Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Report 1
----- / --------~- ----- F---f-------- _J ___ ,...... 1300 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD NORTH RENTON, WA 98056 '" ...... , ...... w r=,';,,:;-,~~·,: i ' ~ I ~ ' i ' ! ! ! I I ' ' I l ! C .1 l -~ ! B I ' • l i u i ~ ' ' i ~ ,, ' ' I I ~ f ' l ' C ~ ' -G g ~ I ~ ' =I it bj Iii' ' ' !!! 11 !ii' 11!! I ,, " " ,, -----=-=---:-1 'D' ' ' ' ' l'= ___ c!] i! I! ' !I " ' ,, ,! r ' I !! !! l" §H ! ' 0 -~ ~ 0 , i " ,, I' r I • : . :<;! t ' . ~ ~ ! i I L l'i !_ ~ ~ " I ' !I !' !' ~; ' • ! ! ' ' ' ! ! ~i~ !L-: •·• 8~w :; !~ ! t~ i;~ ~~ d ~ .ifo~ i~ ii~'" XL~~ ' ~ " 0 > 0 " ~-..f ~' .. " "'" c~ •le' ~~ .. ~ ...., ~~ ': ~ .. ~ . §8 1;di ~"' 0 ! • ~ I i i ! !! ! 1,1 i ' ' ' ~ts I ti !fa!" .. i :i! •N~ ij i"-".:l iii ,i!i1! ~ :1:11 ., . ~;;Aa1 ~ C ~e b;j ! I I ' ! ! ~ ! ~ i ". ' ". ~. -,o ij: Ii i ~ .. ~"' .:s"~]e ,~.;' "' is;t~,1 !· I! ;~~f~~~s :! ~~~:,;M~P ' ' ~ I~~ :.:! if (:j~~ ~8):;i; l,i'.;18 -;; 2i~ ~:~ra 9;;::;"" i:i, !1j· !i li! "'"~" ~11 ~ •! ,, i, I • I l ' ' ; I ' 0 ! ~ ' ~ ' • ' • ! ~ ~ 1ll ~ ~~ ~ !;; ~. •' ~ 0 C ~ ~ i ~' . ' ! ! ' ' i ' § I r I ! "''"""'"'"'"""' .. , .. -~·-....... ., ... ~ .. ,..,. _.._. '" ; ~~ IB:t= =:-,11 .. I, ,, 8- I 8-, I; 01 -- f· r , '£;,,: ~ 8- if @[-. 1~ Q, ' \:CJ' J •, 1; 9S086 VM 'N01N3cl HHlON Oci'efA31008 NO.L€1NIHSVM 3:.'>'1 001: I l + J: I I if: 9,= -e ,- j ' 0, ) . ,-~. .,-.o, ., .... _,,.,; z a ~ b ~ . w' I 0 e ~ a ' /~I;::\ !: \~'t j 0 ' 0----- 'lf e-~-=--~ ,!; ~ @ ~ " @-•, -- 8--- 8- I l ... J i: ,. ,: . '",.J ' j .o-.;,; i I + !ii ,1~ ., !, ' I "' " z It,-Q >-"' >-0'. I!' « o:<> z "J w ... J !' :Ii t z ~ ~ ~· ~: : :I I('~" 9S086 'riM 'r..tOHJ3cl Hl:,JON OWA31nos NOHJNIHS'<IM 3)1\i1 00£1 ' ! ' ... ' T V ' . i 1 ' I ____ -I 8----w =1--- ! :;I ! ' Hl---l----l-.-----1-----'-" c' ~ ; ! 0 ~ i i " a 0 0 i i < z -'" ~ _, i t t 0 i j:: 0 C ~::. ~ ~; ~ ~ ,I a a• !,o " ' §t iii ~ ~ -a i: l l (o ~'i ' tc1 ~= ~: " ' ,aN\ '-7' I: I I r j \,. ~/ + .1-~L ,:-IL _,.,OI ·' ~, J i l t:: )~-=-'_I __ ,_-·~ .o-.r. ---,;,a,, ~~ I I - --i i I IJJ:~: J I "w 9';086 VM "NOlN3l::I ocrn zZ T""" """'"''""""'"'' HH!ON Ol::IV/\3ln08 NOl~NIHS'dM 3>Wl 00£( I -0 I ,,..~-···--gr= (") ~ '"" .. "'"'''" "· 1310H N01N3cl I -<.) ' <( 'l~ ' => w ~iir.'iTJllli.! cow ! I ! i1 ~ -""" ·!~ ! DJ[IJ[IJ " i ' j '•. ' ' I ' I ~ I DOil· ~' i I:.,: ' ' j ! ! ~~ i : i ' = I I ' II ! II ' ', ! ! - '1 I i ! ' ' \ i I '' I ! -' ', I I 0 I i ! a ,, I I I i ' ! ,, ' . ' ,; ' ' ~ ; I 'u ! ' ;=== ' ! ', ' r1 ! I : ! ii I i !i i ' I! I I I ' I I ' : I ~ i i : ' ( I I ODD I I : I -I ! I ODD ' ' : t 11 ' I ' 11 ' ! I, ! ' ~ i i i :, ', i i i ~ ' ' ~' I I I ' l a -! - ! u i ~!--.,-... ·.,-~ .. ,.o, ~:,-_,1_1_,\ · _-.-~, I .,-,-:---!~.,-~" +---=c-+-~_,_.-~.,. =+-, .•-.· ! .,-,, I ·" 9~086 \:IM 'N01N3l:! Hll:!ON Ol:!'.'113lnog NOJ.c!Nll-!S\:IM 3~Vl 00(( I ! I ' ' l 11-~.,~.>'tScc,?,C'~. > -,t~---+ t),!l<VIJJ!' s I ,,-a ~=·~'!,I· •lrll I ' -----'--' -' ---~- I I I I ' ' : i I l I J ~ ... ... I ... 1 ~! ,i: !,; §9 " i; 'I: c, ij ~d ~i"' r1d I;{· ~:"' .l,01 .J-,OL . ,-m l ti ! r ·-' I ' ' I id 'r: ~ ,1 ' ' ' ' ... t t ., ¥~ ~-; " ' ,., iii !; ! .,-, .... "'"' zZ -0 o-~r -() :, w "'"' -------------------, ... ! ·-I '""''"''"''"""'! ..... ,-. ._ .,:' 99086 'r!M 'N01N3i:l Hli:JON Oi:l\i/\31noa NOl'JNIHSVM 3>rv1 00£ l \ \ \ \ \ I W 1 ! \I _! ... 1 ... -;; ..................... ~ ... :'-.. ! .,..-.,...,., ....... 1~-"; \ \_ \ -':r I ' e l7ts. --- Yi"'°·.:t.r------G· ~{--- J ; I e !4=-~-- 11.,~ ~ ~·-tv I \!, I I"-I . ~1~ - '" I ; n' h 8 ~----0, i~ I I I 8 t ----'+11-L \ I If \.-14}-----"' \i ___ _ 0 -1\ "i \ \ I \ I I I ~~ t- I _I_ -):-1- ~, I *" _J I ~ 1'-~ I ¥. ';1. ~ I I I I -':?ic- !,qJ I \ -\_ \ • /; ·'·"' t----+ -I\- -I_$~: I ~1~ ,--~-+-~ , ........... ~1 /; G [fl~~ I ---+ ' I ' I I I -:-4: I I .r-... " I , 6 ct) 8 \ -\ t \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ --"' N (l.. .... <( '·""'-""''"""'»:. , .. ,-w,-,._·~.,-, . -~ .... "'" ..... " ®t- i \ 0--r ,_ ~! \ 9\:Q86 \JM 'NOlN3l::I Hl<:lON Ol:flil\3lnoa N018NIHS\JM 3Wefl OQCI \ I , L ~ _I _ I (:r::i ' .~·.SC 0 I I I ! _ !' I 'k--~~) i -~,-~ G @ - \ \ \ \I I\ : \ :1 \\_ I" I I ~1 ~ I \ \ "" \ I t----t L _j J \ I I .~... -"-~~~. \4)1 _ I -\lf4 I I ,--J,.. :. J!'f.-1i' ti t I, • -~--"' .!,(.,.• .,·.ii ''e I 8 I '•' ~I I 1\ .,;;;..-~I \ "" ~1~ 0 I !Ill~ I >'ll~ \ \ I I ~ '!' _JI~~ ! I I 1 -41 '~1 I G I I 0 \ \ -\- _\ i, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -i ..-- 0.. ..-- <( © 9<.0e6 'vM 'NOlN3tJ ""'""""·''""""'' ..... ~~--··,;::;s I-IHJON 01"'v/\311lO"a NOHJNIHS\:IM 3)1\fl OOtt .' I I I ( /)), J /; , 1 1 1 I,,--, , 1 ,' I , J ,1 1 ,' ,1 \ i I ,1 I ,i / / / / I ,' I ' I I I / I I IJ t' / / / -' , / , / I J .....--r -, 1 ///////;f,::, ~-I , 1/, ' I I ;' / ; I ;.. . I ,-' 1_ ,• -j' ' / ! : I I / I / ,: ,i ( .:' i i1·/ / ' ,..· /' /' -----1-~ ' J J I ,' I / 1' / /II / / ,,,.,----/---- \ '', I / l I ' I / ; ' / f , \ \ , ', 1 : 1 · , , / 1 ! 1 , , r 'i" ~-'---1 '1 I_;_ : L....,. I IP'' .,.,., .,.., .,1.,, ,...,....;.,.""'l.,..:-.--...1.~t--1 ) ·11,1,',, 1; i ,.: ,: II ,,,. ) , ! 1 \ i. ,. 1 ·' 1 t tc l"i 1 1,,, It t I /.: / ! ) \ I, / / i _,-, '" ·1-_,_'0/;;,J ; I l' ,1 11//.: 1 I': . I/ 1 / \ \ h· 1/// ' ' II , ;, I i -'I \ I' I ' ) 11 -IT I I I I I I I I ' I I I I ~~ I I I I I I j :1,' -, C iJ- ' ' I 'I ® \~ e+; ' - m I.: - 1 G ~ " ~ ·' ( N 'f ... \~'< ' 8 ' _I I ---- M;; _, ~?, 9',096 ltlM 'N01N31ci HHJON Ol:IV"31n08 NOl'JNIHS\fM 3)1Vl 001: l ~- 'I( ..... ~> ..... ..... \ \ \ \ ----L I t \ I L L I I I I I - I I J _J I ' - - -1- ~;;~ N ..... <( -- -- \ \ \ \ ----~ ®' ©- i: \ ;,. ~0 .. G--\- 0 -\ '! \ 9i08S \/M 'NOlN3l:! H.l.l:!ON Ol:!\l'/\3ln013 NOl~NIHS\/M 3)1\/1 OOtt -\ e~---, . \ \ ,11 \ 11 \ I I I II ! ~ ~-~t :.~ ~l,,~: ' .c LI --~:,;, _J.__ .~-, 8 I 8-@ \ \ .~-" I --t -i .~ •. t-1 .!{.·.,';L ~ e \_ \ \ \ ·'"-'" I @ --t ~ -'+"--cl -\ -'c I ., 0 r 8 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -~ ..... <( \ \ @- ----1 I I -j -t \ \ \ I i -+ --- _J \ \ \ \ \ ..-- <( \ ®tr-- 1 ' ~I ::: ' - I _1 9S0S6VM 'N01N3tl H.L;JON Otlli/\3lnOa N018NIHS'tlM 3)1\f'l oot t \ \ \ \ Ii 1- ,~,1 ' ' \ --t i l--- L I I I : I I ~I \ \ ---t - \ b ~' I \4 -\-- \ * 0.f--:-_:oCCc-------;--~ ,, ---c'4='ec0,------------'"="'·"~_.,=Gl='''0~" _.e_,C -e H @H c1 ,,.... <( \ \ \ \ -i G '""""''""'"'""! ,., .. -··-· ""-S -~--···-·"· ~----~ ---l-+--, 8 1 I 9SOS6 "!iM "N01N3lcJ HllcJON Ol:l\i/\31n08 NOl'JNIHS"!iM 3)W"l 00~ l I I + -j-t- I l. -t I -l- J_ _L l. L I I, I to I{' I I I I I [I _L l. \ \ \ I \ --t " -I _j --t _J j _J_ I 1 I + \ :n ---------- N 0/\18 N01.8NIHSv'M 3)lv'l (D T"" <( . ! I ---1 --""®- \ zff7 -".. \ \ 4 \ --------- ; I I ' ' § I I I 1 ~ ~ ~\ --- ---~- ' • N ... -,-... "' .... "".,. ........ ~ ; ~ ... N ...... .-< ~ 0 \l 0 ~ ~ • e ~ 12 a: 0 t ~ ~ 9 § . < g C , ~ -< I '"'"'"'J""'''"''' ,,.,, ~ ......... -~ ...... %086 VM 'NOJ.N3l, HHJON Ol,\'l\"11noa NOHlNIHS'J'M 3Wlf1 oati ..-- <f) 0 I: cl !l ~= ' {' ' I i;_ Cf') z l w ' I-0 tih ·1 '• ::j ,l! :::J ~21~! lit Cf') CD ; ~: ~ i~: "'.::~~ ~ 8~ ~ z ' z 0 ! ! l z I-(0 j ' '. -(!J "' I !l 1 u 0 " CXl i'.i ti'i ,if z z Ol "' ~Sd i~ I ~ w 0 ~ ~"' 0 -... 5 I~~ !i."c ~ I ... ~ ~ ~~ H~ I-z " a.. Cf') 0 w ' <( I-~, L ~ z 0 '" $ w "' ,. ~f <( a: 0. ~t ~I::~ iii §!!~ I w cc!'J ~ ~ '.:.~ ~ ~ ~,: ~ ;H z ::S " 0 § ' l I-0 '!,' l z 0 ~~H ! w C') ' a: ,-!hi 01 I w ' l~~----'------! ' ' '' ~, >':H ~u i §_i ~ ' ,s! 1~ z ) ~:i I ,,, ~.f.P ~f~ H~ ! hi ii~ Hi ~!8 ------------- f~ iHJ I ii . ' ~ -:.:i .,_ '° ,, ,, ,.. l ' ;,., I ~fs ::; ~;; s~ ~ ~ill. i!l ~ ~,h~~i~ "' l w f ~i~H~J~~~ ~t0 i:~":IP ~!;:~::a:~"'!:;; i.:~; r:;ig~"t~ ~ z. ~i~~~~!~~~~fijif~~~~Si!§§~,,;~~i~ ~~~idli~i~~;ei! ~, i~d.:.'iiH~~~hibti~~~~~~:dsi~t~~~2£iEsc~~~dl~i "'' -, >, w, ,r, a,' a, I <( i "' ' r l ! ~~ 1 ' :,,2 Ii ~ ' I + I I ; ~~ i;i~ '· ii t~ Ji I E0 ' jia' ! ' ., ' I );~ I ! 1; ! ' ' ~i ' ~ ' ' ' ! ' 1 al ' ' t ,, !cl S' ~ lil I _J n ' ' & (?, @ <8J]P 8 ~ !~ ', I 11 I--~~ I ~(, "I§ ·_. --- ~~ ,-' ! i (ml I !- ! - I. ., !, " ------- ' ' ' I I ! --- i .-c . - ··0a; I c'. ~- I • ;:<t) ' --------I -- I I §~/· ~ ,; __ ------------------ I ~\ I • • ' . I --------• ------I ' ' t ~ s ' ; ~ i i~ .. ·_ lie Vd~ ~ I I ~ ; ··~ s!; ' •• I ij !i ·-' l'i ' Ii --• • i • ~ • ' • I t i ~· as i1.,1-.1n , I' ~ I~ I! • ~lh~ c____:. lji ·-' ~~ . ' I I I \ I ------I j __ _L ------··-J '' 1, ,. I' . I! I t! I i I !i1,i 111i 11 , 11 1· !1 1; 1 11 ,i•ui , Ii' ; 1; •1 11 111 1 1111 ii 1 1 , .; 1 • 1 ti1!! !1!! !' i! i !! 1! 11! ·11 ii 1i!!!! . i i!i ! ii I! !jl !ii !! il 1! Ii 1, 1 ii ! !!! I l lj l!il 1111111 •1 rl 1:1 'i i I· 1li11 ! !11 hlPf 111 i'l'i' 1'1 I' j•lrte 1 11" 1t 1 i~:!i !i!H j,. 111 ;, !1! 111 !!u l lli !I !Ii !liii!i I ll !!ii !1 !ii !ii ,11 !iii !1 !!i!1 !!! ii !' ii ! !!ii !I !i i i !11 !:II ~ 11 _\ - iii ii/nr--~ _2J' ----_._.__:_ ' I I I ~ ! i ~ m I "' ' • ' ~i I ' ' ' ~:? I i!~ Ii _;,,-_ii ~ ~ !ilc3 l' •t; ~ "'"~ !I !~ I ,_~~ l I i ' ' ' ~ i I • I I I ' ' ' ! I I lj e ii • I -.,1 ' -~h ,, ) ~ i ~·~s t; • ! ,ii' ~H ,, ' ' i;.~ !~ .. r ! ~ :H~ ~i ~ 1 ~ C' ~ l &~--i: H!: . -~.i I i • i ., i E I h ~-ii ' !, 1: . ' 1~:. "-; '" !1 ~~ ~~~1~ ;,. :~~ '•1 ' '!' ' ' i ~ !j (~ 6 ,, fif~ ~ ' h,;l;! i ,, ,. i M ' ,, . ' i I: ~ ! ;1 i ~ , ' d l ;: i~ 1: ii H I, !i l ~ , >~ 1,.ti:~ ' I \ \ ,%,. ;,t / ~-1' if ,,. ~ .... ¥~" ' L / i' l,i 0 {~~Ii~~j~,f>i r ~I,. ;· " " < ,i ,r,,. / 1~ " 0 ;'.'j·?:j:!: E ,, ' ~:~~~:i;~~:; )!~\-di~--II~ ~i,z: L ~l r;'~ ,.. ~--;, ~ L ii!1if~ ,;._·~: L t~i!f~;~;~-~i t t~'~·-:t;:t~! . -I~ ' :J.L 11!uh:;:~t,-:, ~~J:1._. d ' ti!·~~~-~J~i, --' gl • "~t;f•: ;\<P -7. r M -,~.r~;:~; _i .. t .. '~ .. 1,·~,1,-• ~~:: @ 1Umt~i ~~ ::~ ' ' !; ~B •P- 11 I ' '. .. 1 \ \ \ -, -·:~>:-"< .'2,: ; \ ' C t ' -- rL .. ~ i i' ' I I J ' ' I I ,, 111 'b ~ j,1 ~,,I ' --0 • -' },5' OF ~.aw NDlc.4"111/ ro 7ffC Oil' _,,,_,,__ -_\".'..''"'· / ~., /,if': ii· //.~. :.i;: i' / 1·t ,, ,,, DESIGN GROUP PLLC e Code Requirements -The addition of guestrooms does not impact the height, bulk or scale of the building. Additional parking stalls have been provided to meet the agreed upon 1 stall per 1 guestroom. c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; No. The proposed layout has no impact to the neighboring properties. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; Yes. The primary concern of the building department has been height, bulk, scale and parking. The modification does not impact the height, bulk or scale. Additional parking stalls have been provided to meet the agreed upon 1 stall per 1 guestroom. e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and Yes. The primary concern of the building department has been height, bulk, scale and parking. The modification does not impact the height, bulk or scale. Additional parking stalls have been provided to meet the agreed upon 1 stall per 1 guestroom. f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. No. The proposed layout has no impact to the neighboring properties. The addition of guestrooms does not impact the height, bulk or scale of the building. The 3 additional parking stalls located in the autocourt are adjacent to the neighboring southern properties structured parking garage. Clark Design Group PLLC 14 July 2015 Page2 of 2 Legacy Renton Hampton Inn & Suites 1300 Lake Washington Blvd North Modification Requests DESIGN GROUP PllC CITY OF ~ENTON RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2015 BUILDING DIVISION The applicant is seeking the following minor modifications to the approved Site Plan application: The previously approved drawings had 105 guestrooms and 105 parking stalls. We are requesting the addition of 5 hotel guestrooms and 5 parking stalls. This modification would result in 110 guestrooms and i10 parking stalls. There is no increase in building area to accommodate the additional rooms or stalls. • We have eliminated storage and offices to provide the additional 5 guestrooms. • We have relocated the exterior deck space off of the pool area and provided on additional deck along L2 Lake Washington Blvd N {adjacent to fitness) to meet the design intent as agreed upon with the planning department. • We have located 2 additional stalls within the existing below grade parking garage and located 3 additional stalls in the autocourt. All additional parking stalls are structured parking stalls. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Section, modifications may be granted for individual cases in accordance with the procedures and review criteria in RMC 4-9-250D. a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; The primary concern of the building department has been height, bulk, scale and parking. The additional guest rooms do not impact the height, bulk or scale of the project. Additional parking stalls have been provided to meet the agreed upon 1 stall per 1 guestroom. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; • Safety-no impact to the proposed project or surrounding neighborhood. • Appearance -no increase in scale. An additional outdoor deck has been added to the west side of the fitness area to meet the original design intent, as agreed upon with the planning department. • Environmental protection -no impact Clark Design Group PLLC 14July 2015 Page 1 of 2 LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Renton Hampton Inn & Suites/LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H NAME _·-£' .\ r I t c:i_ l ( o,e,,J h4 'lo 1 April 7, 2015, 11:00 AM PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY ADDRESS (including City & Zip) Phone# with area code (optional) • _L_ _ )· L{-'(9d U ... 5-f l, 7( Y7 Z~ . ·+:[Zd 5 't(( cl 1 'J_ l) (p ,ft J-3::; ~--~ V Email (optional) . ' , ; I(/r ,_J j ~ '-+// L /t/l/,-l ,y--z-4 t IL r {,,:; ,r-" LAND USE HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET Renton Hampton Inn & Suites/LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H April 7, 2015, 11:00 AM PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION ~ APPROVAL D DENIAL EVALUATION FORM & DECISION of PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Hampton Inn & Suites -Site Plan Minor Modification LUA14-000061, MOD PROJECT MANAGER: APPLICANT: ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PROJECT LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Faizel Kassam Legacy Renton 10700 NE 4th St, #3006 Bellevue, WA 98004 Urban Center (UC) 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N /(~·:\. 1·,.1 \:~~:;~~J Pursuant to RMC4-9-200H the applicant is requesting a Minor Modification to an Approved Site Plan for the Hampton Inn & Suites Development, LUA14-000061. The applicant is requesting the following changes to the approved plan: 1. Eliminated storage and office space in order to provide an additional five guestrooms. 2. The creation of five additional parking stalls to provide a one stall to one guestroom ratio. Two additional parking stalls would be located within the below grade portion of the parking garage. The remaining three stalls would be located in the auto-court within the existing footprint. 3. Relocate the exterior deck space off of the pool area and provide an additional deck along the Lake Washington Blvd N fa~ade (adjacent to the fitness area) in order to meet the design intent. BACKGROUND: The applicant received Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, a Parking Modification, Street Modification, Setback Variance and a Critical Area Variance approval in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center (UC) zone and Design District 'C'. The approved hotel would be approximately 5 stories above grade in height. A total of 105 parking stalls were approved and would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade in a small surface parking area. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The City of Renton Department of Community and Economic O€velopment Administrative Modification Request Report & Decision HAMPTON/LEGACY INN& SUITES MINOR MODIFICATION WA14-00006l, MOD Report of August 27, 2015 Page 2 of 3 site contains critical and sensitive slopes. On April 16, 2015 the City's Hearing Examiner issued an approval of the Hampton Inn & suites Development subject to 20 conditions of approval. The proposed modification would result in a 110 guest room hotel with a corresponding 110 parking stalls. The proposed modification would not increase the building envelope as originally approved with the exception of the small 4-foot wide deck adjacent to the fitness center. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Site Plan. 7.15.15 Elevations 7.15.15 Landscape Plan 7.15.15 FloorPlans 7.15.15 ERC Memo 8.17.15 ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: Section 4-9-200H allows the Administrator to grant minor modifications to approved Site Plans, provided the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.H.2): Criteria Criteria Met The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent {10%) increase X in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or Staff Comment: The City's Environmental Review Committee determined that the proposed Minor Modification to the approved Hampton Inn & X Suites Site Plan would not change the analysis or impacts in the 1995 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review and issued a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 (Exhibit 5). The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally X approved plan. DECISION The proposal satisfies 3 of the 3 criteria listed in RMC 4-9-200.H.2 for the requested modification. Therefore, the requested minor modification for the Hampton Inn & Suites Development, Project Number LUA14-000061, MOD is approved. City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Administrative Modification Request Report & Decision HAMPTON/LEGACY INN& SUITES MINOR MOD/FICA TION LUA14-000061, MOD Report of August 27, 2015 Page 3 of 3 o -7 z-15 I I ? .__ Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Date The decision to approve the modification(s) will become final if not appealed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 on or before 5:00 pm, on September 10, 2015. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's office, Renton City Hall -7'h Floor, (425) 430-6510. If you have any further questions regarding this decision, feel free to contact the project manager, Rocale Timmons, at 425.430.7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. )> 0 ..... 11 '! f-~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~-~~-~~~-v~l I ' ~ \ ~ ' ' 1300 LN<:E WASHINGTON E!OULEVAHD NORTH RENTON, WI>. 98056 I ~-....,-~-.....--~v~~-~v-v--v----.,,r--v-0 -v--·-v-v--...-~_.-~---...,,-s.,,--v-v~-...r-v--v--v-·-v,~-....:.·-;;;:~-...,.---'v"·-,,.---...,~....-v---v~~--.,.--..,,,,--..._,,....\ > -1----. -_, t-----------------,. < t . . , i ''.-"'" , I , , ,, . < ! ( i e m >< ::c t-1 m !=I N .,..- N _. . 'I ._ ,, i; I P41_._1 t ;, , I . ' I - I ~ 2 :.2~o >m~ g~I 2 .. "' m i • ' • . ·.·-:·_ .. _ ... ,_ BB:1sre ~JSen.ei :: ·-:: '!:: .: '.: !', <-! lJOIJ LAKE WASHINGTON flOIJLEVARD NORTH RENTON, WA 98056 :~ _.,t._ -:~"',- _J .. ?:!- ;,. ·,_j !·..: I 1,, ! ... ' .... ... ' ... . ' .. ~~~{:~\~~~~;~~~~·. ·~~ ' q -, ~·+·! -- ---------.~,\ ·-;.-~ I MATCHUNE -SEE SHEET L4 )> ..... 1-\ m >< ::c 1-1 m ~ .,:i. \ 1.\ \ I I ' I I I I I 1, I ~ \ I i I ~ ' \ \ \ \ \ I t I F;i---: I' I : ma I ,;::c'f __ or? ,.,;;,----- -_:!_,__,. , , 1 I __ I - --~ I I I "' \ \ o/ \ \ \ \ f '.i- ': •.: ': ;· \ '>I 'l' \ _1:.1 I I \ \ \ =c> I . ' \ ,. ' .,---.._,. -..,,---~,,,.-.....,..-~---v---...,,-,.~~V-v-..,--v-.._,.-'\ < ·;<,· ..J.---_,_,_'.J_------,!<- .)ti I I I _l_ I J I I I I I I I "~ I ., ----""!ill-r I \ \ \ \ \ :-1 ···,j I __ ,._, .. :{· ~ i ! -·-··l·--· .... _I , ' J .• -, I I I I I I I J_,,,,,. 1300 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD '!ORTH RENTON, WA 98{JS8 \ v \ \ \ \ w -~ i. .;, /'....' ,.~-' < < < 1 \ < I -..'."· ,'_,> \'.:".· DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -----'Renton@ ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS-M) -MITIGATED Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600(4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625 Addendum to the Renton Hampton Inn & Suites as Addended by the City of Renton (LUA14-000061) Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) Date of Addendum: Date of Original Issuance of SEPA Threshold Determination: Proponent: Project Number: Project Name: Faizel Kassam Legacy Renton 10700 NE 4th St, #3006 Bellevue, WA.98004 LUA14-000061, MOD Renton Hampton Inn & Suites August 17, 2015 March 16, 2015 Proposal / Purpose of Addendum: The applicant received Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, a Parking Modification, Street Modification, Setback Variance and a Critical Area Variance approval in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N Just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center (UC) zone and Design District 'C'. The approved hotel would be approximately 5 stories above grade in height. A total of 105 parking stalls were approved and would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade in a small surface parking area. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. On April 16, 2015 the City's Hearing Examiner issued an approval of the Hampton Inn & suites Development subject to 20 conditions of approval. The applicant is requesting the changes to the approved plan to include the elimination of storage and office space in order to provide an additional five guestrooms. The applicant is also proposign the creation of five additional parking stalls to provide a one stall to one guestroom ratio. Two additional parking stalls would be located within the below grade portion of the parking garage. The remaining three stalls would be located in the auto-court within the EXHIBIT 5 Addendum to Environmental (SEPAi Review Page 2 of3 August 14, 2015 existing footprint. The proposed modification would result in a 110 guest room hotel with a corresponding 110 parking stalls. The proposed modification would not increase the building envelope as originally approved with the exception of a small 4-foot wide deck addiiton adjacent to the fitness center. The traffic impact study that was submitted by Gibson Traffic in June 2014 analyzed traffic impacts for a potential a 125 room hotel. Therefore, a revised traffic study was not required for the minor modification. The transportation impact fee based on the total number of hotel rooms would include the additional number of rooms at the rate applicable at the time of the building permit issuance. The proposal will not change the analysis or impacts in the 1995 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review. The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11-600. This Addendum is appropriate because it contains only minor information not included in the original Determination and there no environmental impacts related to inclusion of the new information. Location: Lead Agency: Review Process: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development Addendum to previously issued Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) Additional Information: If you would like additional information, please contact Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, City of Renton Planning Division, Department of Community & Economic Development at (425) 430-7219. There is no comment period for this Addendum, dated August 17, 2015 issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 3 of 3 August 14, 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMIITEE SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimme n, Administrator Public Works Department Terry Higashiyam?, Administrator Community Services Department Fire & Emergency Services Department I f , c_<:i. ,~ .. -- C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development tfJ I; 1 Date Date <Z I 7 ~fn-/1< Date Legacy Renton Hampton Inn & Suites 1300 Lake Washington Blvd North Modification Requests DESIGN GROUP PlLC CITY OF l'\ENTON RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2015 BUILDING DIVISION The applicant is seeking the following minor modifications to the approved Site Plan application: The previously approved drawings had 105 guestraoms and 105 parking stalls. We are requesting the addition of 5 hotel guestraams and 5 parking stalls. This modification would result in 110 guestroams and 110 parking stalls. There is no increase in building area to accommodate the additional rooms or stalls. o We have eliminated storage and offices to provide the additional 5 guestraoms. • We have relocated the exterior deck space off of the pool area and provided an additional deck along L2 Lake Washington Blvd N (adjacent to fitness) to meet the design intent as agreed upon with the planning department. o We have located 2 additional stalls within the existing below grade parking garage and located 3 additional stalls in the autocourt. All additional parking stalls are structured parking stalls. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Section, modifications may be granted for individual cases in accordance with the procedures and review criteria in RMC 4-9-250D. a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; The primary concern of the building department has been height, bulk, scale and parking. The additional guest rooms da not impact the height, bulk or scale of the project. Additional parking stalls have been provided to meet the agreed upon 1 stall per 1 guestroom. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; • Safety-no impact to the proposed project or surrounding neighborhood. o Appearance -na increase in scale. An additional outdoor deck has been added to the west side of the fitness area to meet the original design intent, as agreed upon with the planning department. o Environmental protection -na impact Clark Design Group PLLC 14July 2015 Page 1 of2 DESIGN GROUP PLLC o Code Requirements· The addition of guestrooms does not impact the height, bulk or scale of the building. Additional parking stalls have been provided to meet tl1e agreed upon 1 stall per 1 guestroam. c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; No. The proposed layout has no impact to the neighboring properties. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; Yes. The primary concern of the building department has been height, bulk, scale and parking. The modification does not impact the height, bulk or scale. Additional parking stalls have been provided to meet the agreed upan 1 stall per 1 guestroom. e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and Yes. The primary concern of the building department has been height, bulk, scale and parking. The modification does not impact the height, bulk or scale. Additional parking stalls have been provided to meet the agreed upon 1 stall per 1 guestroom. f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. No. The proposed layout has na impact to the neighboring properties. The addition of guestroams does not impact the height, bulk ar scale of the building. The 3 additional parking stalls located in the autocourt ore adjacent to the neighboring southern properties structured parking garage. Clark Design Group PLLC 14 July 2015 Page 2 of 2 ::t> 0 ..... (~o. ~i ,-/ ~ ~ C m -" : s;: ~-z ' 0 z (J) ::j m -u ~ z I I I ll 1§ ~i ~ 1 11 s 111 ~I ~~~ 0 ~~s ';.::;:Jc,; --------- I ' \ ,,--r.,7 ! (· ~ -'" -\ ,, ;l I H 1!J L'---: \ \ I \ 1~ 1, I' I L I i !.3 :••!•~•~i c.,,~" G,o,, PLLC RENTON HOTEL , ~CI We,: G~C!,.,d ~t 1300 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD NORTH Seott~. w.,;hmyt"' 9Sll9 1, l'l!711HIJ5 r· loOl~l l~•i RENTON, WA 98056 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION [8:1 APPROVAL D DENIAL EVALUATION FORM & DECISION of PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Hampton Inn & Suites -Refuse and Recycle Modification LUA14-000061, MOD PROJECT MANAGER: APPLICANT: ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PROJECT LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Faizel Kassam legacy Renton 10700 NE 4th St, #3006 Bellevue, WA 98004 Urban Center (UC) 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N Pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D the applicant is requesting an Administrative Modification from RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclable Standards: 1. RMC 4-4-090 requires a minimum of 3 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 6 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. Based on the proposed gross floor area the applicant would be required to provide a total of 603 square feet of recycle and refuse deposit areas. The applicant is proposing to provide 286 square feet of refuse and recycle deposit areas necessitating a modification from the standard. BACKGROUND: The applicant received Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, a Parking Modification, Street Modification, Setback Variance and a Critical Area Variance approval in order to construct a 110 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center (UC) zone and Design District 'C'. The approved hotel would be approximately 5 stories above grade in height. A total of 110 parking stalls were approved and would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade in a small surface parking area. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. On April 16, 2015 the City's Hearing Examiner issued an approval of the Hampton Inn & Suites Development subject to 20 conditions of approval. An Administrative Minor Site Plan Modification was approved on August 27, 2015 in order to increase the number of rooms and corresponding parking stalls (5 rooms/5 parking stalls). City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Administrative Modification Request Report & Decision HAMPTON/LEGACY INN & SUITES REFUSE AND RECYCLE MODIFICATION LUA14-000061, MOD Report of September 14, 2015 Page 2 of 3 EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Floor Plan ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: Section 4-4-080K.2 and RMC 4-4-090F allows the Administrator to grant modifications from the Citywide Property Development Standards for individual cases, provided the modifications meet the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.D.2): Criteria Criteria Met a. Substantially implements the pa/icy direction of the policies ond objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary ta implement these policies and objectives. X Staff Comment: Modification #1: The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address refuse and recycle standards. Therefore this criterion is not applicable. b. Will meet the objectives ond safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and Staff Comment: Modification #1: If approved, the size of the refuse deposit area would be a 47% reduction in refuse and recycle deposit area. The applicant contends that a reduction in the required size of the refuse deposit area is appropriate due X to the use of compactors. The applicant contends the self contained compactor would reduce refuse pickup while eliminating fluid seepage and minimizing odors thus meeting the objectives of the refuse and recyclable standards. Staff concurs the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the refuse and recyclable standards by providing adequate refuse deposit areas in the amount necessary for the Hampton Inn project. c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; and Staff Comment: Modification #1: The proposed refuse and recycle deposit areas are located X within the proposed structure and would therefore not have impacts on surrounding properties within the vicinity. d. Conform ta the intent and purpose of the Code; and X City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development Administrative Modification Request Report & Decision HAMPTON/LEGACY INN & SUITES REFUSE AND RECYCLE MODIFICATION WA14-000061, MOD Report of September 14, 2015 Page 3 of 3 Staff Comment: Modification #1: See discussion under criterion "b". e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and Staff Comment: X Modification #1: See discussion under criterion "b". f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity; and Staff Comment: X Modification #1: See discussion under criterion "c". DECISION The proposal satisfies 6 of the 6 criteria listed in RMC 4-9-250D.2 for both requested modifications if all conditions of approval are met. Therefore, the Hampton/Legacy Inn Renton Suites -Refuse and Recycle modification, Project Number LUA14-000061, MOD, are approved. q / 1Lf(,z,01 ,;- Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Date The decision to approve the modification(s) will become final if not appealed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 on or before 5:00 pm, on September 28, 2015. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. If you have any further questions regarding this decision, feel free to contact the project manager, Rocale Timmons, at 425.430.7219 or rtimmons@rentonwa.gov, Denis Law Mayor April 21, 2015 Scott Clark Clark Design Group 169 Western Ave W, 263 Seattle, WA 98119 Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC RE: Renton Hampton Inn and Suites, LUA-14-000061 Dear Mr. Clark: The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Final Decision dated April 16, 2015. These documents are immediately available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov); • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7'h floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above project number; and • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Hearing Examiner Documents is $4.65, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals ofthe Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8- 100(G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 43Q-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov • Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the reconsideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of a reconsideration decision. I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sioce, ly,' ,I::/) J on . Seth · y Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council liaison Faizel Kassam, Legacy Renton 1 LLC., Owner Parties of Record (14) Denis Law Mayor April 21, 2015 Scott Clark Clark Design Group 169 Western Ave W, 263 Seattle, WA 98119 Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC RE: Renton Hampton Inn and Suites, LUA-14-000061 Dear Mr. Clark: The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Final Decision dated April 16, 2015. These documents are immediately available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov); • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above project number; and • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated co~t for the Hearing Examiner Documents is $4.65, plus a handling and postage qost (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) 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. Appeals must be filed ir, writing together with the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner mat also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8- 100(G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of 1055 South Grady Way• Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 43D-6510/ Fax (425) 43D-6516, rentonwa.gov • Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the reconsideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of a reconsideration decision. I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. s;,m ly., f/J J on . Seth · y Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Roca le Timmons, Senior Planner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council liaison Faizel Kassam, Legacy Renton, LLC., Owner Parties of Record (14) Denis Law C' f - ___ M:ay:or ______ .. r· Jty O l , .!~' r rru f,l April 21, 2015 City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CM( CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) § ) JASON A. SETH, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 21st day of April, 2015, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mai~, d and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class ail the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision RE: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites (LUA-14-000 1} to the attached parties of record. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 21st day of April, 2015. Cynthi ya Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2018 Clark Design Group 169 Western Ave W, 263 Seattle. WA 98119 ,. Elliott Williams BuildCentral Inc. 200 W Madison, StelllO Chicago, IL 60606 Jessica Clawson 701 5th Ave, Ste. 6600 Seattle. WA 98104 Kurt Jenson 7730 Leary Way Redmond. WA 98052 tr:iJ~tb-::~;('.J// ;.~~.L-: Mark Lampard King County WTD, Project Management Unit 201 5 Jackson St, KSC-NR-0508 Seattle. WA 98104 TORJAN RONHOVDE 14900 Interurban Ave S, 138 Tukwila. WA 98168 Brian Beckley The Renton Reporter 19426 68th Ave SE, Suite A Kent. WA 98032 Faizel Kassam Legacy Renton LLC 6501 Eagle Rock Ave NE Albuquerque, NM 87113 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 KurtJenson 7730 Leary Way Redmond, WA 98052 MICHAEL CHRIST SECO HOLDINGS LLC dba RIVERSTONE RESIDENTIAL GROUP (BRISTOL II) 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, SUITE 50 Renton. WA 98056 Don & Marge Schumskv. 2019 Jones Ave NE Renton. WA 98056 Jack Elsner 6811 Brave Way San Antonio. TX 78256 Kevin Brown 201 S Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104 MARCIE BARTLETT 1133 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 ONKAAR DHALIWAL GRADY WAY RESTAURANT GROUP LLC dba YANKEE BAR & GRILL 1 S Grady Way Renton. WA 98057 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 /\PR 21 201J RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON Renton Hampton Inn and Suites Master Site Plan, Site Plan, Parking Modification, Street Modification, Setback Variance & Critical Areas Variance LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, VA-A, V A-H FINAL DECISION SUMMARY The applicant has requested a Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, a Parking Modification, Street Modification, Setback Variance and a Critical Area Variance in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The applicant has further requested a modification to the conditions of approval to reduce the transportation impact fee to reflect credit for construction of improvements (Ex. 22) pursuant to RMC 4-l-190(J) and (L). The Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, Parking Modification, Setback Variance and Street Modification are approved with conditions. The requested transportation impact fee reduction is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. TESTIMONY Staff Testimony Rocale Timmons, senior planner, described the history of the project and the progress to date (Ex. 19). She described the site characteristics and the modifications and variance requests by the applicant. Ms. Timmons noted the applicant had worked to achieve a design that is acceptable to the City after a lengthy design and review process. She described the proposed pedestrian plaza and recessed entry. Both are designed to provide pedestrian amenities and improve the appearance of the project. There will be a roof deck with views to Lake Washington. The applicant has provided a step back design which transition well with the mixed use property to the north. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 There have been several requests for review including master site plan review, site plan review, design review, setback variance, critical areas variance, a parking modification, and a right of way dedication street modification. The City has worked with the applicant on the orientation and scale of the building to provide transitions to surrounding development at an appropriate scale for the neighborhood. Staff was very concerned about critical slopes. The original proposal had a very large parking garage which essentially eliminated the critical area. The revised proposal is for underground parking which will preserve most of the critical area. The staff focused on three categories of conditions: zoning, design standards, and infrastructure. Most of these issues are fine details that can be resolved as part of the engineering review. Staff recommends approval of the project with conditions. In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated with respect to the right of way dedication, the applicant requested a modification to allow for a reduction in dedication. The transportation department has determined the extra right of way is unnecessary except for a 4.5 ft dedication. That is sufficient to provide the proper right of way and infrastructure improvements in the subject vicinity. Additionally, the pedestrian plaza will provide an additional amenity that would not be possible without the right of way dedication reduction. With respect to storm drainage, Ms. Timmons said the applicant originally proposed to drain storm drainage to the north. The City would prefer the drainage go south, which is the original discharge point. The proposed drainage could potentially flood an adjacent park. However, the applicant could create a drainage detention vault which would serve to remove any need for alterations to the system downstream. The applicant has the option to either provide a vault or improve the system downstream. Ms. Timmons stated the City's recommendations for parking is the proposed I 05 spaces. The City is supportive of the requested variance because the applicant has adequately demonstrated the reduced parking will meet the project's demands. The City is concerned the refuse system might be blocked by a parking stall. With respect to the traffic impact analysis, Ms. Timmons stated the City's working on a new Comprehensive Plan which will address traffic concurrency issues. Applicant Testimony Jessica Clawson, the applicant's attorney, stated the process has been involved. She stated they are concerned about Staff Condition of Approval # 11. Brad Lincoln PE, the applicant's traffic consultant, gave a brief history of the project. He described the applicant's response to the Perteet peer review (Ex. 8-9). The peer review recommended pedestrian improvements south of the development. They also addressed comments from the neighbor (Ex. 10-11 ). Mr. Lincoln stated the SEPA mitigation required the applicant to pay a pro- SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rata share of the intersection improvement at Lake Washington Boulevard N. and Gene Coulon Park entrance. He noted they were being double charged for these improvements because they are being asked to pay both a proportionate share and the full traffic impact fee which includes the intersection improvements. Mr. Lincoln requested the conditions of approval reflect a credit toward the transportation impact fees to reflect the applicant's pro-rata costs for the Lake Washington Boulevard N. at Gene Coulon park entrance intersection improvements. With respect to parking, Mr. Lincoln stated the ITE standard for hotels is an average occupancy of 63% with a peak of 72% in June and July. At one space per room, they need about 75 spaces plus spaces for staff parking (6 spaces). They need about 80-90 spaces during peak occupancy, rather than the I 05 proposed and 111 required. They are also planning on doing a shuttle service, but there is not data available to estimate the impact of a shuttle service on parking need. Mr. Lincoln talked about the transportation impact analysis (Ex. 8). He stated the analysis had followed the City's guidelines with respect to intersection impact. The project will not increase traffic impacts at any area intersections in excess of 5%. Lauren Nestrud, the applicant's architect, discussed Staff condition #11. This item discussed transparency of windows and a continuous canopy that mimicked the roof line. They have specific design concerns about this condition because of structural concerns and creating a cohesive facade. There are also significant water intrusion concerns. They want to work with the City and also proposed to expand the canopies and increase the window glazing. Ms. Timmons stated staff has no issue with the applicant's request. She proposed elimination of the second sentence in the condition to allow the applicant's proposed revisions and to give flexibility for the staff and applicant to work together. The applicant concurred. Ms. Nestrud stated the applicant has resolved the parking issue with regard to the refuse and recycling area (Ex. 20). There is no longer a conflict. They will expand the square footage of the trash and recycling to meet the conditions of approval. They will meet the I 05 parking spaces. Staff concurred with the revision. Scott Clark, the applicant's architect, stated the applicant has revised the storm drainage system to include a new detention vault (Ex. 21 ). They have repurposed a storage area to accommodate a new vault which will discharge at the lowest portion of the lot. No further improvements to the existing public drainage system are anticipated. In response to the examiner, Mr. Clark stated meeting the 111 required parking spaces would require additional parking to be placed in the existing critical areas. This is both a sensitive area and the most expensive area on site to build. The requested parking reduction is adequate for serving the needs to the project while minimizing impacts to critical areas. Mr. Ray Coglas, the applicant's geotechnical engineer, stated his role in the project began with an 26 initial site investigation (Ex. 7). There are steep slopes on the project. They analyzed the parking SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MOD!FICA TION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 versus the slope areas. They drilled deep borings and performed stability analysis to determine the impact of construction on the slope areas. The property has been historically disturbed. It might have been an old gravel pit. When the 1-405 off ramp at Sunset was constructed, the steep slopes were created. At one point the site was entirely cleared. The site is inherently stable. The post construction stability will be safe, even with the small encroachment into the critical areas. In response to the examiner, Mr. Coglas stated they identified groundwater and monitored the levels to determine how that might interact with the building structure. The groundwater does have discreet perched zones which might create shallow seeps. At depth, the groundwater table is about 2.5 to 3 feet above the bottom of the structure. The deposit is very compact and the porosity of the soil is low. They will have to provide drainage under the slab post construction and deposit into the vault. They feel they have been conservative. The slope will be stable post construction and groundwater will be managed. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Timmons stated she had four outstanding items. With respect to parking, Ms. Timmons stated staff presented this proposal, along with others to the City Council in late 2014. She wanted to relay the Council's concerns with parking in the immediate vicinity and their desire to have 1: I stalls per room. There are major parking concerns in the area. Council wanted to see I 05 spaces to go with 105 rooms. This is what the applicant proposed. With respect to the traffic impact fee, Ms. Timmons stated the request for the fair share proportion of the intersection improvements is a SEPA mitigation measure, not a condition of approval for this project. She stated the fair share costs will be very small because there are very few trips from this project. 17 Ms. Timmons discussed the public comment letter. She said many of the conditions in the recommendation require the applicant to shore up their transportation analysis. In general, the 18 provided TIA is adequate. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The City feels the site will work from a geotechnical perspective. There will be additional review at the engineering stage. Mr. Steve Lee, the City's development engineering manager, spoke to the credit towards the mitigation fee. He suggested there needs to be a rate study from the applicant. SECO is bearing the full share of the intersection improvement and are interested in a Latecomers Agreement. The traffic mitigation fees take into account the entire area, rather than just this specific intersection. The City does not usually require both a regional transportation impact fee and local improvements. This is why they made the SEPA mitigation measure to capture both. The City will approve a discharge downstream of the vault for just the groundwater. Ms. Timmons stated the impact fees ordinance allows no credits for construction improvements SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-4 toward impact fees. Though Southport had this arrangement in their development agreement, the 2 code has since changed. Ms. Timmons encouraged the examiner to read the specific ordinance. They do not believe there is an opportunity for credit. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Applicant Rebuttal Brad Lincoln, provided a response to the SEPA mitigation and a requested to apply credit for the intersection improvements (SEPA Mitigation Measure #4) to the transportation impact fee (Ex. 22). Even with all the pipeline developments, only Southport triggers the threshold for improvements at the Lake Washington Boulevard N. at Gene Coulon entrance intersection. Under the code, there would be no need for the present development to improve the intersection. They should not have to pay for the intersection improvement but are required by the SEPA migration measure which cannot be changed now since there was no appeal. Therefore, they are requesting a credit for the pro-rata share toward their transportation impact fees so that they are not double charged. No other development is being required to pay a pro-rate share of the intersection. This is an unfair impact that is arbitrary. EXHIBITS The April 7, 2015 staff report Exhibits 1-15 identified at page 2 of the staff report itself were 13 admitted into the record during the hearing. The staff PowerPoint was admitted as Exhibit 19 during the hearing. The following additional exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Procedural: Revised Parking Plan Drainage Plan Traffic Response to SEPA Mitigation Measures FINDINGS OF FACT I. Applicant. The applicant is Faizel Kassam of Legacy Renton. 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on April 7, 2015 at 11:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. 3. Project Description. The applicant is proposing to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way Nat 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000sf feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) zone and Design District 'C'. The majority of the site is currently undeveloped. However, there is a paved espresso stand drive-thru which exists on the site and is proposed for demolition. Access to the site would be via a single curb cut from Lake Washington Boulevard N. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-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 The total square footage of the proposed building is 108,800sf (including parking garage square footage). The proposed hotel height is 5 stories above the front ground floor grade. A total of I 05 parking stalls would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade in a small surface parking area. The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 111 to I 05 stalls. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. There are approximately 42 significant trees located on site. The applicant proposes to retain 34 trees. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. The site is located within a High Erosion Hazard area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. Moderate and protected slopes, which exceed a 40% grade, are also located on site. The steep slopes occupy most of the northeast portion of the site. The protected slopes make up an approximate 24,000sf area, representing 56% of the subject site. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to encroach into critical slopes on site (4,185 square feet). Approximately 40,000cy of material would be cut on site and approximately 5,000cy of fill is proposed to be brought into the site. Following construction, the impervious cover would be approximately 44%. The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-6-060 in order to reduce the amount of right-of-way dedication from 11.5 feet to 2.5 feet along Lake Washington Blvd N. Another variance is requested in order to increase the maximum front yard setback from 5-feet to 22 feet and 9-inches. The City's Environmental Review Committee issued s SEPA Determination of Non-Significant Impact -Mitigated on March 16, 2015. The DNS-M included six mitigation measures. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. The City received a public comment letter (Ex. I 0), which commented on transportation impacts and mitigation. The City's Staff Report recommended Conditions of Approval in the Staff Report (Ex. 18) attempt to address the issues raised in the comment letter. 4. 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 is served by the City of Renton for all water and sewer service. There are existing water and sewer mains and partial storm drainage improvements in Lake Washington Boulevard N. The water main is 12 inches. The sewer main is 8 inches and is of sufficient size to support the proposed development. The system development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the project. The preliminary fire flow demand for the proposed development is 2,500 gpm. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. Fire and Police. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on the new square footage of non-residential area is required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The applicant would be required to pay an appropriate Fire Impact Fee. C. Drainage. Storm drainage is adequately addressed by the proposal. The site is located within the Lake Washington Drainage basin. Runoff from the site currently drains to the southwest of the project site and then travels along Lake Washington Blvd N. before it eventually heads north via roadside ditches and several culverts eventually discharging directly into Lake Washington. The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage plan and drainage report (Ex. 6) and a revised drainage report (Ex. 21). Though the applicant had initially intended to utilize the City's existing storm drainage system, the applicant has revised the drainage plan to route stormwater into an on-site detention vault which eventually discharges into the City's drainage system. D. Transportation. Traffic impacts are adequately mitigated by the proposal. Level of service standards will not be reduced below adopted levels for the proposal and traffic impact fees will be assessed to pay for proportionate share transportation system impacts. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (Ex. 8) and a Traffic Response to SEPA Mitigation Measures (Ex. 22) which addressed concerns expressed by the City's third party reviewer and by staff in the Staff Report (Ex. 18). Staff note there are several proposed developments in the project vicinity which together will reduce the level of service (LOS) at the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard North and Houser Way at the entrance to Gene Coulon Park. The proposal itself will not significantly reduce the intersection LOS. The intersection fails (LOS F) only under the circumstance wherein the traffic from the Southport Development is included at conservatively high traffic volumes. When more realistic projections from the Southport development are included in the analysis, the LOS at this intersection is LOS E or better. The proposed development by itself is not expected to impact the LOS at this intersection. No other nearby intersection service levels will see an increase of more than 5% in PM peak hour volumes and therefore no further analysis is required for other nearby intersections. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Despite the anticipated lack of project level impacts from this project on the Lake Washington Boulevard North and Houser Way intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee imposed a SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay a pro-rated share of the traffic signal and roadway improvements costs for the intersection, which is currently being constructed by SECO Development. The proposed project is required to pay its pro-rata share based on the ratio of the number of trips added by the project to the number of future baseline trips at the Southport/Gene Coulon Park Entrance/Lake Washington Boulevard N. intersection. The applicant anticipates the proposed development will account for approximately 2.69% of trips. The applicant has requested a hearing examiner Condition of Approval that would reduce the required traffic impact mitigation fees to remove the duplicate fees imposed by the SEPA condition. The City testified that though this is exactly what they did for Southport, they are no longer able to provide a traffic mitigation fee reduction to account for physical construction of improvements or payment towards physical construction by a third party because they are prohibited by the RMC from doing so. They note the relevant code was enacted after the Southport Development Agreement. Contrary to the City's testimony, RMC 4-l-l 90(J)(I) does in fact allow for credit towards impact fees based on the value of system improvements paid for by the applicant provided the applicant receives administrative or Hearing Examiner approval (RMC 4-l-190(L)). E. Parking. The RMC requires a total of 111 parking spaces ( one per guest room and one for every three employees). The applicant and staff have agreed to a proposed parking modification to allow for 105 parking spaces based on a revised parking plan (Ex. 20) and the !TE Manual's occupancy rates projections. The !TE Manual anticipates average demand of approximately 57% of the required spaces based on average anticipated occupancy rates (Ex. 14 ). The l 05 parking spaces represent a 5% reduction from the RMC required number of spaces. F. Bicycle Stalls. Eleven bicycle stalls are required and proposed, however it is unclear if the proposal provides fixed structures for locking individual bikes. The applicant will be required to submit a bicycle parking detail during building permit approval. G. Vehicular Access and Internal Circulation. The proposal provides for a single curb cut on Lake Washington Boulevard N at the south end of the site. The location of the curb cut minimizes conflict with adjacent uses by placing the entrance as far as physically possible from adjoining uses. Parking will be accomplished almost entirely via an underground structured parking garage with an entrance at the rear of the building, thus funneling on-site traffic in an orderly SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-8 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 manner. There is also a porte-cochere for guest drop off and pick up. Service elements are located within the building (Ex. 20) to reduce conflicts with parking and pedestrian circulation. H. Pedestrian Circulation. There are existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the subject vicinity including bike lanes on both sides of Lake Washington Blvd N and existing contiguous sidewalk to the north of the project (Exhibit 8). The applicant will construct sidewalks along the site frontage connecting to the existing sidewalk system to the north. There is a lack of pedestrian facilities between the site and the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd N at the Gene Coulon Park entrance/Houser Way intersection. A SEPA mitigation measure was requires the applicant to provide a surety device to provide pedestrian improvements between the site and the Lake Washington Blvd at the Gene Coulon Park entrance /Houser Way. If, within two years, the pedestrian connection is constructed as part of the development of the abutting parcel to the south, the provided surety device will be released. If the pedestrian connection is not constructed prior to the termination of the two year period, the funds will be released to the City of Renton for the construction of the pedestrian connection. I. Landscaping. The applicant submitted a proposed landscaping plan that substantially meets the code requirements (Ex. 3). However, the plan did not specify the vegetation proposed for use in planters in common areas and the proposed green screens separating patios on the upper floors. More significantly, the plan did not include landscaping for the critical slope areas proposed for clearing. Prior to engineering permit approval, the applicant will be required to submit a revised landscaping plan depicting significant landscaping along the street frontage, within planters adjacent to the building or within common open spaces, and roof patio screens. The landscape plan will also include a planting plan for cleared areas which enhance slope stability. J. Refuse Enclosure. The code requires a total of201sfofrecycle area and 402sfofrefuse area based on a total of 66,929sf of hotel space. The applicant has proposed only 338sf of the required 603sf total refuse and recycling area. A condition of approval will require the applicant either to comply with the code or request an administrative variance prior to building permit approval. A conflict between the proposed refuse and recycling area and the parking area has been resolved (Ex. 20). K. Building Entries. The applicant has proposed to construct a pedestrian plaza along Lake Washington Boulevard North. This will serve as a focal point for the development and create a visually prominent entry. The main entrance of the building will be under a porte-cochere. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant will provide a detailed common open space/plaza plan detailing the proposed urban amenities (art, lighting, fixtures, landscaping). SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 L. Building Facades. As noted in the Staff Report (Ex. 18), the building largely complies with the City's design standards for modulation, articulation, defined entrances and display windows. The building is well modulated to give a less bulky appearance and to provide visual interest. Staff expressed concern related to how the HV AC units will integrate into the window frames and whether these will provide a monotonous appearance to the facade. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant will be required to provide a more detailed window design plan. M. Building Materials. Though the applicant has proposed the use of a variety of materials, the elevations the applicant provided are too conceptual in nature. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant will be required to provide a materials board for various elements of the proposed facade and structures such as retaining walls for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. N. Ground Level Details. As proposed, the entry to the building is not prominent and does not meet the overall building design in the UC-N2 zone and design district. Some human scale elements are provided, and as noted elsewhere, more detailed plans will be required for the building entries and urban amenities. In addition to these features, the applicant will be required to present more detailed elevations depicting added architectural detailing elements along the ground floor and street facing facade. 0. Roof Lines. The proposed design for the building has morphed throughout the review process. The most recent iteration depicts a flatter shed roof than previous designs. To provide a more visually appealing roof line, the applicant will be required to submit building plans depicting a higher pitched roof prior to building permit approval. P. Recreation and Common Open Spaces. The building is over 30,000sf and therefore a pedestrian oriented space is required. As noted above, the applicant proposes a plaza along the street frontage. There will be a total of 3, 700sf of passive and active open space on site which will accommodate both hotel patrons and the public. Landscaping along the edge of the plaza will soften the sidewalk and complement the entry plaza. As noted above, a more detailed plan for the proposed urban amenities will be required prior to building permit approval. Q. Equipment Screening. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant will be required to provide details for screening of surface and roof mounted equipment. R. Signage. Though the applicant provided a proposed sign package, the plan the applicant provided is too conceptual in nature. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant will be SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICA TJON, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-I 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 required to provide a signage package indicating the location of all exterior building signage and which demonstrates compatibility with the building's architecture and exterior finishes. S. Lighting. It appears through various elements of the submittal package that the applicant intends to comply with the City's lighting standards. However, the applicant did not provide a specific lighting plan. The applicant will be required to submit a lighting plan at the time of building permit review. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Few adverse impacts are anticipated. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The SEPA MONS mitigation measures in the Environmental Report (Ex. I) are adopted as Conditions of Approval. Adoption of Ex. 18 encompasses both the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law of Staff. All other adverse impacts discernible from the record are also fully mitigated. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Reduced Frontage Setbacks. The UC-N2 zone has a maximum front yard setback of five feet. The proposed building would have a 22 ft, 9 in front setback. The setback is necessary to accommodate an existing 15 ft wide utility easement and to allow for a better, more functional design for the pedestrian plaza. The proposal minimizes, to the extent possible, impacts to the protected slopes on the northeastern portion of the site. The proposed building setback is also in keeping with surrounding development patterns for building massing. B. Right of Way Dedication. The existing right of way on Lake Washington Boulevard N. is 60 feet. The RMC ( 4-6-060) requires a right of way dedication to increase the right of way width to 83 feet. However, the City's actual plans for this location do not match the code requirements. The City's Transportation Department has a specific corridor plan for Lake Washington Boulevard N. that includes a minimum right of way width of69 feet, rather than 83 feet. Instead of the general code required dedication of l 1.5 feet, the applicant has requested a 4.5 foot right of way dedication to meet the more specific corridor plan. The City plans require only 17 feet from the roadway centerline to match the existing curb on the north side of the subject site while still providing for adequate sidewalk width and landscaping. Staff concurs with the applicant's request and note that the reduced right of way dedication serves to reduce the impact on critical area slopes by pushing the building as far forward as feasibly possible. C. Reduced Critical Areas Setbacks. There are 24,000sf of critical slopes on the site. These were created by WSDOT during the I-405 widening project. The applicant is proposing to encroach into 4, 185sf of the critical slopes. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Ex. 7) which demonstrated no signs of recent large scale erosion or slope stability issues as the subject site. There were signs of steep to near vertical reliefs, all of which proved stable. Subsurface soils demonstrate strength. The City does not anticipate any detriment to the public welfare or safety provided the building's structural foundations are constructed according to the proposed plan. The plan will likely result in increased safety at the site. As noted above in FOF 5A, the proposed building is situated as far forward as possible while still failing to encroach on the SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-I 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 existing utility easement and provide for a functional pedestrian amenity. The proposed setback is the minimum amount necessary to meet the objectives of the UC-N2 zone while protecting the critical slopes. To ensure adequate safety, the applicant will be required to submit a revised geotechnical report prior to engineering approval. The report will note proposed impacts to the slopes and any changes to the recommendations to ensure safety, slope stability, and flow control. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. Master Site Plan Approvals, Site Plan Review and Variances associated with Hearing Examiner Review are each Type III decisions determined by the hearing examiner (RMC 4- 8-0SO(G)). The site plan, variance and modification applications of this proposal have been consolidated. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest-number procedure". The site plan and variance applications have the highest numbered review procedures, so all three applications must be processed as Type III applications. As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-0SO(G) grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The property is zoned Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2). The Comprehensive Plan designation is Urban Center North. 3. Review Criteria. Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review are required in the UC-N2 zone (RMC 4-9-200(8)(1) and RMC 4-9-200(8)(2)(a)). Master Site Plan and Site Plan Reviews are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Variance approval is governed by RMC 4-9-250(8)(5). Modifications are governed by RMC 4-9-250(0)(2). The review of the appeal of the administrative decision is governed by RMC 4-8-l 10(E)(l2)(b). All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions oflaw. Master Site Plan/Site Plan RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-12 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 iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC -1-3::. I 00. 4. The proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning regulations and design guidelines as outlined in Findings 19, 20, and 25 of the staff report, which is adopted by this reference as if set forth in full, including the findings and conclusions. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Localing, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables lo minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 5. As noted above in Finding of Fact No. 4(K-O), the building has been designed to reduce the apparent bulk and provide visual interest through the use of varied materials and modification of the facade. The building uses less of the site than would otherwise be required by code and places parking in a structured garage underground. The building is placed to reduce the impact on on-site critical slopes while providing for a pedestrian plaza and other urban amenities along the property's frontage. As noted in Fining of Fact No. 4(G and H), the proposal involves a single curb cut on Lake Washington Boulevard North while also providing frontage improvements to match the existing curb line. The pedestrian plaza and porte-cochere will enhance the pedestrian experience. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(J and Q), loading and storage areas, refuse collection and roof equipment will be screened and will not interfere with pedestrian circulation or parking. There are not significant views from this property. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(1), landscaping will be SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-13 provided on the critical slopes, around the building, in the pedestrian plaza and on the frontage. As 2 noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(S), lighting will be designed to avoid glare on to adjacent properties or streets while providing safe illumination for site users. 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 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 6. As noted in the Staff Report (Ex. 18), the entrance to the proposed hotel is located as far away as feasible from existing residential uses. The building also steps back from the north property line to provide a transition to the live/work area to the north. The building setback and orientation will provide privacy to guests and existing residents. Once operational, no noise impacts are anticipated. The proposed building is smaller in scale than what is allowable under the code and is designed to reduce the visual bulk of the building through varied materials and facade modulation. The pedestrian plaza will be visually appealing from the property's frontage. The proposal does impact the on-site steep slopes, but the impact is the least feasible to allow development of the site. Adequate landscaping in the pedestrian plaza and frontage is proposed. Parking will be structured. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 7. The proposal provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(E-H). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 8. The proposal provides for common open space that serves as a distinctive project focal point and also provides for passive recreation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(N and P). A primary feature of the proposal is a pedestrian plaza. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(1): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to 16 shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 17 9. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. I 0. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(C), the proposal impacts critical slopes, though the impact is the minimum necessary to allow feasible development of the site. As conditioned, the project provides for adequate public safety and welfare. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the drainage system has been designed as a vault system which will allow the project to discharge into natural drainage courses via the City's existing storm drainage system. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 11. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(A and B). SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINEADJUSTMENT-15 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases 2 and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 12. The project is not phased. Urban Design Regulations RMC 4-3-lOO(E)(l)(l) Building Location and Orientation: l. The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be considered when siting structures. 2. Buildings shall be oriented to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. 3. The front entry of a building shall be oriented to the street or a landscaped pedestrian- only courtyard. 4. Buildings with residential uses located at the street level shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (IO') and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building or have the ground floor residential uses raised above street level for residents privacy. 13. The proposed structure is located in the only location on the site that is feasible for development given the constraints of the critical areas and existing utility easement. The building will feature a pedestrian plaza accessible from the frontage sidewalk and a porte-cochere with pedestrian amenities. As conditioned, this criterion is satisfied. RMC 4-3-100(E)(l)(2) Building Entries: I. A primary entrance of each building shall be: a. located on the facade facing a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements. b. made visibly prominent by incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting. 2. Building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping and include weather protection at least four and one-half feet wide. Buildings that are taller than thirty feet (30') in height shall also ensure that the weather protection is proportional to the distance above ground level. 4. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows shall be oriented to a street or pedestrian-oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features should be incorporated. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 14. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(K), the building's primary entrance is proposed to be located along the site's only road frontage. The primary entrance will be a porte-cochere adjacent to a pedestrian plaza with landscaping and urban amenities. The applicant has stated that canopies, architectural elements and ornamental lighting will be employed at the entrances to clearly identify them as the primary pedestrian entry points into the building. The applicant has proposed a variety of materials to enhance the ground level effect. As noted in FOF No. 4(K-M), as conditioned, these criteria are satisfied. RMC 4-3-100(E)(l)(3) Transition to Surrounding Development: I. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: (a) Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels; (b) Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or (c) Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to-reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. Additionally, the Administrator of the Deparlment of Community and Economic Development or designee may require increased setbacks at the side or rear of a building in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards. 15. As conditioned and described in Findings of Fact No. 4(L and 0), this criterion is satisfied. RMC 4-3-100(E)(l)(4) Service Element Location and Design: I. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenienlfor tenant use. 16. As noted in Findings of Fact No. 4(J), the proposed refuse and recycle deposit areas are located within the proposed structure and will not impact parking. No impacts to the pedestrian environment or adjacent uses are anticipated. RMC 4-3-100(E)(2)(2) Structured Parking Garages: I. Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent (7 5%) of the building frontage width. 24 17. This criterion is satisfied as the entire use is commercial in nature. 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-17 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 RMC 4-3-100(E)(2)(3) Vehicular Access: I. Access to parking lots and garages shall be from alleys, when available. If not available, access shall occur at side streets. 2. The number of driveways and curb cuts shall be minimized, so that pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk is minimally impeded. 18. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3 and 4(0), all access is from a single curb cut. This criterion is satisfied. RMC 4-3-lOO(E)(J)(l) Pedestrian Circulation: I. A pedestrian circulation system of pathways that are clearly delineated and connect buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties shall be provided. a. Pathways shall be located so that there are clear sight lines, to increase safety. b. Pathways shall be an all-weather or permeable walking surface, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. 19. As noted above in Finding of Fact No. 4(H), pedestrian circulation to and throughout the site will be enhanced by the pedestrian plaza, porte-cochere and the placement of parking in a structured underground garage. As conditioned, this criterion is satisfied. RMC 4-3-100(E)(3)(3) Pedestrian Circulation: I. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: a. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings one hundred (I 00) or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least twelve feet (12') in width. The pathway shall include an eight-foot (8') minimum unobstructed walking surface. b. Interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a hierarchy. The widths shall be based on the intended number of users; to be no smaller than five feet (5') and no greater than twelve feet (12'). 24 20. The proposed hotel use is neither mixed use nor retail in nature. As proposed, this criterion is met. 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MOD!FICA TION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-18 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 4-3-100(E)(4) Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: 2. All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage jloorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian- oriented space. a. The pedestrian-oriented space shall be provided according to the following formula: 1% of the site area+ 1% of the gross building area, at minimum. b. The pedestrian-oriented space shall include all of the following: i. Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; and ii. Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; and rn. On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground; and iv. At least three (3) lineal feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space. c. The following areas shall not count as pedestrian-oriented space. i. The minimum required walkway. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian- oriented space if the Administrator determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian-oriented space. 21. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3 and 4(H, N and P) above, the applicant is proposing a pedestrian plaza adjacent to the project frontage and accessible from the street. The plaza meets the size, access and materials requirements. Other urban amenities are proposed. As conditioned, these criteria are satisfied. RMC 4-3-IOO(E)(S)(l) Building Character aud Massing: I. All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). 2. Modulations shall be a minimum of two feet (2') deep, sixteen feet (16') in height, and eight feet (8') in width. 3. Buildings greater than one hundred sixty feet (160') in length shall provide a variety of modulations and articulations to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade; or provide an additional special feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering area. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICA TJON, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-19 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 22. As noted in Finding of Fact 4(L), and as proposed and conditioned, these criteria are satisfied. RMC 4-3-100(E)(5)(2) Ground-Level Details: I. Human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature shall be provided along the facade 's ground floor. 2. On any facade visible to the public, transparent windows and/or doors are required to comprise at least 50 percent of the portion of the ground floor facade that is between 4 feel and 8 feet above ground (as measured on the true elevation). 3. Upper portions of building facades shall have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 percent. 4. Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. 5. Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. 6. Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are prohibited. 23. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(M, N, P, Rand S) above, human-scaled elements such as lighting fixtures or other landscape features are proposed. However, the elements are not apparent on the provided elevations (Exhibit 4). Additional human scale elements are needed in order to reinforce a pedestrian oriented development and enhance the commercial portion of the project at the street front. Conditions of approval require the applicant to submit revised elevations addressing window HV AC units, lighting, signage, urban amenities and building materials. RMC 4-3-100(E)(5)(3) Building Roof Lines: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles: a. Extended parapets; b. Feature elements projecting above parapets; c. Projected cornices; d. Pitched or sloped roofs e. Buildings containing predominantly residential uses shall have pitched roofs with a minimum slope of one to four (1:4) and shall have dormers or interesting roof forms that break up the massiveness of an uninterrupted sloping roof SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-20 24. The applicant has proposed a shed style roof. As noted in Finding of Fact 4(0) above, the 2 applicant will be required to provide a roofline with a greater pitch. As conditioned, this criterion is satisfied. 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 4-3-100(E)(5)(4) Building Materials: I. All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. 2. All buildings shall use material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns or textural changes. 3. Materials shall be durable, high quality, and consistent with more traditional urban development, such as brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass and cast-in-place concrete. 25. The applicant has proposed a building exterior with varied colors, textures, and profiles. However, the applicant did not provide sufficient detail to allow the City to envision the final look of the structure. The applicant will be required to provide a materials board for City review as noted above in Finding of Fact No. 4(M). Acceptable materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre- finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other high quality material. Full brick- sized material should be encouraged for at least the street level fa9ade to ensure durable materials are applied in high traffic pedestrian locations. Any non-brick masonry finishes proposed at the ground level that may be accessible to humans should be anti-graffiti coating applied to ensure easy removal of graffiti. If this condition of approval is met, the proposal would satisfy this standard. RMC 4-3-100(E)(6) Signage: I. Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. 2. Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. 3. In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. 4. Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to jive feet (5 ') above finished grade, including support structure. 5. Freestanding signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. 6. All of the following are prohibited: SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a. Pole signs; b. Roof signs; and c. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (I 0) square feet are permitted as area signs with only the individual letters back-lit (see illustration, subsection GS of this Section). 26. Signage has not yet been fully designed for the proposed project. As described in Finding of Fact No. 4(R) and as a condition of approval, the applicant is required to submit a comprehensive signage package. Locations and supports are required to be compatible with the building's architecture and exterior finishes. The signage package shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Manager prior to sign permit approval. As conditioned, this criterion is met. RMC 4-3-100(E)(7) Lighting: 1. Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided at primary and secondary building entrances. Examples include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting and decorative street lighting. 3. Accent lighting shall also be provided on building facades (such as sconces) and/or to illuminate other key elements of the site such as gateways, specimen trees, other significant landscaping, water features, and/or artwork. 4. Downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On- Site (i.e., signage, governmental flags, temporary holiday or decorative lighting, right-of- way-lighting, etc.). 27. As noted in Findings of Fact No. 4(S), building lighting will be utilized to complement the architecture of the building. However, a lighting plan was not provided with the application. A condition of approval requires the Applicant to provide a lighting plan which complies with the Design District standards. The plan shall indicate the location of exterior/ornamental lighting to be attached to the building, including specifications and photo samples of the light fixtures. The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. If this condition of approval is met, the proposal would satisfy this standard. Setback Variance RMC 4-9-250(B)(S)(a): That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-22 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 application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; 28. As noted above in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the maximum front setback in the UC-N2 zone is five feet. The proposed building would have a 22 ft, 9 in front setback. A five foot setback is impossible in the subject's case because of an existing 15 ft electrical utility easement. The proposal minimizes, to the extent possible, impacts to the protected slopes on the northeastern portion of the site by pushing the building as far forward as possible and placing parking in an underground structure. The proposed building setback is also in keeping with surrounding development patterns for building massing. The criterion is met due to both the critical areas in the rear of the property and the existing easement along the frontage. RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; 29. As noted above in Conclusion of Law No. 28, the proposed setback is similar to other buildings and sites within the subject's vicinity. The greater setback also facilitates placement of a pedestrian plaza along the subject's frontage, an urban amenity. The public welfare will be improved by construction of the new plaza as facilitated by the increased setback. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no significant adverse impacts will be created by the proposal. In the absence of any significant impacts and the likely improvement in public welfare, the impacts of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone. RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; 30. Many of the buildings adjacent to the subject have similar setbacks due to the utility easement. There is no special privilege. RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. 31. The requested variance is the minimum necessary while still allowing the construction of the public plaza. Critical Areas Variance RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-23 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 32. The steep slopes on the subject property were created by WSDOT during the 1-405 construction. The applicant has minimized to the greatest extent feasible the impact to the slopes by placing the building as far to the front of the site as possible and providing underground structured parking. The impact to the slopes is the minimum necessary to allow for feasible development of the subject site. The criterion is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(C). RMC 4-9-250(B)(S)(b): That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious lo the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; 33. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(C), no significant adverse impacts will be created by the proposal. The applicant's geotechnical engineer has adequately demonstrated the slopes are stable and will remain so post-construction. As conditioned, the slope impact will not result in any adverse impacts to the public health or safety. In the absence of any significant impacts, the impacts of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone. RMC 4-9-250(8)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; 14 34. There is no special privilege. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-9-250(8)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. 35. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow development of the project site as contemplated in the UC-N2 zone. Street Modification RMC 4-9-250(D)(2): Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict leller of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification: a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives: SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICA TJON, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-24 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. 36. The criterion above are met for the requested modification to RMC 4-6-060 for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(B). The City's corridor plan for this location requires less right of way dedication than that required by strict application of the code. The City can create adequate right of way, sidewalks, landscaping and curbs with the reduced right of way dedication. No adverse impacts are anticipated from the proposed modification. Parking Modification RMC 4-9-250(D)(2): Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification: a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. 37. The criterion above are met for the requested modification to RMC 4-6-060 for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(E). Though the RMC requires 111 parking spaces, the applicant has reasonably proved that I 05 spaces are more than adequate to meet expected demand. Both the applicant and the City testified to the adequacy of the reduced number of spaces. Though there is a regional parking shortage, the reduced number of spaces is not anticipated to create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity as the proposed parking will more than meet the demand created by the project. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-25 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 Impact Fee Reduction RMC 4-1-190(G)(l): The City shall collect impact fees, based on the rates in the City's fee schedule, from any applicant seeking development approval from the City for any development activity within the City, when such development activity requires the issuance of a building permit or a permit for a change in use, and creates a demand for additional public facilities. RMC 4-1-190(J)(I):. A feepayer may request that a credit or credits for impact fees be awarded to him/her for the total value of system improvements, including dedications of land and improvements, and/or construction provided by the feepayer. Credits will be given only if the land, improvements, and/or the facility constructed are: a. Included within the capital facilities plan or would serve the goals and objectives of the capital facilities plan; b. Determined by the City to be at suitable sites and constructed at acceptable quality; c. Serve to offset impacts of the feepayer 's development activity; and d. Are for one (I) or more of the projects listed in the Rate Study as the basis for calculating the transportation impact fee. RMC 4-1-190(L): I. The Administrator's determinations with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, the Administrator's decision concerning the independent fee calculation which is authorized in subsection Hof this Section, as it exists or may be amended, or any other Administrator's determination pursuant to this Section may be appealed by the feepayer to the provisions of RMC -1-8-/ l OE, as it exists or may be amended. No building or change of use permits will be issued until the impact fee is paid or the signed and notarized deferred impact fee application and acknowledgement form and deferral fee have been received and accepted by the City; provided, however, that the feepayer may pay the fee under protest pending appeal to avoid delays in the issuance of building permits or change of use permits. 2. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner shall be taken in accord with the processes set forth in RMC -1-8-/ I OE, as it exists or may be amended. 3. The Hearing Examiner is authorized to make findings of fact regarding the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or amount of the credit, or the accuracy or applicability of an independent fee calculation. There is a presumption of validity SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-26 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 of the Administrator's determination. The feepayer has the burden of proof during any appeal of the Administrator's determination or decision. 4. The Hearing Examiner may, so long as such action is in coriformance with the provisions of this Section, reverse, affirm, modify or remand, in whole or in part, the Administrator's determinations with respect to the amount of the impact fees imposed or the credit awarded. RMC 4-8-110(E)(l2)(b): Hearing Examiner Decision Options and Decision Criteria: The Hearing Examiner may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is: i. In violation of constitutional provisions; or ii. In excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or iii. Made upon unlawful procedure; or iv. Affected by other error of law; or v. Clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted; or vi. Arbitrary or capricious. 38. The applicant has requested a credit towards their transportation impact fees (Ex. 22) resulting from the SEPA mitigation condition requiring them to pay a pro-rata share of the intersection improvements at Lake Washington Boulevard North and the entrance to Gene Coulon Park (Ex. 1, SEPA Mitigation Condition #4). RMC 4-l-190(J)(l) allows credits to be given if the project is included within or would serve the goals of the capital facilities plan, is included in the Rate Study, is at a suitable location, and serves to offset the impacts of the feepayer's development activity. At the hearing the City staff testified they could not offer the applicant credit as was done with Southport because the ordinance that previously allowed the credit had changed. Staff argued the new ordinance specifically prohibited allowing credit for improvements to go towards transportation impact fees. Staff asked the examiner to review the ordinance. RMC 4-l-l 90 was last amended by Ord. 5670 on October 8, 2012. The examiner could find no more recent ordinances which amended the impact fees. RMC 4-l-190(L)(l) allows decisions by the administrator with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity or the availability or value of a credit to be SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 appealed to the examiner. The applicant presented their appeal to apply credit for the SEPA mitigation measure's intersection improvements to the transportation mitigation fee at the hearing as Ex. 22. Staff testified the credit could not be given because they erroneously believed they were specifically prohibited by code from doing so. However, no formal administrative decision has yet been given regarding the proposed transportation impact fee reduction. As no formal administrative decision on the matter has been issued, the examiner does not yet have jurisdiction to consider an appeal on the matter. DECISION The Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Parking Modification, Street Modification, Setback Variance, Critical Area Variance are approved subject to the following conditions. I. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated March 16, 2015. 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan depicting significant landscaping along the street frontage, within planters adjacent to the building or within common open spaces, and roof patio screens. The landscape plan shall also include a planting plan for cleared areas which enhance slope stability. The landscaping plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed plan identifying the location and screening provided for surface and roof mounted equipment. The screening plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 4. The proposal shall be revised to include an additional 285 square feet of area dedicated to refuse and recyclables. Alternatively, the applicant may request an Administrative modification, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250, in order to reduce the square footage required. The revised floor plan or Administrative Modification request shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 5. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate there is adequate area for refuse pickup within the parking structure which may require the relocation of a parking stall(s). The revised floorplan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 6. The applicant shall be required to revise the parking plan to include a total of I 05 stalls and the following: relocation of proposed stalls which would preclude refuse and recycle pickup; the provision of adequate ADA accessible parking stalls; and the replacement of tandem parking spaces with direct access stalls. The revised parking plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-28 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting a 4.5 foot (subject to a final survey) right-of-way dedication along Lake Washington Blvd N. The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 8. A revised Geotechnical report shall be submitted prior to engineering permit approval noting proposed impacts to steeps slopes and any changes in recommendations accordingly. The geotech report would also be required to include information regarding the stability for soil infiltration, with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options. If infiltration is proposed, then falling head permeability rates are required to be provided. 9. The applicant shall submit a detailed common open space/plaza plan which includes specifications for pedestrian amenities that add to the pedestrian experience and the human scale intended for the development. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. I 0. The applicant shall submit a revised elevation depicting some recess depth for each window, in which the HY AC unit is abutted directly below the window and within a frame that gives the appearance that it's an integrated window system. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 11. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting added architectural detailing elements along the ground floor of the Lake Washington Blvd N facade. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 12. The applicant shall increase the pitch of the shed roof element in order to strengthen the building design to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. Revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 13. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include color and materials for the following: guardrails, fa,;:ade treatments, retaining walls, raised planters, metal screens, sunshades, windows/frames, and columns. Acceptable materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre- finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other superior materials approved at the discretion of the Administrator. 14. The applicant shall be required to submit a conceptual sign package which indicates the approximate location of all exterior building signage. Proposed signage shall be compatible with the building's architecture and exterior finishes and contributes to the character of the development. The conceptual sign package shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 15. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of building permit SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-29 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 review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. 16. The applicant shall submit bicycle parking detail demonstrating compliance with the bicycle requirements outlined in RMC 4-4-080F. l 1.c for fixed structures. The bicycle parking detail shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 17. The applicant shall submit a revised Drainage Report and Plan in compliance with Core Requirement No. I. Specifically, the applicant would be required to redesign the discharge of stormwater from the subject site to the natural discharge location to the south. A detention vault or downstream capacity improvements would be required if the downstream quantitative analysis reveals downstream capacity is not adequate and/or the Direct Discharge exemption criteria is not met. 18. The TIA shall be revised to include a detailed table for each pipeline project. The revised TIA shall be submitted to the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval. 19. The applicant shall revise the transportation study prior to engineering permit approval to change the horizon year to the year that the project will be constructed ( currently proposed for 2016). 20. The applicant shall submit a revised TIA which includes a discussion of the AM peak hour trips and/or a justification for the exclusion of the AM peak hour trips from the analysis. The revised TIA shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval. DATED this 16th day of April, 2015. Emily Te CityofRe n Hearing Examiner Pro Tern Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(l4) 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 examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(l3) and RMC 4-8-100(0)(9). A new fourteen (14) day SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-30 appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information 2 regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th floor, ( 425) 430-6510. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-31 iJru::;?-:'::;:r - If > , m,!i! ,mPMEN1"-P1.ANN(Nij'DIVIS10N ,,,.,t.B§A~fl'{l.~E .• B,t,~.~.IB~.~ On the 2nd day of April 2015, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing HEX Report, Exhibits, Notice and Agenda documents. This information was sent to: Phil Olbrechts Hearing Examiner See Attached Parties of Record Faizel Kassam Owner Clark Design Group Applicant (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON )) ---~:, POvi, s ----ov ,,, ... '""'\%. z..~ COUNTY OF KING ) : ~~-t4>'illOH#;J}:,,/u, ;: .:-':.' TA .,..,.:t~ ' :: i/ +0 ,tJ. ~~ I certify t~at I know. or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante sign~d thi~ insiumi:tt a.:;ia·acino'";J~ged 1t to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned int~ ~~rri;lftti-',1 IO c /I 1'.>, //~8:29 ... ~"' I.;, C 'l, (I!' ... ''"'"'"''" ~(:) ~ Dated: ,A · i ~ ao 15 111 O,: WAS'<'",,.::- fl\! J N t ry Public in and for the State of Wa 11\~'M'' Notary (Print): __ ____,\.t..,,o'-'l"'lu __ ?""="" ... '"""""'C'i:c..i.. ___________ _ My appointment expires: :;:3 ~~ ~'1, ;;.oA Renton Hampton Inn & Suites LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H template -affidavit of service by mailing • Clark Design Group 169 Western Ave W, 263 Seattle. WA 98119 Elliott Williams BuildCentral Inc. 200 W Madison, StelllO Chicago, IL 60606 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn. WA 98092 KurtJenson 7730 Leary Way Redmond, WA 98052 MICHAEL CHRIST SECO HOLDINGS LLC dba RIVERSTONE RESIDENTIAL GROUP (BRISTOL II) 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, SUITE 50 Renton. WA 98056 Brian Beckley The Renton Reporter 19426 68th Ave SE, Suite A Kent, WA 98032 Faizel Kassam Legacy Renton 10700 NE 4th St, 3006 Bellevue. WA 98004 Kevin Brown 201 S Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104 MARCIE BARTLETI 1133 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 ONKAAR DHALIWAL GRADY WAY RESTAURANT GROUP LLC dba YANKEE BAR & GRILL 1 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Don & Marge Schumskv. 2019 Jones Ave NE Renton. WA 98056 Jack Elsner 6811 Brave Way San Antonio. TX 78256 Kurt Jenson 7730 Leary Way Redmond, WA 98052 Mark Lampard King County WTD, Project Management Unit 201 S Jackson St, KSC-NR-0508 Seattle. WA 98104 TORJAN RONHOVDE 14900 Interurban Ave S, 138 Tukwila, WA 98168 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of eneral circulation and is now and has been for more than six months for to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed wa~ published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on March 20, 2015. "''le full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is ; sum of $122.50. ~ ,,:··,. /~,/ •.•• f ,;· .,,,co· /_ /)/ /,t,:,.q :, r, -j,. qinda Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 20th day of March, 2015. ( ' -,/ ,. ' ( '} ; (_ I '-. : . 1 --,._,)?LC 1_ 1i1....{( ,-. K. C. Sherman, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Buckley, Washington NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determi- nation of Non-Significance Miti- gated (DNS-M) for the following project under the authority of the Renton municipal code. Renton Hampton Inn & Suites LU A 14-000061 Location: 1300 Lake Washing- ton Blvd N. The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, En- vironmental Review, a Front Yard Setback Variance, a Criti- cal Area Variance, and a Park- ing Modification in order to construct a l 05 guest room. 5-story hotel and structured parking with 105 stalls below grade. The site is located in the UC-N2 zone Access is pro- posed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains criti- cal and sensitive slopes. Addi- tionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a mod- erate lands] ide hazard area There is no construction pro- posed within critical areas. Appeals of the DNS-M must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 03, 2015. Appeals must be filed in miting together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 S ,,.,v,.,., .. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. ~, .... --:~'.·< L; 'tnr:;,. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner ..::..:-.:·~ :(,:..'.:':~\\\"·.\;1 °:t'/)-~11 111 are governed by RMC 4-8-110 .:? , ... >":~.,-::C:Ci,/'.~~ '1,:';,<'.JA' \ and more information may be = .:;;.~ .°':":-..\,· 0 ..,,. A, ~~t.:_/1 -~? ~ obtained from the Renton City f 1:":f::C}. ~ 1 Ir;_ --,>~ \ Clcrk'sO~llce,42.5-430~6510 ~ 3u '.·:~ ,_ ,;. A Pubhc Heanng will be held ~ ; -• -0 • l _;; by the Hearing Examiner in the i, ..., ~ ,,,::,U···, ,v .ff....,_ i Council Chambers, City Hall, on \u;_,._~1 !::h ... r:-J;....::-=-April 07. 2015 at_ll:00 am to ·'·. ··l /1!17~ 1 ::i.-·\ ,:; ::--~·>,.,.., =" consider the submitted applica- 111,.' {7"' ._'.;;;a,;\',\\·s,·-~.,--~_:;. ._.::· tion. If the DNSwM 1s appealed, ,. u,-. ·· " h I ·11 be h d '11 111 _ ,-•.t~:i,.,':Y\ ,·.·,::;::-t e appea ~1 . ear as part ·11\11_\·,\\\\\'-'"°'""' of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Published in Renton Reporter on Ma,ch 20, 2015. #1275323. Lu A I 4-CXXDCo I GTC Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc .. To: From: Subject: Date: Project: MEMORANDUM Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Brad Lincoln, PE~ Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) -Comment Response March 2, 2015 GTC #12-163 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. (GTC) has been retained to provide a response to comment regarding the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) traffic impact analysis by Michael Christ. The background of the traffic analysis for the development and responses to Mr. Christ's comments are included in this memorandum. 1. Background The initial traffic impact analysis was completed in October 2013 and a revised report, based on comments by City of Renton staff, was completed in December 2013. Subsequently, a peer review was performed by Perteet, Inc. on a revised report dated June 2014. The peer review found that the analysis included in the June 2014 analysis adequately satisfied the requirements outlined in the City of Renton "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for new Development." The peer review did identify that pedestrian facilities should be provided between the site and the Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way intersection. 2. Comment Response The traffic analysis completed for the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development was initially scoped with City of Renton staff to determine the intersections that would be analysis, the timeframe for analysis and the pipeline developments to be included. During this process it was determined that the following intersections would be analyzed: 1. Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beack/Houser Way 2. Lake Washington Boulevard at Site Access These intersections were analyzed since they are the only ones that were anticipated to meet the threshold of the development trips representing 5% of the total intersection volume. The weekday PM peak-hour was identified for the analysis since this is when the development generated the highest number of trips. Intersections north of the site are anticipated to be impacted with less than 5 total PM peak-hour trips and intersections south of Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way are not anticipated to meet the 5% threshold of total intersection volume. The following developments were included as pipeline trips: 2802 Wetmore Avenue · Suite 220 · Everett WA, 98201 Tel: 425-339-8266 · Fax: 425-258-2922 · E-mail: info@gibsontraffic.com Legacy Renton (Hamption Inn) Comment Response • Southport Development • Hawk's Landing • Quendall Terminals The analysis was performed based on data collected in August 2013, which represents the summer conditions. The analysis was performed without and with additional development in the Southport area since it was not known at that time if the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development would occur before or after additional development in the Southport area. The analysis showed that the development would not cause either of the study intersections to operate at an unacceptable level. The peer review included a thorough review of the traffic impact analysis and found that the analysis sufficiently identifies the impacts of the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development and meets the requirements of the City of Renton. Additionally, a parking study was performed for the development. The parking analysis was performed using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data. The analysis shows that the proposed supply of 1 parking space per room is approximately 57% higher than what is anticipated using the ITE data. The proposed parking supply is therefore anticipated to sufficiently serve the development. 3. Conclusion The majority of the comments included in Mr. Christ's comments were addressed in the traffic impact analysis and were subsequently evaluated as part of the peer review. The City of Renton and peer review identified that the traffic analysis for the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development is appropriate and that additional analysis is not required. The comments include a comparison of the analysis for the Southport development and the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) developments. This is not appropriate since the analysis included in the Southport EIS is for a development generating more than IO-times as many trips as the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development. The analysis for the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) report will therefore be much smaller in scope than the analysis completed for the Southport development. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc . . info@gibsontraffic.com 2 March2015 GTC #12-163 " \·iJ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSLGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED {ONS-M) POSTED TO NOTlfY INTI RESTED PERSONS Of AN ENIIIRONMENTAl ACTION PRDJKT N,lME: Roni"" HampWR Inn. S<lilos PIIOJfCfNUMBE~ LUAl.4-IIII0061,f0, !iA·M, !;A-II, MOD, MOD, IIA-H \.OU,Tllltl: UOII WI£ W.uHMiJON ilW N D£$CIIIP110PI: TllE Al'f'Llr;Afll IS RED,U,;sR,iG ou&l"E!l S1Ii Pll>H REV!icW, SITT PIA'-R•V,EW, ENV1 ... 0NMEN1/J. REVIEW, A P.llll<ING J,tO!llFltM\<ltl, WIUTMOO<flCAIT~ ""° A Cllil>UJ. ,..EA y..,_1,1u1C1: IN ORO!• rD CDOft.TJW<:f "-l<>!i GUEST R-HOW AND !>tllLICrulCEO P,ut,uNG /l#,iJL THE !UllfCT PROPlRn' IS U)U.lUJ ON TI1E EASf 5l04, Of o..u;:E W..SHINGTOII 111.l/O N JUST IIORTH Of MOUW! WAY N AT LJOII ~ WASHINGTOM Ill/I>"-Tt<E Pilo.tef m1: TOTALS n.aoo SllW,II£ FU\" IN -AND 6 LOO.TUI WlftllN TIit URM.11 CU<tIII NORTll -l (UC-Nl} ZONE MP OE51GN PISllllCT 'C'. n,E PROl'OilO IIOTil WOUI.D Ill: .u>Pfl.oalMllnU • STC"1£5 -Gfl.lD• lN HU<i,n", A TDT/J. Of lDS PMIUIIG r.!ALUW<lUU> I~ PlllM<WLl PROWDW IN A J'\lilO-uvU. IEI.OW GRM>E PAIIIUflG GAAA.<iE WITH TWOSTJ,U51¥KN1Dlll Al GAAPE, ...COSS IS PIUll'Cl$EU 1/IA Wl£ WMIUflGTOt,I IWO N. THE 5ITT. <;ONT,..NliCllfllUJ. ANII sEN51TNE 5lJ>l'U. ,lDOIIlQN,OU.l, fflO 5ITT. l• lOCAl'B) IN 1Ui fitOJ/QN ll,.\1AIID AIIEA AND A M0DEf!Aff Ll>lll>SLIDE f1A.Z.OJW AAt1,, THE,'Pfl<ICA«T\S R1Qua,JWG A lltllOl~nlll'I FIIC)M Kll,IC4...ollll IM OROEII Kl IEDIIQl THl NUMBfll OF REQUIRm l',UllNG "11,1..LS fllOM 111 TO 1D5 ~/IUS. TIii ~ L!i 11£QUUnMG I> l'OOIFICAnDN f•DM U,OC: - IN cROER TC RmUCE THf AAOQUNT Df ~K;Kl-Of·\lll>Y l)(DIU.llDN FROM lU FEEi TD l.S f!EI .llONCi LJJ<:E WA$Hll>GTOl'l 1LVD "· THE Al'l'IIU,N1 I~ .ll.50 ~QUl5Tltl6 I> V-IH OIIOE'-10 <N~INTO QlmCAJ. swl'ES DN!iflE(~,J.6$SClUAIIEHEI). HIE CIT'/ DF RENfON £NV!IIONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) 11,\', DETI:IIM1N£D Tl1AT T11E PIIDPOSED ACTION HAS PIIO&/>.IIL.E SIGNlf\CANT IMP/>.CTS TH,l,TU,.N BE MITIGATED THROUGH MfHGATION MEASURES. Appuls D/ the erniironm..,tal datermlnatlon must ba Ried in wl'lllnt on or bf!for• 5'00 p.ffl. on Aplil ], 2014, toptharwith Ille reqlrir•d fH \llilh: Hearin&E«amlr,ar, Cll\l of Rentot,, 1055 SoUlh lindy Way, 1tent011, WA 9BOS7. Appaal1 la 1111 b.aml118rart li""ernad by Ot'/ of RMC.4-+110 and lnfol"maUon reprdlrl& th• a119ul p,a ..... may ba obtained ffo,n ti!• Renton City O•k's Offke, !425) 4JG.651D. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BV THE RENTON 11EAIIING <)(A.MINER AT HIS REGULAR MfETING IN Tl-IE WUNC\l CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR Of aTY HALL. lD5S SOUTH GFIADV WAV, HENTON. Wl>.S111NGTON, 01'1. .td'ltll 7, 2015 AT 11:00 AM TD CONSIDER T11E Ml>.STEII SITE PLAN. IF T11E ENVIRONMENT/Ill. DEHIIMINATION IS ... PPEALED, THE APPEAL Will PE 11EAIIO l>.S PART Of THIS PUEILIC HEAfllNG. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CAUJNG FOR PROPER ALE IDENTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION I, CtJ(f{ /(: ,M21/1/ik1,}hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted in~ conspicuous places or nearby~the ~e nbed property on Date: 3/2;0 /2tj C Signed.~~ C O __.-..--.._____ r I STATE OF WASHINGTON 55 COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 1Z c '""l"-=t, ()'.) m 00 s signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary u lie in and for the State of Washington Agencies See Attached Scott Clark Applicant Faizel Kassam Owner Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of Sender): --+....:c:,,µµ_-"-':....:._IL..:c:....:.._.:,..,j...4-______________ '-,,, ,1, "\\II, l j . -{ POW, ''1 STATE OF WASHINGTON '---+ ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) .--~\., ....... ,,,"1\\\\11, ~'?. ''1, \_I .~--''::,.4!i,\ON e:~1,,, \S') 1t, '· > '/>,,~ ,,. / ·<.... _"7'~ o1'A,t ~, ~ ~~~ ")-.,., ~ .. a / CU -o.,. / f %~ ") \, '°"•\,,'(J Io ; I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante 1'',,,, 11 8-29·">"' t;f : signe? this i_nstru'"'.1ent and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for t~~B'.J'lm'lf~.oses mentioned in the instrument. , , , " Wfi., ,,,,· 1\"\\\' Dated: 0)4u/ :2c 2U5 ,I Notary (Print): ___ __.}_..\,;.; ... 1 _1),"+--~-'l_'"'ea'""'"1 ... t .. ,.,s-· ------------ My appointment expires: • 4c ' I ;;_ '( i' C{"-) ' ··(t'>> • I :,._ Renton Hampton Inn & Suites LUA14-000061, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, MOD, MOD, VA-H template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology•• Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region • Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv.1 MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers* Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers "'** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box4701S Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 35030 SE Douglas St. #210 Snoqualmie, WA 98065 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Jailaine Madura Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY {DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher• 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Ouwamish Tribal Office • 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 s. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle Attn: Tim McHarg Director of Community Development 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 Newcastle, WA 98056 Puget Sound Energy Kathy Johnson 1 355110'" Ave NE Mailstop EST llW Bellevue, WA 98004 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program • Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Kent Attn: Jack Pace Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City ofTukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an uoptional DNS 11 , 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 ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing • .. TORJAN RON HOVDE 14900 Interurban Ave S, 138 Tukwila. WA 98168 MARCIE BARTLETI 1133 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton. WA 98056 Don & Marge Schumskv. 2019 Jones Ave NE Renton. WA 98056 Kevin Brown 201 S Jackson St Seattle. WA 98104 Brian Becklev The Renton Reporter 19426 68th Ave SE, Suite A Kent, WA 98032 MICHAEL CHRIST SECO HOLDINGS LLC dba RIVERSTONE RESIDENTIAL GROUP (BRISTOL II) 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, SUITE 50 Renton. WA 98056 Jack Elsner 6811 Brave Way San Antonio, TX 78256 Elliott Williams BuildCentral Inc. 200 W Madison, StelllO Chicago, IL 60606 Clark Design Group 169 Western Ave W, 263 Seattle. WA 98119 Mark Lampard King County WTD, Project Management Unit 201 S Jackson St, KSC-NR-0508 Seattle. WA 98104 Kurt Jenson 7730 Leary Way Redmond. WA 98052 ONKAAR DHALIWAL GRADY WAY RESTAURANT GROUP LLC dba YANKEE BAR & GRILL 1 S Grady Way Renton. WA 98057 Faizel Kassam Legacy Renton 10700 NE 4th St, 3006 Bellevue. WA 98004 Denis Law C f - __ _:Ma:yor ______ .. r jtyO I ..!~· r rw' rl March 18, 2015 Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy ofthe Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 16, 2015: SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000061, ECF, SA-H, MOD, MOD, VA-H Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 3, 2015, 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 information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the 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) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Rocale Timmons Senior Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries 1 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki 1 WSDOT, NW Region Larry Fisher, WDFW Duwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMU 'f AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: -MITIGATED (DNS-M) LUA15-000061, ECF, SA-H, MOD, MOD, VA-H Faizel Kassam, Legacy Renton; 10700 NE 4th St, #3006; Bellevue, WA 98004 Renton Hampton Inn & Suites PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In January 2014 the applicant requested Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, an Exception through Modification, and a Variance in order to construct a 125 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The project has been revised and the applicant is now requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, a Parking Modification, Street Modificaiton, and a Critical Area Variance in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) zone and Design District 'C'. The proposed hotel would be approximately 5 stories in height. A total of 105 parking stalls would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. There is no construction proposed within critical areas. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 111 to 105 stalls. PROJECT LOCATION: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N 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 4-9-0700 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 April 3, 2015. 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: March 20, 2015 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUl\i,, Y AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: ' MARCH 16, 2015 ~j~. c_., ________ ?