: Tiffiny Brown/Burnstead Constr. Phonc: Plat Address: 1 1980 NE 241f, Street, Suite 200 Location: Bellevue, WA 98005 Project Engineer: Jamie Schroeder Phone: (425) 285-2390 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION ■ Landuse Services Subdivision / Short Subd. / UPD ❑ Building Services MIF / Commerical / SFR ❑ Clearing and Grading ❑ Right -of -Way Use ❑ Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Full / Targeted / Review (circle): Large Site Date (include revision dates): 8/27/10 Date of Final: Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ❑ Project Name: Maplewood Park East Preliminary DOE Dam Safety Plat DDES Permit fit: ❑ Location: Township: 23 N Other Range: 5 E Section: 14 Site Address: 6101 NE 2^a Street Renton, WA Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ❑ COE 404 ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ FEMA Floodplain ❑ COE Wetlands ❑ Other ❑ Shoreline Management ■ Structural Rockery/Vault/ ❑ ESA Section 7 Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): Full / Modified / Small Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Complex / Preapplication / Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval: CPN Project No. 00 1 1-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CPIH CONSULTANTS Page 5 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report Figure 2 — Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet, 2009 Surface Water Design Manual (contd.) Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part S SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: Residential R-8 Special District Overlays: Drainage Basin: May Creek Stormwater Requirements: Conservation Flow Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT ❑ River/Stream ❑ Lake ■ Wetlands Category 3 ❑ Closed Depression ❑ Floodplain ❑ Other Part 10 SOILS Soil Type AgC ❑ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) ❑ Other ❑ Additional Sheets Attached VE AREAS Slopes 6%-15% ❑ Steep Slope ❑ Erosion Hazard ❑ Landslide Hazard ■ Coal Mine Hazard ❑ Seismic Hazard ❑ Habitat Protection Erosion Potential Yes ❑ Sole Source Aquifer ❑ Seeps/Springs CPN Project No. 0011-11008 March 8, 2012 CP1H CONSULTANTS Page 6 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Starmwater Drainage Report Figure 2 — Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet, 2004 Surface Water Design Manua! (cont'd.) Part l l DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE ❑ Core 2 — Offsite Analysis ❑ Sensitive/Critical Areas ❑ SEPA ❑ Other 11 ❑ Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION i SITE CONSTRAINT Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: Wetland (name or description) Core Requirements all S apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 1 Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 Dated: Flow Control Level: 1 / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number (include a facility summary sheet) Small Site BMP's: Full Dispersion Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: NIA Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Liability Provided: Yes / No Water Quality Type: Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscape Management Plan_ Yes / No Special Requirements as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA / SDO / MDP / BP / LMP / Shared Fac / None Re uirements Name: Floodplaiw'Floodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / None 140 -year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Description: Source Control Describe landuse: Residential (comm.iindu_strial landuse) Describe any structural controls: Oil Control High -use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom?: Other Drainage Structures Describe: CPH Project No. 001 1- l 1008 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 7 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report Figure 2 — Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet, 2009 Surface Water Design Manual (cont'd) Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMNET CONTROL REQUIREMENTS Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION Clearing Limits Stabilize Exposed Surfaces Cover Measures Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Perimeter Protection Facilities ❑ Traffic Area Stabilization Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure Sediment Retention Operation of Permanent Facilities Surface Water Control Flag Limits of SAO and open space Dust Control preservation areas Construction Sequence ❑ Other Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description Detention ❑ Infiltration ❑ Regional Facility ❑ Shared Facility ❑ Small Site BMP's ❑ Other ❑ Biofiltration 0 Wetpool ❑ Media Filtration ❑ Oil Control ❑ Spill Control ❑ Small Site BMP's ❑ Other Part 15 EASEMENTS /TRACTS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Access Easement ❑ Native Growth Protection Covenant ■ Tract ❑ Other rt ib STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Retaining Wall 0 Rockery > 4' High ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached technical information Report_ To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Signed Date CPH Project No. 00 11 - l 1008 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 8 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report SECTION B - MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Compliance with Project Drainage Requirements The storm drainage and temporary erosion control standards for the project are established by the City of Renton Addendum to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The project requires Full Drainage Review as it exceeds the impervious threshold for Small Site Review (Type I or Type II) and proposes more than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface coverage. The KCSWDM specifies eight core and five special requirements that are to be met for this project. Compliance and/or applicability of each of these design standards are summarized below: S WDM Core Requirements 1. Discharge at Natural Location: The project site currently slopes and drains southwesterly to a swale on the southern boundary of the site. The stormwater then flows west toward an existing 18 inch culvert. The flows continue south through several sensitive area tracts and culverts to its ultimate downstream discharge of the Cedar River approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the site. On-site storm water controls will maintain this existing drainage pattern and ultimate downstream discharge in accordance with current flow control standards. 2. Offsite Analysis: Summarized in Section C — Offsite Analysis. 3. Flow Control: The project requires Level 2 (i.e., Conservation) flow control according to the KCSWDM Flow Control Map. A description of the proposed flow control facilities for the project is provided in Section D. 4. Conveyance System: The project proposes to collect on-site runoff and convey it to an existing 18 inch culvert 30 feet west of the site. These improvements are shown in Figure 4 and described further in Section E. 5. Erosion and Sediment Control: Temporary controls are as described in Section F. h. Maintenance and Operations: The on-site storm drainage facilities are proposed to be privately maintained by an established home owner's association. As such, the final SDR will include a Maintenance and Operations Manual. 7. Financial Guarantees and Liability: A bond Quantity Worksheet will be prepared for this project with the final SDR and engineering package. 8. Water Quality: Basic Water Quality treatment is required for the proposed project. This treatment level is proposed to achieve by means of on-site rain gardens and a combined detention/water quality facility as shown on Figure 4 and as described in Section G. SKS WDM Special Requirements 1. Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements: No area -specific requirements apply to this project site. 2. Flood Hazard Area Delineation: The limits of this project are not located within or in proximity to a 100 -year floodplain. CPN Project No. 001 7-1100 8 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 9 Maplewood Park East 3. Flood Protection Facilities: Not applicable. 4. Source Control: No additional source control is proposed. Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report 5. Oil Control: The project is not considered a high -use area and no special oil control provisions are required. CPN Project No. 001 1-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 10 Maplewood Parc East Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report SECTION C - OFF-SITE ANALYSIS Project Storm Drainage Conditions The stormwater from the site flows to a swale on the southern boundary of the site. The Swale has a gentle slope and flat bottom. The swale prior to leaving the site is 5 feet wide and 1-2 feet deep. No water was observed in the swale during site visits and the swale was lined with a layer of leaves. The flow enters an 1 9 inch corrugated polyethylene pipe sloped at 5% for approximately 250 feet. The water outlets the 18 inch pipe and immediately enters a 24 inch corrugated metal pipe sloping at 4% that crosses underneath NE 2nd St into the Sensitive Area Tract F within the Maplewood Estates development. The 24 inch pipe is filled with 12 inches of quarry rock. Then the flow continues in the Sensitive Areas Tract F southwest by shallow concentrated flow for approximately 800 feet. The drainage course consists of a thickly vegetated water way with slow flowing and standing water present. At approximately 1 215 feet downstream of the site, the water enters a 24 inch corrugated metal pipe sloping at I% and filled with 12 inches of quarry rock. The storm water crosses SE 2nd Street and outlets into the Sensitive Area Tract G of Maplewood Estates. This area is thickly vegetated with trees, grasses, and blackberry bushes. The flow then continues southwest through Tract G for approximately 800 feet. The drainage makes is way south through the Maplewood Park and eventually discharges into the Cedar River approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the site. CPN Project No. 00 1 1-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CPJH CONSULTANTS Page 1 1 Maplewood Paris East SECTION D - FLOW CONTROL DESIGN Existing Site Hydrology Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report The existing site conditions are shown in Figure 3. The King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) software was used to model the site hydrology and calculate runoff peak rates. The input parameters for this model are provided in Appendix B of this report. The model results are provided in Appendix C. Developed Site Hydrology The developed site drainage is contained within one basin. The developed conditions of the site were modeled using KCRTS to complete a Level 2 (i.e., conservation) flow control analysis of the project. All roads, building roof drains, on-site paved surfaces and most landscape areas on the site are collected and directed to the on-site combined detention and water quality pond. The results of the developed site runoff analysis are summarized in Appendix C. Flow Control The combined pond/detention facility discharges and controls the peak runoff rates and duration of flow to the existing ouff all location. A portion of the frontage improvements along NE 2nd St will be bypassed due to the grades within the road. This area was modeled in KCRTS as bypass. The existing release rates will be maintained in the developed conditions. The detention facility will be controlled by a control riser within an overflow structure. CPN Project No. 0011-11008 March 8, 2012 CPJH CONSULTANTS Page 12 Maplewood Park East SECTION E - CONVEYANCE DESIGN Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report The project proposes to collect on-site runoff and convey it to the existing 18 inch culvert east of the site. All collection and conveyance is proposed by means of surface grading, inlets, and below -grade pipes on the site. The proposed conveyance system sizes will be confirmed with the final SDR and engineering design for the project. The preliminary storm drainage collection and conveyance systems, including points of connection to the existing culvert are shown in Figure 4. CPN Projed No. 001 1-1 1008 Mardi 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 13 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report SECTION F -- CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN Site specific details and provisions for the temporary erosion and sediment control (ESC) facilities are provided with the improvement plans that accompany this SDR. The proposed facilities have been selected and sized in accordance with the recommendations provided in the KCSWDM standards. In addition to the site-specific ESC measures, the following general Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sediment control shall also be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the KCSWDM: 1. Clearing Limits Construction clearing limits fence or silt fence will be installed by the contractor along the entire project corridor to prevent disturbance of project areas not designated for construction. These fences will be installed prior to clearing and grading activities where appropriate. 2. Cover Measures Temporary and permanent cover measures will be provided by the contractor to protect disturbed areas. Disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched to provide permanent cover measure and to reduce erosion within seven days, if those areas not scheduled for immediate work. 3. Perimeter Protection The contractor will install silt fences as indicated on the drawings prior to any up slope clearing, grading and trenching activities in order to reduce the transport of sediment offsite. 4. Traffic Area Stabilization Stabilized pads of quarry spalls will be installed by the contractor at all egress points from the project site as required to reduce the amount of sediment transported onto paved roads or other offsite areas by motor vehicles. It is not anticipated that a construction entrance will be required given the existing roadway. 5. Sediment Retention Sediment retention will be provided by silt fencing and catch basin inlet protection at the locations and dimensions shown on the project drawings. b. Surface Water Control Surface water control will include ditches, temporary culverts, check dams, and/or other inlet and outlet protection at the locations and dimensions shown on the drawings. 7. Dust Control Water and/or street sweeping equipment will be used by the contractor to control dust emissions during construction operations. 8. Wet Season Requirements If soils are exposed during the period of October 1 to March 31, the contractor will mulch and seed or otherwise cover as much disturbed area as possible by the first week of October, in order to provide protective ground cover for the wet season. The contractor will also conform to the following wet season special provisions: CPH Project No. 001 I - l 1008 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 14 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report A. Apply cover measures to disturbed areas that are to remain unworked for more than two days. B. Protect stockpiles that are to remain unworked for more than 12 hours. No area is to be left uncovered/denuded longer than 12 hours during the winter months. C. Provide onsite stockpiles of cover materials sufficient to cover all disturbed areas. D. Seed all areas that are to be unworked during the wet season by the end of the first week of October. E. Apply mulch to all seeded areas for protection. F. Provide onsite storage of 50 linear feet of silt fence (and the necessary stakes) for every acre of disturbed area. Straw bales are to be stockpiled onsite for use in an emergency. G. Provide construction road and parking lot stabilization areas for all sites. H. Provide additional sediment retention as required by the City of Kirkland Engineer. I. Provide additional surface water controls as required by the City of Kirkland Engineer. J. Implement construction phasing and more conservative BMPs for construction activity near surface waters (to be evaluated). K. Review and maintain TESC measures on a weekly basis and within 24 -hours after any runoff -producing event. 9. Sensitive Areas Restrictions The project site includes adjacent wetland and stream along with associated buffers. The contractor shall install high visibility fencing along the buffers and any areas to remain undisturbed prior to construction. 10. Maintenance Requirements All ESC measures will be maintained and reviewed on a regular basis following the standard maintenance requirements identified in the project drawings. A ESC supervisor will be designated by the contractor and the name, address and phone number of the ESC supervisor will be given to the City prior to the start of construction. A sign will be posted at the primary entrance to the project site identifying the ESC supervisor and his/her phone number. The ESC supervisor will inspect the site at least once a month during the dry season, weekly during the wet season, and within 24 hours of each runoff -producing storm. A standard ESC maintenance report will be used as a written record of all maintenance. The contractor will be responsible for phasing of erosion and sediment controls during construction so that they are coordinated with construction activities. The contractor will also be responsible for maintenance of temporary controls during construction, including removal of accumulated sediment, and for the removal of the controls and remaining accumulated sediment at the completion of construction. 11. Fina! Stabilization Prior to obtaining final construction approval, the site shall be stabilized, the structural ESC measures removed and drainage facilities cleaned. To obtain final construction approval, the following conditions must be met: • All disturbed areas of the site should be vegetated or otherwise permanently stabilized in accordance with project BMPs. At a minimum, disturbed areas should be seeded and mulched to provide a high likelihood that sufficient cover will develop shortly after final approval. The plans include erosion control notes and specifications for hydro -seeding and mulching disturbed areas. CPH Project No. 0011-11008 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 15 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report Structural measures such as silt fences, pipe slope drains, storm drain inlet protection and sediment traps and ponds shall be removed once the proposed improvements are complete and vegetated areas are stabilized. All permanent surface water facilities shall be cleaned completely and restored to working order prior to removal of ESC facilities. CPH Project No. 001 1-11008 CP1H CONSULTANTS March 8, 2012 Page 16 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report SECTION G - WATER QUALITY DESIGN The KCSWDM requires that all proposed projects assess the requirement to provide water quality facilities to treat runoff of pollution -generating impervious surfaces. Storm drainage runoff from pollution generating impervious (PGIS) and pollution generating pervious (PGIS) areas will require Basic Water Quality treatment prior to discharge to the downstream, off-site system. This treatment level is proposed to be achieved by a combined detention/water quality pond located at the southwest corner of the project site. The results of the preliminary design/sizing are provided in Appendix D of this report. CPH Project No. 001 1-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 17 Maplewood Park East Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Report SECTION H - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The on-site storm drainage facilities for this project will be privately maintained by an established homeowner's association (HOA). A site-specific operations and maintenance manual for the private facilities will be provided with the final storm drainage report for the project. CPH Project No. 007 1-11008 March 8, 2012 CPTH CONSULTANTS Page 18 CONSULTANTS FIGURES Site Planning Ovil Engineering Project Management Land Development [ansul ing i 'n Q w g im ,69'6Lf 3.61,6%OON a l _I f r. 48 _ P j1 37P� F+ 1 Ij Q I ;I m / 1 a Ca rs r ti Q Lu Z. 6% CP H CONSULTANTS APPENDIX A DEVELOPED LAND USE AND KCRTS MODEL INPUT SUMMARY Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development Consulting Maplewood Park East Developed Land Use Summary liminary Storm Drainage Report CPN Project No. 001 1-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CP I H CONSULTANTS Page 1 3882 1 8627.68 4745 3882 2 8140.00 4477 3663 3663 Lots 2.93 1.25 1.68 ROW 0.87 0.71 0.17 Pond Tract 0.60 0.25 0.35 TOTAL TO POND 4.40 2.21 2.20 Bypass 0.10 0.07 0.03 TOTAL SITE 4.50 2.28 2.23 CPN Project No. 001 1-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CP I H CONSULTANTS Page 1 3882 1 8627.68 4745 3882 2 8140.00 4477 3663 3663 3 8140.00 4477 3663 3663 4 8134.66 4474 3661 3661 5 8246.59 4536 3711 3711 6 8325.20 4579 3746 3746 7 9194.73 5057 4138 4000 8 9263.06 5095 4168 4000 9 9093.17 5001 4092 4000 10 9047.98 4976 4072 4000 11 10925.65 6009 4917 4000 12 9968.33 5483 4486 4000 13 10111.22 5561 4550 4000 14 10345.20 5690 4655 4000 Total Lots J 127563.47 sf 70160 sf 574045f 54326 sf 2.93 ac 1.61 ac 1.32 ac 1.25 ac CPN Project No. 001 1-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CP I H CONSULTANTS Page 1 CP H CONSULTANTS APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY KCRTS MODEL RESULTS — FLOW CONTROL Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development [onsulting Maplewood Park East Retention/Detention Facility iminary Storm Drainage Report Type of Facility: Detention Pond Side Slope: 3.00 H:1V Pond Bottom Length: 114.02 ft Pond Bottom Width: 57.01 ft Pond Bottom Area: 6500. sq. ft Top Area at 1 ft. FB: 13953. sq. ft 0.320 acres Effective Storage Depth: 5.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 0.00 ft Storage Volume: 46827. cu. ft 1.075 ac -ft Riser Head: 5.00 ft Riser Diameter: 18.00 inches Number of orifices: 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 1.13 0.077 2 3.20 2.13 0.164 6.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation Surf Area (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs) (sq. ft) 0.00 0.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 6500. 0.01 0.01 65. 0.001 0.004 0.00 6510. 0.02 0.02 130. 0.003 0.005 0.00 6521. 0.04 0.04 261. 0.006 0.006 0.00 6541. 0.05 0.05 326. 0.007 0.007 0.00 6551. 0.06 0.06 392. 0.009 0.008 0.00 6562. 0.07 0.07 458. 0.011 0.009 0.00 6572. 0.08 0.08 523. 0.012 0.010 0.00 6582. 0.09 0.09 589. 0.014 0.011 0.00 6593. CPN Project No. 001 I -1 1008 March 8, 2012 CP I H CONSULTANTS Page 1 Maplewood Park East Prel iry Storm Drainage Report CPN Project No. 0011- 1 1008 March 8, 2012 CP I M CONSULTANTS Page 2 0.19 0.19 1254. 0.029 0.015 0.00 6696. 0.29 0.29 1928. 0.044 0.019 0.00 6801. 0.39 0.39 2614. 0.060 0.022 0.00 6906. 0.49 0.49 3310. 0.076 0.024 0.00 7011. 0.59 0.59 4016. 0.092 0.026 0.00 7118. 0.69 0.69 4733. 0.109 0.029 0.00 7225. 0.79 0.79 5461. 0.125 0.031 0.00 7333. 0.89 0.89 6200. 0.142 0.032 0.00 7442. 0.99 0.99 6950. 0.160 0.034 0.00 7551. 1.09 1.09 7710. 0.177 0.036 0.00 7661. 1.19 1.19 8482. 0.195 0.038 0.00 7772. 1.29 1.29 9265. 0.213 0.039 0.00 7884. 1.39 1.39 10059. 0.231 0.041 0.00 7996. 1.49 1.49 10864. 0.249 0.042 0.00 8109. 1.59 1.59 11680. 0.268 0.043 0.00 8223. 1.69 1.69 12508. 0.287 0.045 0.00 8337, 1.79 1.79 13348. 0.306 0.046 0.00 8452. 1.89 1.89 14199. 0.326 0.047 0.00 8568. 1.99 1.99 15061. 0.346 0.048 0.00 8685. 2.09 2.09 15936. 0.366 0.050 0.00 8802. 2.19 2.19 16822. 0.386 0.051 0.00 8920. 2.29 2.29 17720. 0.407 0.052 0.00 9039. 2.39 2.39 18630. 0.428 0.053 0.00 9158. 2.49 2.49 19551. 0.449 0.054 0.00 9278. 2.59 2.59 20485. 0.470 0.055 0.00 9399. 2.69 2.69 21431. 0.492 0.056 0.00 9521. CPN Project No. 0011- 1 1008 March 8, 2012 CP I M CONSULTANTS Page 2 Maplewood Park East iminary Storm Drainage Report Morch 8, 2012 Page 3 2.79 2.79 22389. 0.514 0.057 0.00 9643, 2.89 2.89 23360. 0.536 0.058 0.00 9766. 2.99 2.99 24343. 0.559 0.059 0.00 9890. 3.09 3.09 25338. 0.582 0.060 0.00 10015. 3.19 3.19 26346. 0.605 0.061 0.00 10140. 3.20 3.20 26447. 0.607 0.061 0.00 10152. 3.22 3.22 26650. 0.612 0.063 0.00 10177. 3.24 3.24 26854. 0.616 0.066 0.00 10203. 3.27 3.27 27161. 0.624 0.072 0.00 10240. 3.29 3.29 27366. 0.628 0.081 0.00 10266. 3.31 3.31 27572. 