> h lo [ lb Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Date Fire & Emergency Services C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development Date '.3 (r._ (, ( Date -.:ity of \ i l OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites LUA14--000061, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, MOO, MOD, VA-H 1300 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MASTER SITE PLAN REVIEW, SITE PLAN REVIEW, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, A PARKING MODIFICATION, STREET MODIFICAITON, ANO A CRITICAL AREA VARIANCE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A 105 GUEST ROOM HOTEL AND STRUCTURED PARKING AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N JUST NORTH OF HOUSER WAY N AT 1300 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N. THE PROJECT SITE TOTALS SS,000 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN CENTER NORTH· 2 (UC-N2) ZONE AND DESIGN DISTRICT 'C'. THE PROPOSED HOTEL WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY S STORIES ABOVE GRADE IN HEIGHT. A TOTAL OF 105 PARKING STALlS WOULD BE PRIMARILY PROVIDED IN A TWO--lEVEL BELOW GRADE PARKING GARAGE WITH TWO STALLS PROVIDED AT GRADE. ACCESS IS PROPOSED VIA LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N. THE SITE CONTAINS CRITICAL AND SENSITIVE SLOPES. ADDITIONALLY, THE SITE IS LOCATED IN AN EROSION HAZARD AREA AND A MODERATE LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MODIFICATION FROM RMC 4-4-080 IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS FROM 111 TO 105 STALLS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A MODIFICATION FROM AMC 4-6-060 IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF RIGHT-OF·WAV DEDICATION FROM 11.S FEET TO Z.5 FEET ALONG LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N. THE APPLICANT IS AlSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ENCROACH INTO CRITICAL SLOPES ON SITE (4,18S SQUARE FEET). THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 3, 2014, 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 Oty of RMC 4·8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 43()..6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELO 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 APRIL 7, 2015 AT 11:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE MASTER SITE PLAN. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ', t,,,,~· 1 b.'J'" ( 1 •.J-i~ii,,; ,. t ·~ · , ,x:i~s\r l ~~{\'\' \ '~·:W·'.iV,\ ·. ··f .~\V-/-,j : )(}t;.~;.:;N lNiiJi . ,;,p,,;~i }:'.~ Xhl ',V'f,f 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 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. I DEPARTMENT OF COI .... JUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA14-000061, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, MOD, MOD, VA-H Scott Clark, Clark Design Group Renton Hampton Inn & Suites PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, a Parking Modification, Street Modificaiton, and a Critical Area Variance in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) zone and Design District 'C'. The proposed hotel would be approximately 5 stories above grade in height. A total of 105 parking stalls would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area.· The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 111 to 105 stalls. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-6-060 in order to reduce the amount of right-of-way dedication from 11.5 feet to 2.5 feet along Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant is also requesting a Variance in order to encroach into critical slopes on site (4,185 square feet). PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. The applicant shall provide an updated Geotechnical Report from Earth Solutions Northwest (ESNW) including a reevaluation and specific recommendations to address groundwater conditions related to excavation and permanent sub-slab drainage. The updated report shall be submitted to, and approved by the Plan Reviewer, prior to final engineering approval. The updated report may be subject to independent peer review at the discretion of the Plan Reviewer and at the expense of the applicant. 2. The applicant shall comply with all design recommendations included within the Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest, as revised/updated and approved by the Plan Reviewer as part of the Engineering Permit approval. 3. The applicant shall contract with a Geotechnical engineer in order to verify that the earthwork, foundation and other recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and engineering plan documents. Geotechnical monitoring services shall also be provided during construction covering inspections as recommended in the geotechnical report. 4. A prorated share of the traffic signal and roadway improvement costs (currently being constructed by SECO Development) shall be collected from the proposed project based upon the ratio of number of trips that will be added by the project to the number of future baseline trips at the Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance/Lake Washington Blvd N Intersection. Should SECO establish a street and utility Latecomers Agreement these funds could be used to reimburse the cost of these roadway improvements in the amount established by such an agreement. The fee will be based on (new PM peak hour trips) / (total PM peak hour trips) x (cost of new signal and improvements). The fee shall be paid prior to final occupancy. 5. The applicant shall create a public outreach plan in coordination with City of Renton staff to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The public outreach plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 6. The applicant shall provide a surety device, in an amount sufficient, to provide pedestrian improvements between the site and the Lake Washington Blvd at Gene Coulon Park entrance /Houser Way intersection. The surety device shall be provided to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval and shall be held for two years from the date of receipt. If the pedestrian connection is constructed as part of the development of the abutting parcel to the south, the provided surety device will be released. If the pedestrian connection is not constructed prior to the termination of the two year period, the funds will be released to the City of Renton for the construction of the pedestrian connection. ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes ore 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 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Water: 1. The preliminary fire flow demand for the development as determined by the Fire Prevention Department is 2,500 gpm. 2. The site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 2. 3. There is an existing 12" DI water main {320 hydraulic zone) located in Lake Washington Blvd N. 4. Fire hydrant as required by the fire department must be provided by the project. 5. Installation of back fiow prevention assemblies (DDCVA's) in vaults for the fire sprinkler system is required. The DDCVA shall be located outside of the buildings. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 o/4 6. Installation of a domestic water meter. Meter sizing shall conform to the Uniform Plumbing code criteria. Meters larger than 2-inch shall be installed in an exterior concrete vault per City standard plan No. 320.4. 7. A Reduced Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind the domestic water meter. The RPBA's shall be installed in an above-ground "Hot-Box" per City standard plan No. 350.2. 8. Installation of private pressure reducing valves (PRV's) as required by the plumbing code for water supply pressure above 80 psi. 9. A separate landscape irrigation meter and double check valve is shown in the plans. 10. The development is subject to applicable water system development charges based on the number and size of the meters required. The charges will be based on the fee at that is applicable at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit. 11. Civil plans for the water main improvements will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. Sewer: 1. There is an existing 8" PVC sanitary sewer main in Lake Washington Blvd N. See City of Renton drawing S- 3220. The existing sewer main should be shown clearly on the plans submitted in the utility construction permit stage. 2. Any use in the building (kitchen, restaurant) involving the handling of grease requires installation of a properly sized grease interceptor. 3. The project proposes an indoor pool; the pool will need to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. 4. Parking garage drains needs to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. 5. System development charges (SDC) fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the project. Fee that is current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project. Drainage: 1. A Construction Stormwater Permit from Department of Ecology is required. A SSWP plan with recommendations for erosion control will be required to be submitted to Department of Ecology. 2. No driveway slope shall exceed 8%. Driveways exceeding 8%, but not greater than 15% grade, are subject to City approval. Applicant shall submit a request in writing justifying the request. Driveways exceeding 15% requires application to the City for a variance of City code. 3. Surface water system development fees will be based on the square footage of the new impervious surface area 4. Stormwater flow control BM P's are applicable on the project. 5. Fire: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2,500 gpm. A minimum of three fire hydrants are required. One within 150 feet and two within 300 feet of the building. It appears adequate fire flow is available in the area. Hydrants are required within 50 feet of all fire department connections for standpipes and sprinkler systems. Existing hydrants may be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code, some of the existing hydrants do and some do not. 2. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout the buildings. Dry standpipes are required in all stairways. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fire alarm systems are required to be fully addressable and full detection is required. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150 feet of all points on the buildings. Fire access roads are required to be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed width with turning radius of 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside minimum. Fire lane signage required for the onsite roadways. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30 ton vehicle and 322 psi point loading. Dead end access roadways exceeding 150 feet will require an approved turnaround. 4. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre fire planning purposes. 5. Separate plans and permits are required for any fuel tanks associated with the proposed emergency generator. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of4 6. All buildings equipped with an elevator in the City of Renton are required to have at least one elevator meet the size requirements for a bariatric size stretcher. Car size shall accommodate a minimum of a 40 inch by 84 inch stretcher. 7. The building shall comply with the City of Renton Emergency Radio Coverage ordinance. Testing shall verify both incoming and outgoing minimum emergency radio signal coverage. If inadequate, the building shall be enhanced with amplification equipment in order to meet minimum coverage. Separate plans and permits are required for any proposed amplification systems. Transportation: City street lighting based on City standards are required to be provided by the project on the frontage. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 4 •~----Denis Law - __ _:Ma:yo~r -------:·t J . Citr. of I . -i~SJ o l1~J c l March 18, 2015 Scott Clark Clark Design Group 169 Western Ave W Seattle, WA 98119 Community & Economic Development Department CE. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Renton Hampton Inn, LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A Dear Mr. Clark: This letter is written on behalf ofthe 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, 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 April 3, 2015, 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 information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425} 430-6510. lfthe Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. Also, a public hearing has been scheduled by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall on April 7, 2015 at 11:00 am to consider the Master Site Plan. 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 available for 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 further questions, please call me at (425} 430-7219. Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov Scott Clark, Page 2 of 2 March 18, 2015 For the Environmental Review Committee, Rocale Timmons Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Faizel Kassam/ Owner(s) Torjan Ronhovde, Michael Christ, Mark Lampard, Marcie Bartlett, Jack Elsner1 Kurt Jensen, Don & Marge Schumsky, Elliott Williams, Kevin Brown, Brian Beckley/ Party(ies) of Record ERC Detem,ination Ltr DNSM_Renton Hampton lnn_14-000061 Department of Cornn · ity and Economic Developmen{ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) for the following project under the authority of the Renton municipal code. Renton Hampton Inn & Suites LUA14-000061 Location: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, a Front Yard Setback Variance, a Critical Area Variance, and a Parking Modification in order to construct a 105 guest room, 5-story hotel and structured parking with 105 stalls below grade. The site is located in the UC-N2 zone. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. There is no construction proposed within critical areas. Appeals of the DNS-M must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 03, 2015. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, 425-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on April 07, 2015 at 11:00 am to consider the submitted application. If the DNS-M is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: March 20, 2015 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUr ' AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DA TE: Project Name: Owner/Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: March 16, 2015 Renton Hampton Inn & Suites Faizel Kassam, Legacy Renton; 10700 NE 4th St, #3006; Bellevue, WA 98004 Scott Clark, Clark Design Group; 169 Western Ave W; Seattle, WA 98119 LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, a Parking Modification, Street Modificaiton, and a Critical Area Variance in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) zone and Design District 'C'. The proposed hotel would be approximately 5 stories above grade in height. A total of 105 parking stalls would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 111 to 105 stalls. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-6-060 in order to reduce the amount of right-of-way dedication from 11.5 feet to 2.5 feet along Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant is also requesting a Variance in order to encroach into critical slopes on site (4,185 square feet). 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N 1.26 acres Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community & economic Development RENTON HAMPTON INN AND SUITES Report of March 16, 2015 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND En mental Review Committee Report LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A Page 2 of 12 In January 2014 the applicant requested Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, an Exception through Modification, and a Variance in order to construct a 125 guest room hotel and a separate structured parking area with significant impacts to critical slopes on site. The project has been revised and the applicant is now Master Site Plan Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Environmental (SEPA) Review, a Street Modification, Parking Modification, and a Critical Area Variance for the construction of a 5 story, 105 room hotel with two levels of below grade structured parking. The total square footage of the building would be approximately 108,800 square feet (including parking garage square footage). The primary height of the flat roof structure would be approximately 58 feet and O inches. The subject site is located west of lnterstate-405 on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington. The majority of the site is currently undeveloped. However, there is a paved coffee stand drive-thru which exists on the site and is proposed for demolition. The vacant 1.26 acre site is located within the Urban Center North-2 (UC-N2) zoning classification. The site is bordered to the north by a mixed use residential development, to the east by lnterstate-405, to the south by a gravel parking lot; and Gene Coulon Park is across Lake Washington Blvd N to the west. It should be noted here has been a pre-application on the property to the south of the site for an approximate 142 room hotel (PRE14-001334). Access to the site would be provided via one curb cut extended from Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-6-060 in order to reduce the amount of right-of-way dedication from 11.5 feet to 2.5 feet along Lake Washington Blvd N. A total of 105 parking spaces would be provided of which 103 stalls would be located within a sub-grade parking garage. The remaining 2 stalls would be located within a small surface parking area interior to the site. The applicant is requesting a parking modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of minimum required parking stalls from 111 to the proposed 105 parking stalls. There are approximately 42 trees located on site of which the applicant is proposing to retain a total of 34 trees. The site is located within a High Erosion Hazard area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. Moderate and protected slopes, which exceed a 40% grade, are also located on site. The steep slopes occupy most of the northeast portion of the site. The protected slopes make up an approximate 24,000 square foot area, representing 56% of the subject site. The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Variance, from RMC 4-3-100, in order to encroach into the protected critical slope by approximately 4,185 square feet. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material would be cut on site and approximately 5,000 cubic yards of fill is proposed to be brought into the site. Construction is anticipated to commence in Spring of 2015 and be completed by the end of 2016. Following construction is anticipated the impervious cover would be approximately 44%. Staff received a single public comment letter (Exhibit 10). To address public comments the following report contains analysis related to the transportation impacts and mitigation. Additional transportation analysis and findings may also be included in staffs Site Plan Review recommendation to the City's Hearing Examiner for the Site Plan Review (hearing tentatively scheduled for April 7, 2015). Non-SEPA concerns (speficially parking) raised in the public comment letter will be addressed as part of staffs recommendation to the City's Hearing Examiner and is not included in this report. I 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. ERCReport City of Renton Department of Communit•· 9 · Economic Development RENTON HAMPTON INN AND SUITES onmental Review Committee Report LUA14-0000 __ , SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A Report of March 16, 2015 Page 3 of 12 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 C. 1. The applicant shall provide an updated Geotechnical Report from Earth Solutions Northwest (ESNW) including a reevaluation and specific recommendations to address groundwater conditions related to excavation and permanent sub-slab drainage. The updated report shall be submitted to, and approved by the Plan Reviewer, prior to final engineering approval. The updated report may be subject to independent peer review at the discretion of the Plan Reviewer and at the expense of the applicant. 2. The applicant shall comply with all design recommendations included within the Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest, as revised/updated and approved by the Plan Reviewer as part of the Engineering Permit approval. 3. The applicant shall contract with a Geotechnical engineer in order to verify that the earthwork, foundation and other recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and engineering plan documents. Geotechnical monitoring services shall also be provided during construction covering inspections as recommended in the geotechnical report. 4. A prorated share of the traffic signal and roadway improvement costs (currently being constructed by SECO Development) shall be collected from the proposed project based upon the ratio of number of trips that will be added by the project to the number of future baseline trips at the Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance/Lake Washington Blvd N Intersection. Should SECO establish a street and utility Latecomers Agreement these funds could be used to reimburse the cost of these roadway improvements in the amount established by such an agreement. The fee will be based on (new PM peak hour trips)/ (total PM peak hour trips) x (cost of new signal and improvements). The fee shall be paid prior to final occupancy. 5. The applicant shall create a public outreach plan in coordination with City of Renton staff to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The public outreach plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 6. The applicant shall provide a surety device, in an amount sufficient, to provide pedestrian improvements between the site and the Lake Washington Blvd at Gene Coulon Park entrance /Houser Way intersection. The surety device shall be provided to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval and shall be held for two years from the date of receipt. If the pedestrian connection is constructed as part of the development of the abutting parcel to the south, the provided surety device will be released. If the pedestrian connection is not constructed prior to the termination of the two year period, the funds will be released to the City of Renton for the construction of the pedestrian connection. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 ERC Report Site Plan Landscape Plan Renderings Tree Removal Plan Drainage Report (May 1, 2015) Geotechnical Report (December 18, 2014) ERC Report City of Renton Department of Community :anomic Development Envi·-,mental Review Committee Report ..;.,R;;;EN.;.T;,.O;;,,;N.;.;,.H;,.A;..M_P_T,,,;O_N_J;..N_N_A_N_O_,;.S.;.U_IT_E.;,.S _____________ L_U_A_1_4_-o_o_o_o6 -M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A Report of March 16, 2015 Page 4 of 12 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Traffic Impact Analysis (dated June 4, 2014) Independent Peer Review -Transportation (August 5, 2014) Public Comment Letter: Christ Applicant Response to Christ Comment Letter Aerial Photo D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified ond addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Stoff reviewers hove identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant provided a geotechnical report, prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest (ESMW), on December 18, 2014 (Exhibit 7). Three borings and five test pits were done in order to observe subsurface conditions. Topsoil was observed in the upper 12 inches from existing grade. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of medium dense to dense silt, silty sand, poorly graded sand, and silty gravel with sand were encountered to a maximum exploration depth of 41.5 feet below grade. Shallow groundwater was observed at depths of 9 to 13 feet below existing grades and is likely to represent a locally perched condition. A deeper ground water condition was observed at depths of 23 to 25 feet below grade and likely represents the local ground water table. Based on the results of the geotechnical study the proposed facility could be supported by conventional spread and continuous footings. The site is located within a High Erosion Hazard area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. The site also contains areas of sensitive and protected percent slopes on site. The applicant is proposing the excavation of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of on-site material that would be removed from the site. Approximately, 5,000 cubic yards of structural fill would be imported. Excavated material may be used, if suitable, in compacted fills on site. Critical slopes on site represent approximately 24,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to encroach into 4,185 square feet of critical slope necessitating a critical area variance per RMC 4-3-100. In support of the requested variance the geotechnical report contained a slope reconnaissance across portions of the steep slope area. It was noted during the reconnaissance no signs of recent large scale erosion or slope instability were observed. However, there were signs of historic excavation activities including steep to near vertical reliefs. The report states that given the stability of the steep to near vertical reliefs (created by past grading activities) as wells as the subsurface conditions the sites soils exhibit good soil strength characteristics. It is anticipated that the proposed building's structural foundation wall elements would effectively improve to overall stability of the site. Given the relatively small impact (4,185 square feet) staff will likely be recommending approval of the proposed Critical Area Variance for encroachment into the critical slopes as part of the Site Plan recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. The analysis will be included in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. However, the geotechnical report mentions on several occasions that the proposed development would not encroach into steep slope areas. Given the relatively small impact the assumptions presented within the current geotechnical report regarding slope stability are expected to remain valid with revisions accounting for impacts to slopes. Staff will be recommending as a condition of Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Variance approval that a revised Geotechnical report be submitted prior to engineering permit approval noting proposed impacts to steeps slopes and any changes in recommendations accordingly. The geotech report would also be required to include information regarding the stability for soil infiltration, with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options. If infiltration is proposed, then falling head permeability rates are required to be provided. ERC Report City of Renton Department of Communit · " Economic Development RENTON HAMPTON INN AND SUITES Report of March 16, 2015 mmental Review Committee Report LUA14-0000~., SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A Page 5 of 12 It is also expected that below grade cuts would be to approximately 25 to 45 feet below grade. Given the location of the groundwater table, measures to collect and discharge groundwater from the proposed excavations is anticipated as well as permanent sub-slab drainage to mitigate groundwater conditions have been anticipated. However, the report recommends that measures/recommendations to address groundwater should be re-evaluated at the time of final construction design. Given the shallow groundwater table staff recommends as a mitigation measure the applicant provide an updated Geotechnical Report from Earth Solutions Northwest (ESNW) including a reevaluation and specific recommendations to address groundwater conditions related to excavation and permanent sub-slab drainage. The updated report shall be submitted to, and approved by the Plan Reviewer, prior to final engineering approval. The updated report may be subject to independent peer review at the discretion of the Plan Reviewer and at the expense of the applicant. Additionally, the geotechnical report includes specific recommendations for: site preparation, structural fill, excavation, retaining walls, foundations, slab- on-grade floors, drainage, and pavements. As such, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant shall comply with all design recommendations included within the Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest, as revised/updated and approved by the Plan Reviewer as part of the Engineering Permit approval. Additionally, due to the extensive recommendations and specifications for final design, staff recommends the applicant contract with a Geotechnical engineer in order to verify that the earthwork, foundation and other recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and engineering plan documents. Geotechnical monitoring services shall also be provided during construction covering inspections as recommended in the geotechnical report. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall provide an updated Geotechnical Report from Earth Solutions Northwest (ESNW) including a reevaluation and specific recommendations to address groundwater conditions related to excavation and permanent sub-slab drainage. The updated report shall be submitted to, and approved by the Plan Reviewer, prior to final engineering approval. The updated report may be subject to independent peer review at the discretion of the Plan Reviewer and at the expense of the applicant. 2. The applicant shall comply with all design recommendations included within the Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest, as revised/updated and approved by the Plan Reviewer as part of the Engineering Permit approval. 3. The applicant shall contract with a Geotechnical engineer in order to verify that the earthwork, foundation and other recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and engineering plan documents. Geotechnical monitoring services shall also be provided during construction covering inspections as recommended in the geotechnical report. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations and RMC 4-4-060, Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations 2. Air Impacts: It is anticipated that some temporary adverse air quality impacts could be associated with site work and building construction required to develop this property. Project development impacts during construction may include dust resulting from grading, exhaust from construction vehicles and odors from roofing installation. Dust would be controlled through the use of temporary erosion control measures and sprinkling of the site with water as needed. Nor further site specific mitigation for the identified impacts from exhaust is required. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Nexus: N/A 3. Water ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community :anomic Development Env ··nmenta/ Review Committee Report RENTON HAMPTON INN AND SUITES WA14-00006 ,-M, SA·H, fCF, MOD, MOD, VA-A ------------------------------Report of March 16, 2015 Page 6 of 12 a. Storm Water Impacts: The site is located within the Lake Washington Drainage basin. Runoff from the site currently drains to the southwest of the project site and then travels along Lake Washington Blvd N. The drainage then continues to travel south and crosses the railroad tracks and then continues south underneath the roadway via a 12-inch culvert. The drainage then travels southwest along Lake Washington Blvd in a roadside ditch until it travels underneath Lake Washington Blvd via four separate culverts (two 54-inch and two 48-inch culverts). The flows then head north via roadside ditches and several culverts eventually discharging directly into Lake Washington. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted with the site plan application, prepared by Insight Engineering Co., dated December 19, 2015 (Exhibit 6). The report addresses compliance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The applicant has indicated that there is a lack of downstream conveyance and there is theoretical 100-year flooding at the box culvert that discharges into Lake Washington. As a result, the proposal includes a tight lined connection to a 15-inch pipe underneath Lake Washington Blvd north of the project site. The report indicates the proposal is exempt from water quality requirements as the total pollution generating surfaces is 3,982 square feet which is less than the 5,000 square foot threshold. While City staff concurs with the stated water quality exemption the proposed storm water system layout is not acceptable to City staff. The proposed discharge location is not the natural discharge location and as a result Core Requirement No.1 would not be met. Additionally, the proposed stormwater connection to an existing City Parks drainage system is not supported by the City's Parks Department and may also be subject to review by BNSF depending on the location of the connection. Therefore, staff will be recommending, as a condition of Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval, the applicant submit a revised Drainage Report and Plan in compliance with Core Requirement No. 1. Specifically, the applicant would be required to redesign the discharge of stormwater from the subject site to the natural discharge location to the south. The revised plan would be required to include stormwater conveyance along the entire frontage along Lake Washington Blvd extending southward to connect with the existing storm water pipe at the Lake Washington Blvd N/Houser Way intersection. The revised report shall also include a detailed description demonstrating compliance with the Direct Discharge exemption criteria per the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual. Finally, the revised report would be required to include a downstream capacity analysis (existing and future land use conditions) for the natural discharge direction. A detention vault or downstream capacity improvements would be required if the downstream quantitative analysis reveals downstream capacity is not adequate and/or the Direct Discharge exemption criteria is not met. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Nexus:N/A 4. Vegetation Impacts: The site is currently developed with a small building and an asphalt drive aisle. The remainder of the site exists as a combination of grassy and forested areas. There are 42 trees located on site consisting of the following species: alder, cottonwood, fir, and maple. Per RMC4-4·130 the applicant is required to retain 10 percent of the trees on site. The applicant is proposing to retain 34 trees on site thereby complying with the tree retention requirements of the code. The applicant will also be required to comply with the landscaping requirements outlined in RMC 4·4-070. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Nexus:N/A 5. Transportation ERCReport City of Renton Department of Communitv O Economic Development RENTON HAMPTON INN AND SUITES Report of March 16, 2015 onmental Review Committee Report LUA14-00Q ___ , SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A Page 7 of 12 Impacts: Access to the site is proposed via a single curb cut from Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultant, dated October, 2013 as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. Before the independent review could be completed the City received a submitted a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants, dated June 4, 2014 (Exhibit 8) to reflect revisions to the scope of the proposed project. On August 5, 2014, an independent peer review of the provided June 4, 2014 TIA was provided to to the City by Perteet (Exhibit 9). Applicable comments from the independent reviewer are provided below for each Transportation subject. City staff reviewed the provided TIA (Exhibit 8) and found it met the intent of the TIA guidelines and is generally acceptable for preliminary review with recommendations for minor revisions which are not anticipated to change the likelihood of significant adverse impacts (see narrative below). The independent peer review conducted by Perteet (Exhibit 9) also found that the study generally met the TIA guidelines with the need for some minor revisions/updates. Temporary Impacts Given the concentration of potential development to occur in the immediate vicinity of the project site (Southport, Residence Inn, Gene Coulon Park, etc.) within the same construction time frame, staff anticipates that the proposed project would contribute to short term impacts to the City's street system. Temporary adverse transportation impacts are primarily associated with site work and the import to and export of large quantities of soils onsite. The applicant has proposed construction mitigation through the limitation of construction hours stipulated in Renton Municipal Code. Additionally with a proximity to lnterstate-405, construction materials will be brought directly to the site with limited construction activity to the east. However, additional public outreach would assist in improving driver and worker safety, lessen traffic delays, and reduce driver frustration anticipated due to the concentration of proposed development in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant create a public outreach plan in coordination with City of Renton to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The public outreach plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Level of Service It is anticipated that the proposed development is anticipated to generate approximately 1,021 average daily trips with 66 AM peak-hour trips and 75 PM peak-hour trips. Approximately 55% of the development's trips will travel along 1-405 (35% to and from the south and 20% to and from the north); 25% of the development's trips are anticipated to travel to and from the west (10% to and from local areas and 15% along Logan Ave N); and 15% would travel to and from the east along NE Park Drive. The remaining 5% of the development's trips would travel to and from the north along Lake Washington Blvd N. The provide TIA does not specifically identify the study area boundaries, but provides analysis at two locations (Exhibit 8): Intersection 1: Lake Washington Blvd N at Gene Coulon Park entrance/Houser Way Intersection 2: Lake Washington Blvd N at Site Access The provided analysis notes that the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd N at Gene Coulon Park entrance/Houser Way will operate at deficient LOS F with the conservatively high Southport Development volumes, regardless of whether the subject project is constructed. It is important to note that the actual ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community ·anomic Development Env'·-nmental Review Committee Report RENTON HAMPTON INN AND SUITES WA14-00006 ,·M, SA·H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A ------------------------------Report of March 16, 2015 Page 8 of 12 impacts of the Southport Development are anticipated to be lower and the intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS E or better with the actual reduced impacts of the Southport Development. The analysis has been performed for the horizon year of 2015 based on a former timeline of the project. Staff will be recommending as a condition of Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval, the applicant revise the transportation study prior to engineering permit approval to change the horizon year to the year that the project will be constructed (currently proposed for 2016). The following pipeline projects were also considered when looking at levels of service: Hawk's Landing -Hotel development; Quendall Terminals - Residential and commercial development; and Southport Development -Residential and commercial development. The analysis for the Quendall Terminals and Southport developments both included multiple development scenarios. The highest trip generating scenario, which resulted in the highest impacts to the study intersections, were included for both developments. However, a detailed table should be included in the report that identifies the pipeline projects, the size of each project, and the number of trips generated by each project used in the analysis. Staff will be recommending, a condition to the Hearing Examiner for Site Plan Review approval, a revision of the TIA, prior to engineering permit approval, to include a detailed table for each pipeline project used in the analysis. Comments were received regarding the need for LOS analysis at additional intersections not included in the provided TIA given the number of trips at each intersection (Exhibit 10). While the number of trips were used to determine the need for a traffic study (20 peak hour trips), specific percentage increases in trips are used to determine the need to analyze a specific intersection. More specifically the TIA guidelines require that intersections which experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of a proposed development are to be studied. The Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance/Lake Washington Blvd N intersection was the single intersection which met this threshold. The intersection at 441h and Lake Washington Blvd N would not meet the 5% criteria and therefore would not be required to be analyzed. As for the request to analyze the Houser Way conversion intersection, the City has independently studied the two-way conversion of Houser Way. The study concluded that converting Houser Way to a two-way street would provide an alternative route for traffic to continue northbound on Lake Washington Blvd N, continue through the intersection to Coulon Park and Southport, and continue southbound on Lake Washington Blvd N. This improvement could potentially improve the level of service of the overall Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance/Lake Washington Blvd N intersection. As a result, the applicant's analysis without the two-way Houser Way project is considered a more conservative (worse case) scenario and is sufficient for review in determining probable significant impacts. Concerns were raised regarding the methods for the collection of transportation data, within the provided TIA, in the submitted public comment letter (Exhibit 10). It should be noted that the analysis performed by the applicant is on data collected in August 2013, which represents summer conditions and the influence of seasonal visitors and boat traffic. However, the TIA does not present AM peak directional volumes. Likewise the analysis adequately presents the turning movements at the two study area intersections analyzed for the PM peak hour, but no data for the AM peak. Therefore, staff will be recommending as a condition of Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval the requirement for a revision of the TIA to include a discussion of the AM peak hour trips and/or a justification for the exclusion of the AM peak hour trips from the analysis. The TIA identifies no specific mitigation requirement for site development other than full frontage improvements and appropriate transportation impact mitigation fees. Included in the public comment letter is a concern that the proposed development is not paying for its fair share of costs for Lake Washington Blvd N/Gene Coulon Park/Houser Way intersection improvements being completed as part of the Southport development (Exhibit 10). While the proposed development is not expected to impact the Level of Service of the intersection additional trips would be generated by the proposed development which would impact the intersection. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring that a prorated share of the traffic signal and roadway improvement costs (currently being constructed by SECO Development) shall be collected from the proposed project based upon the ratio of number of trips that will be added by the project to the number of future baseline trips at the ERCReport City of Renton Deportment of Community 9 · Economic Development RENTON HAMPTON INN ANO SUITES Report of March 16, 2015 E LUA14-0000 nmentol Review Committee Report 'A-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A Page 9 of 12 Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance/Lake Washington Blvd N Intersection. Should SECO establish a street and utility Latecomers Agreement these funds could be used to reimburse the cost of these roadway improvements in the amount established by such an agreement. The fee will be based on (new PM peak hour trips)/ (total PM peak hour trips) x (cost of new signal and improvements). The fee shall be paid prior to final occupancy .. Increased traffic created by the development on the remainder of the transportation system would be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Currently this fee is assessed at $1,512.77 per room (estimated $158,840.85 for 105 hotel rooms). The fee is expected to increase in 2016 and is determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit issuance. Frontage Improvements: All frontage roads are required to meet street standards pursuant to RMC 4-6-060. The applicant is requesting a street modification, from RMC 4-6-060, in order to modify the requirement for required right- of-way dedications along Lake Washington Blvd N. The existing Lake Washington Blvd N right-of-way is approximately 60 feet. Pursuant to RMC 4-6-060 the required right-of-way width is 83 feet necessitating an 11.5-foot dedication along the frontage of the subject site. This would allow for 26 foot of pavement, 5-foot sidewalk, 8-foot landscape planter strip, 0.5 foot curb on the south side of the street. The modification request for Lake Washington Blvd N is being made in order to match the City's Transportation Department's plans for Lake Washington Blvd N at this location which includes a half street paved width of approximately 17 feet from the roadway centerline (to match with the existing curb north of the site), 0.5-foot wide curbs, 8-foot wide landscaped planters, 8-foot wide sidewalks, and 1-foot clear space behind the sidewalk. As part of the Site Plan recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, staff will likely be recommending approval of the proposed Lake Washington Blvd street modification. The analysis will be included in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner. The approval will likely include a condition of approval requiring a revision of the right-of-way dedication from 2.5 feet to a width of 4.5 feet along Lake Washington Blvd N. Pedestrian Improvements: The TIA provides a narrative of the existing area pedestrian and bicycle facilities (existing bike lanes on both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard, existing contiguous sidewalk to the north but none to the south of the project). As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along frontage of the site in order to connect to the existing sidewalk system to the north. The local roadway network is complex with multiple intersections in a small area, one-way segments, horizontal curves and significant intermittent rail impact. There is no accessible corridor for pedestrian movement in the project area. The TIA does note the lack of pedestrian facilities between the site and the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd N at Gene Coulon Park entrance/Houser Way intersection. Therefore staff recommends, as a mitigation measure,! he applicant provide a surety device, in an amount sufficient, to provide pedestrian improvements between the site and the Lake Washington Blvd at Gene Coulon Park entrance /Houser Way. The surety device shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval and shall be held for two years from the date of receipt. If the pedestrian connection is constructed as part of the development of the abutting parcel to the south the provided surety device will be released. If the pedestrian connection is not constructed prior to the termination of the two year period the funds will be released to the City of Renton for the construction of the pedestrian connection. Concurrency: A concurrency recommendation will be provided in the staff report to Hearing Examiner based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS- tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation. The development will have to meet the City of Renton concurrency requirements. Mitigation Measures: ERCRepon City of Renton Department of Communit conomic Development Environmental Review Committee Report RENTON HAMPTON INN AND SUITES LUA14-0000 A-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A ------------------------------Report of March 16, 2015 Page 10 of 12 1. A prorated share of the traffic signal and roadway improvement costs (currently being constructed by SECO Development) shall be collected from the proposed project based upon the ratio of number of trips that will be added by the project to the number of future baseline trips at the Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance/Lake Washington Blvd N Intersection. Should SECO establish a street and utility Latecomers Agreement these funds could be used to reimburse the cost of these roadway improvements in the amount established by such an agreement. The fee will be based on (new PM peak hour trips)/ (total PM peak hour trips) x (cost of new signal and improvements). The fee shall be paid prior to final occupancy. 2. The applicant shall create a public outreach plan in coordination with City of Renton to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The public outreach plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 3. The applicant shall provide a surety device, in an amount sufficient, to provide pedestrian improvements between the site and the Lake Washington Blvd at Gene Coulon Park entrance /Houser Way intersection. The surety device shall be provided to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval and shall be held for two years from the date of receipt. If the pedestrian connection is constructed as part of the development of the abutting parcel to the south the provided surety device will be released. If the pedestrian connection is not constructed prior to the termination of the two year period the funds will be released to the City of Renton for the construction of the pedestrian connection. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations and RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards 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." v" 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, April 3, 2015. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B 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 infarmatian 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 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Water: 1. The preliminary fire flow demand for the development as determined by the Fire Prevention Department is 2,500 gpm. 2. The site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 2. 3. There is an existing 12" DI water main (320 hydraulic zone) located in Lake Washington Blvd N. 4. Fire hydrant as required by the fire department must be provided by the project. ERC Report City of Renton Department of Communit" 9 -Economic Development RENTON HAMPTON INN AND SUITES F ,nmental Review Committee Report WA14-000c--, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A Report of March 16, 2015 Page 11 of 12 5. Installation of back flow prevention assemblies (DDCVA's) in vaults for the fire sprinkler system is required. The DDCVA shall be located outside of the buildings. 6. Installation of a domestic water meter. Meter sizing shall conform to the Uniform Plumbing code criteria. Meters larger than 2-inch shall be installed in an exterior concrete vault per City standard plan No. 320.4. 7. A Reduced Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind the domestic water meter. The RPBA's shall be installed in an above-ground "Hot-Box" per City standard plan No. 350.2. 8. Installation of private pressure reducing valves (PRV's) as required by the plumbing code for water supply pressure above 80 psi. 9. A separate landscape irrigation meter and double check valve is shown in the plans. 10. The development is subject to applicable water system development charges based on the number and size of the meters required. The charges will be based on the fee at that is applicable at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit. 11. Civil plans for the water main improvements will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. Sewer: 1. There is an existing 8" PVC sanitary sewer main in Lake Washington Blvd N. See City of Renton drawing S-3220. The existing sewer main should be shown clearly on the plans submitted in the utility construction permit stage. 2. Any use in the building (kitchen, restaurant) involving the handling of grease requires installation of a properly sized grease interceptor. 3. The project proposes an indoor pool; the pool will need to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. 4. Parking garage drains needs to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. 5. System development charges (SDC) fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the project. Fee that is current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project. Drainage: 1. A Construction Stormwater Permit from Department of Ecology is required. A SSWP plan with recommendations for erosion control will be required to be submitted to Department of Ecology. 2. No driveway slope shall exceed 8%. Driveways exceeding 8%, but not greater than 15% grade, are subject to City approval. Applicant shall submit a request in writing justifying the request. Driveways exceeding 15% requires application to the City for a variance of City code. 3. Surface water system development fees will be based on the square footage of the new impervious surface area 4. Stormwater flow control BM P's are applicable on the project. Fire: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2,500 gpm. A minimum of three fire hydrants are required. One within 150 feet and two within 300 feet of the building. It appears adequate fire flow is available in the area. Hydrants are required within SO feet of all fire department connections for standpipes and sprinkler systems. Existing hydrants may be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code, some of the existing hydrants do and some do not. 2. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout the buildings. Dry standpipes are required in all stairways. Direct outside access is required to the flre sprinkler riser rooms. Fire alarm systems are required to be fully addressable and full detection is required. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150 feet of all points on the buildings. Fire access roads are required to be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed width with turning radius of 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside minimum. Fire lane signage required for the onsite roadways. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30 ton vehicle and 322 psi point loading. Dead end access roadways exceeding 150 feet will require an approved turnaround. 4. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre fire planning purposes. 5. Separate plans and permits are required for any fuel tanks associated with the proposed emergency generator. 6. All buildings equipped with an elevator in the City of Renton are required to have at least one elevator meet the size requirements for a bariatric size stretcher. Car size shall accommodate a minimum of a 40 inch by 84 inch stretcher. 7. The building shall comply with the City of Renton Emergency Radio Coverage ordinance. Testing shall verify both incoming and outgoing minimum emergency radio signal coverage. If inadequate, the building shall be enhanced with amplification equipment in order to meet minimum coverage. Separate plans and permits are required for any proposed amplification systems. Transportation: 1. City street lighting based on City standards are required to be provided by the project on the frontage. ERCReport City of Renton Department of Community · :anomic Development Env·-·nmental Review Committee Report RENTON HAMPTON INN AND SUITES LUAl4-00006 1-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A --------------------------------Report of March 16, 2015 Page 12 of 12 ERCReport EXHIBITS Project Name: Project Number: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A Date of Decision 3/16/15 Staff Contact Rocale Timmons Project Contact/Applicant Scott Clark, Clark Design Group Project Location 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 ERC Report Site Plan Landscape Plan Renderings Tree Removal Plan Drainage Report (May 1, 2015) Geotechnical Report (December 18, 2014) Traffic Impact Analysis (dated June 4, 2014) Independent Peer Review -Transportation (August 5, 2014) Public Comment Letter: Christ Applicant Response to Christ Comment Letter Aerial Photo 9S086 '<IM "NC'INJ<J Hll:ION Ql:l'o'l8ln0B NO.l '<IM 3~Vl OOCl ' • ,,,.---' z :5 a. I" in '', J' N t:; m t-1 :c >< w Hampton inn & Suites -Renton l '.3C{) i iJrZC' 'ihsh 1[!'.~-:ir· B:vc Nor:·1 Land Use Application -Supplemental Package 22 December /014 Entire Document Available Upon Request ~--!1111~-~~ EXHIBIT 4 / '\"' ,- /f:{C'" r:l~,1-;;c/ ·) ·_i . _:·r ,,. ··-:1 • I ~-µ1-__ ---·, '. ' ' ~ .i "~ ' - " C I, I l ! • f I 1! I ll ; I I ' . ( { / Entire Document Available Upon Request TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT For LEGACY RENTON Prepa1·ed for City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Project Site Location: 1300 Lake Washington Boulevard N. Applicant: Legacy lfospitality, Inc. 6501 America's Parkway NE -Suite 1050 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Contact: F azel Kassam Ph. (505)243-6000 Renton, WA 98056 Taxld: 3344500007 File#: __ _ !ECO Project: 13-0623 Contact: !ECO P.O. Box 1478 Everett, WA 98206 425-303-9363 Certified Erosion and Sedimentation Control Lead: To be named by contractor Stormwater Site Plan Prepared By: Jacob D. Mealey, E.!.T. l!R Preparation Date: December 19, 2014 Approximate Construction Date: May I, 2015 PO Box 1478 • Everett. WA 98206 • P 425 303.9363 F: 425.303.9362 • info@ins1ghteng,11eenng net EXHIBIT 6 Earth Solutions NWLLC Geotcchnical Engineering Geology Environmental Scientists Construction Monitoring EXHIBIT 7 .•. , '" Entire Document ,vailable Upon Request UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY HAMPTON INN & SUITES PROPOSED HOTEL FACILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2553.03 GTC Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2802 Wetmore Avenue Suite 220 Everett, WA 98201 425.339.8266 EXHIBIT 8 Entire Document Available Upon Request Renton Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis Jurisdiction: City of Renton June 2014 GTC #12-163 Entire D 1ment Available Upvn Request DRAFT Peer Review Report For 'tj 'erteet Renton Hotel (aka Renton Hampton Hotel) -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: July 2014 Overview The City of Renton has retained Perteet, Inc. to conduct a peer review of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of the proposed construction of a new hotel, referenced in the TIA as the "Renton Hotel," and otherwise identified as "Renton Hampton Hotel." Perteet has reviewed the TIA, visited the project area, and reviewed available area traffic operations data. This DRAFT Report is an initial identification of issues, intended to better focus the development of a Final Peer Review Report. At the time of this DRAFT Report, Perteet has not yet met with city staff to discuss findings or assumptions contained in this draft peer review report. To produce a final report and recommendations, Perteet will meet with the City and resolve some initial review concerns with the TIA, detailed within the DRAFT report comments below. There are some missing aspects of the TIA relative to the city's TIA Policy Guidelines which might be excused with staff sanction, or otherwise require significant changes to the TIA. Concerns include: • The area of project impact • The time frames of impact analysis • The necessity of additional traffic operational data (i.e.: accident data, AM peak data, non- motorized facility plans) • Trip distribution • Identification of the appropriate pipeline development project aspects • Roadway network facility assumptions at study time scenarios This DRAFT report organizes comments in a format following the sections of the City of Renton "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development" (attached). Comment 1: A TIA for the "Renton Hotel (aka Renton Hampton Hotel)" is warranted Policy guidelines identify that a TIA is required when generation exceeds 20 vehicles in either AM or PM peak {or 200 ADT). A TIA is warranted per City policy as the proposed development would generate 66 new AM peak hour trips, 75 new PM peak hour trips, and a daily trip generation of 1,021 trips per the draft TIA. The TIA utilizes methodology in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, and with LOS analysis utilizing Synchro 8 software -satisfying the City's requirement to use a commonly accepted method. The TIA also satisfies the policy that a registered professional engineer with adequate experience prepares the TIA for the developer. Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 20: EXHIBIT 9 EXHIBIT 10 M. Christ 1083 Lake Washington Blvd. N Suite 50 Renton WA 980'o6 Dear Rocale: I have just reviewed the traffic study as provided by the applicant -the Renton Hotel being considered at (Hampton Inn) 1300 Lake Washington Blvd .N. The date of the tratfic Impact Analysis is October 2013 by Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. The Hampton Inns project must be looked at in a traffic analysis which considers its impact on the entire area. The traffic study analysis only looked at two intersections: the intersection at Lake Washington Blvd. N and the Southport /Gene Coulon Park entrance, which is being funded by Southport; and the entrance to the subject site. The study area and study intersections need to be expanded to be consistent with City TIA Guidelines which require LOS evaluation of intersections impacted by 20 or more peak hour trips. The TIA has an insufficient description of existing transportation system in the study area and does not consider summer conditions at the LWB/Houser/Coulon intersection given the proximity and access for Gene Coulon Park and the influence of visitor and boat traffic from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The applicant's hotel project needs to be understood in terms of its impact on morning and evening peak hour traffic and reflect the impact on visitors, workers and residents which are coming in and out of the surrounding neighborhood, including the Southport site, to make sure affected intersections do not get degraded, and to allow for Southport operations to run smoothly. The Southport EIS transportation analysis and subsequent traffic studies for the area were required to include the factors discussed above; the Hampton Inns project should be held to the same standard. Two nearby intersections not included in the applicant's traffic study are perfect examples of why the scope of the study should be expanded. According to the Dec 2014 staff presentation to the city council, the intersection at 44'" and Lake Washington Blvd N. will be of issue, yet it was not part of the Hampton Inns analysis. In addition the potential two-way conversion of Houser Way currently is in the city's 6-Year TIP, so the intersection at Houser Way, Gene Coulon Park/Southport and Lake Washington Blvd should be analyzed. It is immediately adjacent to the subject site and is an important aspect of circulation in this area. The Stoneway concrete plant on Houser had certain conditions which enabled ,t to be placed near this proposed hotel. The impact/influence of other projects identified in the TIP also should be included in the analysis. The Lake Washington Blvd N and the Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance intersection is being improved as part of the final phase of Southport, yet the traffic study for the Hampton Inns did not adequately address the impact of the applicant's hotel development on this intersection -100% of all the cars arriving at the applicant's hotel site both from the north and the south will be utilizing Lake Washington Blvd N. The traffic analysis also inust include projects planned and in various stages of permitting to be realistic ;rnd 1alid. The study looked at Southport "to be built" or "not built" alternatives; in tact Southport has lieen under construction Jlld development since 2001, with two phases of ,nultifamily housing completed, a hotel under construction since October 2014, the office site actively proceeding, and ni;rny of the utilities and rorld improvement) undr.-r construction or completed. rhe traffic studv should include full build out ot Southport as an approved pipeline prnjecl. Tile traftic analysis must also look at the effect of this proposal on Southport's 1 queuing Jt intersections within its traffic models. Other approved oipeline developments such as Hawks Landing and Port Quendall need to be included in the background traffic conditions. The future redevelopment of the Puget Power site also should be included in the analysis. The city needs to make sure that the project will not create unacceptable delays on area streets and intersections, and if it does, that adequate mitigations are required. Southport is spending what will be millions of dollars towards the traffic improvements on Lake Washington Blvd N. and the entrance to Gene Coulon Park to both allow for the Full huild out of Southport and to improve the overall traffic circulation in this area. Southport's offsite traffic mitigations were predicated on a full 10 intersection study which allows for a tolerable access and egress movement for the full build out. Other projects also should be required to study their impacts on the overall traffic circulation in the area and mitigate their impacts. Finally, the applicant is seeking a modification of the city's parking standards to reduce the number of parking spaces required for a hotel. If approved, the reduction will create a burden on Gene Coulon Park and other properties in the area. The Park is absolutely full during the summer, which coexists with the peak hotel demand period. There is no other use within tl1e site to provide shared parking and there currently is no public transportation near the site. In short, automobiles will be the means by which hotel guests and employees arrive and depart the hotel. The property owners to the North on Lake Washington Blvd are the most expensive in the Renton market, and those residents pay some of the highest property taxes on residential horn es in Renton. When Southport was planned we reached out to that community to achieve an end result that was desirable and acceptable. The Hampton Inns traffic study should be re1ected and a traffic study prepared that meets the same requirements imposed on other traffic studies for this area in order to protect citizens' use of Gene Coulon Park, minimize impacts on area residents, and assure that the city 1 s overall transportation system functions pcoperly. Sincerely, Michael Christ GTC Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. To: From: Subject: Date: Project: MEMORANDUM Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Brad Lincoln, PE ~ Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) -Comment Response March 2, 2015 GTC #12-163 ' j Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. (GTC) has been retained to provide a response to comment regarding the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) traffic impact analysis by Michael Christ. The background of the traffic analysis for the development and responses to Mr. Christ's comments are included in this memorandum. 1. Background The initial traffic impact analysis was completed in October 2013 and a revised report, based on comments by City of Renton staff, was completed in December 2013. Subsequently, a peer review was performed by Perteet, Inc. on a revised report dated June 2014. The peer review found that the analysis included in the June 2014 analysis adequately satisfied the requirements outlined in the City of Renton "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for new Development." The peer review did identify that pedestrian facilities should be provided between the site and the Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way intersection. 2. Comment Response The traffic analysis completed for the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development was initially scoped with City of Renton staff to determine the intersections that would be analysis, the timeframe for analysis and the pipeline developments to be included. During this process it was determined that the following intersections would be analyzed: 1. Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beack/Houser Way 2. Lake Washington Boulevard at Site Access These intersections were analyzed since they are the only ones that were anticipated to meet the threshold of the development trips representing 5% of the total intersection volume. The weekday PM peak-hour was identified for the analysis since this is when the development generated the highest number of trips. Intersections north of the site are anticipated to be impacted with less than 5 total PM peak-hour trips and intersections south of Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way are not anticipated to meet the 5% threshold of total intersection volume. The following developments were included as pipeline trips: EXHIBIT 11 802 Wetmore Avenue· Suite 220 · Everett WA, 98201 39-8266 · Fax: 425-258-2922 · E-mail: info@gibsontraffic.com Legacy Renton (Hamption Inn) Comment Response • Southport Development • Hawk's Landing • Quendall Terminals The analysis was performed based on data collected in August 2013, which represents the summer conditions. The analysis was performed without and with additional development in the Southport area since it was not known at that time if the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development would occur before or after additional development in the Southport area. The analysis showed that the development would not cause either of the study intersections to operate at an unacceptable level. The peer review included a thorough review of the traffic impact analysis and found that the analysis sufficiently identifies the impacts of the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development and meets the requirements of the City of Renton. Additionally, a parking study was performed for the development. The parking analysis was performed using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data. The analysis shows that the proposed supply of 1 parking space per room is approximately 57% higher than what is anticipated ,y · 6 ,i1~ ITE data. The proposed parking supply is therefore anticipated to sufficiently serve the development. 3. Conclusion TJie Ill <Jrity of the comments included in Mr. Christ's comments were addressed in the traffic impact analysis and were subsequently evaluated as part of the peer review. The City of Renton and peer review identified that the traffic analysis for the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development is appropriate and that additional analysis is not required. The comments include a comparison of the analysis for the Southport development and the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) developments. This is not appropriate since the analysis included in the Southport EIS is for a development generating more than 10-times as many trips as the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development. The analysis for the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) report will therefore be much smaller in scope than the analysis completed for the Southport development. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 2 March 2015 GTC #12-163 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: April 6, 2015 To: City Clerk's Office From: Sabrina Mirante Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office Project Name: LUA (file) Number: Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Acceptance Date: Applicant: Owner: Contact: I PIO Number: ERC Determination: Administrative Decision: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites LUA-14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Rocale Timmons January 29, 2014 Scott Clark, Clark Design Group Faizel Kassam Scott Clark 3344500007 DNS-M April 7, 2015 Date: March 16, 2015 Anneal Period Ends: Aoril 3, 2015 Date: Anneal Period Ends: Date: Anneal Period Ends: ' I I t I ' ' ' ' ! Date Appealed to Council: I I By Whom: I I Council Decision: Date: 'I I Mylar Recording Number: '. I Project Description: In January 2014 the applicant requested Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan I Review, Environmental Review, an Exception through Modification, and a Variance in order to! construct a 125 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The project has been revised and j the applicant is now requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, j a Front Yard Setback Variance, a Critical Area Variance, and a Parking Modification in order to ! 1 construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on I 1 the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way Nat 1300 Lake Washington Blvd I . N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -! 2 (UC-N2) zone and Design District 'C'. The proposed hotel would be approximately 5 stories in I height. A total of 105 parking stalls would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site f contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and II·,· a moderate landslide hazard area. There is no construction proposed within critical areas. The a licant is re uestin a variance from RMC 4-2-120C to increase the maximum front ard setback! from 5 to no more than 2: ,t. Another variance from RMC 4-3-is being requested in order to ·1 develop within portions of a protected slope (approx. 4,185 SF). ~ystly, the applicant is requesting · . a modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 115 · to 105 stalls. Location: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N Comments: See attached ERC Determination Types: DNS -Determination of Non-Significance; DNS-M -Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated; DS -Determination of Significance. PLAN REVIEW COMMENTf. -JA14-000061 Application Date: January 17, 2014 Name: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites of Site Address: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056-2511 ' Plan -Planning Review Version 1 I January 08, 2015 ... Community Services Review Comments Leslie Betlach \ 425-430-6619 f LBetlach@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: 1. Site slope and slope stability in this area is a concern as it relates to this design and the proposed art. Increased water run off into Coulon Park and sedimentation and water quality is a concern. Increase in park users and park capacity is a concern. Need bicycle connectivity on east side of Blvd. Increased shading is a concern. Traffic flow is a concern. Recommendations: 2. Orientation and architectural features of Building are nondescript. .·· Engineering Review Comments Rohini Nair I 425-430-7298 I rnair@renlonwa.gov Please provide the following corrections resubmit comments: 1. Fire reviewer has mentioned a need for a fire flow of 3,000 gpm. Fire flow greater than 2,500 gpm requires a looped water main around the building. Therefore, provide the looped water line around the building and show it in the utility plan sheet. This information was provided in the comments provided by the City during the preapplication stage. 2. The proposed building size and layout cannot be approved because it does not provide adequate spacing for utilities (looped 1 O" diameter water main) and the utilities easement (15' water main easement) around the proposed hotel and parking structures. The building footprint will have to be resized and plans will have to be resubmitted for review. The water easement area around the building must be accessible for maintenance purposes. 3. Lake Washington Blvd North is a collector street and as per RMC 4 6 060, the right of way (ROW) required on a two lane collector is 83 feet. The existing ROW as per the assessor map is 60 feet. Transportation section has plans for the corridor including a half street paved width of approximately 17 feet from the roadway centerline (to match with the existing curb north of the site), 0.5 feet wide curbs, 8 feet wide landscaped planters, 8 feet wide sidewalks, and 1 feet clear space behind the sidewalk. A street modification request must be submitted for the ROW and the parking lanes. 4. Provide a cross section of Lake Washington Blvd north with the ROW and the street frontage elements. Right of way dedication will be applicable if the combined width of the street frontage elements exceed the existing right of way width. Show and label the widths clearly. Show the information correctly in the road plan sheet. 5. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout the buildings per the City of Renton Fire Marshal. 6. Any use in the building (kitchen, restaurant) involving the handling of grease requires installation of a properly sized grease interceptor. Please provide information regarding this. 7. If the project proposes an indoor pool; the pool will need to be connected to the sanitary sewer per the UPC. Please provide information if there will be a pool. 8. The covered parking garage needs to be tied to the sanitary sewer. If there is open parking level on the top floor of the garage. then that floor has to be connected to storm drain. 9. The traffic study and impact fee review is not done because the paper coov submittal of the revised traffic study has not been obtained . . Fire Review -Building Comments Corey Thomas \ 425-430-7024 I cthomas@rentonwa.gov Ran: April 06, 2015 Page 1 of 12 PLAN REVIEW COMMEN LUA 14-000061 of Plan -Planning Review Version 1 January 08, 201 i Fire Review -auilding Comments Corey Thomas[ 425-430-7024 I cthomas@rantonwa.ge Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. Fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of commercial space. No charge for covered parking area. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 3,000 gpm. A minimum of three fire hydrants are required. One within 150 feet and two within 300 feet of the building. It appears adequate fire flow is available in the area. Fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm requires a looped fire main around the building. Hydrants shall be equally spaced around the complex at a maximum spacing of 300 feet. Hydrants are required within 50 feet of all fire department connections for standpipes and sprinkler systems. Existing hydrants may be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code, some of the existing hydrants do and some do not. 2. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout the buildings. Dry standpipes are required in all stairways. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fire alarm systems are required to be fully addressable and full detection is required. Separate plans and permits required by the fire dep<1rtment. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150 feet of all points on the buildings. Fire access roads are required to be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed width with turning radius of 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside minimum. Fire lane signage required for the onsite roadways. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30 ton vehicle and 322 psi point loading. Dead end access roadways exceeding 150 feet will require an approved turnaround. 4. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre fire planning purposes. 5. Separate plans and permits are required for any fuel tanks associated with the proposed emergency generator. 6. All buildings equipped with an elevator in the City of Renton are required to have at least one elevator meet the size requirements for a bariatric size stretcher. Car size shall accommodate a minimum of a 40 inch by 84 inch stretcher. Police Review Comments Cyndie Parks I 425-430-7521 I cparks@rentonwa.ge Ran: April 06, 2015 Page 2 of 1, PLAN REVIEW COMMENTf. "JA14-000061 Plan -Planning Review Police Review Comments Recommendations: 62 Police Calls for Service Estimated Annually CONSTRUCTION PHASE of / Version 1 I January 08, 2015 Cyndie Parks j 425-430-7521 I cparks@renlonwa.gov Theft from construction sites is one of the most commonly reported crimes in the City. To protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up when not in use. The site should have security lighting, and any construction or storage trailers should be completely fenced in with portable chain link fencing. The fence will provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective criminal and will demonstrate that the area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept locked when not in use, and should be fitted with heavy duty deadbolts with a minimum 1 1/2" throw when bolted. Any construction material that contains copper should be removed from the construction site at the end of each working day. Glass windows in construction trailers should be shatter resistant. Toolboxes and storage containers should be secured with heavy duty padlocks and kept locked when not in use. "No Trespassing" signs should be posted on the property during the construction phase. These signs allow officers, upon contact. to provide a verbal warning to trespassers that should they be contacted on the property again, they could be cited and/or arrested. COMPLETED COMPLEX All exterior doors (to include the structured garage) should be made of solid metal or metal over wood, with heavy duty deadbolt locks, latch guards or pry resistant cylinders around the locks, and peepholes. All stnkeplates should have 2 1 /2 to 3" wood screws. If glass doors are used, they should be fitted with the hardware described above and additionally be fitted with a layer of security film. Security film can increase the strength of the glass by up to 300%, greatly reducing the likelihood of breaking glass to gain entry. Access to the back of the buildings should be limited, preferably with security fencing or gates, as these areas could be vulnerable to crime due to the lack of natural surveillance by hotel guests or staff. It is recommended that all commercial areas be monitored with recorded security. It's common for hotels to experience theft, burglary and/or vandalism especially during the hours of darkness. This particular part of Renton (following commuter hours) is very quiet and secluded, which tends to attract property thieves. An auxiliary security service should be used to patrol the property during random times, preferably between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. It is important to direct all foot traffic into the main entrance of the building. Any alternative employee or guest entrances should have coded access to prevent trespassing. Exterior doors should be checked routinely to insure they are not being propped open (this includes the structured garage). This is a common occurrence, especially when hotel guests or employees go outside to smoke, take out the garbage, etc. All areas of this project need to have adequate lighting. This will assist in the deterrent of theft from motor vehicle (one of the most common crimes in Renton) as well as provide safe pedestrian travel for both guests and employees. The structured garage will be a very tempting target for auto thieves. Theft from motor vehicle and auto theft are prevalent, and with this garage housing vehicles utilized by travelers, there are likely to be items of value left inside (luggage, clothing, electronic equipment, GPS units, etc.). This will be the only hotel along Lake Washington Blvd in our City (at least for now ... ) and it will probably be a prime target for this type of activity. I recommend the installation, and substantial advertisement of, surveillance cameras inside and outside this garage, an overabundance of lighting, and a noticeable presence of courtesy patrol -especially between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. I strongly recommend this garage be limited access and that a fob or security card system be utilized. During the summer months, there will be a very large influx of vehicles brought into the area, with very little parking to accommodate. Beach goers will be searching for alternatives places to park their cars and with the garage being private property, Police will not be monitoring, towing or citing vehicles inside this structure. You may also want to provide temporary tags for your hotel guests to hang by their rearview mirrors, designating their vehicle as an authorized hotel guest's car. Landscaping should be installed with the objective of allowing visibility-not too dense and not too high. Too much landscaping will make guest and employees feel isolated and will provide criminals with concealment to commit crimes such as burglaiy, theft, malicious mischief, etc. There is mention of a "public plaza" in the front of the hotel building on the Site Plan. This should be designated as "For Hotel Guests Only" so as not to attract unwanted subjects from loitering in this location. During the summer months, this part of Renton is heavily traveled by both foot and vehicle traffic and it will be important to differentiate between public and private space. If this hotel will not be on a 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week schedule, there will need to be a keypad Knox box provided for Police and Fire so emergency personnel has access keys, fobs, or security cards to all areas of the hotel and garage structure. I highly recommend that the developer have a Renton Police Crime Prevention Representative conduct a security survey of the premises once construction is complete. Ran: April 06, 2015 Page 3 of 12 PLAN REVIEW COMMEN LUA 14-000061 of Plan -Planning Review Version 2 I January 29, 20, Community S~ntlces Review Comments Leslie Betlach I 425-430-6619 I LBetlach@ rentonwa.gov Recommendations: 1. With proposed reduction in parking-note that no "overtlow" parking will be allowed at Coulon Park. 2. Signalization at S. entrance to Coulon/LWBD be completed prior to any construction 3. 