0.633 0.091 0.00 10291. 3.33 3.33 27778. 0.638 0.103 0.00 10316. 3.35 3.35 27984. 0.642 0.111 0.00 10342. 3.38 3.38 28295. 0.650 0.115 0.00 10380. 3.48 3.48 29339. 0.674 0.128 0.00 10507. 3.58 3.58 30396. 0.698 0.140 0.00 10635. 3.68 3.68 31466. 0.722 0.150 0.00 10764. 3.78 3.78 32549. 0.747 0.160 0.00 10893. 3.88 3.88 33645. 0.772 0.168 0.00 11023. 3.98 3.98 34754. 0.798 0.176 0.00 11154. 4.08 4.08 35876. 0.824 0.184 0.00 11286. 4.18 4.18 37011. 0.850 0.191 0.00 11418. 4.28 4.28 38160. 0.876 0.198 0.00 11551. 4.38 4.38 39321. 0.903 0.205 0.00 11685. 4.48 4.48 40497. 0.930 0.211 0.00 11820. 4.58 4.58 41685. 0.957 0.217 0.00 11955. CPH Project No. 001 1-1 1008 CP I H CONSULTANTS Morch 8, 2012 Page 3 Maplewood Park East 4. 68 12091. 4.78 12228. 4.88 12365. 4.98 12503. 5.00 12531. 5.10 12670. 5.20 12809. 5.30 12950. 5.40 13091. 5.50 13233. 5.60 13375. 5.70 13519. 5.80 13663. 5.90 13808. 6.00 1.3953. 6.10 1.4099. 6.20 14246. 6. 30 1.4394. 6.40 14542. 6.50 14691. 6.60 14841. 6.70 14991. 6.80 15143. 6.90 15294. 7.00 15447. Hyd Inflow Pre] iry Storm Drainage Report 4.68 42888. 0.985 0.223 0.00 4.78 44104. 1.012 0.229 0.00 4.88 45333. 1.041 0.234 0.00 4.98 46577. 1.069 0.240 0.00 5.00 46827. 1.075 0.241 0.00 5.10 48087. 1.104 0.708 0.00 5.20 49361. 1.133 1.560 0.00 5.30 50649. 1.163 2.660 0.00 5.40 51951. 1.193 3.960 0.00 5.50 53267. 1.223 5.430 0.00 5.60 54598. 1.253 6.860 0.00 5.70 55942. 1.284 7.400 0.00 5.80 57301. 1.315 7.890 0.00 5.90 58675. 1.347 8.360 0.00 6.00 60063. 1.379 8.800 0.00 6.10 61465. 1.411 9.220 0.00 6.20 62883. 1.444 9.620 0.00 6.30 64315. 1.476 10.000 0.00 6.40 65761. 1.510 10.370 0.00 6.50 67223. 1.543 10.730 0.00 6.60 68700. 1.577 11.080 0.00 6.70 70191. 1.611 11.410 0.00 6.80 71698. 1.646 11.740 0.00 6.90 73220. 1.681 12.060 0.00 7.00 74757. 1.716 12.360 0.00 Outflow Peak Storage CPH Project No. 0011-11008 March 8, 2012 CP I H CONSULTANTS Page 4 Maplewood Park Easi 1 1.51 0.70 2 0.73 0.23 3 0.89 0.19 4 0.73 0.19 5 0.77 0.15 6 0.45 0.10 7 0.57 0.06 8 0.59 0.05 Hyd R/D Facility Tributary liminary Storm Drainage Report Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 5.10 5.10 48072. 1.104 4.78 4.78 44078. 1.012 4.15 4.15 36707. 0.843 4.23 4.23 37538. 0.862 3.69 3.69 31597. 0.725 3.32 3.32 27662. 0.635 2.85 2.85 23020. 0.528 1.96 1.96 14808. 0.340 Reservoir POC Outflow Inflow Target Calc ******** 0.36 0.72 ******** ******* 0.24 ******** ******* 0.19 ******** ******* 0.20 ******** ******* 0.15 ******** ******* 0.10 ******** ******* 0.06 ******** ******* 0.06 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout POC Time Series File:dsout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: Peak Outflow Discharge: Peak Reservoir Stage: Peak Reservoir Elev: Peak Reservoir Storage: 1.51 CFS at 0.702 CFS at 5.10 Ft 5.10 Ft 48072. Cu -Ft 1.104 Ac -Ft 6:00 on Llan 9 in Year 8 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Add Time Series:bypass.tsf Peak Summed Discharge: 0.717 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf Flow Duration Outflow Inflow 1 0.70 0.04 2 0.23 0.02 3 0.19 0.02 4 0.19 0.02 5 0.15 0.02 6 0.10 0.01 7 0.06 0.02 8 0.05 0.02 liminary Storm Drainage Report Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 5.10 5.10 48072. 1.104 4.78 4.78 44078. 1.012 4.15 4.15 36707. 0.843 4.23 4.23 37538. 0.862 3.69 3.69 31597. 0.725 3.32 3.32 27662. 0.635 2.85 2.85 23020. 0.528 1.96 1.96 14808. 0.340 Reservoir POC Outflow Inflow Target Calc ******** 0.36 0.72 ******** ******* 0.24 ******** ******* 0.19 ******** ******* 0.20 ******** ******* 0.15 ******** ******* 0.10 ******** ******* 0.06 ******** ******* 0.06 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout POC Time Series File:dsout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: Peak Outflow Discharge: Peak Reservoir Stage: Peak Reservoir Elev: Peak Reservoir Storage: 1.51 CFS at 0.702 CFS at 5.10 Ft 5.10 Ft 48072. Cu -Ft 1.104 Ac -Ft 6:00 on Llan 9 in Year 8 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Add Time Series:bypass.tsf Peak Summed Discharge: 0.717 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Point of Compliance File:dsout.tsf Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence Probability CFS % % % 0.003 33344 54.377 54.377 45.623 0.456E+00 0.010 5232 8.532 62.909 37.091 0.371E+00 0.016 4732 7.717 70.626 29.374 0.294E+00 0.023 4036 6.582 77.208 22.792 0.228E+00 0.029 3778 6.161 83.369 16.631 0.166E+00 0.035 3620 5.903 89.273 10.727 0.107E+00 0.042 2184 3.562 92.834 7.166 0.717E-01 0.048 1607 2.621 95.455 4.545 0.455E-01 0.055 1184 1.931 97.386 2.614 0.261E-01 0.061 1130 1.843 99.229 0.771 0.771E--02 CPN Projed No. 001 1-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CP I H CONSULTANTS Page 5 Maplewood Park East Prel pry Storm drainage Report 0.068 78 0.127 99.356 0.644 0.644E-02 0.074 45 0.073 99.429 0.571 0.571E-02 0.080 23 0.038 99.467 0.533 0.533E-02 0.087 15 0.024 99.491 0.509 0.509E-02 0.093 16 0.026 99.517 0.483 0.483E-02 0.100 11 0.018 99.535 0.465 0.465E-02 0.106 13 0.021 99.556 0.444 0.444E-02 0.113 12 0.020 99.576 0.424 0.424E-02 0.119 23 0.038 99.614 0.386 0.386E-02 0.126 29 0.047 99.661 0.339 0.339E-02 0.132 16 0.026 99.687 0.313 0.313E-02 0.138 18 0.029 99.716 0.284 0.284E-02 0.145 15 0.024 99.741 0.259 0.259E-02 0.151 28 0.046 99.786 0.214 0.214E-02 0.158 23 0.038 99.824 0.176 0.176E-02 0.164 12 0.020 99.843 0.157 0.157E-02 0.171 12 0.020 99.863 0.137 0.137E-02 0.177 9 0.015 99.878 0.122 0.122E-02 0.183 13 0.021 99.899 0.101 C.101E-02 0.190 16 0.026 99.925 0.075 0.750E-03 0.196 10 0.016 99.941 0.059 0.587E-03 0.203 4 0.007 99.948 0.052' 0.522E-03 0.209 11 0.018 99.966 0.034 0.342E-03 0.216 7 0.011 99.977 0.023 0.228E-03 0.222 5 0.008 99.985 0.015 0.147E-03 0.228 6 0.010 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 Flow Duration from Time Series File:dsout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_Probability CFS % o % 0.003 33324 54.344 54.344 45.656 0.457E+00 0.010 5237 8.540 62.885 37.115 0.371E+00 0.017 4699 7.663 70.548 29.452 0.295E+00 0.023 4277 6.975 77.523 22.477 0.225E+00 0.030 3732 6.086 83.609 16.391 0.164E+00 0.036 3513 5.729 89.338 10.662 0.107E+00 0.043 2236 3.646 92.984 7.016 0.702E-01 0.050 1479 2.412 95.396 4.604 0.460E-01 0.056 1258 2.052 97.448 2.552 0.255E-01 0.063 1020 1.663 99.111 0.889 0.889E-02 0.070 136 0.222 99.333 0.667 0.667E-02 0.076 59 0.096 99.429 0.571 0.571E-02 0.083 25 0.041 99.470 0.530 0.530E-02 0.089 15 0.024 99.494 0.506 0.506E-02 0.096 15 0.024 99.519 0.481 0.481E-02 0.103 12 0.020 99.538 0.462 0.462E-02 0.109 12 0.020 99.558 0.442 0.442E-02 0.116 16 0.026 99.584 0.416 0.416E-02 0.122 23 0.038 99.622 0.378 0.378E-02 0.129 24 0.039 99.661 0.339 0.339E-02 0.136 20 0.033 99.693 0.307 0.307E-02 0.142 16 0.026 99.720 0.280 0.280E-02 CPN Project No. 00 11- 1T008 March 8, 2012 CP I H CONSULTANTS Page 6 Maplewood Park East 0.149 14 0.023 0.156 32 0.052 0.162 19 0.031 0.169 14 0.023 0.175 11 0.018 0.182 11 0.018 0.189 12 0.020 0.195 16 0.026 0.202 8 0.013 0.209 6 0.010 0.215 10 0.016 0.222 5 0.008 0.228 6 0.010 0.235 7 0.011 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: predev.tsf New File: dsout.tsf 99.742 99.795 99.826 99.848 99.866 99.884 99.904 99.930 99.943 99.953 99.969 99.977 99.987 99.998 Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS Cutoff 0.062 0.079 0.096 0.113 0.130 0.147 0.164 0.181 0.198 0.215 0.232 0.249 0.266 0.283 -----Fraction of Time ----- Base New %Change 0.95E-02 0.95E-02 0.2 0.63E-02 0.55E-02 -11.7 0.50E-02 0.48E-02 -3.0 0.37E-02 0.43E-02 15.9 0.29E-02 0.33E-02 16.5 0.22E-02 0.26E-02 18.4 0.15E-02 0.16E-02 9.9 0.10E-02 0.12E-02 19.0 0.62E-03 0.64E-03 2.6 0.34E-03 0.31E-03 -9.5 0.23E-03 0.82E-04 -64.3 0.16E-03 0.00E+00 -100.0 0.11E-03 0.00E+00 -100.0 0.16E-04 0.00E+00 -100.0 iminary Storm Drainage Report 0.258 0.258E-02 New 0.205 0.205E-02 0.0 0.174 0.174E-02 0.092 0.152 0.152E-02 8.9 0.134 0.134E-02 0.153 0.116 0.116E-02 3.6 0.096 0.962E-03 0.199 0.070 0.701E-03 0.057 0.571E-03 -4.3 0.047 0.473E-03 0.229 0.031 0.310E-03 -16.7 0.023 0.228E--03 0.013 0.130E-03 0.002 0.163E-04 ---------Check of Probability Base 0.95E-02 0.062 0.63E-02 0.079 0.50E-02 0.096 0.37E-02 0.113 0.29E-02 0.130 0.22E-02 0.147 0.15E-02 0.164 0.10E-02 0.181 0.62E-03 0.198 0.34E-03 0.215 0.23E-03 0.232 0.16E-03 0.249 0.11E-03 0.266 0.16E-04 0.283 Maximum positive excursion - 0.011 cfs ( 9.9p) occurring at 0.109 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.120 cfs on the New Data:dsout.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.047 cfs occurring at 0.283 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.236 cfs on the New Data:dsout.tsf Tolerance ------- New %Change 0.062 0.0 0.072 -9.5 0.092 -4.4 0.123 8.9 0.141 8.2 0.153 4.0 0.170 3.6 0.186 2.9 0.199 0.4 0.215 -0.2 0.222 -4.3 0.226 -9.2 0.229 -14.0 0.236 -16.7 CPH Project No. 0011-1 1008 March 8, 2012 CP I H CONSULTANTS Page 7 CONSULTANTS APPENDIX C PRELIMINARY DETENTION FACILITY SIZING Site Planning Civil Engineering Project Management Land Development Consulting Maplewood Park East Detention Sizing from KCRTS Type of Facility: Detention Pond Side Slope: 3.00 H:lV Pond Bottom Length: 114.02 ft Pond Bottom Width: 57.01 ft Pond Bottom Area: 6500. sq. ft Top Area at 1 ft. FB: 13953. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: 0.320 acres 5.00 ft 0.00 ft 46827. cu. £t 1.075 ac -ft 5.00 ft 18.00 inches 2 iminary Storm Drainage Report Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CES) (in) 1 0.00 1.13 0.077 2 3.25 2.13 0.162 6.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Required Detention Volume = 46,827 cf Volume with 10% Contingency = 51,510 cf Provided Detention Volume = 60,254 cf Water Quality Sizing Method of Analysis ep 1) Determine volume factor f. Volume f=actor f = 3 Basic Size 3 Large Size 4.5 Step 2) Determine rainfall R for mean annual storm. Rainfall (R) 0.039 (feet) Step 3) Calculate runoff from mean annual storm Vr = (0.9Ai+ 0.25Afq+ 0.10A,f + 0.01 Aaa) X R A;= tributary area of impervious surface 95,396 (sq Aty= tributary area of till grass 96,268 (sq R = rainfall from mean annual storm 0.039 (ft) Vr = volume of runoff from mean annual storm 4287 (cf) CPH Project No. 00 11 -11008 CP I H CONSULTANTS March 8, 2012 Page 1 Maplewood Park East Prel ary Storm Drainage Report Step 4] Calculate wetpool volume Vb=f V, f = Volume factor 3 (unitless) V, = volume of runoff, mean annual storm 4287 (cf) Vb = Volume of the wetpool 12861 (cf) Required Wetpool Volume = 12,861 cf Volume with 10% Contingency = 14,069 cf Provided Wetpool Volume = 20,320 cf CPH Project No. 0011-17 008 March 8, 2012 CP I H CONSULTANTS Page 2 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Maplewood Park East SE 132nd Street Renton, Washington Project No. T-6678 Terra Associates, Inc. Prepared for: Burnstead Construction Bellevue, Washington February 21, 2012 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences February 2I, 2012 Project No. T-667$ Ms. Tiffiny Brown Burnstead Construction, LLC 1 ] 980 NE 24th Street, Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Subject: Geotechnical Report Maplewood Park East SE 132nd Street Renton, Washington Dear Ms. Brown; As requested, we have conducted a geoteclvucal engineering study for the subject project. The attached report presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain by 4 to 12 inches of organic material overlying 3 to 4 %2 feet of medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel (weathered till) overlying dense to very dense silty sand with gravel (glacial till). The exception to this was at Test Pit TP -1, where we observed one and one half feet of fill material consisting of silty sand with gravel overlying six inches of organic topsoil overlying the medium dense weathered till soils, Test Pit TP -9 had 24 inches of organic silty sand topsoil overlying the native till. Minor to heavy groundwater seepage was observed at depths ranging from 3 to 10 feet below existing site grades in all 11 test pits. In our opinion, the native soils on the site will be suitable for support of the proposed development provided the reconunendations presented in this report are incorporated into project design and construction. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 9 Fax (425) 821-4334 Ms. Tiff -my Brown Febma.ry 21. 2012 We trust (lie inforimition presented ill tEtis repoii is sufficient for your current heeds. If you have any questions or require additional information, Tease call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, UNC. -L— 2-/— /-2--- ants Project No. T-6678 Page No. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Pale �N�o. 1.0 Project Description.......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Scope of Work.................................................................................................................1 3.0 Site Conditions-- ................................................... ............................................... ....... 2 3.1 Surface................................................................................... ........2 3.2 Subsurface ....................................................................... ....................2 3.3 Groundwater........................:..............................................................................3 4.0 Geological Hazards, ........... ............ ............................................................................3 4.1 Seismic Considerations ............. .,...—.................................................................3 4.2 Erosion Hazard...................................................................................................4 4.3 Landslide Hazard................................................................................................4 5.0 Discussion and Recommendations..................................................................................5 5,1 General................................................................................................................5 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading..............................................................................5 5.3 Excavations.........................................................................................................6 5.4 Foundation Support ............................................................................................7 5.5 Floor Slabs-on-Grade..........................................................................................7 5.6 Site Walls............................................................................ 8 5.7 Infiltration Feasibility ............. ................................. ........ ........................8 5.8 Stormwater Detention Pond................................................................................9 5.9 Drainage..............................................................................................................9 5.10 Utilities.............................................................................................................10 5.11 Pavements.........................................................................................................10 6.0 Additional Services........................................................................................................10 7.0 Limitations.....................................................................................................................10 Fi urea VicinityMap ........ --............................................................. ............Figure 1 Exploration Location Plan..................................................................... ...... Figure 2 Cut Rockery Detail...................................................................... .....Figure 3 Appendix Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing....................................................................... Appendix A Geotechnical Report Maplewood Park East SE 132nd Street Renton, Washington I.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of developing an approximately 4.5 -acre site with 14 residential building lots and associated roadway and utility improvements. We were provided with a conceptual grading plan prepared by CPI1 Consultants dated January 26, 2012. Based on the existing topography and this plan, we would expect cuts and fills to be in the range of two to six feet will be required to establish design lot and roadway elevations. Stonnwater will be collected and routed to a detention pond located in the southwest eorner of the site. The pond will be formed primarily by excavating below current site grade with minor fills of less than two feet to achieve the top berm elevations. The excavation required to achieve the floor elevation of 463 feet will extend 12 to 17 feet below current site grades. Some development stormwater will also be directed to three rain gardens planned east of the proposed pond location south and adjacent internal roadway "B" We expect that the residential buildings will be two- and three-story, wood -framed buildings with their main floor levels framed over a crawl space with attached garage floors constructed at grade_ Structural loading should be relatively light; with bearing walls carrying loads of 2 to 3 kips per foot and isolated columns carrying maximum loads of 30 to 40 kips. The recommendations in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding of the preceding design features. We should review design drawings as they become available to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and to supplement them, if required. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK Our work was completed in accordance with our authorized proposal dated January 27, 2012. On February 8, 2012, we excavated 11 test pits ranging in depth from 8 feet to 15 feet below existing grade. Using the information obtained from the subsurface exploration, we performed analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the following. • Soil and groundwater conditions • Seismic design parameters per 2009 International Building Code (IBC) • Geologic Hazards per City of Renton Municipal Code • Site preparation and grading • Excavations • Foundation support • Slab -on -grade floors February 21, 2012 Project No. T-6678 • Site retaining; walls • Stornwater facilities • Infiltration feasibility • Drainage • Utilities • Pavements It should be noted that recommendations outlined in this report regarding drainage are associated with soil strength, design earth pressures, erosion, and stability. Design and performance issues with respect to moisture as it relates to the structure environment (i.e., humidity, mildew, mold) is beyond Terra Associates' purview. A building envelope specialist or contractor should be consulted to address these issues, as needed. 3.0 SITE CONDITION'S 3.1 Surface The project site is an approximately 4.5 -acre, rectangular shaped parcel located north and east of the intersection of 152nd Avenue SE and SE 132nd Street in Renton, Washington. The site is bordered by a single-family residence to the east, wooded areas to the north and west and SE i 32nd Street to the south. The approximate site location is shown ozl Figure 1. The property was previously developed with a single-family residence located in the east portion of the parcel. The residence has been demolished and the property is currently vacant. The western site area has not been developed in the past and is moderately forested, Site grade descends to the west-southwest with approximately 30 feet of elevation relief from the parcels northeast to southwest corners. This relief is carried over a gentle slope gradient of about five to six percent. 3.2 Subsurface Soil conditions we observed in the test pits consisted of 4 to 12 inches of organic material overlying 3 to 4 '/z feet of medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel (weathered till) overlying dense to very dense silty sand with gravel (unweathered till). The exception to this was at Test Pit TP -1 where we observed one and one half feet of fill material consisting of silty sand with gravel overlying six inches of organic topsoil overlying the medium dense weathered till soils. Test Pit TP -9 had 24 inches of organic silty sand topsoil overlying the native till. We reviewed the Geologic Alap of King County, Washiupon by Derek B. Booth, Kathy A. Troost, & Aaron P. Wisher (2007). This publication shows the site lying within an area mapped as "Vachon Subglacial Till" (Qvt). Soil conditions we observed are generally consistent with this snapped geology. The preceding discussion is intended to be a general review of the soil conditions encountered. For more detailed descriptions, please refer to (lie Test Pit Logs its Appendix A. Page No. 2 February 21. 2012 Project No, T-6578 33 Groundwater Minor to heavy groundwatCF seepage was observed in all 11 test pits at depths from 3 to 10 feet below existing site grades. We would expect that groundwater seepage observed at relatively shallow depths develops during the normally wet winter inoriths along the contact between the upper silly sand layers and unweathered glacial till_ This occurs as a result of rainfall that infiltrates through the tipper weathered till soil zone and becomes perched on the dense cemented (ill. The cemented till has relatively low penneability that impedes the continued downward migration of the infiltrated rainfall. As a result, groundwater seepage will develop and tend to flow laterally along the contact. Locally, such seepage is referred to as interflow. Perched groundwater levels and flow rates will fluctuate seasonally and typically reach their highest levels during and shortly following the wet winter months (November through .lune). Deeper zones of seepage observed in the test pits appear to be flowing from sandier layers contained within the till stratum such as at a depth of 6 to 10 feet in Test Pits TP -1 through TP -4, and TP -7 through TP -1.1. This groundwater seepage would not be significantly affected by seasonal weather variations and will be present during the drier summer and fall months. However, once exposed by excavation, we would anticipate the rate and volume of flow will diminish as storage from the isolated sandier zones is depleted. 4.0 GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS 4.1 Seismic Considerations Section 4.3.050.J.1.d of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) defines seismic hazard areas as "Low Seismic Hazard (SL): Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally have site coefficients of Types S1 or S2, as defined in the International Building Code. High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils generally have site coefficients of Types S3 or S4, as defined in the Inteniational Building Code (Ord. 5450, 3-2-2003)". Based oil soil conditions observed and the local geology, the site would be categorized as a Low Seismic Hazard (SL) per the RMC. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained sand that is below the groundwater table_ Soils of this nature derive their strength from inter -ranular friction. The generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains and eliminates this intergranular friction; thus, eliminating the soil's strength. Lased on the soil and groundwater conditions we observed, it is our opinion that there is no risk for liquefaction to occur at this site during an earthquake. Based on soil conditions observed and the local geology, the site would be categorized as a Low Seismic Hazard (SL) per the RMC. Page No. 3 Fcbruary 21, 2012 Project No, T-6678 Based on soil conditions observed in the test pits and our knowledge of the area geology, per Chapter 16 of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), site class "C" should be used in structural design. Based on this site class, in accordance with the 2009 IBC, the following parameters should be used in computing seismic Forces: Seisinic Desigir Parameters (IBC 2009) Spectral response acceleration (Short Period), S,,,, 1.370 Spectral response acceleration (l - Second Period), S,,,r 0.621 Five percent damped .2 second period, Sa 0.913 Five percent damped 1.0 second period, SDI 0.414 Values determined using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ground Motion Parameter Calculator accessed on February 17, 2012 at the web site lrttp./, rt)}clt ke.us s, ,civ rc5e��rclaifiarrr�aps rest n/incl x.1�1�. 4.2 Erosion. Hazard Section 4.3.050.J.I c of the RMC defines Erosion hazard areas as "Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (fortnerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than 15 percent. High Erosion hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than 15 percent." The soils encountered on-site are classified as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), fornterIy the Soil Conservation Service. With the existing slope gradients. these soils will have a slight to moderate potential for erosion when exposed. Therefore, the site is a low erosion hazard area as defined by the RMC. Regardless, erosion protection measures as required by the City of Renton will need to be in place prior to starting grading activities on (lie site. This would include perimeter silt fencing to contain erosion on-site and cover measures to prevent or reduce soil erosion during and following construction. 4.3 Landslide Hazard Section 4.3.050..i.l.c of the RMC defines Landslide hazard areas as "Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas with slopes less than 15 percent. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent, and areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of known mapable landslide deposits. " The site has less than 15 percent slopes, therefore, the site is a low landslide hazard area as defined by the FMC. Page No. 4 February 21, 2012 Project No. T -667S 5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECONI-MENDATIONS 5.1 General Rased on our study, there are no geotechnical considerations that would preclude development of the site as currently planned. The residential buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils observed below the upper 4 to 24 inches of organic surface or existing fill soils or on structural fill placed and compacted above these native soils. Pavement and floor slabs can be similarly supported. Overexcavation of existing fill soils will likely be confined to Lots I and 2 represented by Test Pit T11- 1, whcre we observed one and one half feet of existing fill overlying six inches of organic topsoil. The native soils encountered at the site contain a significant amount of fines and will be difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet, The ability to use native soil from site excavations as structural fill will depend on its moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the lithe of construction. Based on results of laboratory testing, the soils moisture content particularly in the upper five feet is currently above optimum. In order to use the native soils for structural fill or backfill, the contractors must be prepared to dry the soils back to facilitate proper compaction. Given the seepage condition observed in the test pits, the expect the soils may remain wet of optimum wetl into (lie normally dry summer months. If grading activities will take place during winter, the contractor/owner should be prepared to import clean granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. The following sections provide detailed recommendations regarding the preceding issues and other geotecluwicai design considerations. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications. 5.2 Site Preparation and Gradin To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, existing fill soils and other deleterious material should be stripped and removed frons the site. Surface stripping depths of about 4 to 24 inches should be expected to remove the organic surface and existing fill soils. In the previously developed portion of the site if any foundations, floor slabs, underground septic systems, or other buried utilities are still present, they should be removed prior to new construction. Abandoned utility pipes that fall outside of new building areas can be left in place provided they are sealed to prevent intrusion of groundwater seepage and soil. Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used for limited depths in nonstructural areas. Once clearing and stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired grades. Prior to placing fill, all exposed bearing surfaces should be observed by a representative of Terra Associates to verify soil conditions are as expected and suitable for support of new fill. Our representative may request a proofroll using heavy rubber -tired equipment to determine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are present. If excessively yielding areas are observed, and they cannot be stabilized in place by compaction, the affected soils should be excavated and removed to firm bearing and grade restored with new structural fill. Beneath embaiikment fills or roadway subgrade if the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive, the use of geotextile fabrics, such as Mirafi 500X, or an equivalent fabric, can be used in conjunction with clean granular structural fill. Our experience has shown that, in general, a minimum of IS inches of a clean, granular structural fill placed and compacted over the geotcxtile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface. Page No. 5 February 21, 2012 Project No, T-6678 The native soils encountered at the site conlain a sufficient amount of soil fines that will make them difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet or too dry. The ability to use native soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on its moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction, If wet soils fire encountered, the contractor will need to dry the soils by aeration during dry weather conditions. Alternatively, the use of an additive such as Portland cement, cement kiln dust (CKD), or lime to stabilize the soil moisture can be considered. If the soil is amended, additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) addressing the potential for elevated pH levels will need to be included in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) prepared Nvith the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TFSC) plan. As noted earlier, laboratory testing indicates the soils moisture content is currently above optimum. In order to use the native soils for structural fill or backfill, the contractors must be prepared to dry [lie soils back m facilitate proper compaction. Given the seepage condition observed in the test pits, we expect the soils may remain wet of optimum well into the normally dry summer months. If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months, or if they are initiated during the summer and extend into fall and winter, the owner should be prepared to import wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements: U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing .®�6 inclt_es�_., x .....__..... - 100...�... �....< Nov 4 75 maximum No. 200 5 maximum* * Based on the 3f4 -inch fraction. Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc, should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding; 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within one percent below to three percent above its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In nonstructural areas, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. 5.3 Excavations All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches, must be completed in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. Based on regulations outlined in the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISI-IA), the upper four and one half feet of medium dense weathered till and fill soils would be classified as Type C soils. The underlying very dense tall would be classified as Type A soil. Accordingly, temporary excavations in Type C soils should have their slopes laid back at an inclination of 1.5:1 (1•lorizontal:Vertical) or flatter, from the toe to the crest of the slope. Side slopes in Type A soils can be laid back at a slope inclination of 0.75:1 or flatter, For temporary excavation slopes less than 8 feet in height in Type A soils, the lower 3.5 feet can be cut to a vertical condition with a 0.75:I slope graded above. For temporary excavation slopes greater than 8 feet; the slope above the 3.5 -fool vertical portion will need to be laid back at a rninimum slope inclination of 1:1. All temporary exposed slope faces should be covered with a durable reinforced plastic membrane during construction to prevent slope raveling and rutting during periods of }precipitation. Page No. 6 Febnmry 21, 2012 Project No. T-17678 Groundwater seepage should be anticipated within excavations. We anticipate that the volume of water and rate of flow into the excavation Nvill be minor and would not Impact the stability of the excavations when completed as described. Conventional sump pumping procedures, along with a system of collection (renches. if necessary should be capable of maintaining a relatively dry excavation for construction pulj)oses. The above inlonnation is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be construed to impty that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. 5.4 Foundation Support The residential buildings may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill placed above competent native soils. Foundation subgrade should be prepared as reconimend.ed in Section 5.2 of this report. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should bear a minimum depth cf 1.5 feet belo", final exterior grades for frost protection. interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. Foundations can be dimensioned for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf)_ For short -terns loads, such as wind and seistnic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. With structural loading as anticipated and this bearing stress applied, estimated total foundation settlemew is less than one-half inch. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the side of the footing can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pcf. We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because they can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent native soil or backfilled with structural fill as described in Section 5.2 of this report. The recommended values include a safety factor of 1.5. 5.5 Floor Slabs -on -Grade Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on subgrade prepared as recommended in Section 5.2 of this report. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four -inch trick capillary break layer composed of clean, coarse sand or fine gravel that has less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent vetting of the floor slab. The capillary break layer will not prevent moisture intrusion through the slab caused by water vapor transmission, Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, such as covered floor areas, a common practice is to place a durable plastic membrane on the capillary break layer and then cover the membrane with a layer of clean sand or fine gravel to protect it from damage during construction, and to aid iii uniform curing of the concrete slab. It should be noted that if the sand or gravel layer overlying the membrane is saturated prior to pouring the slab, it will not be effective in assisting unifonn curing of the slab and can actually serve as a water supply for moisture bleeding through the slab, potentially affecting floor coverings. Therefore, in our opinion, covering the membrane with a layer of sand or gravel should be avoided if floor slab construction occurs during the wet winter months and the layer cannot be effectively drained. We recommend floor designers and contractors refer to the 2003 American Concrete institute (ACI) Manual of'Concrete Practice, Part 2, 302.IR-96, for further information regarding vapor barrier installation below slab -on -grade floors. Page No. 7 February 21, 2012 Project No. T-6678 5.6 Site Walls Based on the conceptual grading plan, we understand there are three rockeries planned for the proiect. These rockeries will be used to support vertical grade transitions between lots, between lots and roadways, and between lots and the property boundary. Based on the grading shown, the rockeries will have a maximum height of four feet and will be both cut and fill rockeries. A rockery is not inteirded to function as an engineered structure to resist lateral earth pressure as a retaining wall is. The primary function of a rockery is to cover the exposed soil face to reduce the potential for erosion. All rockery construction should conform to the Associated Rockery Contractors (ARC) Standard Rock Wall Construction Guidelines, We recommend limiting cut rockeries to a height of ten feet when facing undisturbed dense native soils, and four feel where placed against unreinforced structural fill. Where buildings will be constructed above and adjacent to rockery construction, the foundations should be lowered to prevent surcharge loading on the rockery. Foundation depths should provide for a theoretical 1:1 influence line extending from the footing edge to pass beneath the rockery base. Where rockeries of four feet or less will be constructed against structural fill, the structural fill should be overbuilt and then cut back prior to constructing the rockery. This will provide a more competent and stable soil face behind [lie rockery, If rockeries placed against fill will be surcharged, and in those locations where rockeries against fill will be greater than four feet, the fill should be reinforced using a geogrid or geotextile material. We can provide a design}eonstruction section for a reinforced fill rockery if final grading plans result in a fill rockery exceeding four feet in height. A detail showing a typical cut rockery is shown on Figure 3. 5.7 Infiltration Feasibill I As we understand, the project would like to use low impact development (LID) in the forin of rain gardens to moderate the amount of stormwater directed to the stormwater pond. We performed EPA falling head percolation tests within the upper soil horizon at a depth of about 12 inches at the locations of the proposed rain gardens. The tests were performed and results evaluated in accordance with ,procedures outlined in Section 6-A of the 2009 King County, Washington Swface Waler Design Manual (SITDAI). Measured percolation rates were as follows: Test Location Measure Percolation Rate TP -9 9 inches per hour TP -10 2.5 inches per hour TP -11 7,2 inches per hour The King County SWDM requires factoring the field test results to account for method of test, potential plugging and for facility geometry. The latter of these factors is directed at large scale stonnwater retention facilities such as ponds and vaults and not necessarily at smaller scale LID elements. Based on the factors required in the SWDM, the following preliminary infiltration rates can be used in design of the rain gardens. Test Location TP -9 Factored Preliminary Desian Infiltration Rate 1.9 inches per hour TP -10 .5 inches per hour TP -11 1.5 inches per hour Page No. 8 February 21, 2012 Project No. T-6678 Based on conditions observed in the test pits and results of laboratory testing, in our opinion, whole scale infiltration of development storinwater would not be feasible. In general, the silty sand with gravel observed in the test pits has a low permeability and typically would not be suitable for infiltration of storniwater on a large scale, However, in our opinion, the soils in the upper horizon would support limited infiltration of development storinwater using rain gardens or similar LID technologies. 5.8 Storm -water Detention Pond A storinwater detention pond will be constructed in the southwest comer of the development, The proposed pond floor will be 12 to 17 feet below current site grades and formed primary by excavation with minor tills for containment berni constniction. Our field exploration indicates that the soils in this area consist of'medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel (weathered till) overlying very dense glacial till. Fill used to fore containment berms for the detention pond should consist of native silty sand with gravel placed and compacted as structural till. if requirements of the King County Surface V<<ater Design Manual apply, the fill in this area must be compacted to a minintum of 95 percent of the soils maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor). Interior pond slopes below the stored water level should be 3:1 with exterior pond slopes at 2:1. Groundwater seepage was observed at depth in the test pits excavated at the pond location. As discussed earlier, we believe this seepage is contained within isolated sandier layers bedded within the predominant till formation, Once exposed by excavation, we expect the seepage will diminish as storage is depleted. It may be necessary to seal these sandier zones with less permeable on-site till soils to prevent excessive seepage losses particularly below the water quality storage elevation. The need to line or otherwise seal these sandier zones should be based on observations of the pond final grade at the time of construction. 5.9 Drainage Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the site at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building areas. We recorrnnend providing a gradient of at least three percent for a minimuin distance of ten feet from the building perimeters. If this gradient cannot be provided, surface water should be collected adjacent to the structures and disposed to appropriate stonn facilities. Su&wrfaee We recommend installing perimeter foundation drains adjacent to shallow foundations. The drains can be laid to grade at an invert elevation equivalent to the bottom of footing grade. The drains can consist of four -inch diameter perforated PVC pipe that is enveloped in washed pea gravel -sized drainage aggregate. The aggregate should extend six inches above and to the sides of the pipe. Roof and foundation drains should be tightlined separately to the storm drains. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. Page No. 9 February 21, 2412 Project No. T-6678 5.10 Utilities Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) or City of' Renton specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural MI, as described In Section 5.2 of this repoil, As noted, most fixative soils excavated on the site should be suitable far use as backfill material during dry weather conditions. However, if utility construction takes place during the vet winter months, it will likely be necessary to import suitable wet weather fill for utility trench backfilling. 5.11 Pavements Pavement subgrades should be prepared as described in the Section 5.2 of this report. Regardless of the degree of relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be Finn and relatively unyielding before paving. The subgrade should be proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to verify this condition. The pavement design section is dependent upon the supporting capability of the subgrade soils and the traffic conditions to which it will be subjected. For the plat access roadways, with traffic consisting mainly of light passenger vehicles with only occasional heavy traffic, and with a stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we recommend the following pavement sections: * Two inches of ]lot ntis asphalt (HMA) over four inches of crushed rock base (CR.B) • Two inches of HMA over three inches of asphalt -treated base (ATB) The paving materials used should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for %Z -inch class HMA, ATB, and CRA. Long-term pavement perfomtancc will depend on surface drainage. A poorly -drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. For optimum pavement performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two percent. Some degree of longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. 6,0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Terra Associates, Inc. should review the final design drawings and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in project design. We should also provide geotechnical service during construction to observe compliance with our design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. 7.0 LIMITATIONS We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made. This report is the copyrighted property of Terra Associates, Inc. and is intended for specific application to the Maplewood Park East project. This report is for the exclusive use of Burnstead Construction and its authorized representatives. Page No. 10 Febmary 21, 2012 Project No- T-6678 The analyses and recommendations present in this report are based on data obtained from the lest pits done on site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature wid extent of which may not become evident until construction. lf' variations appeal• evident, Tura Associates, hic, should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. Pace No, I 1 l I �i7 Jt Iz/ SE 113tn SI Hazen High t Scf- nn NE 101h St SE 11$h St I eve Fields NE ith PI K w rt� way Mgiiy Qij". l 11 NE 41hSt NE 2nd 51 SE I Mh St g A cn m G z rt l a 1,2VIh St t -a E 6th St 0 z rn g J m NE 4th S1 m SE 128th St SITE rn c. Ne'�'nj St cn m r� 1 jird St NE 1st PI c� SE 2nd Fi � m Sl 13$fhA'.!C St= rn ;n m I.iheny Sepia- High Sehool A Ea: H1 SE 1 ae Rhf-ERENGE: GOUC;LI< MAPS, WWW.GOUGLF-.COM, ACCESSED 2-17-2012 NOT TO SCALE Terra VICINITY MAP MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST Associates Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON • Consultants in Geotechnical engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No.T-667$ I Date FEB 2012 Figure 1 LU 1 M W3 tm Sl 13$fhA'.!C St= rn ;n m I.iheny Sepia- High Sehool A Ea: H1 SE 1 ae Rhf-ERENGE: GOUC;LI< MAPS, WWW.GOUGLF-.COM, ACCESSED 2-17-2012 NOT TO SCALE Terra VICINITY MAP MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST Associates Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON • Consultants in Geotechnical engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No.T-667$ I Date FEB 2012 Figure 1 CN -' �~z LL Z<O k 7� I! Z 04o Q CL W 04 c„ a M 4 I .. �� W "❑ ; ZOO LL IL r ` 00 4 I �}k _j z �Qw co k � I LLl o z f C C � I �* Q L c 'a Dl o I L/�M� LU to ti tCt v�k to MI MI I CDt � t f � k • o, I I s � PI ' I U — ¢ aLLI p CL LU z ".� W w LL, w o a IL IL a- a- d a_ Q Ck I k f �; N ❑ o I w p W z v fY a- w1 LL .� I Z OO x Rictai I Q H 5 z U Z w Q [RZ0 w %' ti—fl p O F+ , uict o cia�� z x T- m ED < 0 O J(nLC3 W T- C�k �zUEr ci z U)zwC7 R L©5if .�,� LM—COJV , . Fut— _ w w Uui SWALE FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE CONTROL 1 10' MAX. 6 KEYWAY 12 FIRM UNDISTURBED SOIL TO BE VERIFIED SY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER KEYWAY SHOULD BF SLOPED DOWN TOWARDS THE FRCE BEi JG PROTECTED 2 (MAX 1 COMPETENT UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOILS CRUSHED ROCK FILTER MATERIAL, BETWEEN 2 AND 4 INCH SIZE WITH LESS THAN 2% FINES 3" MIN, GRAVEL BEDDING 4" MINIMUM DIAMETER DRAIN PIPE SURROUNDED BY CLEAN WASHED 314" DRAIN GRAVEL TAKEN TO APPROVED POINT OF DISCHARGE NOT TO SCALE ROCKERY NOTES: 1. REFER TO CIVIL GRADING DRAWINGS FOR WALL ALIGNMENTS AND ELEVATIONS, 2. ROCKERY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF ROCKERY CONTRACTORS GUIDELINES. 3. ROCK USED MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ROCK QUALITY SPECIFIED IN SECTIONS 9-13.7(11) OF THE WS DOT STANDARDS SPECIFICATIONS (2008). 4. ALL CAP ROCKS MUST BE SECURE AND NOTABLE TO BE DISLODGED BY HAND. Term CUT ROCKERY DETAIL go MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST Associates, Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON Consullanls in Geolechnlcal Engineering Geology and Pro No.T-667$ Date FEB 20'12 Figure Environmental Earth Sciences 1• 3 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Maplewood Park East Renton, Washington On February 3, 2412, we completed our site exploration by observing soil conditions at 11 test pits. The test pits were excavated using a trackhoe to a maximus) depth of ] 4 feet below existing site grades. Test pit locations were determined in the field by measurements from existing site features. The approximate location of the test pits is shown on the attacked Exploration Location Plan, Figure 2, Test Pit Lags are attached as Figures A-2 through A-] 2. A geotechnical engineer from our office conducted the field exploration, Our representative classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples, and recorded water levels observed during excavation. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure A -l. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the individual Test Pit Logs. Grain size analyses were performed on selected samples. Results of the analysis Fire shown on Figures A-13 and A-14. Project No. T-6678 MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS W Slartdard Penetration Clean Densit Wel!-graded gravels grave! -sand mixtures little or no f © E Very loose GRAVELS Gravels � Y tines_co Ili cn N More than (less than 5% fines) OP Pooriy-graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. (D Very dense 50% of coarse fraction is i GM _ _ Silt y gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic Q Hard larger than No. Gravels - fines. LU .'Z � � r1 sieve with fines GC Cla a ravels y y y g ,graversand-cla mixtures, plastic fines. C? ----_ - - rK CD � i Clean SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. Q SANDS Sands (n CZ (lass than SP Poorly -graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no c More than 50% of coarse 51a fines) ..._ fines. ----- -._.- �' O o +' i fraction is SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic (fines. C) smaller than Sands No- 4 sieve with fines Sc Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. ML Inorganic silts, rock Nour, clayey silts with slight SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. - �a M E o Liquid limit is less than 50°Io.._. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean Gay), o Z -N OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. Uj C) i-- Z MH Inorganic sills, elastic. as SILTS AND CLAYS-- LL1 GH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. 7 0 to Liquid limit is greater than 50% li I OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS W Slartdard Penetration w Densit Desistance in Blows/Foot f © E Very loose 0-4 ;U5 Loose 4-10 Ili Medium dense 10-30 z Dense 30-50 U Very dense }50 Terra •r-� Associates, Inc. Consullants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences I2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER Z2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER T._ (NATER LEVEL (DATE) Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic root LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent PI PLASTIC INDEX N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per root UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-6678 I Date FEB 2012 Figure A-1 Standard Penetration Consistency Resistance in Blows/Foot W ? Very soft 0-2 w Soft 2-4 -c Medium stiff 4-8 C) Stiff B-16 Very stiff 16-32 Hard X32 Terra •r-� Associates, Inc. Consullants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences I2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER Z2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER T._ (NATER LEVEL (DATE) Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic root LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent PI PLASTIC INDEX N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per root UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-6678 I Date FEB 2012 Figure A-1 LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -1 FIGURE A-2 PROJECT NAME: PROJ. NOX675_ _ LOGGED BY: CSD LOCATION: —Renton. WashingjZn SURFACE CONDS: APPROX. ELEV: 496 DATE LOGGED. February 8. 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 6 to 8 Ee�jt DEPTH TO CAVING, N/A LL V1 D x tv E LU * I- DESCRIPTION CONSISTENCY! RELATIVE DENSITY o IL REMARKS w 4 n 3 ul % a (4 incfras ORGANICS) FILL: brown silty sand with gravel, fine to medium 13.2 1 grained, moist, roofs. Medium Dense ------------------------------------------------ TOPSOIL: black sand with sill and gravel, fine to medium grained, moist. Medium Dense ------------------------------------------------ Red-brown to brown silty SAND with gravel, fine to Medium Dense medium grained, moist, roofs. (SM) (Weatherers (ill) . 19,2 2 ----------------------------------------------- 5 Gray silty SAND with gravel, Fine to medium grained, Dense 10.4 3 moist. (SM) (Glacial Till -like) Y Test pit terminated at approximately 9 feet. Minor groundwater seepage observed between 6 and 8 feet. 1a Terra NOTE_ This subsurface mforrnation pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc. not be interpreted as being indicative or other locations at the site. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -2 FIGURE A-3 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood PROD. NO: L6678 LOGGED BY: CSD LOCATION: Renton. Washington... - SURFACE CONDS: Sod - APPROX. ELEY: 501 DATE LOGGED: February 8. 2012-- DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 6 to 7 Feet DEPTH TO CAVING: NIA NOTE, This subsurface information pertains only ro this lest pit lo,^.abon and should not be interpreted as being indicative of other iacalions at the site. Terra Associates= Inc. WE Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences en un O � x _j a- DESCRIPTION CONSISTENCY! RELATIVE DFNSITY � a- REMARKS F 0. LU f d 3:W r 'Y Q rn a (8 inches SOD) Red -brown to brown silty SAND with gravel, fine to I medium grained, moist to wet, fools. (SM) (Weathered till) Medium Dense 24.1 4 ---------------------------------------------- Gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium grained. Dense moist some cementation. (SM) (Glacial Till -like) 5 11.9 2 Test pit terminated at approximately 8.5 feet. Minor groundwater seepage observed between 6 and 7 feet. i t7 NOTE, This subsurface information pertains only ro this lest pit lo,^.abon and should not be interpreted as being indicative of other iacalions at the site. Terra Associates= Inc. WE Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences a y LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -3 FIGURE A-4 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood PROJ. NO: T-6678 LOGGED BY: _CSQ LOCATION: Renton. Washington _ SURFACE CONDS: Sod _ APPROX. ELEV: DATE LOGGED: February 8. 2012, DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: _6 to 7 Feet DEPTH TO CAVING: N/A N 0 zLu Z z _jCONSISTENCY! DESCRIPTION U REMARKS RELATIVE DENSITY � o < 0 CL 10 0 2 (B inches SOD) Red -brown to brown silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium grained, moist, roots. (SM) (Weathered till) Medium Dense 1 22,2 ---------------------------------- ------_------ Gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium grained, moist, sorne cementation. (SM) (Glacial Till -like) Test pit terminated at approximately 8 feet, Minor groundwater seepage observed at 6 and 7 feet, NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. Dense Very tense Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geologyand Environmental Earth, Sciences LOO OF TEST PIT NO, TP -4 F[GURE A -s PROJECT NAME: PROJ. NO: T -C678 LOGGED BY: CSD LOCATION: Renton. Washignton SURFACE CONDS: Modefate Understaly __ APPROX. ELEV: 482 DATE LOGGED: Fehrttary S. 7.012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 3'. d to R Ft DEPTH TO CAVING: NIA O x ]� EL DESCRIPTION CONSISTENCY! RELATIVE DENSITY a — a. REMARKS © 3 V) Q a (12 inches ORGANICS) Red -brown to brown silty SAND with gravel, fine to Medium Dense 23.8 1 medium grained, moist to wet, roots. (SM) {Weathered till) ---------------------------------------------- x S Gray silty SAND with gravel, rine to medium grained, Dense moist, slight cementation. (SM) (Glacial Till -like) 13,£ 2 Very Dense Test pit terminated at approximately 8 feet. Moderate groundwater seepage observed at 3 feet. Minor groundwater seepage observed in pockets between 4 and 8 feet. 1D Terra NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this fest pit loealion and should Associates, Inc. not be inlerpreted as being indicative of other locations at the sire. on Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -5 FIGURE A-6 PROJECT NAME: Maizjad _ PRO.1. NO: I -567B LOGGED SY; GSD LOCATION: SURFACE CONDS. bloderal#: Understory APPROX. ELEV: 479 DATE LOGGED: DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 3 Feet DEPTH TO CAVING: -VIA, O z x DESCRIPTION CONSISTENCYt o a REMARKS RELATIVE DENSITY LU V) U a CL 1 Is 5 ra (12 inches ORGANICS) Red -brown silly SAND with gravel, fine to mediumf Medium Dense 135.4 grained, saturated, roots. (5M) (Weathered till) Grayish brown silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium Dense grained, moist. (SM) ----------------------------------- ----------- 1 10.1 Very Dense 10 Gray silty SAND with gfavel, fine to medium grained, moist, cemented. (SM) (Glacial till) Test pit terminated at approximalely 8.5 feet. Heavy groundwater seepage observed at 3 feet. NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this lest pit location and should not be interpreted as being indicative of other loralions at the site. Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -6 FIGURE A-7 PROJECT NAME: Mapfewood PROJ. NO: T-6678 LOGGED BY. CSD LOCATION: Renton. Washington SURFACE CONDS: ModeMle Understory APPROX. ELEV: 474 DATE LOGGED: February 8. 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: _3 Feet DEPTH TO CAVING: NIA(13 — w a r z LU CONSISTENCY1 - w REMARKS pJ 8CRIPTIONRELATIVE DENSITY }a ua w a Q x rn u 0 a (12 inches ORGANICS) Red -brawn to brown silty SAND with gravel. fine to Medium Dense 31.3 medium grained, saturated, roots. (SM) (Weathered till) ][------------------------------------------------ ---_-------------------------------------------- Very Dense Gray siily SAND with gravel, line to medium grained, Gray moist, cemented. (SM) (Glacial lilt) 10 10.3 7.7 15 Test {Sit lerrninated at approximately 15 feet. Heavy groundwater seepage observed at 3 feet. Terra NOTE: This subsurface intormalion pertains only to this lest pit location and should Associates, Inc. not be interpreted as be, ng indicative of other locations at the site. Consultants in Geolechnica! Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -7 FIGURE A-8 PROJECT NAME; Mulewood PRO, , NO: 7-887$, LOGGED BY: CSE] �— LOCATION: Renton. Washin.Q _ SURFACE CONDS: _Moderate Undersjgry APPROX. ELEV: 478 DATE LOGGED: _February x2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: _3', 4 to 10 Ft DEPTH TO CAVING: NIA LL O v F z CONSISTENCY/ 2 DESCRIPTION o a. RE=MARKS RELATIVE DENSITY LU O (12 inches ORGANICS) Red -brown to brown silty SAND with gravel, fine to Medium Dense medium grained, saturated, roots. (SM) (Weathered tiff) Sir q----------- ------- --------- - - - - -- ------------ Y s1 1 5� Gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium grained. moist, some cementation. (SM) (Glacial Till -like) "At 11 feet soil becomes cemented, ((3lacial till) Test pit terminated at approximately 15 feet. Heavy groundwater seepage observed at 3 feet. Minor groundwater seepage observed in pockets from 4 to 10 feet, NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit localion and should not be interpreted as being indicative of other localions at the site. Dense Very Dense 3fi_g 12.4 10.5 Terra Associates, Inc, ow Consuftanls in Geolechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP -8 FIGUREA-8 PROJECT NAME: _ManlewimdPROD, NO: T-6678 _ LOGGED BY: _f,5D_ LOCATtpN:._Renton, VYBZihinclton__ SURFACE CONDS: Moderate Understary APPROX. ELEV:.481 DATE LOGGED: DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 3'. 4 to 8 Ft DEPTH TO CAVING: LL ti. w CONSISTENCY! DESCRIPTION RELATIVE DENSITY L REMARKS a a w 4 f w o ua U O 0. (12 inches ORGAfJMCS) Red -brown to brown silly SAND with gravel, line to Medium Dense medium grained. saturated, roots_ (SM) (Weathered till) 34,8 ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------Gray Graysilty SAND wilh gravel, fine to medium grained, 5 moist, some cementation. (SM) (Glacial Till -like) Dense 15.0 'At 6 feet soft becomes sandier. T 1a 'At 11 feet soit becomes cemented. (Glacial till) Very Dense I 12.4 I I 7.9 15 Test pit terminated at approximately 15 feet. Heavy groundwater seepage observed al 3 feet. Minor- groundwater seepage observed in pockets from 4 to 8 feet. Terra NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc. not be interpreted as being indfcatrve of other locations at the site. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences LOG OF TEST PIT NO, TP-9 FIGURE A-10 PROJECT NAME: _Maplewood PROJ. NO: T-6]8 LOGGED 8Y: CSI} LOCATION: _Renton. Washington SURFACE CONOS:.Biackberries -� APPROX. ELEV: 484 DATE LOGGED:February_$, 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 4,& 6 to 8 Ft DEPTH TO CAVING: N/A a z CONSISTENCY! ul _ a DESCRIPTION � a REMARKS CL RELATiYE DENSITY r LU ulO U a (24 inches ORGANICS) Red-brown to brown silty SAND with grave#, fine to medium grained, moist, roots. (SM) (Weathered fill) Medium Dense 1 17.4 -- ----------------------------------------------- ---------- 2 127 5 Dense Gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium grained, moist. some cementation, observed a pocket of sand with sill material from 6 feet to 8 feat. (SM) (Glacial Till-tike) Very Dense 3 11.6 10 Test pit terminated at approximately 10 feet. Minor to moderate groundwater seepage observed at 4 feet and between 6 feet and 8 feet. 15 Terra NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit [=lion and should mow= Associates, Inc. not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. NPW Consullanls in Geotecbnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-10 FIGURE A-11 PROJECT NAME: Niaoft Wood PROD. NO: T-6678 LOGGED BY: CSQ LOCATION: Renton. Wasf ingto{� SURFACE CONDS: Blackberries _ APPROX. ELEV: 489, DATE LOGGE=D: Eebmmyd 2QJ2 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 7 and 9 Feet DEPTH TO CAVING: N/A LL tl3 t✓ lj Z 2 _j DESCRIPTION CONSlSTENCYI i o a REMARKS RELATIVE DENSITY LU Q } X a w a a (12 inches ORGANICS) Red-brown to brown silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium grained, wel, roots. (Silt) (Weathered till) Medium Dense 21.6 1 2 12,2 5 Dense Gray silty SAND with gravel, fine la medium grained, = moist, some cementation. (SM) (Glacial Till-like) Very Dense 7.8 14 Test pit terminated at approximately 10 feet. Minor to moderate groundwater seepage observed at 7 and 9 feet. 15 Terra NOTE: This subsurface irformation pertains only to this test pit location and should Associates, Inc. not he interpreted as being indic2iive of other locallo:ts at the site. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences LOG OF TEST PIT NO, TP -11 FIGURE A-12 PROJECT NAME: PROJ. NO: 1-6678 _ � LOGGED BY: CSD LOCATION: Renton. WashingtUri SURFACE CONDS: BjFLCkberrles _ , APPROX. ELEV: 494 DATE LOGGED: February 8. 2012 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: T_G_&_8 Ft DEPTH TO CAVING: NIA W y 2 LU a DESCRIPTION CONSISTENCYI RELATIVE DENSITY a REMARKS Lu a r u1 � D N cs Q a (12 inches ORGANICS) Brown silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium grained, moist, some roots. (SM) (Weathered till) Medium Dense 1 18.5 i ------------------------------------------------ 6 Dense Gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium grained, moist, some cementation. (SM) (Glacial Till -like) 2, 13.7 Very [dense 10 3 9.1 Test pit terrninatet at approximalely 10 feet. Minor groundwater seepage observed at 3, 6, and 8 Feet, 15 Terra NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this lest pit location and should Associates, Inc. nal be inlerpreled as being indicative of olher Iacallons at the site. Consultants in Geolechnical Engineering Gaalogy and Environmental Earth Sciences 7( LL Z LU 4C a_ 30 20 10 Particle Size Distribution Report GRAIN SIZE - mm I n nni 1t Kirkland, WA Figure A-13 Tested By. CSD/RG % +3" % Gravel % Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse J Medium Fine Silt Clay 0 0.0 15.9 10.9 8.9 1 14.8 26.2 23.3 11 0.0 16.9 13.8 5.6 11 11.0 26.2 26.5 0.0 0.0 10.3 5.8 13,1 34.4 36A A LL PL D Rg D6f) D, .it) ID D Din .1—cr C. 20.9876 1,2109 0,4400 0,1292 ❑ 21.1215 1,0501 0.3534 0.1112 2.3463 0.2520 0.1709 Material Description Uscs AASHTO o Silty SAND with gravel SM Ej Silty SAND with gravel SM A Silty SAND Sm Project No. T-6678 Client. Bujrnstead Construction, LLC Remarks. Project: Maplewood Park East [Renton, 0 Tested on 2-17-2012 Washington ;Tested on 2-17-2012 Location: Test Pit TP -2 Depth: -5' 4 Tested on 2-17-2012 o Location: Test Pit TP -6 Depth: -10' /i Location: Test Pit TP -7 Depth: -6' Terra Associates, Inc. 1t Kirkland, WA Figure A-13 Tested By. CSD/RG 10t �t w 60 Z LL Z 50 6, L) 40 30 20 10 Particle Size Distribution Report 0 0 O GRAIN S17F - mrn Tested By: CSD/RG _ %+3" % Gravel % Sand %Fines Coarse - .. Fine lCoarse Medium Fine - _.,.... Silt Clay 0 0.0 14.6 12,9 12.5 's 16.8 25.7 17.5 0,0 5.7 13.8 6.8 13.5 29.8 30.4 LL PL Dafi D6n D D Ell.-, Diu C Com_ 01 18.4119 2.0000 0.7393 0.2183 0 9.4334 0.4191 0.2455 Material Description USCS AASHTO o Silty SAND with grawl ❑ Silty SAND with gravel SM SM _ Project No. T-6678 Client: Bumstead Construction, LLC mm Project: Maplewood park East Renton, Washington o Location: Test Pit TP -8 Depth: -6' ❑ Location; Test Pit TP -8 Depth: -1 I' � 1,oTested Remarks: 0Tested on 2-17-2012 on 2-17-2412 Figure A-14 Terra Associates, Inc. Klrkiand, WA Tested By: CSD/RG _ City Of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Burnstead Construction, LLC ADDRESS: 11980 NE 24th Street, Suite 200 CITY: Bellevue ZIP: 98005 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 454-1900 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Tiffiny Brown COMPANY (if applicable): Burnstead Construction, LL ADDRESS: 11980 NE 24th Street, Suite 200 CITY: Bellevue ZIP: 98005 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 454-1900 Ext. 234 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Matt Hough, PE COMPANY (if applicable): CPH Consultants ADDRESS: 733 7th Avenue, Suite 100 CITY: Kirkland ZIP: 98033 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: (425) 285-2390 matt@cphconsultants.com PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Maplewood Park East PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: NE Corner of NE 2nd St and 152nd Ave Renton, WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 142305-9003 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single-family Residence PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single-family Residential Subdivision EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Residential Low Density PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) Same EXISTING ZONING: R-4 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-4 SITE AREA (in square feet): 196,188 sf SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 40,946 sf SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: 0 Sf PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) 4 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) 14 Residential Single-family Lots NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 14 11',Clil)if)al'a'lminis-frinplille'Sell-1ICIPldoc - I - (1=%11 PROJECT INFORMA NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 14 New SF LotS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0 NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEIN PROJECT (if applicable): 0 TiCQ_k1 [ • , j . - • PROJECT VALUE: $2,500,000.00 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable)- ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY I (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 14 , TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 5E , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) '? a � , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (pleas)check one) the curre t owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. r Signatu O er/Represen ive Date STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING 1 Signature of Owner/Representative Date I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/thei free an voluntary act f6r the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrMIlik.., N Epf� Dated Aw `ej � OF %N i4$ ry Public in and for the State of Washington ry (Print): �Glfrdr din Ea�/G intment expires: Ii`.C1='.Data"Torms-I0mphtcS".Sr11-1101})IIaiuluuB"PI.rnmI1LA NergpCIuc LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WEST 595.72 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN ICING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; (ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL A, KING COUNTY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER 489033, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8408270719, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.) Maplewood Park East King County Parcel No. 142305-9003 CPH Project Number 0011-11-008 Maplewood Park East Project Narrative Project Name, Site Size, and Location Maplewood Park East 4.5 acres (196,188 square feet) King County Parcel No. 142305-9003 NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE Land Use Permits Required Preliminary Subdivision SEPA Zoning The project site is zoned R-4. The properties adjacent to the north and west are also zoned R-4. The adjacent properties to the east and south are within King County and are zoned R-4. Current Use of Site and Existing Improvements The project site is currently vacant. An existing single family residence with outbuildings previously occupied the northern eastern portion of the property, but these structures have been removed. Special Site Features (e.g., wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes, etc.) There are no on-site wetlands, steep slopes, or other similar site features shown within the project site on the City of Renton Maps. Soil Types and Drainage Conditions The entire site is overlain by Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgQ according to the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils Survey for King County. NRCS describes this soil group as moderately well drained with topographic slopes of 6 to 15 percent. More generally, these Alderwood soils are described as Till and are classified as a hydrologic soil group C. The topography of the site generally slopes southwesterly. Surface water drains as primarily sheet and shallow concentrated flows toward a roadside ditch located along the north side of NE 2nd Street. This ditch flows westerly toward an off-site wetland whose limits were established with a previous land development project. Proposed Use and Scope of Project The project proposes to subdivide the current site into 14 single family residential lots. It will include the extension of and/or improvement to existing roadway, domestic water, and sanitary sewer systems. A typical on-site wet pond facility is proposed to provide combined water quality treatment and flow control in accordance with City of Renton surface water standards. This facility is supplemented by a series of rain gardens for low -impact treatment and mitigation of peak release rates for surface water runoff from some of the paved roadways, driveways, and building roof areas. Proposed Number, Net Density, and Range of Sizes for Lots 14 single family residential lots are proposed. This corresponds to a net density of 4 dwelling units (du) per acre after removal of public right-of-way, access easement, and critical areas. Lot sizes vary from a Preliminary Plat Application Page 1 of 3 CPH Prolect No. 0011-11-006 aplewood Park Bast Project Narrative minimum of 7,869 square feet to a maximum of 10,326 square feet. A 0.72 -acre (31,376 square feet) storm drainage tract is also proposed with the project. Access The project is accessed from NE 2nd Street frontage along the southern boundary. Two public roads are proposed off NE 2nd Street to access the 14 lot site. Proposed Off-site Improvements The project proposes to widen the north side of NE 2nd Street for the full frontage of the site. This widening will provide a total of 16 feet of pavement north of the roadway centerline (i.e., crown), curb and gutter, an 8 -foot wide planter, and a 5 -foot concrete sidewalk. These frontage improvements will be provided in 28 -foot right-of-way dedication. Domestic water and sanitary sewer service is available to the site by means of existing City of Renton systems in NE 2nd Street. These off-site utilities will be extended in either new right-of-way or public easement areas to serve the project. Total Estimated Construction Cost and Fair Market Value The total estimated construction cost for the project is $750,000. The fair market value of the completed project, prior to home construction, is $2,500,000. Estimated Quantities and Type of Fill Material The native soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as building and roadway subgrade/foundation materials. As such, on-site fills will use available on-site materials to the extent possible. Stripping of approximately 6,000 cubic yards of non-structural soil or other organic materials will be removed from the property. Some of this material will be re -spread on the residential lots as topsoil and some will be exported to an approved, off-site commercial waste site. Total earthwork for the project following stripping is estimated to include approximately 5,000 cubic yards of excavation and approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fill. Fill material will include on-site structural excavation, strippings re -placed on building lots and landscape areas, and structural fill from base material and pavement required for the roadway section. Number, Type, and Size of Trees for Removal A total of 274 trees over 6 -inch in diameter exist on the property and 272 of these are proposed to be removed. The trees on the site are primarily a mixture of cottonwood, alder, and maple with a few western hemlock, western red cedar, and douglas fir. Trees to be removed include 117 cottonwood or alder trees and an additional 32 trees that are located in proposed road right-of-way or easement areas. Explanation of Land For Dedication to the City A 28 -foot wide right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated to the City to facilitate the NE 2nd Street roadway widening along the south frontage of the site. Two new public roads—Road A and Road B— are also proposed to serve the project. Road A is a 52 -foot wide public right-of-way connecting NE 2nd Street to the northern property boundary in the eastern portion of the site. Road B consists of a modified "woonerf" road section located in a 20 -foot wide public right-of-way and concurrent 30 -foot wide public utility easement. Preliminary Plat Application Page 2 of 3 CPH Project No. 001 1-1 1 -00 8 Maplewood Park East Project Narrative A private 30 -foot wide easement area exists along the western and southern boundaries of the site. These easements will be extinguished with the recording of the final plat for the project. Proposed Job Shack, Sales Trailer, and/or Model Homes A contractor's job shack is anticipated to be located on the site to facilitate construction activities. Model homes are currently anticipated to be used to facilitate home sales following final plat approval. Requested Modifications to City Development Standards A proposed modification to current road standards was reviewed and approved by the City (see attached January 3, 2012 letter from Neil Watts) to allow for a narrow public street to serve as both vehicular and pedestrian access for 8 of the 14 lots. A letter summarizing the project's compliance with City road standards and the provisions for the approved modification is included with this application. Distance From Stream or Wetland within 100 Feet An off-site open space tract is located immediately adjacent to the western property boundary. This tract was created and contains a wetland that was delineated with a previous residential development. The edge of the off-site wetland is shown to extend to within 30 -feet of the project's westerly boundary at its very northeasterly limit according to the final plat of the previous development. This wetland drains westerly, away from the project site based on topographic observations and available drainage records. Preliminary Plat Application Page 3 of 3 CPH Project No. 001 1-1 1-008 W City of Renton W TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1 . Total number of trees over 6" in diameter' on project site: 1. 274 trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous' 176 trees Trees in proposed public streets 56 trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers trees Total number of excluded trees: 2. 232 trees 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 3. 42 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 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 13 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing$ to retain 4: 5. 2 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. 11 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. 132 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. 3 inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6: (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 9. 44 trees ' Measured at chest height. 2Dead, 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). 4- 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 4-4-1301-17a 8' Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. H:\CED\Data\Fonns-Templates\Self--Help Handouts\Planning\TreeRetentionWorksheet.doc 12108 PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an E15 is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). -1- PApro1ectk00111110061Permit AppslPreplat\City FormsWaplewood_envchlst.docx 06109 For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Maplewood Park East 2. Name of applicant: Burnstead Construction, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Burnstead Construction, LLC 11980 NE 24'h St, Suite 200, Bellevue, WA 98005 Contact: Tiffrny Brown/(425) 454-1900 Ext. 234 4. Date checklist prepared: October 25, 2011 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction of infrastructure in Summer 2012 with home construction to start Fall 2012. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or. connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No S. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Geotechnical report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated February 21, 2012. Traffic study prepared by Transportation Engineering NorthWest, dated February 27, 2012. Arborist report prepared by International Forestry Consultants, Inc. dated February 14, 2012. 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 known. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Preliminary plat approval, Construction Permit, and Final Plat Approval from City of Renton. General Stormwater Construction Permit from WDOE, King County Water District 90 Developer Extension Permit. - 2 - 06109 P:lproject100111110081Permit Apps\PreplatlCity ForMMMaplewood_envchlst.docx 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The project proposes to subdivide the subject property into 14 single-family lots with supporting access, drainage, and utility improvements. The subject property is 4.5 acres and currently zoned R-4. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposed project site is located at the NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152nd Avenue in Renton, WA. More generally, the project is located in the NW '/4 of Section 14, T 23N, R 5E in King County, Washington. See attached plans for vicinity map and legal description. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS F�;l_l:ii.l a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rollin hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Approximately 20% 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. AgC — Alderwood gravelly sandy loam d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading and filling activities are proposed to accommodate the improvements for the 14 single family residences, access and associated utilities. On-site soils will be used for site fills to the extent available and imports fill from local sources will be used for the balance of fill efforts (as required). Following stripping of approximately 6,000 cy, 5,000 cy of structure excavation and 90,000 cy of fill is anticipated based on the current plan. Much of the stripping will be placed on the finished lots. The remainder of the fill will include base materials and pavement required for the roadway section. - 3 - 06109 PAproject1Q01111100B1Permit AppslPreplaMty FormslMaplewood_envchlst.docx f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion would be possible during the clearing, grading and construction phases of the project. Loose soils would be susceptible to erosion due to storm water runoff and high wind speeds. Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will be implemented during construction to limit erosion potential. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 45% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The project proposes the use of temporary erosion and sediment control (TESL) measures, in accordance with current standards during the construction phase to mitigate any erosion and sedimentation potential. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During the construction phase, there would be periods of increased dust and vehicle emissions. After the construction phase is complete there would be an increase in vehicle emissions due to the increased number of vehicle trips per day to and from the site. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. IM. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: During the construction phase, the project proposes the use of temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures, in accordance with current standards to reduce the amount of dust emissions. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. M -4- R\projectMI I7 1 IOMPermit AppslPreplatlCity FormsWaplewood_envchlst.dou 06109 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. IM 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? if so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. ►[7 b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. IM 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. The project proposes to collect storm water runoff from roadways and lots in a series of catch basins that will be connected by underground pipes. The pipes will convey this water to a combined water quality and detention pond. This pond will discharge to the open space tract west of the development and the basin eventually flows to the Cedar River approximately one mile downstream via various conveyance systems. -5- P:1prOject%00111110081Permil AppslPreplaACity FormslMaplewood_envchlst.doex 06109 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The project proposes storm water improvements in accordance with the current City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM, 2009). 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulirush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Existing vegetation, including deciduous and evergreen trees, will be removed to accommodate the development of the site in accordance with current City of Renton standards. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Native vegetation / wildlife habitat will be retained to the extent practical. No additional wildlife preservation measures are proposed. S. 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: Birdsawk heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mamma s: deer bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, sa mon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. C. is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain -s- Paprojectl0011 \110081Permit AppsTreplat4City FormsNaplewood_envchlst.docx 01/09 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will serve the heating and energy needs of the future residences. Natural gas may also be used for heating. 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: Site development activities and future residences will comply with applicable local and state laws governing energy systems compliance. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The project will adhere to current OSHA and WISHA standards during construction. Public water and sewer services will also be provided. Storm drainage discharge from the site will be treated and controlled by an on-site pond facility in accordance with current City of Renton standards. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None -7- PAprojeet10D11 \110081Permit AppsTrepla60ty FormsWaplewood_envchlstdocx 06109 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Increased noise due to machinery and general construction operations would occur during the grading and construction phase. The project proposes to adhere to normal King County construction hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None S. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Single family residential properties are located east, west, and south of the subject parcel. Park property is north of the parcel. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No C. Describe any structures on the site. No structures are currently located on-site. A single-family residence was previously located on the northeast portion of the site per aerial photos. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-4 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential Low Density g. if applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NIA h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approx. 28-56 (based on 2 to 4 people per dwelling unit). - 8 46109 R\project10o41111008Termit AppsTreplaACity FormsNaplewood_envchlst.docx j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and pians, if any: The plat is consistent with existing and projected land uses and plans. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The project proposes 14 individual dwelling units on the property. These dwelling units would likely be characterized as middle-income housing. 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. Future residences will not exceed the height limits allowed by current zoning code. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No -9- PAproject10 l M 1008Ttrmit AppslPrepfat\City Forms\Maplewood_envchlst.docx 06109 C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Maplewood and Coalfield Parks are both located within 0.5 mile of the project site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: A recreation space area is proposed on-site in accordance with City zoning regulations. 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. Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Trail Site is located north of the site. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Currently the site is accessed by NE 2nd Street along the south property boundary. The proposed subdivision will access NE 2nd Street from a new access street that will run north -south through the eastern portion of the site. -10- PAproject100111110081Permit Apps\PreplaACity FormslMap1ewood_envch151.d00x 06!09 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The closest transit stop is approximately 0.5 miles from the project site at NE 4`h Street & Rosario Ave NE. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will provide at least two parking spaces per dwelling unit (i.e., 28 spaces). No existing parking spaces will 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? Frontage widening improvements are required to NE 2nd Street and a new access road will be constructed heading north from NE 2nd Street on the eastern portion of the site. 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. Approximately 134 average daily trips would occur based on an estimated 9.57 trip rate. Peak volumes would occur during peak AM and PM hours to account for work-related commute hours. A traffic analysis has been provided as prepared by Transportation Engineering NorthWest, dated February 27, 2012 with additional details. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The new local roadway serving the subdivision will be constructed to current City Standards (KCRS). 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. The additional residences proposed would require support of public services. However, the development is consistent with the city's current land use provisions — including zoning and comprehensive plan designations. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None -14- Paproject=11111GOMPermit Apps\PreplalVCity FormsWaplewood_envchlst.docx 06109 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ectricity atural gas, ater, efuse servic a ephon anitary sewe septic Sys em, of er. 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. The project proposes water and sewer extensions with service provided by the City of Renton and King County Water District #90. Electricity will be provided by Puget Sound Energy. Communication services are planned by Comcast and Frontier. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct, and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent Signature: Clv�� Name Printed: a rni< < o Date: 3 / 0 /Z° 12 _12_ R\project1D0111110061Permlt AppsTreplatlCity FormslMaplewood_ernchlst.docx 06109 PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR MAPLEWOOD EAST NE CORNER OF NE 2ND STREET AND 152ND A VE CITY OF MENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division Contact Information: Planner: Gerald Wasser Pubfic Works Reviewer: Jan Lilian PRE11-031 July 07, Z 011 Phone: 425.430.7382 Phone: 425,430,7216 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Phone: 425.430.702' Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell 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 that 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 Administrator and City Council). CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE. July 7, 2011 TO: Jerry Wasser, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Preliminary Comments for Maplewood East Plat 1, The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 -feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5 -inch storz fittings, which the one at the southwest corner of the plat currently does not have. The existing hydrant is not within 300 -feet of the furthest proposed dwelling, so new hydrants and water mains are required. Water is provided by King County Water District 90, a certificate of water availability is required to be provided. 2. The fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within 150 -feet of all points on the buildings. Dead end streets that exceed 150 -feet in length require an approved turnaround. Dead end streets that exceed 300 -feet long require a full 90 -foot diameter cul-de-sac turnaround. Hammer head turnarounds are allowed for streets less than 300 -feet long. See detail sheet- Development services and the fire department will support a variance to a hammerhead turnaround if all homes serviced by said road are equipped with an approved residential fire sprinkler system. Roadway as proposed is not acceptable and per code shall be a minimum of 26 -feet wide with parking allowed only on one side of the street due to the potential for future road extentions. CT:ct maplewoodsp FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS PENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU ........... EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNING RADII DETAIL DATE. 06/17/96 SHEET: 1.0 -------------- - ------ . ........ .............. ........ .. ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :{i`_ ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ......... . �- .......... . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... ................................ .. .. -- ------ ------ ------ --- .. .. .. .. ..:.-. -- - .. ... . ... .. .. .. ..... ... . .. ....I.---.---- ..... -....... ...........--. .---- . . .. ........ . . . . . . . ..-..-.-.m.-.-l.-.- .... .-. .- ........ . .... - .....---------.--- cl) '.::::cam... ------- .. ............... ..... . ... ..... - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- ....,. f ....... ... . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - ...... ........... ..... .... ............... .......-...-." ..... ....... ... ......................... --........... ..:. -.---.-..--..--..-..-...-....- ............... . --- - - - .... C ... ...... . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------- .. ........... - ----------- .......... ---- -- .......... .......... ........... EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNING RADII DETAIL DATE. 06/17/96 SHEET: 1.0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ril AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E` M Q R A N D U M DATE: July b, 2011 TO: Gerald Wasser, Planner FROM: Jan illian, Plan Review SUBJECT: Maplewood East Plat NE corner of NE 2nd Street and 152 Ave SE PRE 11-031 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 -referenced proposal. The following comments are based on the pre -application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. Water 1. Water service will be provided by Water District #90. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City with the site plan application. Sanitary Sewer 1. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in NE 2nd Street. Extension of the 8 -inch sewer to the east property line will be required as well as extended into the plat. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic water meters to serve the new homes on the new lots. Sewer fee for a %- inch water meter is $1.,591.00. Sewer fee for a 1 -inch water meter is $3,977.00. An approved water plan from Water District #90 will be required to be submitted to the City. 3. This parcel falls within the assessment area known as the Wyman Latecomer Agreement. The Wyman final sewer assessment is $45,948.04. Payment of this fee will be required prior to issuance of the utility construction permit. Storm Drainage 1. There are no storm drainage improvements in the area. 2. A drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report shall comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. 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 H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PREAPPS/11-031.Jerry/Plan Review Comments PRE 11-031,doc lu!y 4, �C17 Conditions. The drainabe report will need to follow the area specific flow control requirements under Core Requirement 43, The app)icant has noted in the application materiais that the storm facility will be sized using the reduced footprint credit on ail lots at construction. 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 the geotechnical engineer, shall be submitted with the application. 4. A Construction Stormwater Permit from the Department of Ecology is required if clearing and grading of the site exceeds one acre. S. Surface Water System Deveiepment fees are $1,012 per each lot. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Transportation ,Street I. The following street improvements will be required: + NE 2 Street -Existing right-of-way width along t FTrojectidp in NE 26 Street is 30 feet. To meet the City's complete street standards, stre t improvemen s fronting this site wi;1 include a 5 -foot sidewalk, 8 -foot planter strip, curb, gutt r, 26 feet of p ement, and 30 feet of right -of- way dedication. • Rosario Ave NE — Existing right-of-way width is 30 feet, This unimproved street fronts the project site along the west side. City code requires street improvements along all frontages; however, applicant may submit a request to waive the improvements since there are no plans to extend the roadway in the future. • The internal street will include a pavement width of 26 feet, 5 -foot sidewalks, and 8 -foot planter strips along both sides of the new street with 52 feet of right-of-way dedication. • In anticipation of the properties to the north being developed in the future, code requires construction of a half street along the development side, east to west. Minimum half -street improvements include a minimum of 20 feet of pavement, 5 -foot sidewalk, 8 -foot planter strip, and 35 feet of right-of-way dedication. 2. Street lighting is required. 3. Current traffic mitigation fees are $717.75 per new single-family lot. These fees are payable prior to recording of the plat. A fee increase is anticipated later in 2011. General Comments 1. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When the utility plans are complete, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, permit application, and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. 3. All subdivisions shall provide water, sewer, and storm stubs to each new lot prior to recording of the plat. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PREAPPS/11-031.1erry/Plan Review Comments PRE 11-031.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE; July 7, 2011 TO: Pre -application File No. 11-031 FROM: Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Maplewood East 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 $100.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa. ov Project Proposal: The subject property is located at the northeast corner of NE 2"" Street (SE 132"" Street) and 152""Avenue SE (Rosario Avenue NE). The property is zoned Residential — 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) and is 4.5 acres in size. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 14 -lots, a stormwater/open space tract and a tract for open space/park- The applicant has indicated that the minimum lot size would be 7,200 square feet. Access to proposed Lots 1 through 14 is proposed to be from a new internal east/west street via a new north/south street from NE 2nd Street (SE 132"° Street). Current Use: The property is currently vacant. Zoning/Density Requirements: The subject property is zoned Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4). There is no minimum density in the R-4 zone and the maximum density is 4.0 du/ac. Private access easements, critical areas and public right-of-way dedications are deducted from the total area to determine net density. While it appears that there may be adequate net site area to comply with the required net density range, formal project application must include a density calculation worksheet which verifies that the project is in compliance with the required density range. Note: Please see the rr\ced\planning\currert pEanning`preapps\li.L731.ierry\pre011-o3l,maplewood east,14-lot pp, r-4.doc Critical Areas Section and Access/Parking Section, below. A calculation of critical areas and right-of-way/access easement square footage will be required in order to determine the net site area and, subsequently, the net site density. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-110A, "Development Standards for Single Family Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application. A copy of these standards is included. Minimum Lot Size Width and Depth — The minimum lot size permitted in Zone R-4 is 8,000 square feet. Note: The applicant has indicated in the project narrative that the minimum lot size would be 7,200 square feet, it appears that the 14 -lots shown an the submitted site plan conform to the minimum lot size requirement. Minimum lot width is 70 -feet for interior lots and 8o -feet for corner lots. The minimum lot depth is 80 -feet. Proposed Lot 1 would be considered a corner lot and does not conform to the lot width standard. Building Standards —The R-4 zone allows a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots over 5,000 square feet in size. Building height is restricted to 30 feet. Detached accessory structures are restricted to 15 -feet in height_ Accessory structures are also included in building lot coverage calculations. Compliance with building standards will be determined at the time of building permit review for any new structures. Setbacks —Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line and any private access easement. The required setbacks in the Zone R-4 are: Front yard — 30 -feet for the primary structure; Rear yard — 25 -feet; Side yards — 5 -feet, except 20 -feet for side yards along a street. Note: While it appears that there is adequate area on the proposed lots to conform with these setback requirements, the building envelopes indicated on the submitted site plan do not conform to the setback requirements. Residential Design and Open Space Standards: The Residential Design and Open Space Standards contained in RMC 4-2-1215 would be applicable to any new residential structures. A handout indicating the applicable guidelines and standards is enclosed. As applicable to the R-4 zone the guidelines are: Gari—The visual impact of garages shall be minimized, while porches and front doors shall be the emphasis of the front of the home. Garages shall he located in a manner that minimizes the presence of the garages and shall not be located at the end of view corridors. Alleyway access is encouraged. if used, shared garages shall be within an acceptable walking distance to the housing unit it is intended to serve. Primary Entry— Entrances to homes shall be a focal point and allow space for social interaction. Front doors shall face the street and be on the facade closest to the street. h:\ced\planning\current planning`preapps\11-031.jerry\preall-031,maplewaod east,14-fot pp, r-4Aoc Jule 01 1 When a home is located on i corner lot (i.e. at the intersection of two roads or the intersection of a road and a common space) a feature like a wraparound porch shall be used to reduce the perceived state of the house and engage the street or open space on both sides. Facade Modulation -- Buildings shall not have monotonous facades along public areas. Dwellings shall include articulation along public frontages; the articulation may include the connection of an open porch to the building, a dormer facing the street, or a well- defined entry element. Windows and Doors — Windows and front doors shall serve as an integral part of the character of the home. Primary windows shall be proportioned vertically rather than horizontally. Vertical windows may be combined together to create a larger window area. Front doors shall be a focal point of the dwelling and be in scale with the home. All doors shall be of the same character as the home. Scale, Bulk, and Character --A diverse streetscape shall be provided by using elevations and models that demonstrate a variety of floor plans, home sizes, and character. Neighborhoods shall have a variety of home sizes and character. Roofs-- Roofs shall represent a variety of forms and profiles that add character and relief to the landscape of the neighborhood. The use of bright colors, as well as, roofing that is made of material like gravel and/or reflective material is discouraged. Eaves —l=aves should be detailed and proportioned to complement the architectural style of the home. Architectural Detailing—Architectural detail shall be provided that is appropriate to the architectural character of the home. Detailing like trim, columns, and/or corner boards shall reflect the architectural character of the house. Materials and Color — A diversity of materials and color shall be used on homes throughout the community. A variety of materials that are appropriate to the architectural character of the neighborhood shall be used. A diverse palette of colors shall be used to reduce monotony of color or tone. Access/Parking: The applicant has indicated that access would be taken from a new east/west oriented internal street via a new north/south oriented street from NE 2"d Street (SE 132"d Street). Each lot is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Note: Development Services staff comments indicate different vehicular access which may necessitate a redesign of the project. Landscaping and Open Space: The site is vegetated and staff will recommend retention of existing trees. Tree requirements for plats include at least two trees of a City approved species with a minimum caliper of IY2-inches per tree which must be planted in the front yard or planting strip of each lot prior to building occupancy. A conceptual landscape plan must be provided with the formal land use application as prepared by a registered landscape architect, a certified nurseryman or other certified h;\ced\planning\current plan ning\preapps\11-03IJerry\pre0I1-o31,maplewoad east,14-lot pp, r-4.doc professional. If 100 percent drought tolerant plants are used, irrigation is not required. Significant Tree Retention: A tree inventory and a 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 30 percent of significant trees, and indicate how proposed building footprints would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would be retained. If trees cannot be retained, it may be possible to replace them with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a ratio of six to one. Critical Areas: Wetlands have been identified and protected on the development to the west of the proposed project. While there are no mapped wetlands on the subject site, the existing vegetation and topography suggest that wetlands may exist on the subject property. In order to determine if wetland areas exist on site, a wetland reconnaissance must be prepared by a wetland biologist. The subject property may be within an Aquifer Protection Area which would require a fill source statement. Environmental Review: Environmental (SEPA) Review is required. Permit Requirements: The proposal would require approval of a Preliminary Plat and SEPA Review_ The Preliminary Plat request and SEPA Review would be reviewed within an estimated time frame of 10 to 12 weeks_ The fee for the preliminary plat is $4,120.00 ($4,000.00 plus 3% Technology Surcharge Fee); the fee for SEPA Review is $1,030.00 ($1,000.00 plus 3% Technology Surcharge Fee). Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts_ Upon receipt of preliminary approval, the applicant must complete any required improvements, such as sidewalks, fire hydrants and grading. A separate construction permit is required for these improvements. The applicant must also satisfy any conditions of the preliminary approval before the preliminary plat can be recorded. A separate submittal is required for the final plat. The newly created lots may be sold only after the plat has been recorded. The applicant can submit plans for building permit review for new construction before the plat is recorded, however, the City can issue building permits only when the plat has been recorded. Impact/Mitigation Fees: Impact fees, which would replace mitigation_ fees, may be adopted prior to building permit approval (for which an applicant may vest to impact/mitigation fees). Those fees have yet to be determined. Currently fees are the following: A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single family residence payable prior to recording; • A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project payable prior to recording; h:\cedeplanning\current planning\preapps\11-031 ferry\preoll-031,mapfewood east,14-lot pp, r-4Aac A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family residence payable prior to recording; and, A Renton School District impact Fee based on $6,300.00 per each new single-family residence payable prior to issuance of building permits. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Expiration: Upon approval, a preliminary plat lapses unless a final plat is submitted within 5 years with a possible one year extension. h:\ced\planning\current plan ning\preapps�l1-031.jerry�pre011-031,mapiewood east,14-10t pp, r-4.doc A, 11 -1-23N R5L NN" i;2 RA R 4 R-1 R-4 Maplewood Park East Construction Mitigation Description Proposed Construction Dates Grading and road construction will start upon approval of construction plans summer of 2012 with home construction to start Fall 2012. Hours of Operation for Single Family Construction Site Per City of Renton: Monday — Friday: lam — 8pm Saturday: gam — 8pm Sunday: None Proposed Hauling/Transporiation Routes : All equipment materials and laborers will enter the site off NE 2nd Street. Measures to be implemented to minimize dust, traffic and transportation impacts, mud, noise, and other noxious characteristics Dust: Best management practices will be used to minimize dust on the construction site. Water trucks or metered fire hoses will be used as needed to wet down the areas used by construction equipment. Disturbed slopes will be hydroseeded per the Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan to control dust. Traffic: During road and building construction, the traffic entering and leaving the site will consist of subcontractors and deliveries. When arriving for work, the subcontractors will be travelling opposite the majority of traffic leaving Renton Highlands, and materials are primarily delivered at off peak hours during the day. None of these operations are anticipated to have a significant impact on the peak or non -peak hour traffic in the area. Any special hours proposed for construction or hauling There are no special hours proposed for construction or hauling without prior approval from the City of Renton. Preliminary Traffic Control Plan General access to the property will be from NE 2nd Street. It is anticipated that the existing roadway will remain open during construction and access to the properties south of NE 2nd Street will be maintained. Traffic Control is anticipated to consist of occasional single lane closures. A standard one -lane, two-way traffic control with flaggers may be used similar to WSDOT Plan TCL Preliminary Plat Application Page 1 of 1 CPH Project No. 0011-11-008 AGO TITLE COMPANY I'1'H.gVEVUp #23Q0,SF_P7_n WA 98104 PLAT CERTIFICATE Order No.: 1336745 Certificate for Piling Proposed Plat: In the matter of the plat submitted for our approval, this Company has examined the records of the County Auditor and County Clerk of KING Comity, Washington, and the records of the Clerk of the United States Courts holding terms in said County, and from such examination hereby certifies that the title to the Following described land situate in said KING County, to -wit: SEE SCHEDULE A (NEXT PAGE) VESTED IN: BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY EXCEPTIONS: SEE SCHEDULE B ATTACHED CHARGE: $350.00 TAX: $33.25 Records examined to FEBRUARY 10, 2012 at 8:00 AM CHICAGO LE OMP Y Ey DARYL SAVIDIS Title Officer {206}628-5610 PLATCRTA f RDA f 0999 ICAGO TITLE COMPANY 0 PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE A (Continued) Order No.: 1336745 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WEST 595.72 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; (ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL A, KING COUNTY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER 489033, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8408270719, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.) PLATCRTL/RQA/099R CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B Order No.: 1336745 This certificate does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following exceptions: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: A. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. B. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. C. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, and any other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey and inspection of the premises. D. Easements or claims of easements not shown by the public records. E. Any lien, or right to lien, for contributions to employee benefit funds, or for state workers' compensation, or for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, all as imposed by law, and not shown by the public records. F. Liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage removal. H. General taxes not now payable; matters relating to special assessments and special levies, if any, preceding or in the same becoming a lien, 1. Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof, Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. J. Water rights, claims, or title to water. K. THIS REPOkT IS ISSUED AND ACCEPTED UPON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS($ 1000.00). R1 A1rHTF3/RDA/0949 ICAG,Q TITLE COMPANY 40 PIAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B (Continued) Order No.: 1336745 EXCEPTIONS A 1, EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF; RESERVED BY: ANNA ZENGRELL, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED ONE HALF INTEREST, AS HER SEPARATE ESTATE, AND ARTHUR ZENGRELL AND CAROLINA HAYES, EACH AN UNDIVIDED ONE FOURTH INTEREST, AS THEIR SEPARATE ESTATE PURPOSE: ROAD AND UTILITIES AREA AFFECTED: SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY PORTIONS OF SAIE PREMISES RECORDED; NOVEMBER 26, 1965 RECORDING NUMBER: 5958267 B Q,,2. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: OCTOBER 25, 1984 8410250053 c 3. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND: DURWOOD E. BLOOD RECORDED: FEBRUARY 27, 1974 RECORDING NUMBER; 7402270351 REGARDING: CONTRACT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION COSTS D 4. RELEASE OF DAMAGE AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: AND: RECORDED; RECORDING NUMBER: MARY PATRICIA RYAN KING COUNTY JUNE 27, 1984 8406270043 RELEASING KING COUNTY FROM ALL FUTURE CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM: INSTALLATION OF AN INTERCEPTOR DRAIN P[ATCRT61 JR]WO999 WICAGO TITLE COMPANY PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B (Continued) Order No.: 1336745 z S. LATECOMER'S AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF; BETWEEN: KEVIN M. WYMAN AND: CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RECORDED: MARCH 3, 2008 RECORDING NUMBER: 20080303000827 REGARDING: PAYMENT OF COSTS AND EXPENSES FOR INSTALLATION OF WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AND APPURTENANCES r THE -AGREEMENT SHOWN IN THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINS PROVISIONS FOR MONETARY ASSESSMENTS. THE JURISDICTION SHOULD BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY AMOUNTS OWING AFFECTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. c 6. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, PAYABLE FEBRUARY 15, DELINQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON MAY 1, SECOND HALF DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF THE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTIES); YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER LEVY COI?$ : ASSESSED VALUE -LAND; ASSESSED VALUE -IMPROVEMENTS: GENERAL, & SPECIAL 'TAXES 2012 142305-9003-00 2133 $ 316,000.00 $ 0.00 BILLED: $ 4,304.55 PAID: $ 0.00 UNPAID: $ 4,304.55 x NOTE: IF THE TAX AMOUNT IS NOT EVENLY DIVISIBLE INTO TWO PAYMENTS, KING COUNTY WILL REQUIRE THE HALF PAYMENT BE ROUNDED UP TO THE NEXT CENT, FAILURE TO ROUND UP TRE HALF PAYMENT MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE TAX PAYMENT BY THE COUNTY. z 7. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT OUR SEARCH DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY OPEN DEEDS OF TRUST OF RECORD. IF YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OUTSTANDING OBLIGATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE TITLE DEPARTMENT IMMEDIATELY FOR FURTHER REVIEW. IT 5. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT FOR BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION LLC. x 9. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THIS CERTIFICATE IS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THE APPLICATION AND THE PUBLIC RECORDS. THE PARTIES RECEIVING THIS CERTIFICATE MUST NOTIFY THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY IF THE DESCRIPTION DOES NOT CONFORM TO THEIR EXPECTATIONS. L NOTE 1; PCATCRB2/RDA/09" ICAGO TITLE COMPANY 0 PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B (Continued) Order No- 1336745 EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1997, DOCUMENT FORMAT AND CONTENT REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY WASHINGTON LAW. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE DOCUMENT BY THE COUNTY RECORDER OR IMPOSITION OF A $50.00 SURCHARGE. FOR DETAILS OF THESE STATEWIDE REQUIREMENTS PLEASE VISIT THE KING COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE WEBSITE AT WWW.KINGCOUNTY.GOV/BUSINESS/RECORDERS.ASPX AND SELECT ONLINE FORMS AND DOCUMENT STANDARDS. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE USED AS AN ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHICH MUST ALSO APPEAR IN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT: PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14-23-5. END OF SCHEDULE B PIATCRB2/RDA/0999 CHICAGO TAW COMPANY 701 FIFTH AVENUE, #2300, SEATTLE, WA 98104 PHONE: (206)628-5610 FAX: (206)628-9717 IMPORTANT: This is not a Survey. It is furnished as a convenience to locate the Iand indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance hereon. PTN OF THE NE '/ OF THE NW'/ OF SECTION 1423-5 C RETURN TO; John F. Sherwood, Jr, Peterson Russell Kelly PLLC 10900 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite 1850 Bellevue, WA 98004 4f 20091230001691.001 111itttIt1iiIII I 20091230001691 SOCIUS LAI! GFTo occ 70.08 12/30//2099F15:22 KING COUNTY, IJA E2423830 12/30/2009 14:58 KING COUNTY, UR TAX X10.00 SALE s0.@@ PAGE -001 OF 001 QUIT CLAIM DEED Grantors: I. Frederick H. Burnstead, as to an undivided 10%; 2. Joan Burnstead, as to an undivided 6%; 3. Scott Hall, as to an undivided 0.40%, 4, Kari Hall, as to an undivided 44.6%; 5, Steven Burnstead, as to an undivided 12.6°!x; 6. Donna Burnstead, as to an undivided 0.40%; 7. Frederick H. (Rick) Burnstead, as to an undivided 12.5%; 8. Janet Burnstead, as to an undivided 0.401/o; 9. Catherine Burnstead, as to an undivided 10%; and 10. Janet Burnstead, as Trustee of the Burnstead Grandchildren's Irrevocable Trust, as to an undivided 3% Grantee: Burnestad Construction LLC Legal Description: Parcel A/ King Co. Lot Line Adjustment No. 489033/ King County Recording No. 8408270719/ records of King County, Washington. Assessor's Tax Parcel Number: 142305-9003 40W1 01 Public Record !i t 2009123000169 t .002 QUIT CLAIM DEED THE GRANTOR, Frederick H. Burnstead, as to an undivided 10% interest; Joan Burnstead, as to an undivided 6% interest; Scott Hall, as to an undivided 0.40% interest; Kari Hall, as to an undivided 44.6% interest; Steven Burnstead, as to an undivided 12.6% interest; Donna Burnstead, as to an undivided 0.40% interest; Frederick H. (Rick) Burnstead, as to an undivided 12.6% interest; Janet Burnstead, as to an undivided 0.40% interest; Catherine Bumstcad, as to an undivided l0% interest; and Janet Burnstead, as Trustee of the Burnstead GrandchiIdren's Irrevocable Trust, as to an undivided 3% interest, all as tenants in common, for consideration of a transfer from tenants in common to an LLC, in the same prorata share as their interests, conveys and quit claims to Burnstead Construction LLC, a Washington limited liability company, the following described real estate, situated in the County of King, State of Washington, together with alt after acquired title of the Grantor therein: Parcel A of King County Lot Line Adjustment No. 489033, recorded under King County Recording No. 8408270719, records of King County, Washington. Dated: December 2004. Frederick IC Frederick H. (Rick) Burnstead Catherine Burnstead 404432.0 l t -L" Joan i3urnsteaad j Kari kiall � Donna Burnstead J etBumst d Burnstead Grandchildren's Irrevocable Trust t7. 4.0 VA wo Notary Acknowledgements attached Public Record i r' 20099 23000'1691.003 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me Frederick H. Burnstead, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrurrient, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN unNm hand and official sea] this day of d , 2009. ex /U NOTARY z � [print notary's name] cn� PL" , Notary Public i and for the State of Washington :. 7,'`Urrrs,2^�` residing at .; OcyyAgH�+��% My commission expires: J"t111111tit STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me Joan Burnstead, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. 4064,32.01 GIVEN under my hand and official seal this_ day ofd;__, 2409. 1, 3 111140000"e ION '7Cj.I NOiT11RY - [print not s name] 2� Notary Public 'n and '0' the State of Washington ~ ,�0� residing at `•,��• t$,` My commission expires: 1*erralr;��tt�� Public Record 20099 23000'1691.004 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING } On this day personally appeared before me Scott Hall, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of �Le— _, 2009. +tir�rlrrrrr� ++' SNE O ►�. `' NXAIIY [print notary' name] u, pp0 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at 15,4d�?Y� �Y75, My commission expires: '71 u:� `. rrrfrrill%+` STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me Kari Hall, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hared and official seal this r day of 4 '2009. aLxc— +►� �rrSkoN� 4 t z (print notaryls name) WTAW - = Notary Public in d for the State of Washington residPM z ing at '.� My commission expires. OF frlllr110', 406432.61 Public Record Uruef a 20091230001691-005 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. COUNTY OF KING } On this day personally appeared before me Steven Burnstead, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN pAgr my hand and official seal this I - day of Z�0-- 2009. +'•' #,NE p I r " NOTARY [print not 's name] cn PUBi.IC Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at ` My commission expires: r/flli14ti4 STATE OF WASHINGTON } ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me Donna Burnstead, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. 406417.01 GIVEN under my hand and official seal this,! _ day of kc,. , 2009. •�•44ulrrr��I • 1A NE D ,SSION �c . r I U �' [print not 's name] MARY Notary Publicj'n and for the State of Washington ys� Pll6llG� residing atX�itrt�C- '..''rrr5. �* My commission expires: ,I�r1111114y44 Public Record 20091230001691.006 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING } On this day personally appeared before me Frederick H. (Rick) Burnstead, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN MqF� my hand and offi ial seal this 2_ day of � — 2009. f, ,`•,r [print notary' name] cn P11 W Notary Pub]Ic in and for the State of Washington r?5,2a`ti '�.: residing at WASt'1�te+,`' My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me Janet Burnstead, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 1 day of , 2009. aANE ' :` P �ss1(w� ll r t G d� (print no's name] `' WTAW = Notary Publiq in and for the State of Washington u►k P{ residing at ,'1rr5*ry My commission expires: ...! iWASNk 406412.01 Public Record i STATE OF WASHINGTON } ) ss. COUNTY OF KING } 20091230001687.007 On this day personally appeared before nae Janet Burnstead, to me known to be the Trustee of the Burnstead Grandchildren's Irrevocable Trust, the trust that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said trust, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that she was authorized to execute the same instrument. 406432.01 GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ,9-L day of _, 2009. SANE+.� l i�g5tak ��t. R n t f [print notary's n e] _ NOTARY - Notary Public 'n and for the State of Washington -toA ,p residing at.flC1t rF My commission expires: 74-. - Public Record f" 20091230001 691.008 QUIT CLAIM DEED THE GRANTOR, Frederick H. Bumstead, as to an undivided 10% interest; Joan Burnstead, as to an undivided 6% interest; Scott Hall, as to an undivided 0.40% interest; Kari Hall, as to an undivided 44.5% interest; Steven Burnstead, as to an undivided 12.6% interest; Donna Burnstead, as to an undivided 0.40% interest; Frederick H. (Rick) Burnstead, as to an undivided 12.6% interest; Janet Burnstend, as to an undivided 0.44% interest; Catherine Burnstead, as to an undivided 10% interest; and Janet Burnstead, as Trustee of the Burnstead C,-andchildren's Irrevocable Trust, as to an undivided 3% interest, all. w tenants in common, for consideration of a transfer from tenants in common to an LLC, in the same prorata share as their interests, conveys and quit claims to Burnstead Construction LLC, a Washington limited liability company, the following described real estate, situated in the County of King, State of Washington, together with all after acquired title of the Grantor therein: Parcel A of King County Lot Line Adjustment No. 489033, recorded under King County Recording No. 8408270719, records of King County, Washington. Dated: December, 20D9. Frederick Frederick H. (Rick) ^ w Catherine Burnstead QW 2.81 Joe Burnstead jJJ}�fj/ K arc PaA Donna Burnstead 1 net Bur6tpYd Bunrstead Grandchildren's Irrevocable Trust C :r Notary Acknowledgements attached 1. Public Record f 20091230001691.009 STATE OF ALASKA } ss. COUNTY OF } On this day personally appeared before me Catherine Burnstead, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, And acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and decd, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal JW7Z� 4ay of e 009. [print notary's name] Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska residing at u &A5'� My commission expires: 71 • w) V Zu t 4 464450.01 PuhlbC Record SEAL 1 The South quarter of that portion of the South' half of the low ::Aten�•e 6trps r ' Fr, oa1 .•ettk!T that >ti l i {ice l� " _.a 1.,. i.,•,t.�atlon E) Il•� TOGETHER WITH the South 30 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Let _. Northwest quarter of said Section) _ . ry. re fr ri Bt11 L f I+.t• ANI' 8408/27 010719 8 tr r�zlerr- rc•t Y the heat - LAND DEVELOPMENT ; IVIl I„V REr,D F 5,00 9Q—� w _' REV 5 13.00 r C05HSL ***20.00 as 450 KING COVNTr A'✓M f 1jT:a-f^'. .It.! :'.e'., :E+' ..[ fA4M, 99105 TCLt 344=;980 thence continuing South 0028150': West 42,98 feet; a -s i C Si9natvrt '"' '^ :da 1iE F Matt Weissman 20_43 81st Nr_cer Island 48040 624 7541 thence North 88010108" west 89,17 feet; _ f�W— -��n.,N• !:. _._. .r.S:n . Tr:l t�. MutYiock MacPherson 12733 Lake City Way, Seattle, _ _ 981.25 364 9650 5 cnal.lrtc Cs ! 1, t Gni. ti --_ _ T^y LcnnJ IK+y Ct1 �[�.••.[ LM i 1Mnrr•n t:amr ;,,�,VrC6A"tSV J�� Phone The South quarter of that portion of the South' half of the T'0>I Lr•: R SOU C• f.f ::Aten�•e 6trps r ' Fr, oa1 .•ettk!T that 5 East, W.M „ in King County, Washington, lying North �..9� _.a 1.,. i.,•,t.�atlon tura TOGETHER WITH the South 30 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Let _. Northwest quarter of said Section) _ . ry. re fr EXCEPT the North 78.765 feet of the East 155 feet thereoft l.vt -a I tr r�zlerr- rc•t Y the heat - thence along the center line of said Section South 0028'50" 9Q—� w _' } knawSe4ao r t... as their iotere■ thence continuing South 0028150': West 42,98 feet; i C Si9natvrt '"' '^ :da 1iE F Not f:ral] Pg 7.nelnq ]tele ted I111■ thence North 88010108" west 89,17 feet; I W 14 23 5 cnal.lrtc Cs ! 1, t Gni. ti " LcnnJ IK+y Ct1 �[�.••.[ 14 tO.GG'CS lot/ Sif U�'twthr.+t.w'� bl'l. 41 R-$Gt �:EL C East 30 feet from Southeast corner thereof$ g rr-s 3 ef?slEt< G.Ot' .TL 40. -,thence Mortis 88011'32' West'83.30 feett I'', thence Souti� 41049152' West .157.31 feet$ thenca5Sotlth 88030'09"'East 83.30 -feet to true point of be and . ct Perpetual non-�xcluaiv:.easement for use and benefit of adjoin - Ing properties for road•`end utiliti*stover, acrosta.end:upon }: the Wast and "Sautb 30 feat of :property:: , herein doJecribe.' served in instrument filed under Audi�Or,'s File No 5958267 F - I r 1 ; , . 4N u. $� Q The South quarter of that portion of the South' half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 14, Town- ship.23 North,'Range, 5 East, W.M „ in King County, Washington, lying North of the South 30 fact of said South half, TOGETHER WITH the South 30 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section) EXCEPT the North 78.765 feet of the East 155 feet thereoft EXCEPT that portion described as followst Beginning at the North quarter corner of said Section; thence along the center line of said Section South 0028'50" West 1133.20 feet] thence North 88011132" west 30.01 feet) thence South 0028'50' West 78.77 feet to the true point of be- ginning for this description; thence continuing South 0028150': West 42,98 feet; thence along a curve to right having a radius of 35.00 feet; an are distance of 55.80 feet; through a central angle of 910 21'021 thence North 88010108" west 89,17 feet; thence North 0428'50' East 78.76 feet; thence South 88011'32" East 125 feet to the true point of - - -- beginning. EXCEPT portion described as follows Beginning North 88010'03' West 488.91 feet and North 01049152, East 30 feet from Southeast corner thereof$ thence North 01049132' East 157,35 feet, -,thence Mortis 88011'32' West'83.30 feett I'', thence Souti� 41049152' West .157.31 feet$ thenca5Sotlth 88030'09"'East 83.30 -feet to true point of be and . EkEPT.the East 30'•feet of tba-'remainder thereof. Perpetual non-�xcluaiv:.easement for use and benefit of adjoin - Ing properties for road•`end utiliti*stover, acrosta.end:upon }: the Wast and "Sautb 30 feat of :property:: , herein doJecribe.' served in instrument filed under Audi�Or,'s File No 5958267 F - I r 1 ; , . 4N u. - ........ -. r .. .,44nie1�Y]Y{t� YX7AY�1e11e1i x111\. �iY�� i.ir 1 _.1f RYt .Y_ .i .LL9✓i. iv Motet Ap rOval of this ad ustEnet7t does not asan� thafproporty:owner tlut;t?>•�suti{act F, pcowty iitself has sati#F ed the Stara and Cauaty;-subd vision, requirsrm to (RCW $8.17...'.: 1 ;.and King Catmty Title 14). Fleasa be advisid::t}at:building "aridito will slot' to Iota s#:ich haw not caaEplied with tlM xyquirwMtJr olgsaid erawEa OW, e k�. i7Eti ir StAki r, "r h¢ i MK I t'16 �- C c PII 4r, U CA - $--t 1.14 • G4...,K�.- zi 1 ry C. P130 � J r � 1 C- 'i3lapefw`d %..,,*AOL Lti.+�.a J 7 P, i:L C L E:: N s j An!G R { Iflp Do Kot.Vrite Below. This Line r 0 Approval is herby a ran ted. subjecttot' - ❑ Disapproved because: Motet Ap rOval of this ad ustEnet7t does not asan� thafproporty:owner tlut;t?>•�suti{act F, pcowty iitself has sati#F ed the Stara and Cauaty;-subd vision, requirsrm to (RCW $8.17...'.: 1 ;.and King Catmty Title 14). Fleasa be advisid::t}at:building "aridito will slot' to Iota s#:ich haw not caaEplied with tlM xyquirwMtJr olgsaid erawEa OW, e k�. i7Eti '_b-: -„ ..-����,.•-.ate.-,.,�_�,.,F���..�--.�R;.r.�wnr���R.es.:?ffr�iT�A�vw� r:�ii 11i AL! lLl 't"l "t X"I►LY,aS-#TTACOG-D 60 Sf.P.4+WL + S(. Alt i int The North half of the South half of that portion of the South half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W,M., in Ming county, Washington, lying North of -the South 30 feet of said South half= EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof for county road. TOGETHER WITH an easement for roadway over the South 30 feet Of the Northeast quazter of the Northwest quarter of said Section. EXCEPT the East its feet tharGcf, , TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO an easement for roadway and utili- ties, across, upon and over the hast 30 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Northv st quarter, EXCEPT the North 30 feet, AND EXCEPT the South 30 feet; Situate in the County of King, of Washington. - C7 Q PAGE No. EXHIBIT FS" A. Perpetual non-exclusive easement for use and benefit of adjoining properties for road and utilities over, across and upon: the nest 30 feet of property herein described, as reserved in instrument filed under Auditor's File No. 5672161. END OF EXHIBIT "B` . AM 11 1134 PM's# 61 lilt, 04VIS10N4FJk , KING COUNTY. i. ' rs .'Lru io.rRecord at Request of p4&E AM 11 1134 PM's# 61 lilt, 04VIS10N4FJk , KING COUNTY. i. ' rs '7ar; b0Plt7 1:7 li►h bbd NfA W bo IbL ii' k t h- 'ely ar November, 146 5. k�wae, ANNA 'ZENGRELL, As to an !1!tt¢ aided one --half Interest as. her separate estate; and ARTHUR .EN&RELL andtaAROL?NA HATES. eacht'an. undivided ono -fourth,' benrtenf,eerILaus., `$a.rd separate, ettrte. _ - JACK Ca MARLOWE and N: ._JANE' HARLAE, his wife; and LOWELL He HOLTROP and JEAN B. HOLTROP, his wife; htrein0-r surd Lha ' Pareboarr,r - W7TI'rE4 rM! 91'1 Lha $Afht arae' to an Io th, pasebalor "d tba ptaethatee arata to ptrc[.;aat from tint aetkr the relluwlnr dncAbed rq^l acute, with It, npporienaa[ta, In ng + county, State of Wnhinrton: , tThe south quarter of that portion of the south half of tie northeast =rut: tyr :r t4c i 'r:uHE3:- .. y;;art2r Of section, life, %t7ifirlaiiiy Ga r1riP[ra, - range 5 east, W.N„ in king County, Washington, lying north of the south 30 feet of said south half; " TOGETHER with the south 30 feet of the northeast quarter of the north west quarter of said section; EXERT the east 30 feet thereof for County Road, RESERYrn THEREFROM however, a perpetual non-exclusive easement for the use and benefits of adjoining properties for road and utilities over, across and upon the West 30 feet and the South 30 feet of the aforesa;ri 4 scribed property, -ihcterm' and wadltlaea of chis contract an u follawa: TU purchus pi,* 6 ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/ 100THS.....f3.11,500.0o.'.jynitan,,o[which ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NOMOTHS.,..,.ir 1,Soo .00... j]74flan herr btra pill, the rectipt wboreal la li*Rb r rrehsarnr Irlpd, and the 1sr11aeo, of *ill Wrtkaoa price las b. Pill a, Wows: i. Sixty and No/100ths+ ...,. .. ,(t 60.00.....��rNtlar~ nr more at P-nbnarr4 aptfaa, oa at be!art !ha a r Sth • , tdq of r r December , is 65, a -,d Sixty and No/looths............................ts60.00...,,..ar„oiis, or meet at purchoreri option, on or befan the 15 th day of ech ru-.edW ca"r month mill the balAptt of raid Pufr - prier al.aL Lave brca 1`0palet. T. parehs.ar lumber agrees to pey Inerre,t on the diminl.hlag !)ALml of laid pjrrhsse price At tit tat• .1 6% per tent lar "40. from lbs 15th darer November , to 65. which Entrrnt 'hall be deducted from ereh i.,ulan,ot Inymrnt and lba batanea of each pay-mt rpp]kd Ie miueelni, of principal. All nsmrp[rtalwmaerhrrrnpat=AWE bcMA&it National Bank of Commerce (CENTRAL BRANCH) orat.urb otbtt vote s+lbe Myer auy corset ip„ritinr- 510 Olive Way; Seattle, Washington. SELLER AGREES to deed release any portion Isnot to exceed 20% of total property) at which tifne purchaser wi17 pay an additional $2,000,00 on the principal balance, and the same For each succeeding release. As rrfermd to - is this contract, -dile of dosl"- WE {11 The purcha err urumnt and agrraa to pay L' z rk5nquency atl tun an aaaeuraents that May a, I,rt+urn rranlnr end granlo brrraftrr I,rrome ■lien on aid real estate; and if by the leans of this confmtt the iw ehawr has sua�mrd 1--p, of +n+• ,_1CJre. 1.ft r t or olhcr encumt.eanm, or lys u+vokd poymrnl or at ryrrr4 to purdiasr sablrtt to, any lura or AY!'mrnl, M..a Urn on saLl real -.1r, rhe purchaser agree+ la MY the same before definnur cy. NI the pnfcha.er arrera, .until the pu,ch,," price i. fully µ+td, to knp the burldinn nnw And hrrraher s+lalrl nn said real 11111, Insured to the actual cash slur thereof aaTlmt lou or damage by h:rh a.•t and windstorm In ,nmruny acrrl,ranh• to 1Fr rrlirr and Inc rhewfkr'a benefit, as hi.Inrere+l ho.,rpp.41, ofd s• pay al: premiums therefor end ta'sleli.tr all lmli, ir, in.l rem raG cher the Miter. fl; The purrbtser agree, that full insp"Iion of said nal alale h„ been made oras that neither thr � Ilrr nt+r ht, a,•iclo shall b to aoy�corrnanr hapttthllt lht eendilian of any iml,ro+-elntnls lbtrron nor shall the purduacr or viler -+r llw i,sivnf ni rhhrr.lr h any +Tnani or 'Rtfrrnrnt for t.hmtion>< Imfa are men 1. or retvin 1lrkv lht rovrM at or aalermrnr rrht<I on v, ronrilui+i herr;n. , " in writlnr ud ru rebel to and grade a part of this contract - {d The punharrr auumrs all h"Anf, of ria namr is or cimnlctipn of any ImpmsTmenls now en oil real r.tsre nr heretftrr J11mrrd lh—or, And of the iakpfr of said real,stale or any part thtrrof for public mei and aRrres this nn such dam.m dr+tru:,inn nr taking ,hall (Institute a fadium of eonskieration, Im OK any part of saki rest estate is taken for public u.r, the punian of rhe rnndoln».*lion awsr,l rrm:WrA after payrunt of rrasonable taprnfes of Pracurint the arae shall be. paid to the Mllrr apd all,lild a ;',,anent on rht purchase !nice hrfrdn unkr. the Mllttelrvb go allow rhe rwrthawr to apply all Of a portion of srreh tandernnclh,n arae,! to lb, .,l,uitdinfC er er.1 nra• tion of any irrprosTmenu damaprd by facie tskinr, in rase of damaee or drsiruclioa from a Peld ina.ml areinat. 'be Prorcrds of tush In—Nnnalilny *Iter payment of the Re I,obla tx,, r of prucvriryt the carne ,hap hr drvnled to the rest.+rat€nn nr rchaihlinl: of r+xh Imryr Oct-vcm<nts wifhln a rramnabSt Lime, hn" pumhswr elects that uld pn+trtrL shall s br fns a lkalinn on rhe Pureh1) Trio !ler h �Y'. � y� 171 The seller Au delivered, ar oaten to drlirrr within 1S days of the dere of ch .l 4, f(!Jr^ srandatd forty or a commit,amt Ibentlor, itaued by Wa.hinRton title leauraher Company, lntnr. ty a to f`1 aura said Purchase price''sant 111 or daraw by Aearan al deffet la aefieh till, to aid rnS Huse as n! A ,'• ercrptiom nth( than Ibt following; a. Trialed ssatml eareptieru appurli" in rl4 poik7 farm; :'N' NI'l b. Liens or mcumbrasl.ta which by aha URALA of this contract the rch Ll �- It to hr made subjoct; awl W Auer la 10 aswtne, or k to PYf� + herrund y�,,�e �tt t, Any : by that eo tract all ennto pis 'coder whirl Maar kA rtftaador aid reel 'Hata, and any+Tbt'aRar ire hich arllae by that contract'gran to pr Y, Sona al vhleb for the Torpors of this lar raph (u" i.,.,y;.... V1k8� -- _ '�`•'' yvc V2 k f xr( 555 thlY. 4i, -r title r0 raid ,est reale i, •uhnr'. '0 an r. i•rhtx [oestrus ar renrn,ds under vO,t, wIki it humh.,inr. FAhi ren! P011r. a.x mopes+r na mhrt shiilptbu, wtthk whrc is !• k,-- -itrr same. It, +fair such ftynxnu In arroni ftce wtlh the Irrmr the nuf, arol I,t 1„n dr1A„h, the 1+u rrhs •r ,balk havt ehr nRM le make any parroents n,:..r-- tv In nm.— I* default, ILnd Ans f+r mr rrlt en rn.1 rh�ll hr ..ppi-F In the I+rmrhii hrsl f+11111 due the feller 40641 ,h1, ron0, I i,) Th, seller r.;errs, uMn rrveivina fAI! raymrat 01 the wrck— Pitt and int+rest :rt the nnrrr .Sd— surrlt••d, In rr rrulr +n•1 .1uh— I,. p,rxh•w• s;slumrr warranty d rd to old real estate, efrgAinIe any Mn (hrrrnf heirtflrr nArn I �r pull}ir u,e. ilrr ni rncun;)rmc” rrrrpt enY thal MILS' at;trh alter date 0f [10449 through any peratrn other than the ,eliet, end �:, I,)rrl In Ihr �„htrwtRr- � i �- N I� l� 1s, t'nlm, s dilfrrrnt dA,e 6 I.ro,,doi for herein, the pueehr.wr Ahatl be entitled to ;.;[seises ai said :cal estale on flab of rinsine end In n-ts:n pnr� Jon sa long As Nt&as it not In default hereunder. The purchaser wn rrusrix to keep the [twidins, and other Imnrn— mrntt un Laid "%I estate in gxd repair .rd not to permit wade And not 1, use, or pastil the vac of, the rnl estate for al:r ;llrrri tsulx„e. The par urchar covegAnta to pay all Aen-ice, Insuldacion cr constructlort iWites for waltr, sever. dWricky, g. rba�r or of hr: ntilitp ernten foni+htd to mid feat matt after the date purcbater e0I!Ikd tr poase cion. fol In rant the purchaser fait to make ►hY daymtnt herein provided or to madncsin'Inaur.nrr, ss herein rrquhrd, the seller may r.,I'll such payrne.1 or effect such GUutanee, and 0? rroounta so paid by the adler, e„�.dhee with interest it the ratr of 10%,per annum chrmm born vale ni I.,y,uehi rrs� „ � 1�iTr��• 0y spw4tA... �,,.., :_.... ... to .. h1...,.1 .. h,A;r .hy other richt the prllr, might halt by MA % of such delaull 1i � �"�- -� •_„___ • _..., � ,., {poiTime is of She eivrnn of this rontrari, and 31 Is agreed th,d In eau The purchaser shall fail to rnmply with ,�rfnr,n —y rnadiiinn or ag rcrmnit hereat or to make any IAymenl repaired heminder promptly at the time and in th' manner herein rrqulrnl. I>„, ,rile, may Orr, In dreUrr All the pttrchauh righla hereunder Irrminued, and upon his dnine sn, 05 yyrnr nta ms,ir by the Ixlr•hi.,r hrrrundr, And all imprrvements placed upon the real r,t Ale shall he Inrletted to the teller As Iiquidalyd dan,agrs, end the viler have richt d, re eu6er and take posx..I.t1 01 the feat estate; and no waiver by the wllrr of any drf+ash nn IN, parr of th' 1 ur0o - •h"14 hr• resort rued As A ae,jwl •eT —y h.rqu t drf..A. Sem i upon purchaser of AA demands, n lima or wher pA4 rA with rcspeet to fcaeifur aru3 terminalinn of purrhinr s tM,l Inas 6r made by t3niiecl Sutra htall, puN.gr per-pdd, return reni% requested, dircetrd to the purchamr at hi: add—% 1tr ,nnwn Iu Ihr .',,r (111 t'ix�n rrflrr'a flection to },ring nail in rnfurce any r m naof this cnn:rs(t. Indudintr Buil to rnllerf aay IU:rmrnt -(,i a*�1 hrrrc ,der, in, 1+yfrharr aArr*A to pay A reawnabte sum a tttnney'+ pens ani ail rn,h and rain—s in cunnrr,inn —1h ,urh -if. whi- wmx Chill hr IIN sled In Any ivdKment or dreier rntr•ed in such suit. 11 [hr Artier that! briar mall In procure An .d1uS,tal inn e1 the terrninntlnn of the palcha,r is Ila:.:_ rnterrd, the Ixirrhsmr xgrrn In hxy a na—Ll, Aum as atsenmy'A I— and ell ants —1-prnre, in mm"em., r�,,h utrh ,uit, ,ml aloes Ihr rrr,onAhlr runt nl searching 'rcnrdsU, ctr,erminr the %nnuil. len n3 :Et:e At the t.te urn av;t is rommrnrcu, wiuch •Inst '),Ill `e indydrd in -ny :udgrnent o, dreree entered In tush evil IN %%'1 y ES VHENFOF, t� rties hereto have e.ccutrd thiA ,nPX;,:menl as o! the �11r p•t wri ten ahrv, C ar owe Purc ash er ” Lot+e] a N�7"i'rop l �..B.r....Nb].t.o�..... _...Purchaser 0-1) Jane a owe Purchaser — ......................... ...... I -1A .—�.LtA-ftp.. .,.., ..., ......... J ....., :... _. r_5..4 ........ ... {lr41 � STATEOF___ i1 County of__ .-..____.klHr, SEAL On this __'. _ try nf_.._.'f� t g1.',r r' t" ----.-'—_- ----. A. Q. 19..�. 5, llrforc me. :i,e undcr- siltriM, h Notary PUhlic in and. fest Ine �fotr dt," '�-ti:�zQ-I_-_ �.----- --._ —.. _. _. duly rmm�uesir,nrd r and At^ern, perannnlly ,rppanred.._ �_ Aiiiil4.__LE NGiE_�_...... to me known to he the, individual described in and who excc%.0 d the f—estaing rnslrunlent for.elf and f_.d. AA atl,rney in fact oYthllrr,—.Z-rDjLIS-_Ib.�Cp�olina d e�rz therein rl�rcri`ned. nn.l ,leknowledeed to me IhAI -$-I,c -iKncd and senled the Anme act and ,feed and An rhr free -And vr,luntnry Act And Elrod of thesaidArthtrr7=nTra � asu]1.�f�y � fr,r the Uses and purposrs thrreiu m-11ioned. and on nath r nf•"Rjfyracx n tfagririn9 the execulinr, or thiA inilrumcii( has nol ?--n rev„kccf s,nci tftal :INC Fain staled that the powe �StilitZ�'.A.RSt..�.i=��Xl��,$„y[tR all pfiow ]ivinN. J- • d •A • �f' ' S' ^errrr ��5�5 f WITNE-SS my:},dhrfy�r�}pij j.];ae ryfieta afiiRrd the day and year in th/r/rerliftrnlr .clary+'rivrillen. �' EI F+ t I ( \, Y•'t r- hnr.. ry 1'ubhr in „nd for Ihr 5,— ns rh���•L. f /r (Ark„o..ledg .ne't ',4tlf •lid a Art—y in Fact. W—hinrtnn T:dr ln.ar.ner Cemp.ny.'nrm (rf 11 w VD( v G L 26 u T C71I' Q � '4 ,y J Fi *4 IA '� U) n+, f;�F A. r,1tf' t] v° IIii' l ti F" 4. L10 ' t't NO[TrONS, COVFNANTS +YsiSL a.v4:v'-0,C'.i o� .,Rf'STRICTI' •INS REGARDIN(, FORPLI'i10,% OF A " l—II.IT1' LOCAL Ib1F'i261PMENT DISTRICT t1 I., considoration o: approval by King Cotnty of a :t3 _hurt hint permit/approval E�jr the property etJ� (Building or Plat) tV described below, bLnr• 1'atticia k •I, 1 sine se wornr,n CD (0 mzr s ;14 aures IZr prorerty owners, hereby covenant and X13 a,3ree as follows: 1. I/we are the owners of property within King C:;unty, which is leadlly described as fotlows: (Legal Description) The v, -.qt 595.72 f, -Ft of the Souti hnlf of that portion of the south half of Northeast quarter of the Northwest. quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Rani -,e 5 Fast, f:.M., in Kirg County Washington, Iving north of the South 30 feet of sild south hnlf. Tn:PYhar wi th t'v7 shut;-, ti,:rty Leet of the gest 595.72 feet of the Northetist qoa rtrnr of the Northwest quarter of said sectinn. Reservins; there- from howQver, a peepetual non exclusive easement for use And benefits of adjoining properties For road and utilities over and across and Upon the west 30 Feet of the above described property and the south 30 feet of nbove de<crihed property. 2. L/We have requested the issuance by King County of the following permit or approval for the al,'ove described property: short plat # 1084057 {Job bio. or Plat No.) 3. "ursuant to King County Ordinance 5929, Section 4, the above described permit or approval is exempt from King County's requirements for fire hydrants and water mains. 4. Recognizing the above facts and in consideration of King County's .issuance of the requested permit/approval: I/We hereby agree to join in the execution of a petition for and not to protest, the formation of a utility local improvement district for purposes of providing water mains and fire hydrants consis- tent with applicable King County standards. For this purpose. I/we hereby designate the manager of the public water district responsible for the local improvement district as our agent authorized to sign a petition pursuant to RCW 57.16.060 or our behalf. rlr a7: , 4 W Mi c? L ; vQ 0:. Ln � N r C] co 5, '"his D(tclaraticn of Conditions, Covenants ! Res tric- trios is Ui.n.Liiny upon our heirs, assignees and successors in interest ai thu owners of the above-described property and is a covenant running with the land. 5. This Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restric- tions shall not be relea.<.ed without the express written approval o.` the King County Fire Marshal or his successor. �_ /1) OWN i (Sigroture), OWNER ?Signature) Oit tlt..� Jsay .L �, iy , before me persUnaiiy appearec'./ �,' h L' ,C Z -lam—i to me known -to e the ;I (individuals) ( of the c,cy m meson) described herein and who executed the foregoing instrument as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and p:,rooses herein mentioned. IlitJness my han{dvnd seal hereto affixed the �� day of\ ' l 19J „.3 Eon, residing m f'r}N`f" AOT rr)ll R!'I'11tiJf?5[S'tr?;!4' 01' aAT"'.R .,E':r' (`n:' 'I'Ia!(i'I1,3 cr)n,rr 'CS]I + .1r !J1C""d1aJ'C, made and antorcd into thin 17 t1 t <lav of ,tuly, 1973, by nnr3 l7(ttwl:n_n ltiINr, COUtJTY IdAT'sR DISTINCT NO. 90, a municil))l coruoration, hercinafter rcForred to as the "uistrict" and DURWOOD E. BLOnO, �s hereinafter referi:od to as the "Owner", W I T H [: S S r T H THAT 14111: 2fri +, the Onmr.r has heretoforo Constructed at .1-wn expon nc, certain innrovenents consintinq of wator sai:l:s and appurtenances thereto, within the boundaries Of the `'later District, Kinn County, St1te of Walhin9t0n, to -wit: SI7,li ON FT10:1 TO C.I. ,.L. _132nd Wit. 15Gtt Ave. S.F. 152-3 Ave. S.F. ]4mla;:A; }rot.: !V1.1; !„ a I -ii.. in ,ull, ,ic:,orlini tc, t, ;s1"cis, of cnn,trtic ,ion of tII" 0intri.ct and to tii(.! s;tt- i:,"lchion of tho Supori,itnn,,f,nt incl to the District fno.i- i c_'.. 1's . (2) In considoration of conveyance of sai i %j i..ic)rc%,mrt rnt:; to tllc, Di strict by the Owner, tiie District {-u 11r.rel7y agrees that for a rt_ri.ncl of fifteen (15) years frnil and after the 1st day of July no rcr.snn, fi,r'l v --- or cornoration beinq thy: Owner of any of thn real nrnncr.tlV hereinafter described shall be granted a permit or be auth- orized to tali into or use such water facility for service to said hereirnnfter described real properti.es without first paying to the District, I,ti addition to any and all cost.9, charcics or assessments made for Such connection or water use for water lines constructed in connection with such use, in addition to the im+)rovement.5 hr.rcin doncr.ibed, the sum of rive Dollars and Forty-1".ight Cents ($5.48) per front font of property adjacent to saicl water faci.litiea hereinabove described on real p:onerty as 5ereinafter described, (3) within sixty (63) days after receipt of such payrient by the District, eighty-five par cent (858) thereof shall be paid to the Ownir, heirs, executors or assiclns as partial reimbursement for costs of construction exi3ended by the Owner for the construction of said improvement. The District shall havo no resoonsihility for maintaining cor- rect addresses for such pa_co and is the event no addros, for said designated Dayon shall be available to the District within twelve (12) months followinq the date of such pad•_ ment being mado, said Puiula sltiall rovr!rt to the maintcnancc- Pago Two rkInd of thi, District .incl no further Ohlil»tinz: 'or rei:-.- hurnolxent .0:1.11 exist, (4) Tho rein:eininn fifteen per cent (158) of said )ayinent shall be retained by the District as and for reira- -D bursement of overhead, record keeping and collection coats, rl— ckN and no other charges or assessments therefor shall he t_ti levicd against thr. Owner, or owner's heirs, executors or a:lsigns. (5) Properties subject to the requirements of this Contract are situated within the bounciarxes of Uie District in King County, stltr. of Washington, described as follows: The property line 190 feet north of t,1e south line of tkle northeast quarter of the nortliwest quarter of Section 14, Township 230 Range 5 IN %IITNrSS WHE ReOPo the parties hereto have set their hands and seals thin 17th day of July, 1973. Page Three OD i STAT2 OF SQA S1[INGTLN } } ss. _ COUNTY OF KING } O ON THIS 17th DAY of July, 1973, personally appee N 0. R, o'CONNOR and JIM W. ROTIRER, to mo known to be tho Chair- man and Secretary, respectively, of KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT N No, 90, a municipal corporation that executed the form oinq instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument td be the free and voluntary act Ina deed of. said m�nieipal cprporation 5 . for the uses anJ purposes therein mentioned, And on oath stated that they were authorizod to executo the said instrument and al th.xt tkte seal affixo(2 is the corr•orate seal of said rrunicir corporation. 5�T'fC:DSS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL hereto affixed the day and year :n this certificate above written, �.., .. otary Pu c in an of STashi ngton, resiclinq— fUr' { ' Paqe Four N)x 9n 1,9055 255-4542 46 RECORDED 0 VE 5 T or vM M4 FU .27 AN It 17 PC RELEASE V DAMAGE This agreement made this Z!117' day of i y and between f4JMr2y ��7`r�e� ilei hereinafter calledthe URAX, ani KING COUNTY, 6 ITS EMPLOYEES, hereinafter called the GRANTEE:: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, THE GRANTOR represents and warrants that ,Y the owner, tenant, or mortgagee on that certain parte o�and described as follows: The South Half of that portion of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., 1., King County, Washington, lying North of the South 30 feet of said South Half. WHEREAS, pie GRANTEE is about to approve certain improvement work on that certain parcel of land described as follows: The South Half of that portion of the South Half of f. '-^ e Nnrth!st or the northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 23 Horth, R a n � R 5 East, W . M . , in King County Washington, lying North of the South 30 feet of said South Half, WHEREAS, said improvement involves installation of an interceptor drain upon the above described property and, WHEREAS, the said improvement work is adjacent to, in the vicinity of, or abuts the above described property belonging to said GRANTOR. NOW, THEREFORE, 1T IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: That the GRANTOR, their successors and assigns, agree to protsct and save GRANTEE, its elected and anpointed officials and employees, harmless from and against all claims, demands and causes of action of any kind or character, including the cost of defense thereof, arising in favor of GRANTEE'S employees of third parties with respect to any damage to land or any structures, or any erosion or loss or limitation of use of property resulting from the improvement described in this release, except when due solely and entirely to the fault of King County or its officials and employees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said GRANTOR has hereunto set, n�K hand(s) and seal(s) the day and year first above written. WITNESS:'6Z ff.. GAJ STATE OF WASHIMON )ss COUNTY OF KING ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this _Zl5rday of before me, the undersigned, a Notary u is in and for TMe 5ta—Te of Washington., duly commissioned and sworn, personally came to me Known to ae th'e 1nolvir.'uaI who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that ALsigned and sealed the same as &- free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year above written. 00 „Tn o aryr,iUj>d for the/State of as g on n residin at; Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 980.55 • 20080303000827 KITY OF RfePt70?{ AS 3 . ts0 goSeej OF 0!2 KING2COUNTY11M Title: LATECOMFR'S AGRKKH!ENI Property Tax parcel Numbers: I42305-9003 Project file 4: PRhj- 27.0030 Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation I. Kevin M. Wyman ComPlesc Iceal dcsefipiipn is iit F,xhihit "B" (I Phis docwncnl. LP'Q'Al. fX..SCRIPT ION: Portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W,M, in King County, Washington. THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this J5' day of 2009, by and between the CI'T'Y OF RENTON, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and Kevinr M. Wyman, hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPER"; WHEREAS, the "DEVELOPER" is desirous of installing certain wastewater systems and appurtenances thereto at, near, or within the hereinbelow described property and to connect same to the "CITY'S" utility or road system(s) so that such improvements will constitute an integral part thereof; and WHEREAS, no other property owners or users are presently available to share in the cost and expense of construction of such improvements, and the parties hereto having in mind the provisions and terms of the "Municipal Water and Sewer Facilities Act" (R.C. W. 35.91.020, et seq) and street latecomer's legislation (R.C.W. 35.72.010, et seq.); and WHEREAS, the "DEVELOPER" is willing to pay all the costs and expenses for the installation of said improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND CONVENANTED BY AND BETWEEN THE AFORESAID PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: ?age I Public Record 20080303000827:1701 • 200803030008ZT.002 PR14127-0030: WYMAN LAT'ECOMER'S AGREEMENT' 1. The "DEVELOPER" hereby acknowledges and covenants that he is the owner of the following described property, to wit: See Exhibit "A" and the "DEVELOPER" hereby agrees and covenants to cause to have installed the following described improvements, to wit: 1. 397 linear feet of 8 inch PVC Sewer Main 2. 2 48 inch diameter manhole and such installation to be made in full compliance with all applicable codes and regulations of the "CITY". The "DEVELOPER" further covenants and warrants that all expenses and claims in connection with the construction and installation of the aforesaid improvements, whether for labor or materials or both, have been or will be paid in full, all at the "DEVELOPER'S" expense, and the "DEVELOPER" covenants and agrees to hold the "CITY" harmless from any liability in connection therewith. 2. Tilt "DEVELOPER" further certifies that the total cost of said construction as hereinabove specified is $88,016.01. See Exhibit `B" attached hereto for the legal description of the boundary line encompassing the lands affected by this latecomer agreement, and see Exhibit "C" attached hereto for the map showing in outline the land affected by such additional charges per [lie terms of this agreement. The total amount of the cost of said improvement shall be employed to determine the pro rata reimbursement to the "DEVELOPER" by any owner of real estate who did not contribute to the original cost of such improvement, and who subsequently wishes to tap into or hookup to or use said facilities, which tap or hookup shall include connections to lateral or branches connecting thereto, all subject to the laws and ordinances of the "CITY" and the provisions of this agreement. rage 2 Public Record a 20080303000827 003 PRM27-0030: WYMAN LATECOMER'S AGREEMENT The method of determining latecomer payments shall be by: Front foot method The pro rata cost is $110.85 per front footage. 3. It is hereby found and determined that the construction and installation of said aforedescribed itnproveinent is in tate public interest. T71e "DEVELOPER" hereby agrees and covenants to convey, transfer, and assign unto the "CITY" all rights, interest and title in and to said improvements and all appurtenances and accessories thereto, free from any claim and encumbrance of any party whomsoever, "CITY" agrees to accept and maintain said improvement as part of its present system upon approval thereof by the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department or his/her authorized representative and after inspection of said construction. The "DEVELOPER" further agrees and covenants to execute and to deliver unto the "CITY" any and all documents including Quit Claim Deeds and Bills of Sale that may reasonably be necessary to fully vest title in the "CITY" and to effectuate this conveyance and transfer. The "DEVELOPER" further agrees and covenants to pay unto the "CITY" such service charges or other charges as may be imposed by the "CITY" for use of the improvements for which this agreement is granted. The "CITY" reserves the right, without affecting the validity or terms of this agreement, to make or cause to be made extensions to or additions of the above improvement and to allow service connections to be made to said extensions or additions, without liability on the part of the "CITY". 6. No person, fine, or corporation shall be granted a permit to use or be authorized to tap into the facility during the period of 15 years from date hereof, without first paying unto the "CITY", in addition to any and all other costs, fee, and charges made or assessed for each tap, or for the main facilities constructed in connection therewith, or for street, signalization, and lighting improvements, the amount required by the provisions of this Page 3 Public Record i PRM27-00.30: WYMAN LATECOMER'S AGREEMENT 20080303000827W4 contract except such charges shall not apply to any extension of the main facility. All amounts so received bythe "CITY" shall be paid out by it unto the "DEVELOPER" under the terms of this agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof, less a 15% administration fee. Furthermore, in case any tap, hookup, or connection is made into any such contracted facility without such payment having been first made, the legislative body of the "CITY" may cause to have removed such unauthorized tap, hookup, or connection, and all connections or related accessories located in the facility or right-of-way, and dispose of such unauthorized material so reproved, without any liability on the part of the "CITY" whatever. It is further agreed, and covenanted that upon expiration of the terms of this agreement; to wit: 15 years from date hereof, the "CITY" shall be. under no further obligation to collect or make any further sums unto the "DEVELOPER". The decision of the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department or his/her authorized representative in determining or computing the amount due from any benefited owner who wishes to hookup to such improvement shall be final and conclusive in all respects. 7. It is further agreed and understood that the albredescribed improvements to be undertaken and paid for by the "DEVELOPER" have been or are about to be connected with the utilities/transportation systems of the "CITY", and upon such connection and acceptance by the "CITY" through its legislative body, said extension and/or improvement shall be and become a part of the municipal utilities or transportation systems. S. This agreement shall be placed for record with the King County Auditor's Office within thirty (30) days of final execution of the agreement. 9. Before the "CITY" will collect any latecomer's fee, the "DEVELOPER" will transfer title to all of the improvements under the latecomer's agreement to the "CITY". The "DEVELOPER" will also assign to the "CITY" the benefit and tight to the latecomer's fee should the "CITY" be unable to locate the "DEVELOPER" to tender any latecomer's fee that the "CITY" has received. The "DEVELOPER' shall be responsible for keeping the Page 4 Public Record r1 ...-�Qi3803fl30flfl 8 �. fl 45 PRM27-0030: WYMAN )LATECOMER'S AGREEMENT "CITY" informed of its correct mailing address. Should the "CITY" be unable to locate the "DEVELOPER" in order to deliver a latecomer's fee, the "CITY" shall undertake an independent investigation to determine the location of the "DEVELOPER". Should the "CI'T'Y" after a good faith attempt to locate the "DEVELOPER" be unable to do so, then the latecomer's fee shall be placed in the Special Deposit Fund held by the "CITY" for two (2) years. At any time within the two-year period the "DEVELOPER" may receive the latecomer's fee, without interest, by applying to the "CI'T'Y" for that latecomer's fee. After the expiration of the two-year period, all rights of the "DEVELOPER" to that fec shall expire, and the "CITY" shall be deemed to be the owner of those funds. 14. When the "CITY" has received the funds for a latecomer's fee, it will forward that fee to the "DEVELOPER" within thirty (30) days of receipt of the funds. Tunds received by negotiable instrument, such as a check, wi Il be deemed received ten (10) days after delivery to the "CITY". Should the "CITY" fail to forward the latecomer's fee to the "DEVELOPER" through the "CITY'S" sole negligence, then the "CITY" shall pay the "DEVELOPER" interest on those monies at the rate of twelve (12%) percent per annum. However, should the "DEVELOPFR" not keep the "C1TY" informed of its current correct mailing address, or should the "DEVELOPER" otherwise be negligent and thus contribute to the failure of the "CITY" to pay over the latecomer's fee, then no interest shall accrue on late payment of the latecomer's fee, I 1. When authorized by the City Council, a latecomer's agreement can be granted for a period of up to but not to exceed 15 years. No extensions wil l be granted beyond the period of time established by City Council. The latecomer's agreement will expire at the end of the period of time established by the City Council. 12. By instituting the latecomer's agreement, the "CITY" does not agree to assume any responsibility to enforce the latecomer's agreement. The recorded latecomer agreement will be a matter of public record and will serve as a notice to the owners of the potential assessment should connection to the improvements be fnade. The assessment roll listing the affected properties and the pro -rata potential latecomer charge for each will be on file Page 5 Public Record 1pRM27-0030: WYMAN LATECOMER'S AGREEMENT -20080303000827:006 with the "CITY". The "DEVELOPER" has responsibility to monitor those parties connecting to the improvement, Should the "CITY" become aware of such a connection, it will use its best efforts to collect the latecomer's fee, but shall not incur any liability should it inadvertently fail to collect the latecomer's fee. Page 6 Public Record 20080303000329:007 PRM27-0030; WYMAN LATECOMER'S AGREEMENT CITY OF RENTON��ag v o By: SEAL Denis Law, Mayor • By:`, UJc�.C4`�'t� -NN, +� Bonnie 1, Walton, City Clerk ��irnrri7lnl�llllt���`�';� Notary Scal must by within box STATZ OF WASHINGTON } SS COUNTY OF�INQ } S4 `} ,i„"r'�` On this da ofyv 200 1� �f T certify Ghat [know ar have `I.Q`� satisfactory evidence that Denis Law is the person who appeared be.forc �. , _ ��j t yto ff f{ r me, and who signed this instrumecii, on oath stated that she was authorized to execute %{� A R Y r' . the instrument and acknowledgcd as the Mayor of the City of Renton to be to be the 0 ; r t� _ w : f and voluntary act ot•such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the Notary ubl?cin end fortl�e State of�hington Notary (Print) t.ti` .w (� NN"' My appointment expires: j)27 mob Dated: a -{aV� Page 7 Public Record • �o 20080303000827:008 PRN 27-0030: WYMAN LATECOMER'S AGREEMENT DEVELOPER BY: Notary Sea] must be within box t el By INDIYLDUAL FORM OF'ACKNOWLEDGMLNT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) S5 COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence th lylr � signed this instrument and ged it to be hiAerhheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes in the is rst`umen`i1 Notaryllublic in and for the State of ington Notary Myappointment expires- le ap10 Dated; 11.,)OW 9EPNE3ENTATIYE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDCAfFIVT Notary Seal must be within box STATE- OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _ signed this instrument, on oath stated that hefshe/they waslwcre authorized to -execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the _ and _ of____ _ tt+ be tha fret and voluntary net of such party p -n,-. for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) My appointment expires: Dated: r-UxPUKA7E FORM OF,4CKIVOWLEDGMENT Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of , 20_, before me personally appeared to me known to be of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and oeknowledge the said instrument to be the fire and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, For the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and each on oath stated that helsho was nuthorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is tht corporate scat of said corporation. Notary public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) My appointment expires: Dated: Page a Public Record EXHIBIT A WYMAN LATECOMER (PRM27-0030) DEVELOPER PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION; 20080303000827.009 .Lots I - 4, inclusive, Ccdar Crest Estates, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 95 of PIats, Page 54, in King County, Washington. Situate in the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. in King County, Washington_ Public [record EX141BIT B WYMAN LATECOMER (PRM27-0030) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: AIL 2008030 M327:a1 a The West 595.72 feet of the South Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. in King County, Washington. (ALSO KNOWN AS Parcel A of King County Lot Line Adjustment No. 489033, as recorded under Recording Number $408270719) Public Record Exhibit C "t- — Proposed Sewer Extenston --- — City Urnits Technic//sg] Services + Kla�foFirlaodid/Public Barks January 2007 Wyman Latecomer Agreement Area (LA -05-003/ PRM27-0030) Public Record f - . .. _........ 00S030300Q lV-V 2 lEXHWIT D CITY OF RENTON FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL WYMAN LATECOMER TYPe: Wastewater Util" Improvemelits $88,016.01 Property Identification Name/Address of+wner Assessment Amount Parcel #1 B URNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION CO $45,948.04 11980 NE 24TH ST STE 200 13ELLEVUE WA 98005 KC Tax Parcel # 142305-9003 Legal Description: 142305 3 W 595.72 FT OF S 1/2 OF POR OF S 1f2 OF NE 114 OF NW 114 - AKA PARCEL A OF ICC LOT LN ADI NO 489033 RECORDING NO 8409270719 FOrM LVIem[ft Page [ of 1 Public Record PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER %ir SUBMITTAL REQUIRF-i.g�NTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: [far _ 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building DATE: 4. Punning H:ICEDIData%Forms-Templates4Self-Help HandoutslPlanninglwaivemfsubm ttalregs.xls M09 PLANNING DIVISION WAI` �R OF SUBMITTAL R.EQUrKEMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS I I Ilb I t5tq UII GI I MI II 11 kly UG VVCII YGU Uy. 1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building DATE: -7/7&C211 4. Planning H:lCEDOatalForms-Templates\Self-Help Handouts\Planninglwalverofsubmittairegs.xis 06109 PLAT NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TO: TIFFINY BROWN 11980 NE 24TH ST #200 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 PLAT RESERVATION EFFECTIVE DATE: February13, 2012 The plat name, MAPLEWOOD PARK EAST has been reserved for future use by BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION LLC_ I certify that I have checked the records of previously issued and reserved plat names. The requested name has not been previously used in King County nor is it currently reserved by any party. This reservation will expire February 13, 2013, one year from today. It may be renewed one year at a time. If the plat has not been recorded or the reservation renewed by the above date itwill be deleted. Deputy.d-AtAr-_--= ___-L�Oy.:Chad.wick: r,a. ice„ : 4 ng 2Lu11 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN City of Renton development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING Ug.a, LL c' ,- being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 1. On the /0 day of M wr-C4 , 2012 1 installed public information sign(s) and plastic flyer box on the property located at NE corner of NE 2nd St and 152nd Ave, Renton for the following project: Maplewood Park East Project name Burnstead Construction, LLC Owner Name 2. 1 have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. 3. Thislthese public information sign(s) was/were constructed and installed in locations in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 7 Title 4 of Renton Municipal Code. n .4 Istaller Sign6ture SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me/this 12'd --day of 2012 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at EJffi dS (A;& �IIr��MMi My commission expires on 2 ',;2-015- (I -',"Fomis%Pianilili 015 G:1Forms%Piannilig` puhsign.dnc 08131;()4 3•6 •3 d H1S T _ -- i LL I 3`S 311 H195t r 3•s 3nd i7NZ-9T !L Printed: 03-13-2012 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, INA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA12-018 03/13/2012 09:23 AM Total Payment: 5,150.00 Current Payment Made to the Fallowing Items: Receipt Number: Payee: Bank of America Trans Account Code Description Amount ------ 3080 ------------------ 503.000000.004.322 ------------------------------ Technology Fee ---------------- 150.00 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 1,000.00 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat 4,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ------------------------------------------------------------ Payment Check 5380 Account Balances 5,150.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due --------------- ------ 3021 ------------------ 303.000000.020.345 ------------------------------ Park Mitigation Fee .00 3060 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee .00 3954 650.000000.000.237 Special Deposits .00 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat .00 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD .00 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone .00 5016 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .00 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) .00 5998 000.000000.000.231 Tax .00 R1201081 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00