5 foot wide bicycle lanes and signage to be included per adopted trails and bike Master Plan (along Lake Wa. Blvd.). 4. Increase spacing of trees to 30' on center, currently too close (show only a total of 5 trees, currently 7) 5. For the two trees south of main drive entrance: eliminate north tree as it is planted on top of fire hydrant and meter box and center south tree. 6. Do not use wire and hose for stakin , use onl webbin . Engineering Review Comments Rohini Nair 425-430-72.98 I rnair@rentonwa.go·. 1. City's Fire Prevention Department has determined that the preliminary fire flow demand for the proposed development is 3,000 gpm including the use of an automatic fire sprinkler system. The following water main improvements will be required to provide water service for fire protection and for domestic use. a) An on site 1 O inch (minimum diameter) water main looped around the building because the fire flow demand is over 2,500 gpm. The new line shall be connected to the existing 12 inch main in Lake Washington Blvd N. at 2 locations. b) The proposed building footprint needs to be revised to provide a 15 foot wide easement for the looped water main around the building. The water easement area around the building must be accessible for maintenance purposes. This requirement was communicated previously 'The proposed building size and layout cannot be approved because it does not provide adequate spacing for utilities (looped 1 O" diameter water main) and the utilities easement (15' water main easement) around the proposed hotel and parking structures. The building footprint will have to be resized and plans will have to be resubmitted for review. The water easement area around the building must be accessible for maintenance purposes.' However, the current submittal plans do not show the looped main or the water easement. The building will have to be resized and/or relocated to allow the looped water main and the easement. 2. Additional review comments a) The required right of way dedication is more than the 2.5 feet labeled in the plans (staff estimates 4.5 feet ROW dedication). To verily, please provide the survey information that shows the location of the existing curb north of the subject property. As communicated previously, 'Lake Washington Blvd North is a collector street and as per RMC 4 6 060, the right of way (ROW) required on a two lane collector is 83 feet. The existing ROW as per the assessor map is 60 feet. Transportation section has plans for the corridor including a half street paved width of approximately 17 feet from the roadway centerline (to match with the existing curb north of the site), 0.5 feet wide curbs, 8 feet wide landscaped planters, 8 feet wide sidewalks, and 1 feet clear space behind the sidewalk. A street modification request must be submitted for the ROW and the parking lanes'. The 1 feet clear space back of the sidewalk needs to be included in the right of way (ROW). A street modification request for reducing the ROW dedication from the code required 11.5 feet to 4.5 feet, was not included i, the documents routed to me. Was one submitted? If not, please submit it. The street section needs to show the required pavement width, and the one feet clear space back of the sidewalk. The ROW includes the one feet clear space back of the sidewalk. Revise the ROW dedication required and label the dedication width on the section. b) The allowed slope behind the sidewalk is 4:1, the submitted plans show steeper slope. A pedestrian barrier will be required. Please see City of Renton standard plan 102. c) Show the finished contours at 2 feet intervals and the finished floor elevation in the grading plan. FFE information. d) Show and label clearly the existing sewer main along the entire project frontage on Lake Washington Blvd. The currently submitted utility plan does not show it along the full frontage. e) Extend the storm water along the entire frontage on Lake Washington Blvd with a catch Basin at the south end. f) Storm water BMP is required to be provided by commercial projects. Additional conditions will be applicable on the drainage report. g) The geotechnical report should mention whether the soil is/is not suitable for infiltration. Consistent project description should be provided in all sections. Additional information may be required on the geotechnical report. Please provide the following corrections resubmit comments: 1. Fire reviewer has mentioned a need for a fire flow of 3,000 gpm. Fire flow greater than 2,500 gpm requires a looped water main around the building. Therefore, provide the looped water line around the building and show it in the utility plan sheet. This information was provided in the comments provided by the City during the preapplication stage. 2. The proposed building size and layout cannot be approved because it does not provide adequate spacing for utilities (looped 10" diameter water main) and the utilities easement (15' water main easement) around the proposed hotel and parking structures. The Ran: April 06, 2015 Page 4 of L PLAN REVIEW COMMENTf --JA14-000061 of Plan -Planning Review Version 2 I January 29, 2015 Engineering Review Comments Rohini Nair I 425-430-7298 I rnair@rentonwa.gov building footprint will have to be resized and plans will have to be resubmitted for review. The water easement area around the building must be accessible for maintenance purposes. 3. Lake Washington Blvd North is a collector street and as per AMC 4 6 060, the right of way (ROW) required on a two lane collector is 83 feet. The existing ROW as per the assessor map is 60 feet. Transportation section has plans for the corridor including a half street paved width of approximately 17 feet from the roadway centerline (to match with the existing curb north of the site), 0.5 feet wide curbs, 8 feet wide landscaped planters, 8 feet wide sidewalks, and 1 feet clear space behind the sidewalk. A street modification request must be submitted for the ROW and the parking lanes. 4. Provide a cross section of Lake Washington Blvd north with the ROW and the street frontage elements. Right of way dedication will be applicable if the combined width of the street frontage elements exceed the existing right of way width. Show and label the widths clearly. Show the information correctly in the road plan sheet. 5. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout the buildings per the City of Renton Fire Marshal. 6. Any use in the building (kitchen, restaurant) involving the handling of grease requires installation of a properly sized grease interceptor. Please provide information regarding this. 7. If the project proposes an indoor pool; the pool will need to be connected to the sanitary sewer per the UPC. Please provide information if there will be a pool. 8. The covered parking garage needs to be tied to the sanitary sewer. If there is open parking level on the top floor of the garage, then that floor has to be connected to storm drain. 9. The traffic studv and imoact fee review is not done because the oaoer coov submittal of the revised traffic studv has not been obtained. Fire Review • Building Comments Corey Thomas 1. 425-430°7024 I cthomas@rentonwa.gov Ran: April 06, 2015 Page 5 of 12 PLAN REVIEW COMMEN LUA14-000061 Plan -Planning Review Fire Review • Building Comments Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: /S~> (;/·_; + --. ')G::{. Version 2 January 29, 201 Corey Thomas I 425-430· 7024 I cthomas@rentonwa.gO\· 1. Fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of commercial space. No charge for covered parking area. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 3.000 gpm. A minimum of three fire hydrants are required. One within 150 feet and two within 300 feet of the building. It appears adequate fire flow is available in the area. Fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm requires a looped fire main around the building. Hydrants shall be equally spaced around the complex at a maximum spacing of 300 feet. Hydrants are required within 50 feet of all fire department connections for standpipes and sprinkler systems. Existing hydrants may be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code, some of the existing hydrants do and some do not. 2. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout the buildings. Dry standpipes are required in all stairways. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fire alarm systems are required to be fully addressable and full detection is required. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150 feet of all points on the buildings. Fire access roads are required to be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed width with turning radius of 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside minimum. Fire lane signage required for the onsite roadways. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30 ton vehicle and 322 psi point loading. Dead end access roadways exceeding 150 feet will require an approved turnaround. 4. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre fire planning purposes. 5. Separate plans and permits are required for any fuel tanks associated with the proposed emergency generator. 6. All buildings equipped with an elevator in the City of Renton are required to have at least one elevator meet the size requirements for a bariatric size stretcher. Car size shall accommodate a minimum of a 40 inch by 84 inch stretcher. Technical Services. Comments Bob ·Macdnie 1425,-430-;7369 :bmaconfe@rentonwa.ga Submittal Review: Bob Mac Onie 1/23/2015 The Utilit Notes and Details sheet C6.1 is ille ible. Ran: April 06, 2015 Page6of 1: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTf -"JA14-000061 of /' Plan -Planning Review Version 3 I Engineering Review Comments Rohini Nair I 425-430-7298 I rnair@rentonwa.gov Ran: April 06, 2015 Page 7 of 12 PLAN REVIEW COMMEN LUA14-000061 of Plan -Planning Review Version 3 Engineering Review Comments Rohini Nair J 425-430-7298 I mair@rentonwa.ge · Recommendations: I have completed a preliminary review for the above referenced 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area project. The following comments are based on the application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER: The site is located in the city of Renton water service area. SEWER: The site is located in the city of Renton sewer service area. STORM: There is no existing storm drainage on Lake Washington Blvd frontage. STREET: Lake Washington Blvd fronting the site is a collector street. CODE REQUIREMENTS Water 1. The preliminary fire flow demand for the development as determined by the Fire Prevention Department is 2,500 gpm. 2. The site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 2. 3. There is an existing 12" DI water main (320 hydraulic zone) located in Lake Washington Blvd N. 4. Fire hydrant as required by the fire department must be provided by the project. 5. Installation of back flow prevention assemblies (DDCVA's) in vaults for the fire sprinkler system is required. The DDCVA shall be located outside of the buildings. 6. Installation of a domestic water meter. Meter sizing shall conform to the Uniform Plumbing code criteria. Meters larger than 2 inch shall be installed in an exterior concrete vault per City standard plan No. 320.4. 7. A Reduced Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind the domestic water meter. The RPBA's shall be installed in an above ground "Hot Box" per City standard plan No. 350.2. 8. Installation of private pressure reducing valves (PRV's) as required by the plumbing code for water supply pressure above 80 psi. 9. A separate landscape irrigation meter and double check valve is shown in the plans. 10. The development is subject to applicable water system development charges based on the number and size of the meters required. The charges will be based on the fee at that is applicable at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit. 11 . Civil plans for the water main improvements will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. Sanitary Sewer 1. There is an existing 8" PVC sanitary sewer main in Lake Washington Blvd N. See City of Renton drawing S 3220. The existing sewer main should be shown clearly on the plans submitted in the utility construction permit stage. 2. Any use in the building (kitchen, restaurant) involving the handling of grease requires installation of a properly sized grease interceptor. 3. The project proposes an indoor pool; the pool will need to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. 4. Parking garage drains needs to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. 5. System development charges (SOC) fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the project. Fee that is current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project. Storm water 1. A TIR prepared by Insight Engineering Co, was submitted for the proposed project. The drainage report follows the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City Amendments. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Peak rate Flow Control Duration Standard (Existing Site Conditions). The submitted report and plans showed the storm water pipe taking storm water from the project to the north (up slope) and to connect with the existing storm system that leads to Johns Creek via the Parks property. This proposed storm water system layout is not acceptable due to two reasons. First reason is that the connection to the Parks system is a concern to the Parks Department and is a review item by BNSF (if in BNSF property). The second reason is that the natural discharge location (Core requirement No.1) will not be followed. Storm water pipe should be provided along the entire frontage on Lake Washington Blvd, and extend southward to connect with the storm water pipe at the Lake Washington Blvd intersection (see plans for Lake Washington Blvd Improvements for Southport Development). The storm water pipe should be located at the location of the future curb of the subject site(s) frontage and the adjacent Ran: April 06, 2015 Page 8 of L PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS --JA14-000061 of Plan -Planning Review Version 3 I Engineering Review Comments Aohini Nair I 425·430-7298 I rnair@rentonwa.gov (south) property frontage to connect with storm water pipe at the Lake Washington Blvd intersection at Southport. The engineer can provide the downstream capacity analysis (existing and future land use conditions) for the natural discharge direction during construction documents submittal. A detention vault or downstream mitigation would be required if their downstream quantitative analysis reveals that the downstream capacity is not adequate. The TIA submitted during the utility construction permit stage should include a detailed description that shows if the project meets the Direct Discharge exemption criteria as per the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual. Therefore a Level II downstream analysis is required for the project. The TIA mentioned that the total pollution generating impervious surface is less than 5,000 square feet and that a water quality treatment is not required. Storm water flow control BMP's are applicable on the project. Final TIA and drainage plans based on the City's Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Drainage Manual is required to be submitted during the utility construction permit stage. 2. A geotechnical report prepared by Earth Solutions LLC was submitted for the proposed project. A revised geotech report must be submitted with the utility construction permit with the proposed site plan incorporated in the project. The currently submitted plans mention the project elements differently in various portions of the report. The geotech report must include information if the soil is suitable for infiltration, with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options. If infiltration is proposed, then falling head permeability rates must be provided. The recommendations from the geotech regarding the persistent ground water depth should be considered when designing the building foundation. The geotech report also mentions that a sub slab drainage system is needed in addition to perimeter foundation wall drains. 3. The current surface water system development fee is $0.540 per square foot of impervious surface, but not less than $1,350.00 Transportation 1. Lake Washington Blvd North is a collector street with available ROW width of 60 feet. As per AMC 4 6 060, the right of way (ROW) required on a two lane collector is 83 feet. The applicant has submitted a street modification letter requesting the ROW dedication to be reduced from the code required 11.5 feet on the frontage to 4.5feet of dedication. Transportation section's plans for Lake Washington Blvd at this location includes a half street paved width of approximately 17 feet from the roadway centerline (to match with the existing curb north of the site), 0.5 feet wide curbs, 8 feet wide landscaped planters, 8 feet wide sidewalks, and 1 feet clear space behind the sidewalk. Staff supports the street modification request since the 4.5 feet (subject to final survey) ROW dedication is expected to be sufficient to include all the Transportation section planned frontage elements in the ROW. The submitted plans showed a ROW dedication of 2.5 feet. The dedication width should be corrected to provide 4.5 feet of ROW width on Lake Washington Blvd. 2. A 22 feet wide driveway is shown as the access to the site from Lake Washington Blvd North. 3. City street lighting based on City standards are required to be provided by the project on the frontage. 4. Transportation impact fee will be applicable at the building permit stage of the project. The impact fee rate is subject to yearty increase and the applicable fee will be based on the current rate at the time of building permit application and payment is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. 5. Traffic impact analysis (TIA) report prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants Inc, was submitted for the project. An initial report prepared on October 2013 and revised reports prepared on December 2013, and June 2014, were submitted for the project. The report includes that the project will generate 1,021 average daily trips with 66 AM peak hour trips and 75 PM peak hour trips. The study mentions that the proposed development is not anticipated to cause adjacent intersection to operate at a deficient level of service. Additional information is requested to be included in a revised TIA. 6. Pedestrian facilities should be provided between the site and the Lake Washington Blvd at Coulon Beach/Houser Way intersection. (If the abutting parcel to the south develops prior to or concurrent to this project, then they will be required to build sidewalk on their frontage and give pedestrian connection to the Lake Washington Blvd at Coulon Beach/Houser Way intersection). 7. A prorated share of the cost of the approved plans for a traffic signal and roadway improvements on Lake Washington Blvd. will be collected from the proposed project based on the ratio of number of trips that will be added by the project to the number of future baseline trips at the Southport intersection. General Comments 1. All construction or service 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 utility plans are complete, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, permit application, an itemized cost of construction estimate, and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. 3. All electrical, phone, and cable services and lines serving the proposed development must be underground. The construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton inspector prior to recording the plat. Ran: April 06, 2015 Page 9 of 12 PLAN REVIEW COMMEN LUA14-000061 Plan -Planning Review Version 3 Engineerin Rsview Co111ments Rohihi Nair I 425-430-7298 I rnair@reoton~go Recommendations: I have completed a preliminary review for the above referenced 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area project. The following comments are based on the application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER: The site is located in the city of Renton water service area. SEWER: The site is located in the city of Renton sewer service area. STORM: There is no existing storm drainage on Lake Washington Blvd frontage. STREET: Lake Washington Blvd fronting the site is a collector street. CODE REQUIREMENTS Water 1. The preliminary fire flow demand for the development as determined by the Fire Prevention Department is 2,500 gpm. 2. The site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 2. 3. There is an existing 12" DI water main (320 hydraulic zone) located in Lake Washington Blvd N. 4. Fire hydrant as required by the fire department must be provided by the project. 5. Installation of back flow prevention assemblies (DDCVA's) in vaults for the fire sprinkler system is required. The DDCVA shall be located outside of the buildings. 6. Installation of a domestic water meter. Meter sizing shall conform to the Uniform Plumbing code criteria. Meters larger than 2 inch shall be installed in an exterior concrete vault per City standard plan No. 320.4. 7. A Reduced Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind the domestic water meter. The RPBA's shall be installed in an above ground "Hot Box'' per City standard plan No. 350.2. 8. Installation of private pressure reducing valves (PRV's) as required by the plumbing code for water supply pressure above 80 psi. 9. A separate landscape irrigation meter and double check valve is shown in the plans. 10. The development is subject to applicable water system development charges based on the number and size of the meters required. The charges will be based on the fee at that is applicable at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit. 11 . Civil plans for the water main improvements will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. Sanitary Sewer 1. There is an existing 8" PVC sanitary sewer main in Lake Washington Blvd N. See City of Renton drawing S 3220. The existing sewer main should be shown clearly on the plans submitted in the utility construction permit stage. 2. Any use in the building (kitchen, restaurant) involving the handling of grease requires installation of a properly sized grease interceptor. 3. The project proposes an indoor pool; the pool will need to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. 4. Parking garage drains needs to be connected to the sanitary sewer system. 5. System development charges (SOC) fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the project. Fee that is current at the time of issuance of the utility construction permit will be applicable on the project. Storm water 1. A TIA prepared by Insight Engineering Co, was submitted for the proposed project. The drainage report follows the 2009 King County Surtace Water Manual and City Amendments. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Peak rate Flow Control Duration Standard (Existing Site Conditions). The submitted report and plans showed the storm water pipe taking storm water from the project to the north (up slope) and to connect with the existing storm system that leads to Johns Creek via the Parks property. This proposed storm water system layout is not acceptable due to two reasons. First reason is that the connection to the Parks system is a concern to the Parks Department and is a review item by BNSF (if in BNSF property). The second reason is that the natural discharge location (Core requirement No. 1) will not be followed. Storm water pipe should be provided along the entire frontage on Lake Washington Blvd, and extend southward to connect with the storm water pipe at the Lake Washington Blvd intersection (see plans for Lake Washington Blvd Improvements for Southport Development). The storm water pipe should be located at the location of the future curb of the subject site(s) frontage and the adjacent Ran: April 06, 2015 Page 10 of L PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS'. "JA14-000061 of / Plan -Planning Review Version 3 I Engineering Review Comments . Rohini Nair I 425-430-7298 I rnair@rentonwa.gov (south) property frontage to connect with storm water pipe at the Lake Washington Blvd intersection at Southport. The engineer can provide the downstream capacity analysis (existing and future land use conditions) for the natural discharge direction during construction documents submittal. A detention vault or downstream mitigation would be required if their downstream quantitative analysis reveals that the downstream capacity is not adequate. The TIR submitted during the utility construction permit stage should include a detailed description that shows if the project meets the Direct Discharge exemption criteria as per the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual. Therefore a Level II downstream analysis is required for the project. The TIR mentioned that the total pollution generating impervious surface is less than 5,000 square feet and that a water quality treatment is not required. Storm water flow control BMP's are applicable on the project. Final TIR and drainage plans based on the City's Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Drainage Manual is required to be submitted during the utility construction permit stage. 2. A geotechnical report prepared by Earth Solutions LLC was submitted for the proposed project. A revised geotech report must be submitted with the utility construction permit with the proposed site plan incorporated in the project. The currently submitted plans mention the project elements differently in various portions of the report. The geotech report must include information if the soil is suitable for infiltration, with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options. If infiltration is proposed, then falling head permeability rates must be provided. The recommendations from the geotech regarding the persistent ground water depth should be considered when designing the building foundation. The geotech report also mentions that a sub slab drainage system is needed in addition to perimeter foundation wall drains. 3. The current surface water system development fee is $0.540 per square foot of impervious surface, but not less than $1,350.00 Transportation 1. Lake Washington Blvd North is a collector street with available ROW width of 60 feet. As per RMC 4 6 060, the right of way (ROW) required on a two lane collector is 83 feet. The applicant has submitted a street modification letter requesting the ROW dedication to be reduced from the code required 11.5 feet on the frontage to 4.5feet of dedication. Transportation section's plans for Lake Washington Blvd at this location includes a half street paved width of approximately 17 feet from the roadway centerline (to match with the existing curb north of the site), 0.5 feet wide curbs, 8 feet wide landscaped planters, 8 feet wide sidewalks, and 1 feet clear space behind the sidewalk. Staff supports the street modification request since the 4.5 feet (subject to final survey) ROW dedication is expected to be sufficient to include all the Transportation section planned frontage elements in the ROW. The submitted plans showed a ROW dedication of 2.5 feet. The dedication width should be corrected to provide 4.5 feet of ROW width on Lake Washington Blvd. 2. A 22 feet wide driveway is shown as the access to the site from Lake Washington Blvd North. 3. City street lighting based on City standards are required to be provided by the project on the frontage. 4. Transportation impact fee will be applicable at the building permit stage of the project. The impact fee rate is subject to yearly increase and the applicable fee will be based on the current rate at the time of building permit application and payment is due at the lime of issuance of the building permit. 5. Traffic impact analysis (TIA) report prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants Inc, was submitted for the project. An initial report prepared on October 2013 and revised reports prepared on December 2013, and June 2014, were submitted for the project. The report includes that the project will generate 1,021 average daily trips with 66 AM peak hour trips and 75 PM peak hour trips. The study mentions that the proposed development is not anticipated to cause adjacent intersection to operate at a deficient level of service. Additional information is requested to be included in a revised TIA. 6. Pedestrian facilities should be provided between the site and the Lake Washington Blvd at Coulon Beach/Houser Way intersection. (If the abutting parcel to the south develops prior to or concurrent to this project, then they will be required to build sidewalk on their frontage and give pedestrian connection to the Lake Washington Blvd at Coulon Beach/Houser Way intersection). 7. A prorated share of the cost of the approved plans for a traffic signal and roadway improvements on Lake Washington Blvd. will be collected from the proposed project based on the ratio of number of trips that will be added by the project to the number of future baseline trips at the Southport intersection. General Comments 1. All construction or service 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 utility plans are complete, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, permit application, an itemized cost of construction estimate, and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. 3. All electrical, phone, and cable services and lines serving the proposed development must be underground. The construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and annroved bv a Citv of Renton insoector orior to recordina the olat. Ran: April 06, 2015 Page 11 of 12 PLAN REVIEW COMMEN LUA14-000061 ( Plan -Planning Review Version 2 Fire Review-Building. Comments CoreyThomas.1 425-430-7024 I cthomas@rentonwa,gov Recommendations: 1. Fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $0.61 per square foot of commercial space. No charge for covered parking area. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2,500 gpm. A minimum of three fire hydrants are required. One within 150 feet and two within 300 feet of the building. It appears adequate fire flow is available in the area. Hydrants are required within 50 feet of all fire department connections for standpipes and sprinkler systems. Existing hydrants may be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code, some of the existing hydrants do and some do not. 2. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout the buildings. Dry standpipes are required in all stairways. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fire alarm systems are required to be fully addressable and full detection is required. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150 feet of all points on the buildings. Fire access roads are required to be a minimum of 20 feet unobstructed width with turning radius of 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside minimum. Fire lane signage required for the onsite roadways. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30 ton vehicle and 322 psi point loading. Dead end access roadways exceeding 150 feet will require an approved turnaround. 4. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre fire planning purposes. 5. Separate plans and permits are required for any fuel tanks associated with the proposed emergency generator. 6. All buildings equipped with an elevator in the City of Renton are required to have at least one elevator meet the size requirements for, bariatric size stretcher. Car size shall accommodate a minimum of a 40 inch by 84 inch stretcher. Ran: April 06, 2015 Page 12 of 1 - ___ D_e2~:~::~,a_w ______ ..... r City O • ..!~' r rw·r1 Community & Economic Development Department CE."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Date: April 1, 2015 To: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites Parties of Record From: Department of Community and Economic Development A public hearing on the Renton Hampton Inn & Suites will be held on Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 11 am in the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S. Grady Way. The staff report to the Hearing Examiner, including exhibits, is available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov) • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the ih floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number LUA14-000061 • Purchased for a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report is $4.65, plus a handling and postage cost of $3.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added) If you have questions about the report or the project, please contact: Roca le Timmons, Senior Planner 425-430-7219 rtimmons@rentonwa.gov Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMuNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT of REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER HEARING DATE: Project Name: Owner/Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Site Area: April 7, 2015 Renton Hampton Inn & Suites Faizel Kassam, Legacy Renton; 10700 NE 4'h St, #3006; Bellevue, WA 98004 Scott Clark, Clark Design Group; 169 Western Ave W; Seattle, WA 98119 LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Roca le Timmons; Senior Planner The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, a Parking Modification, Street Modificaiton, Setback Variance and a Critical Area Variance in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) zone and Design District 'C'. The proposed hotel would be approximately 5 stories above grade in height. A total of 105 parking stalls would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade in a small surface parking area. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 111 to 105 stalls. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-6-060 in order to reduce the amount of right-of- way dedication from 11.5 feet to 2.5 feet along Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant is also requesting a Variance in order to encroach into critical slopes on site (4,185 square feet). Another Variance is requested in order to increase the maximum front yard setback from 5-feet to 22 feet and 9-inches. 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N 1.26 acres Project Location Map HEX Report City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 i 8. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: ERC Report Exhibit 2: Site Plan Exhibit 3: Landscape Plan Exhibit 4: Renderings/ Design Package Exhibit 5: Tree Removal Plan Exhibit 6: Drainage Report (May 1, 2015) Exhibit 7: Geotechnical Report (December 18, 2014) Exhibit 8: Traffic Impact Analysis (dated June 4, 2014) Exhibit 9: Independent Peer Review -Transportation (August 5, 2014) Exhibit 10: Public Comment Letter: Christ Exhibit 11: Applicant Response to Christ Comment Letter Exhibit 12: Transportation Concurrency Memo Exhibit 13: SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (dated March 16, 2015) Exhibit 14: Parking Analysis (dated November, 2014) Exhibit 15: Elevations Exhibit 16: Request for Exception (dated January 16, 2014) Exhibit 17: Floorplans Exhibit 18: Hearing Examiner Staff Recommendation (dated April 7, 2015) I C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Classification: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4, Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: Faizel Kassam Legacy Renton 10700 NE 4th St, #3006 Bellevue, WA 98004 Urban Center North-2(UC-N2) Urban Center North (UC-N) Espresso Stand a. North: Mixed Use -Residential & Retail {UC-N2} b. East: lnterstate-405 c. South: Vacant/Pending PRE14-000284 {UC-N2) d. West: Gene Caulon Park {R-1 zone) 6. Site Area: 1.26 acres I D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Comprehensive Plan HEX Report Land Use File No. N/A Ordinance No. 5099 Page 2 of 41 11/01/2004 City of Renton Deportment of Com, RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES · y & Economic Development rearing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-••• , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Zoning Annexation I E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities N/A N/A 5100 1791 Page 3 of 41 11/01/2004 09/09/1959 a. Water: Water service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing water main in Lake Washington Blvd N. b. Sewer: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing sewer main in Lake Washington Blvd N. c. Surface/Storm Water: There are partial storm drainage improvements in Lake Washington Blvd N. 2. Streets: There are partial street improvements along Lake Washington Blvd N. 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 ofZoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-120: Commercial Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Area Regulations b. Section 4-3-100: Urban Design Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria a. Section 4-9-200: Master Plan and Site Plan Review b. Section 4-9-250: Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternates 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element I H. FINDINGS OF FACT {FOF): 1. In January 2014 the applicant requested Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, an Exception through Modification, and a Variance in order to construct a 125 guest room hotel and a separate structured parking area with significant impacts to critical slopes on site. 2. The applicant revised the proposal and is now requesting Master Site Plan Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Environmental (SEPA) Review, a Street Modification, Parking Modification, Setback HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comr RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES Report of April 7, 2015 y & Economic Development earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-,.,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Page 4 of 41 Variance, and a Critical Area Variance for the construction of a 5 story, 105 room hotel with two levels of below grade structured parking. 3. The total square footage of the building would be approximately 108,800 square feet (including parking garage square footage). 4. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on January 17, 2014 and determined complete on January 29, 2014. The project was placed on hold on February 24, 2014 due to the need for additional information. A revised submittal was received on December 31, 2014 and taken of hold on January 7, 2015. Due to the need for additional information in order to process the revised application the project was placed on hold again on January 29, 2015 and taken off hold on February 23, 2015. The project complies with the 120-day review period. 5. The subject site is located west of lnterstate-405 on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington. 6. The majority of the site is currently undeveloped. However, there is a paved espresso stand drive-thru which exists on the site and is proposed for demolition. 7. Access to the site would be provided via one curb cut extended from Lake Washington Blvd N. 8. The property is located within the Urban Center North (UC-N) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. 9. The site is located within the Urban Center North-2 (UC-N2) zoning classification and within Design District 'C'. 10. There are approximately 42 trees located on site of which the applicant is proposing to retain a total of 34 trees. 11. The site is located within a High Erosion Hazard area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. Moderate and protected slopes, which exceed a 40% grade, are also located on site. The steep slopes occupy most of the northeast portion of the site. The protected slopes make up an approximate 24,000 square foot area, representing 56% of the subject site. The applicant is requesting a Critical Area Variance, from RMC 4-3-100, in order to encroach into the protected critical slope by approximately 4,185 square feet (See FOF 23, Critical Area Variance Analysis). 12. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material would be cut on site and approximately 5,000 cubic yards of fill is proposed to be brought into the site. Following construction is anticipated the impervious cover would be approximately 44%. 13. The applicant is proposing to begin construction in summer of 2015 and end in late 2016. 14. Staff received a single public comment letter (Exhibit 10). To address public comments the following report contains analysis related to the transportation impacts and mitigation. 15. No other public or agency comments were received. 16. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on March 16, 2015 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Renton Hampton Inn & Suites (Exhibit 13). The DNS-M included six mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on March 20, 2015 and ended on April 3, 2015. No appeals of the threshold determination have been filed as of the date of this report. 17. 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 provide an updated Geotechnical Report from Earth Solutions Northwest (ESNW) including a reevaluation and specific recommendations to address groundwater conditions HEX Report City of Renton Deportment of Com, RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES · :y & Economic Development /earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-1.,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 5 of 41 related to excavation and permanent sub-slab drainage. The updated report shall be submitted to, and approved by the Plan Reviewer, prior to final engineering approval. The updated report may be subject to independent peer review at the discretion of the Plan Reviewer and at the expense of the applicant. 2. The applicant shall comply with all design recommendations included within the Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest, as revised/updated and approved by the Plan Reviewer as part of the Engineering Permit approval. 3. The applicant shall contract with a Geotechnical engineer in order to verify that the earthwork, foundation and other recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and engineering plan documents. Geotechnical monitoring services shall also be provided during construction covering inspections as recommended in the geotechnical report. 4. A prorated share of the traffic signal and roadway improvement costs (currently being constructed by SECO Development) shall be collected from the proposed project based upon the ratio of number of trips that will be added by the project to the number of future baseline trips at the Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance/Lake Washington Blvd N Intersection. Should SECO establish a street and utility Latecomers Agreement these funds could be used to reimburse the cost ofthese roadway improvements in the amount established by such an agreement. The fee will be based on (new PM peak hour trips)/ (total PM peak hour trips) x (cost of new signal and improvements). The fee shall be paid prior to final occupancy. 5. The applicant shall create a public outreach plan in coordination with City of Renton staff to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The public outreach plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 6. The applicant shall provide a surety device, in an amount sufficient, to provide pedestrian improvements between the site and the Lake Washington Blvd at Gene Coulon Park entrance /Houser Way intersection. The surety device shall be provided to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval and shall be held for two years from the date of receipt. If the pedestrian connection is constructed as part of the development of the abutting parcel to the south, the provided surety device will be released. If the pedestrian connection is not constructed prior to the termination of the two year period, the funds will be released to the City of Renton for the construction of the pedestrian connection. 18. 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 and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. 19. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is designated Urban Center North (UC-N) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. The purpose of UC-N is to accommodate mixed-use projects high in design and construction quality, and offer landmark living, shopping, and working environments planned to take advantage of a regionally centralized location, efficient access, mass transit, potential passenger ferry connections, stellar views of lake and mountains, and restored natural environments along the Cedar River and Lake Washington shorelines. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if fill conditions of approval are met: Compliance Comprehensive Plan Analysis : Objective LU-WW: If Boeing elects to surplus property in District Two, land uses should ,,, transition into an urban area characterized by high-quality development offering landmark living, shopping and work environments planned to take advantage of access HEX Report City of Renton Deportment of Comr RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES y & Economic Development 1earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-... , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 HEX Report Page 6 of 41 and views to the adjacent river and lake shorelines. Policy LU-234. Should The Boeing Company elect to surplus properties in District Two support the redevelopment with a range and variety of commercial, office, research, and residential uses. 1) Support a mid-to high-rise scale and intensity of development. 2) Support retail and service activities as ancillary uses that are synergistic with commercial, office, biotech, research, technology, and residential activities. Traditional retail (Main Street), general business and professional services, and general offices are examples of the types of uses that are supported in combination with other activities. 3) Support urban scale residential development in District Two. North of N. 8th Street structured parking should be required. 4) Allow a limited range of service uses, such as churches, government offices and facilities, commercial parking garages, and day care centers through the conditional use process. 5) Allow eating and drinking establishments and cultural facilities as part of office or mixed-use development. 6) Prohibit new warehousing, storage including self-storage, vehicle sales, repair and display (including boats, cars, trucks and motorcycles), assembly and packaging operations, heavy and medium manufacturing and fabrication unrelated to production of new commercial airplanes. 7) Support development of public amenities such as public open space, schools, recreational and cultural facilities, and museums. 8) Allow commercial uses such as retail and services provided that they support the primary uses of the site and are architecturally and functionally integrated into the development. Objective CD-L: New commercial and industrial buildings should be architecturally compatible with their surroundings in terms of their bulk and scale, exterior materials, and color when existing development is consistent with the adopted land use vision and Purpose Statements for each Commercial, Center Designation, and Employment Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Objective CD-M: Well designed landscaping provides aesthetic appeal and makes an important contribution to the health, safety, economy, and general welfare of the community. The City of Renton should adopt regulations that further the aesthetic goals of the City. Policy CD-36. Developments within Commercial and Centers land use designations should have a combination of internal and external site design features, such as: 1) Public plazas; 2) Prominent architectural features; 3) Public access to natural features or views; 4) Distinctive focal features; 5) Indication of the function as a gateway, if appropriate; City of Renton Department of Com, RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES ty & Economic Development fearing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-.•. , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 7 of 41 6) Structured parking; and 7) Other features meeting the spirit and intent of the land use designation. 20. Zoning Development Standard Compliance: The site is classified Urban Center North-2 (UC-N2) on the City's Zoning Map. The purpose of UC-N2 is to accommodate new development in the zone which serves to create distinctive urban neighborhoods, mixed use employment centers, and significant public open space and amenities. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met: Compllance UC-N2 Zone Qevelop Standards .and Analysis ······ .. 'o:' :.-"<> '' ··= ·i: :,::::: '" : '', .. '" ' ·,:,: ' ' Use: Hotel uses are permitted within the UC-N2 zone as long as specified ,/ entertainment and sports uses are not within 1,000-feet of the centerline of Renton Municipal Airport runway. Buildings oriented to pedestrian streets must have ground- floor commercial uses within them. Lot Dimensions: The minimum lot size is 25 acres. Minimum lot size can be amended through Site Development Plan Review RMC 4-9-200. N/A Staff Comment: The proposal does not include the creation of new lots and the existing parcel is legally non-conforming. Lot Coverage: The allowed lot coverage is 90% of total area or 100% if parking is provided within the building or within a parking garage. ,/ Staff Comment: The proposed building would hove a footprint of 16,989 square feet on the 57,002 square foot site resulting in a building lot coverage of approximotely 30 percent. Setbacks: The UC-N2 zoning classification does not contain minimum setbacks for buildings. There is a maximum front yard setback of 5 feet. SeeFOFZ4, Staff Comment: The proposed building would hove a front yard setback of 22 feet and 9-Variance Analysis inches from the front (Lake Washington Blvd N) property line which exceeds the maximum front yard setback. The applicant has requested a Variance in order to exceed the maximum setback. See FOF 24, Setback Variance Analysis. Landscaping: Per RMC 4-4-070 ten feet of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways or those projects with reduced setbacks. Staff Comment: A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application (Exhibit 3}. The conceptual landscape plan illustrates materials that would Compliant if be used to enhance the visual character of the building. condition of The proposed street level landscaping utilizes street trees including vine maple, approval is serviceberry, renaissance reflection birch, and mountain hemlock. Shrubbery proposed, met include: dwarf red-osier dogwood, Oregon grape, Pacific waxmyrtle, white icicle flowering currant, baldhip rose, evergreen huckleberry, snowberry, diablo ninebark, and mock orange. The landscape plan includes landscaping, hards cope and permanent seating incorporated into the plaza located between Lake Washington Blvd and the building. The proposal complies with the landscaping requirements of the zone. The use of a variety of vegetation along the property edge help to create human scale, add visual HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comr RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES y & Economic Development ·earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-, .. , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Compliant if condition of approval is met Compliant if condition of approval is met HEX Report Page 8 of 41 interest along the for;:ode and create o safe separation between vehicles and pedestrians and provides o transition between the development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare and maintain privacy. The conceptual landscape pion did not include vegetation proposed for planters located within common areas and the green screens separating patios on the upper floor. Also not included on the landscape pion ore those sloped areas to be cleared. Therefore staff recommends, as o condition of approval, the applicant submit o detailed landscape pion depicting significant landscaping along the street frontage, within planters adjacent to the building or within common open spaces, and roof patio screens. The landscape pion shall also include o planting pion for cleared areas which enhance slope stability. The landscaping pion shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. Building Height: Building height is restricted to 10 stories along primary and secondary arterials and 6 stories along residential/minor collectors. Staff Comment: The applicant hos provided o varied roofline consisting primarily of flat roof with a low angle shed roof element provided for visual interest (Exhibit 4). The height of the proposed structure would be 72 feet and 8 J1 -inches at the to/lest point of the shed roof elements and would be considered 5 stories above the grade plane. The proposal complies with the height requirement of the zone. Screening: Per RMC 4-4-095 all mechanical equipment and outdoor service and storage areas shall be screened to reduce visibility, noise, and related impacts while allowing accessibility for providers and users. Stoff Comment: The applicant did not provide details for surface or roof mounted equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval the applicant provide a detailed pion identifying the location and screening provided for surface and roof mounted equipment. The screening pion shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Refuse and Recyclables: Per RMC 4-4-090 non-residential developments are required to provide a minimum of 3 square feet per every one 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of ten 6 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. Staff Comment: Based on the proposal for a total of 66,929 square feet of hotel space (not including the structured parking area) o minimum area of 201 square feet of recycle area and 402 square feet of refuse ore would be required for the project. The proposal includes a 338 square foot area dedicated to refuse and recycle within the structured parking garage (Exhibit 17). Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the proposal be revised to include an additional 285 square feet of area dedicated to refuse and recycobles. Alternatively, the applicant may request an Administrative modification, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250, in order to reduce the square footage required. The revised floor pion or Administrative Modification request shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Additionally, the Level 1 (Ground} floorplan shows a conflict between a parking stall (115} and the refuse and recycle area (Exhibit 17). It does not appear there would be adequate area to remove receptacles on pickup day, should there be a car parked in the City of Renton Deportment of Com, RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES °ty & Economic Development LUA14-000061, SA- 1earing Examiner Recommendation , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 9 of 41 stall. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval the applicant be required to demonstrate there is adequate area for refuse pickup within the parking structure which may require the relocation of o parking stall(s). The revised floorplan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. See FOF 11, Parking: The parking regulations, RMC 4-4-080, require a specific number of off-street Parking parking stalls be provided based on the square footage of the use. Additionally parking Modification may not be located between the proposed building and pedestrian-oriented public Analysis streets unless located within a structured parking garage. Parking for all uses shall be located consistent with RMC 4-3-100, Urban Center Design Overlay Regulations. Site planning must demonstrate feasible future location of structured parking to accommodate infill development. Staff Comment: The proposed hotel is anticipated to have 17 employees and a total of 105 hotel rooms, therefore the following would be applicable to the site: Use !!_gj_ Ratio Re9.uired Rooms{.EmeJo~ees Spaces Rooms 105 A minimum and maximum of 105 1 per guest room Employees 17 A minimum and maximum of 6 1 for every 3 employees Based on the proposed uses, o minimum of 111 parking spaces would be required in order to meet code. The applicant proposed a total of 105 spaces of which 103 stalls would be located within the structure and two at grade (41 standard stalls, 8 tandem stalls, 52 compact stalls, and 4 ADA stalls). The applicant has requested a parking modification in order to provide 6 stalls Jess than the minimum required (See discussion under FOF 21, Parking Modification Analysis). Compliant If Pedestrians: Pedestrian access must conform to pedestrian regulations located in Condition of Urban Center Design Overlay regulations. Approval Is met Staff Comment: See FOF 25, Design Review: Pedestrian Environment. Compliant if Signs: Pole signs and roof signs are prohibited. Signs subject to Urban Center Design Condition of Overlay regulations (RMC 4-3-100). Approval is Staff Comment: The applicant is not proposing pole or roof signs. See additional met discussion under FOF 25, Design Review: Signoge. ,;' Parking: Parking, docking and loading areas for truck traffic shall be off-street and screened from view of abutting public streets. SeeFOFZ3, Critical Areas: The site is located within a High Erosion Hazard area and an unclassified Critical Area landslide Hazard Area. The site also contains areas of sensitive and protected slopes Variance on site. Analysis Staff Comment: Critical slopes on site represent approximately 24,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing ta encroach inta 4,185 square feet af critical slape necessitating a critical area variance per RMC 4-3-100 (See FOF 23, Critical Area Variance Compliance). 21. Parking Modification Analysis: A total of 105 parking spaces would be provided of which 103 stalls would be located within a sub-grade parking garage. The remaining 2 stalls would be located within a HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comn RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES y & Economic Development earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-11,,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 10 of 41 small surface parking area interior to the site. The applicant is requesting a parking modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of minimum required parking stalls from 111 to the proposed 105 parking stalls. The proposal is compliant with the following modification criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250, if all conditions of approval are met. Therefore, staff is recommends approval of the requested Parking Modification, subject to a condition of approval as noted below: Compliance Parking Modification Criteria and Analysis Compliant if condition of approval is met HEX Report a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. Staff Comment: See FOF 19, Comprehensive Plan Analysis. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. Staff Comment: The applicant contends the proposed parking supply af 105 spaces is anticipated ta be approximately 57% higher than the demand calculated {67 parking spaces) for the site. The demand was calculated using the average parking demand and occupancy rates documented in the /TE Manual (Exhibit 14). The 105 spaces would represent a 5% reduction from the requirements documented in RMC 4.4.080.10.d. Staff concurs the proposed modification would meet the objectives of function and maintainability intended by the code requirements through the provision of sufficient off-street parking to meet the needs of hotel if 105 parking stalls ore provided. c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Staff Comment: In the vicinity of the subject site there are intense existing and planned uses {Southport, Gene Coulon Park, and Residence Inn). As a result adequate parking is particularly important for the proposal in order to not cause adverse impacts on surrounding properties. The applicant contends that there would be no impacts to surrounding properties as it is anticipated that the proposed parking supply would be considerably higher than the calculated demand (Exhibit 14). However, given the intensity of surrounding uses and existing public parking limitations in the immediate vicinity the proposal would at least provide one stall for each hotel room and employees would be able to use those stalls available due to low parking demand and occupancy rates on any given day. It should be noted that the Level 1 (Ground) floorplan shows a conflict between a parking stall (#5) and the refuse and recycle area (Exhibit 17). It does not appear there would be adequate area to remove receptacles on pickup day should there be a car parked in this stall. Additionally, the proposal does not appear to comply with the accessible parking requirements of the code. Pursuant to RMC 4-4-080£.8.g the minimum number of accessible spaces required for 101-150 parking spaces within a garage is 5 accessible stalls. The applicant has only provided 4 ADA parking stalls. Finally, the submitted parking plan includes the use of eight tandem stalls as a means of providing the necessary 105 stalls. While the tandem stalls would assist in accommodating large residential units they would not assist in the need for direct access parking stalls far employees on site and potential patrons of the hotel. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to revise the parking plan to include a total af 105 stalls and the following: relocation of City of Renton Deportment of Com, RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES ty & Economic Development /earing Examiner Recommendation WA14-000061, SA-.•. , SA-H, ECF, MOO, MOO, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 ,/ ,/ Page 11 of 41 proposed stalls which would preclude refuse and recycle pickup; the provision of adequate ADA accessible parking stalls; and the replacement af tandem parking spaces with direct access stalls. The revised parking plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code. Staff Comment: See comments under criterion 'b'. e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and Staff Comment: See comments under criterion 'b'. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Compliant if f. condition of approval is Staff Comment: See comments under criterion 'c'. met 22. Street Modification Analysis: All frontage roads are required to meet street standards pursuant to RMC 4-6-060. The applicant is requesting a street modification, from RMC 4-6-060, in order to modify the requirement for required right-of-way dedications along Lake Washington Blvd N. The existing Lake Washington Blvd N right-of-way is approximately 60 feet. Pursuant to RMC 4-6-060 the required right- of-way width is 83 feet necessitating an 11.5-foot dedication along the frontage of the subject site. This would allow for 26 feet of pavement, a 5-foot sidewalk, an 8-foot landscape planter strip, and a 0.5 foot curb on the east side of the street. The modification request is being made in order to match the City's Transportation Department's plans for Lake Washington Blvd N at this location which includes a half street paved width of approximately 17 feet from the roadway centerline (to match with the existing curb north of the site), 0.5-foot wide curbs, 8-foot wide landscaped planters, 8-foot wide sidewalks, and a 1-foot clear space behind the sidewalk. The proposal is compliant with the following modification criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250, if all conditions of approval are met. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested street modification, subject to a condition of approval as noted below: Compliance Str~t Mo(lifl~;itil:iitCtiteria and Analysis ·. i ___ , __ > ::,;:,:;{;'.\~_:\E::::;;:,(i 0'° a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the ,/ proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. Staff Comment: See FOF 14, Comprehensive Plan Compliance. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. Staff Comment: The purpose of the City's street standards is to establish design Compliant if standards and development requirements for street improvements to ensure reasonable condition of and safe access to public and private properties. The Transportation Department has a approvalis transportation corridor plan for Lake Washington Blvd N which includes a minimum met right-of-way width of 69 feet. The right-of-way would provide convenient access and travel for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Given the needed right-of-way, staff has concluded that a 4.5 foot wide dedication (subject to final survey), would accommodate planned improvements necessary as opposed to the code required 11.5 foot dedication. The improvements would allow for a planting strip and HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com, RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES ·ty & Economic Development fearing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-m, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 12 of 41 sidewalk of sufficient size. The applicant is proposing a 2.5 foot dedication which would be insufficient to accommodate street improvements anticipated for the Lake Washington Blvd N corridor. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a revised site plan depicting a 4.5 foot (subject to a final survey) right-of-way dedication along Lake Washington Blvd N. The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity. ,/ Staff Comment: The proposed reduction in the right-of-way is not anticipated to be injurious to other properties within the vicinity of the site. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code. ,/ Staff Comment: See comments under criterion 'b'. e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and ,/ Staff Comment: See comments under criterion 'b'. f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. ,/ Sta[[ Comment: See comments under criterion 'c'. 23. Critical Area Variance Analysis: Critical slopes on site represent approximately 24,000 square feet. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-100 development is prohibited on protected slopes. The applicant is proposing to encroach into 4,185 square feet of critical slope necessitating a critical area variance. The proposal is compliant with the following variance criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250, if all conditions of approval are met. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested Critical Area Variance, subject to a condition of approval as noted below: Compliance · Critical An,a V..-N!nce Criteria and Analysis ':: < ' ·.. . i '.,'''"· ,, ',, -' .,. :-' ' .':):':-·-------:-<._ . a. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. Staff Comment: In support of the requested variance the provided geotechnical report contained a slope reconnaissance across portions of the steep slope area on site {Exhibit 7). The prohibition on protected slopes is not intended to prevent the development of property that includes forty percent {40%} or greater slopes on o portion of the site, provided there is enough developable area elsewhere to accommodate building pads. The purpose of the Critical Area Regulations as it relates to critical slopes is to reduce ,/ the risks to the City and its citizens from development occurring on unstable slopes. The applicant's slope reconnaissance contends there are no signs of recent large scale erosion or slope instability observed at the subject site. However, there were signs of historic excavation activities including steep to near vertical reliefs. The report states that given the stability of the steep to near vertical reliefs (created by past grading activities) as wells as the subsurface conditions the sites soils exhibit good soil strength characteristics. It is anticipated that the proposed building's structural foundation wall elements would effectively improve the overall stability of the site and therefore proposed grading within the protected slopes would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity of the site. ,/ b. There is no reasonable use of the property left if the requested variance is not granted. HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com, RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES y & Economic Development earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-I\.,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 ,/ ,/ Compliant if condition of approval is met HEX Report Page 13 of 41 Staff Comment: The combined area of sensitive and protective slopes is 30,896 square feet, which is approximately S4% of the site area. The original scheme submitted in January af 2014 impacted 7S% of the sensitive areas an site and 72% af the protected areas. The current proposal is now only impacting 14% of the protected areas. The development has reduced impacts to the protected slopes by relocating the structured parking to two-levels of below grade parking and a reduction in roam count from 125 ta 105 rooms. Given the relatively small impact to the protected slopes on site the site plan represents a reasonable building pad and use of the property as envisioned by the urban character of the UC-N2 zone. It should also be noted that the zone anticipates a 100% building lat coverage and the proposed building footprint represents a 30% building lot coverage. c. The variance granted is the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the proposal objectives. Staff Comment: The proposed building has been sited immediately abutting Lake Washington Blvd N, with a setback to accommodate an existing utility easement and meaningful pedestrian plaza area. The applicant has sited the proposed hotel to minimize impacts to the protected slopes which are located in the northeastern portion of the site. The applicant has achieved a good balance in setbacks from Lake Washington Blvd N, in order to provide pedestrian scale amenities in the public realm, without campramising much of the steep slopes on site. The requested variance is the minimum amount necessary to accommodate reasonable use of the property and meet the objectives ond purpose of the UC-N2 zone. d. The need for the variance is not the result of actions of the applicant or property owner. Staff Comment: The steep slopes on site were created as a result of the placement of fill on the property during the construction of 1-405 (Exhibit 16). The proposal also does not include the creation of any new critical areas. e. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905: or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. Staff Comment: The applicant provided a geotechnical report, prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest (ESMW), which was prepared utilizing best available science (Exhibit 7). However, the geotechnicol report mentions on several occasions that the proposed development would not encroach into steep slope areas. Given the relatively small impact the assumptions presented within the current geotechnical report regarding slope stability are expected to remain valid with revisions accounting for impacts to slopes. However, to ensure adequate recommendations are included in the geotechnical report staff recommends, as a condition of Hearing Examiner Site Plan and Variance approval, that a revised Geotechnical report be submitted prior to engineering permit approval noting proposed impacts to steeps slopes and any changes in recommendations accordingly. The geotech report would also be required to include information regarding the stability for soil infiltration, with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options. If infiltration is proposed, then falling head permeability rates are required to be provided. It should be noted thot a SEPA mitigation measure has been imposed stating that the updated geotechnical report may be subject to independent peer review at the discretion of the Plan Reviewer ond at the expense of the applicant (Exhibit 13). City of Renton Department of Com, RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES y & Economic Development earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-,.,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 14 of 41 24. Setback Variance Analysis: The proposed hotel would have a front yard setback of 22 feet and 9-inches from the front (Lake Washington Blvd N) property line which exceeds the maximum front yard setback of five feet pursuant to RMC 4-2-120. The applicant has requested a Variance in order to exceed the maximum setback. The proposal is compliant with the following variance criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9- 250 Therefore staff recommends aooroval of the requested Setback Variance • Compliance Setback Variance Criteria and Analysis ;;.•.\\ . .· . a. That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to ,/' deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Staff Comment: There is an existing 15-foot wide Puget Sound Energy easement along the frontage of the site which would preclude the applicant from meeting the maximum front yard setback requirement. The existing easement represents o practical difficulty in meeting the maximum front yard setback requirement. b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. Staff Comment: The granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to ,/' the public welfare or injurious to surrounding properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed setback of 22 feet and 9-inches would accommodate a pedestrian plaza of sufficient area to allow for pedestrian amenities which can be enjoyed by patrons of the hotel. The increase in the setback would serve to create a usable and inviting open space that is accessible to the public and to promote pedestrian activity on lake Washington Blvd N as required by Design District 'C' (see FOF 25, Design District Review). c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. Staff Comment: The Lake Washington Blvd N corridor has a variety of established uses on the east side of the street in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. The uses include large townhome developments, apartment complexes, live-work units, and ,/' lofts. Each of the uses are genero/Jy setback approximately 20-feet or more from the property line and contain substantial vegetation or pedestrian plaza spaces. The applicant is proposing a setback that is consistent with those existing setbacks that are maintained in the Lake Washington Blvd N corridor. Additionally, the existing utility easement on site would preclude meeting the maximum setback requirement, which is anticipated to place similar limitations an other property owners in the vicinity consistent with the subject application. Therefore, the approval would not constitute a grant of special privilege. d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired ,/' purpose. Staff Comment: The code required maximum setback helps to create distinctive urban neighborhoods envisioned in the UC-N2 zone (RMC 4-2-020. T). The farm of HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comi RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES ·ty & Economic Development /earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-... , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 15 of 41 development is expected to use urban development standards ond setbacks urban in scale to create a human-scale, pedestrian-oriented new center. The applicant's request includes an additional eight feet beyond the width of the existing utility easement along the frontage of the site representing an approximate 18-foot increase beyond the maximum setback requirement. However, the additional area requested, as port of the variance, permits a functional and usable common open space. This plaza space would serve os an integral aspect of the development for users and pedestrians and as a result accomplishes the desired purpose to create a human scale pedestrian oriented site. 25. Design District Review: The project site is located within Design District 'C'. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the standards of the Design District 'C' Standards and guidelines, as outlined in RMC 4-3-100.E: Compliance I Design Distr(g.Gµ~j~e ,ncf St;u1dard: Aniilysl$i ..... ·. >.•) .. ·-__ ' .:'_, ., :'\::,_j ,· __ -- 1. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity. a. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses and to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. To organize buildings for pedestrian use and so that natural light is available to other structures and open space. To ensure an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses; and increase privacy for residential uses. Guidelines: Developments shall enhance the mutual relationship of buildings with each other, as well as with the roads, open space, and pedestrian amenities while working to create a pedestrian oriented environment. Lots shall be configured to encourage variety and so that natural light is available to buildings and open space. The privacy of individuals in residential uses shall be provided for. Standard: The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun ., exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be considered when siting structures. Stat[_ Comment: See FOF 26, Master and Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review. N/A Standard: Commercial mixed-use buildings shall contain pedestrian-oriented uses, feature "pedestrian-oriented facades," and have clear connections to the sidewalk. Standard: Office buildings shall have pedestrian-oriented facades. In limited circumstances the Department may allow facades that do not feature a pedestrian N/A orientation; if so, substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building shall be provided. Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk. Standard: Residential and mixed-use buildings containing street-level residential uses N/A and single-purpose residential buildings shall be: a. Set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10') and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comm RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES r & Economic Development ~aring Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-I\,,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 16 of 41 (illustration below); or b. Have the ground floor residential uses raised above street level for residents' privacy. b. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Guidelines: Primary entries shall face the street, serve as a focal point, and allow space for social interaction. All entries shall include features that make them easily identifiable while reflecting the architectural character of the building. The primary entry shall be the most visually prominent entry. Pedestrian access to the building from the sidewalk, parking lots, and/or other areas shall be provided and shall enhance the overall quality of the pedestrian experience on the site. Compliant if condition of approval is met Compliant if condition of approval is met Compliant if condition of approval is met N/A Compliant HEX Report Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements. Staff Comment: While the proposed pedestrian plaza, along Lake Washington Blvd N, serves as a focal point far the development and a/laws space far social interaction, additional design elements are needed in order to establish a visually prominent entry along lake Washington Blvd N. Staff has recommended additional ground level details, particularly at the entrances in order to meet this and other standards within the district (see Ground Level Details). The main entrance for the commercial development is located on the southwest corner of the building under the porte-cochere. The provided elevations da not include details for the urban amenities such os seating areas to wait for transfers/taxis, lighting fixtures, public ort, or vertical landscaping. And while the plans da indicate ca/or stamped concrete in this area, additional details are needed to ensure the proposal establishes a quality pedestrian experience along the street and at the entrances for the building. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a detailed common open space/plaza plan which includes specifications for pedestrian amenities that add ta the pedestrian experience and the human scale intended for the development. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be made visibly prominent by incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting. Staff Comment: See Ground level Details. Standard Building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping and include weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide (illustration below). Buildings that are taller than thirty feet (30') in height shall also ensure that the weather protection is proportional to the distance above ground level. Staff Comment: See Ground level Details. Standard: Building entries from a parking lot shall be subordinate to those related to the street. Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows shall be oriented to a City of Renton Department of Com, RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES ·y & Economic Development rearing Examiner Recommendation WA14-000061, SA-,.,, SA-H, ECF, MOO, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 17 of 41 if condition street or pedestrian-oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features should of be incorporated. approval is Staff. Comment: See discussion above. met Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall direct views to building entries by N/A providing a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping. Standard: Ground floor residential units that are directly accessible from the street shall N/A include entries from front yards to provide transition space from the street or entries from an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. c. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long- established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. Guidelines: Careful siting and design treatment shall be used to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. Standard: For properties along North 6th Street and Logan Avenue North (between N/A North 4th Street and North 6th Street), applicants shall demonstrate how their project provides an appropriate transition to the long-established, existing residential neighborhood south of North 6th Street known as the North Renton Neighborhood. Standard: For properties located south of North 8th Street, east of Garden Avenue N/A North, applicants must demonstrate how their project appropriately provides transitions to existing industrial uses. d. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Guidelines: Service elements shall be concentrated and located so that impacts to pedestrians and other abutting uses are minimized. The impacts of service elements shall be mitigated with landscaping and an enclosure with fencing that is made of quality materials. Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated ~ and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use. Staff. Comment: See FOF 20, Zoning Development Standard Compliance: Refuse and Recyclabes. Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, N/A and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors. N/A Standard: Service enclosures shall be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three (3). N/A Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian-oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES 'ty & Economic Development !earing Examiner Recommendation WA14-000061, SA-. , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 18 of 41 such facility. e. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City, special design features and architectural elements at gateways should be provided. While gateways should be distinctive within the context of the district, they should also be compatible with the district in form and scale. Guidelines: Development that occurs at gateways should be distinguished with features that visually indicate to both pedestrians and vehicular traffic the uniqueness and prominence of their locations in the City. Examples of these types of features include monuments, public art, and public plazas. N/A Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features. N/A Standard Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles. Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two (2) or more of the following: 1) Public art; 2) Special landscape treatment; N/A 3) Open space/plaza; 4) Landmark building form; 5) Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; 6) Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); Neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs do not qualify). 2. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. a. Surface Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Guidelines: Surface parking shall be located and designed so as to reduce the visual impact of the parking area and associated vehicles. Large areas of surface parking shall also be designed to accommodate future infill development. Standard: Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building and may not occur between the building and the street. However, if due to the constraints of the site, ,/ parking cannot be provided at the side or rear of the building, the Administrator may allow parking to occur between the building and the street. If parking is allowed to occur between the building and the street, no more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comm RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES , & Economic Development ~aring Examiner Recommendation WA14-000061, SA-.• ,, -A-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 19 of 41 vehicular access. Staft Comment: See FOF 20, Zoning Development Standard Compliance: Parking. Standard: Parking shall be located so that it is screened from surrounding streets by ,/ buildings, landscaping, and/or gateway features as dictated by location. Staff. Comment: See FOF 20, Zoning Development Standard Compliance: Parking. Standard: Surface parking lots shall be designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, provision of a parking lot with a minimum N/A dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200') and one thousand five hundred feet (1,500') maximum perimeter area. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel. b. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To promote more efficient use of land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages. Guidelines: Parking garages shall not dominate the streetscape; they shall be designed to be complementary with adjacent and abutting buildings. They shall be sited to complement, not subordinate, pedestrian entries. Similar forms, materials, and/or details to the primary building(s) should be used to enhance garages. Standard: Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along N/A street frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the building frontage width. Standard: The entire facade must feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development may approve parking structures that do not feature a pedestrian orientation in limited N/A circumstances. If allowed, the structure shall be set back at least six feet (6') from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This landscaping shall include a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to ten feet (10') when abutting a primary arterial and/or minor arterial. N/A Standard: Public facing facades shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials. Standard: The entry to the parking garage shall be located away from the primary ,/ street, to either the side or rear of the building. Staff. Comment: The entry to the parking garage is located to the rear of the building. Standard: Parking garages at grade shall include screening or be enclosed from view N/A with treatment such as walls, decorative grilles, trellis with landscaping, or a combination of treatments. Standard: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can N/A successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: HEX Report City of Renton Deportment of Comm RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES ' & Economic Development '.aring Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-t.,, JA-H, ECF, MOO, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 20 of 41 (a) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (b) Decorative artwork; (c) Display windows; (d) Brick, tile, or stone; (e) Pre-cast decorative panels; (f) Vine-covered trellis; (g) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (h)Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard ... c. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous and uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets. Guidelines: Vehicular access to parking garages and parking lots shall not impede or interrupt pedestrian mobility. The impacts of curb cuts to pedestrian access on sidewalks shall be minimized. ~ Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings. Staff Comment: The entry to the parking garage is located to the rear of the building. Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points shall be N/A restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. 3. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi-modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. a. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Guidelines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of projects. Sidewalks and/or pathways shall be provided and shall provide safe access to buildings from parking areas. Providing pedestrian connections to abutting properties is an important aspect of connectivity and encourages pedestrian activity and shall be considered. Pathways shall be easily identifiable to pedestrians and drivers. Standard: A pedestrian circulation system of pathways that are clearly delineated and Compliant connect buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting if properties shall be provided. conditions (a) Pathways shall be located so that there are clear sight lines, to increase safety. of approval (b) Pathways shall be an all-weather or permeable walking surface, unless the are met applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES "ty & Economic Development /earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-... , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 N/A N/A Page 21 of 41 Staff Comment: The provided TIA provides a narrative of the existing area pedestrian and bicycle facilities (existing bike /ones on both sides af Lake Washington Blvd N, existing contiguous sidewalk to the north but none to the south of the project) (Exhibit 8/. As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along frontage of the site in order to connect to the existing sidewalk system to the north. The local roadway network is complex with multiple intersections in a small area, one-way segments, horizontal curves and significant intermittent rail impact. There is no accessible corridor for pedestrian movement in the project area. The TIA does note the lack of pedestrian facilities between the site and the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd N at Gene Coulon Park entrance/Houser Way intersection. Therefore a SEPA mitigation measure was imposed requiring the applicant provide a surety device, in an amount sufficient, to provide pedestrian improvements between the site and the Lake Washington Blvd at Gene Coulon Park entrance /Houser Way. If the pedestrian connection is constructed as part of the development of the abutting parcel to the south the provided surety device will be released. If the pedestrian connection is not constructed prior to the termination of the two year period the funds will be released to the City of Renton for the construction of the pedestrian connection. See additional discussion under Building Entries. Standard: Pathways within parking areas shall be provided and differentiated by material or texture (i.e., raised walkway, stamped concrete, or pavers) from abutting paving materials. Permeable materials are encouraged. The pathways shall be perpendicular to the applicable building facade and no greater than one hundred fifty feet (150') apart. Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface. (b) Interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a hierarchy. The widths shall be based on the intended number of users; to be no smaller than five feet (5') and no greater than twelve feet (12'). (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. Staff Comment: See comment above. Standard: Mid-block connections between buildings shall be provided. b. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Guidelines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of projects. Amenities that encourage pedestrian use and enhance the pedestrian experience shall be included. ;:::::::::;: ~ I Standard: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, particularly at building HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comr RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES y & Economic Development earing Examiner Recommendation . LUA14-000061, SA-.•. , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 22 of 41 Approval are entrances, in publicly accessible spaces and at facades along streets, shall be provided. Met Sta[[ Comment: See Building Entries and Ground Level Details. Standard: Amenities such as outdoor group seating, benches, transit shelters, fountains, and public art shall be provided. Compliant if (a) Site furniture shall be made of durable, vandal-and weather-resistant Conditions materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an of Approval extended period of time. are Met (b) Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. Staff_ Comment: See Building Entries. Standard: Pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs shall be provided. These elements shall be a minimum Compliant if of 4.5 feet wide along at least seventy 75 percent of the length of the building facade Conditions facing the street, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no of Approval lower than 8 feet above ground level. are Met Sta[[ Comment: Building extends over the entry drive aisle ta provide weather protection at primary entry and vehicle drop off. See additional discussion under Ground Level Details. 4. RECREATION AREAS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To ensure that areas for both passive and active recreation are available to residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations. To create usable and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and to promote pedestrian activity on streets particularly at street corners. Guidelines: Developments located at street intersections should provide pedestrian-oriented space at the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (illustration below). Recreation and common open space areas are integral aspects of quality development that encourage pedestrians and users. These areas shall be provided in an amount that is adequate to be functional and usable; they shall also be landscaped and located so that they are appealing to users and pedestrians N/A Standard: All mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide common opens space and/or recreation areas. Standard: All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian-oriented space. Staff_ Comment: A total of 66,929 square feet of hotel area (not including the structured parking area) is proposed. Therefore a pedestrian oriented space is required. The Compliant if applicant has proposed a pedestrian plaza located off of Lake Washington Blvd N which Conditions serves to provide an active public space between the building and the right of way. The of Approval plaza includes a landscape terrace to transition the grades along the right of way and are Met finish elevation ot the ground floor. The landscaping buffer along eastern edge of plaza softens the edge at the sidewalk and the area is integrated into the right of way, entry plaza, and auta court. A tatal of 3,700 square feet of passive and active open spaces is provided on the site and is of sufficient size for hotel patrons and the public. Additional detailing and specifications are required in order ta demonstrate compliance. See discussion under HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES ·ty & Economic Development learing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-.-·, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 23 of 41 Building Entries. Standard: The pedestrian-oriented space for buildings and developments with over thirty thousand {30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses shall include all of the following: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) to the abutting Compliant if structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; and Conditions (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; and af Approval ore Met (c) On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground; and (d) At least three (3) lineal feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space. Statf. Comment: See Comment above. Standard: The following areas shall not count as pedestrian-oriented space for buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses: (a) The minimum required walkway. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian- ,/ oriented space if the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian-oriented space. (b) Areas that abut landscaped parking lots, chain link fences, blank walls, and/or dumpsters or service areas. Statf. Comment: The proposed pedestrian oriented space does not include areas for required walkways or areas which abut parking lots, chain link fences, blank walls and/or dumpsters or service areas. N/A Standard: Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) is prohibited within pedestrian-oriented space. 5. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. a. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Guidelines: Building facades shall be modulated and/or articulated to reduce the apparent size of buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. Standard: All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of Compliant if the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined Condition of entrances, and display windows. Approval is Met Staff Comment: According to the massing study provided, the hotel building uses less of the development envelope than permitted by the zone (Exhibit 4). Massing along Lake HEX Report City of Renton Department of Cornn RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES y & Economic Development earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-.•. , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 ,/ N/A HEX Report Page 24 of 41 Washington Blvd N is accentuated in three masses that wrap around the building. The building steps back along the north property line to transition the building with the Live/Work development to north. Along Lake Washington Blvd N the building is four- stories with a fifth story portion stepped back to reduce perceived mass from the public realm. The step bocks which allow for upper story terraces/patios, in addition to the increase front yard setback (22-feet and 9-inches), help to avoid the impression of on oversized structure. The scale and bulk of the building is also reduced through the use of differing materials on the building facades. The building materials vary and are a combination of painted lap siding, stone, stucco, and vinyl windows /Exhibit 15). The stone along the street frontage has been wrapped into the courtyard as a base to reduce the scale of the building. While the applicant has incorporated design elements to reduce the apparent bulk of the building and has achieved an atypical Hampton Inn design, additional elements should be incorporated into the design in order to break the monotony of the street facing fa,ade and comply with the intent of this standard. This standard could be met with the incorporation of additional ground level detail {see discussion under Ground Level Details) Better plan detail is necessary to determine whether the HVAC units are integrated into the window frames and whether the window system provides visual relief along facades. Specifically, it is unclear the recess depth far each window, which is important to best execute the window design. Providing adequate window depths would add some modulation and relief to all of the facades of the building. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition af approval, the applicant submit o revised elevation depicting some recess depth for eoch window, in which the HVAC unit is abutted directly below the window and within a frame that gives the appearance that it's an integrated window system. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. See additional discussion under Ground Level Details. Standard: All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: a. Defined entry features; b. Bay windows and/or balconies; c. Roof line features; or d. Other features as approved by the Administrator. Staff Comment: See comment above. Standard: Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows: a. The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be forty feet (40'). b. The minimum width of modulation shall be fifteen feet (15'). c. The minimum depth of modulation shall be greater than six feet (6'). d. All buildings greater than one hundred sixty feet (160') in length shall provide a variety of modulations and articulations to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade (as illustrated in District B above); or provide an additional special City of Renton Department of Com, RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES · y & Economic Development 'earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-00006l, SA-... , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 25 of 41 design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering area. b. Ground-Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Guidelines: The use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and horizontal wood siding is encouraged. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting (illustration below). Detail features should also be used, to include things such as decorative entry paving, street furniture (benches, etc.), and/or public art. Compliant If Condition of Approval is met Compliant if Condition of approval is met ,/ HEX Report Standard: Human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature shall be provided along the facade's ground floor. Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed human-scaled elements such as windows, lighting fixtures, sun shades, or other landscape features along the majority of the Lake Washington Blvd N facade (Exhibit 4). However, additional ground level details and the provision of a prominent entry along the street are needed in order ta create a stronger appearance at the ground level in relation to the overall building design as envisioned by the UC-N2 zone and the Design District. The addition of a continuous canopy (or a series of canopies) appropriately placed above the first level windows (and in particular the pedestrian entry facing westward leading to the outdoor dining patio) would provide a stronger appearance of the ground level in relation to overall building design, especially if it is designed with an upward angle ta match the (shed) raofline above and allow sunlight into pedestrian plaza. Otherwise there is little projection /ram the face of the building an the west elevation that would add interest ta this street-facing facade. The canopy would also provide a nice break in the continuous use of the stone veneer for the building's four bottom stories (currently without a break except far the windows), and emphasize the ground //oar commercial portion of the building from hotel rooms above. The use of additional glazing an the ground //oar would also serve to reinforce the human scale of the pedestrian plaza and the ground floor. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit revised elevations depicting added architectural detailing elements along the ground floor of the Lake Washington Blvd N facade. The applicant is encouraged to provide additional glazing and a continuous canopy (or a series of canopies) appropriately placed above the first level windows with an upward angle to mimic the (shed) roofline above with particular attention paid to the entry on the western facade. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Standard: On any facade visible to the public, transparent windows and/or doors are required to comprise at least 50 percent of the portion of the ground floor facade that is between 4 feet and 8 feet above ground (as measured on the true elevation). Staff Comment: See condition above. Standard: Upper portions of building facades shall have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 City of Renton Department of Cornn RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES y & Economic Development ~aring Examiner Recommendation · 1 LUA14-000061, SA-I\.,, JA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 26 of 41 percent. Staff Comment: Upper portions of the windows have clear visibility inta and out of the building. N/A Standard: Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. N/A Standard: Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. Standard: Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are ., prohibited . Staff Comment: No tinted, dork, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass or film are included in the proposal. Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over 6 feet in height, N/A has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (e) Any portion of a ground floor wall has a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Standard: If blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following: (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; N/A (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. c. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. Guidelines: Building roof lines shall be varied and include architectural elements to add visual interest to the building. Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles: Compliant if (a) Extended parapets; Condition of approval is (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; met (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs HEX Report City of Renton Deportment of Com, RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES • :y & Economic Development /earing Examiner Recommendation WA14-000061, SA-... , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 27 of 41 (e) Buildings containing predominantly residential uses shall have pitched roofs with a minimum slope of one to four (1:4) and shall have dormers or interesting roof forms that break up the massiveness of an uninterrupted sloping roof. Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed a shed roof overhang with wood so/fit and downlighting oriented towards Lake Washington. The shed roof shape adds an interesting dimension to the building's massing. However, this dimension is primarily visible from the south elevation and its presence is diminished on the north elevation. The overall roof pitch looks less pronounced (more flat) than previous iterations of the design. A higher pitch for the shed roof would strengthen the top of the building design, avoid the appearance of a flat roof, and add a more subtly distinctive profile for the project. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant increase the pitch of the shed roof element in order to strengthen the building design to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. Revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. d. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Guidelines: Building materials are an important and integral part of the architectural design of a building that is attractive and of high quality. Material variation shall be used to create visual appeal and eliminate monotony of facades. This shall occur on all facades in a consistent manner. High quality materials shall be used. If materials like concrete or block walls are used they shall be enhanced to create variation and enhance their visual appeal. Compliont if Condition of opproval is met HEX Report Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed a variety of materials including: stone veneer, stucco, painted lap siding, wood so/fits, vinyl windows, guardrails, and metal coping. The provided elevations are very conceptual and do not include the details necessary to determine compliance with the stondord. Specifically: 1. No details are provided for the 5th floor level guardrails. As the guardrail is shown as a long continuous detail on three elevations, it's important thot more details on this element are provided prior to building permit approval (Exhibit 15). 2. The "Monufoctured Stone Veneer" used on several elevations, including most of the street facing elevation, is a significant material which will define the building's character (Exhibit 15). Without a sample at this time, as well as an understanding of the size of the individual veneer pieces and whether any mortar will show as part of its application, it's practically impossible to determine with the elevation drawings whether it's an acceptable material. 3. While the horizontal lap siding and stucco materials are more familiar to staff a sample of the material is also needed in order to determine whether these would be acceptable materials. 4. The provided elevations do not include specified colors (Exhibit 15 ). A color City of Renton Deportment of Cornn RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES y & Economic Development earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-11,,, JA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA·A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Compliant if Condition of approval is met Compliant if Condition of approval is met N/A N/A 5.SIGNAGE: Page 28 of 41 scheme which ensures a proper fit with surrounding properties would be required. 5. Particularly missing from the design set, provided by the applicant, are any finish materials intended for the retaining walls at the base of the west elevation, raised planter along the base of the south elevation, the metal screens on the fifth floor terraces, and the sunshades above the west-facing ground floor windows. 6. No detail was provided for windaws and frames (for both ground level and upper story windows), as well as any awnings and both decorative and functional exterior lighting fixtures. 7. Finally, staff would need to better understand shape and finish of the two proposed columns use for the support of the shed roof at the northwest and southwest corners prior to approval of the building permit. The applicant would be required to distinguish the columns in some way to create variation and enhance the visual appeal of the top floor. In order to ensure that quality materials are used staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include color and materials for the following: guardrails, fa~ade treatments, retaining walls, raised planters, metal screens, sunshades, windows/frames, and columns. Acceptable materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre- finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other superior materials approved at the discretion of the Administrator. Standard: All buildings shall use material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns or textural changes. Staff Comment: See comment above. Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and consistent with more traditional urban development, such as brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass and cast-in-place concrete. Staff Comment: See comment above. Standard: If concrete is used, walls shall be enhanced by techniques such as texturing, reveals, and/or coloring with a concrete coating or admixture. Standard: If concrete block walls are used, they shall be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decarative bond pattern and/or shall incorporate other masonry materials. Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. Guidelines: Front-lit, ground-mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign. Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian-oriented streets. Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comm RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES , & Economic Development ~aring Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-I\.,, ~A-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 29 of 41 surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. Staff Comment: The applicant provided a conceptual sign package which indicates the approximate location of some of the exterior building signage (Exhibit 4). The proposed signage includes wall signage with views from north and sauthbound traffic at Lake Washingtan Blvd N. A vertical blade sign and landscape monument sign located at entry plaza are also proposed to signify entry from the street. However, a complete signage package would serve to ensure proposed signage is in keeping with building's architecture and exterior finishes. Therefore staff recommends, Compliant if as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to submit a conceptual sign Condition of package which indicates the approximate location of all exterior building signage. Approval is Proposed signage shall be compatible with the building's architecture and exterior Met finishes and contributes to the character of the development. The conceptual sign package shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior ta building permit approval. In order ta meet the intent of this condition, staff encourages the applicant ta incorporate interesting signage into the shed roof canopy at the ground level (if one is added) (see Ground Level Details), in place of utilizing a monument sign. Wall signs an upper levels, are encouraged ta be inset which would frame the sign and add interest ta the facade to which the sign is affixed. A projecting blade sign above the porte-cachere may also add same interest to the building design. If a monument sign is desired, the sign should be strategically located ta screen utility cabinets and fixtures. Compliant if Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. Condition of Approval is Staff Comment: See comment above. Met N/A Standard: In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. Compliant if Standard: Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of primary Condition of entry signs, shall be limited to five feet (S') above finished grade, including support Approval is structure. Met Stoff Comment: See comment above. Standard: Freestanding signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or Compliant if shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, Condition of signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Approval is Director. Met Staff Comment: See comment above. Standard: All of the following are prohibited: a. Pole signs; ¥ b. Roof signs; and c. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are HEX Report City of Renton Deportment of Comr RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES y & Economic Development earing Examiner Recommendation WA14-000061, SA-... , SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 30 of 41 permitted as area signs with only the individual letters back-lit (see illustration, subsection GS of this Section). Staff. Comment: The proposal does not include pole, roof, or bock lit signage. 6. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Guidelines: Lighting that improves pedestrian safety and also that creates visual interest in the building and site during the evening hours shall be provided. Standard: Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided at primary and secondary building entrances. Examples include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting and decorative street lighting. Staff Comment: The applicant has indicated compliance with the above lighting standard as well as the two standards mentioned below, in the submitted design district compliance narrative. Woll mounted fixtures ore proposed to be provided at the stone Compliont if columns along Lake Washington Blvd N. Recessed downlights ore proposed to be Condition of integrated into the wood soffit at the entry plaza, drive aisle and loading area and Approval is landscape lighting and is proposed in the courtyard and plaza. However, o lighting plan Met was not submitted identifying compliance with these standards, as such, staff recommends a condition of approval that requires the applicant to provide o lighting plan that adequately provides far public safety without casting excessive glare an adjacent properties; at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases ta assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4- 075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. Compliant if Standard: Accent lighting shall also be provided on building facades (such as sconces) Condition of and/or to illuminate other key elements of the site such as gateways, specimen trees, Approval is other significant landscaping, water features, and/or artwork. met Staff. Comment: See comment above. Standard: Downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and Compliant if vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved Condition of administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4- Approval is 075, Lighting, Exterior On-Site (i.e., signage, governmental flags, temporary holiday or met decorative lighting, right-of-way-lighting, etc.). Staff. Comment: See comment above. 26. Master and Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.B, Master Plan Review and Site Plan Review are required for all development in the UC-N2 zoning classification. For Master Plan applications compliance with the review criteria for Site Plans are analyzed at a general level of detail to ensure nothing would preclude the development of the Site Plan. Given Site Plan applications are evaluated for compliance with the specific requirements of the RMC 4-9-200.E.3 the following table contains project elements intended to comply with level of detail needed for both the Master and Site Plan requests: Compliance Site Plan Criterfa and Analysis HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES 'ty & Economic Development ,earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-00006l, SA-... , SA-H, ECF, MOO, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 31 of 41 Compliant if a. Comprehensive Plan Compliance and consistency. Conditions of Approval Staff Comment: See Screening discussion under FOF 19, Comprehensive Plan Analysis. ore Met Compliant if b. Zoning Compliance and Consistency. Conditions of Approval Staff Comment: See Screening discussion under FOF 20, Zoning Development Standard are Met Compliance. Compliant If c. Design Regulation Compliance and Consistency. Conditions of Approval Staff Comment: See Screening discussion under FOF 25, Design District Review. are Met N/A d. Planned action ordinance and Development agreement Compliance and Consistency. e. Off Site Impacts. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site. Staff Comment: See FOF 25, Design District Review: Building Character and Massing. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Staff Comment: All vehicular access to parking areas would be via one curb cut, along Lake Washington Blvd N, south of the building. The consolidation of curb cuts along the street would reduce conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles. The proposal promotes safe and efficient circulation through the single access point. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties. Staff Comment: See FOF 20, Zoning Development Standard: Screening . .,,, Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features. Staff Comment: There are no territorial views for which to maintain visual accessibility with the exception of potential views, from the live/work units to the north, to Mt. Rainier. Staff received no comments from adjacent properties regarding views. Views of the site would be altered with the proposed development. However, the proposed hotel would be architecturally compatible with the surrounding environment in terms of bulk and scale, exterior materials, and color if all conditions ore met. The proposed hotel would establish new visual access for patrons to Mt. Rainier from the south far;:ade and roof deck until such time the neighboring hotel on the abutting property to the south is constructed. Additionally, the outdoor terrace, adjacent to pool area, as well as the roof deck and hotel rooms on the west far;:ade would be able to enjoy visual access to Lake Washington across Gene Coulon Park. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally HEX Report City of Renton Deportment of Cornn RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES , & Economic Development ?aring Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-I\,,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Campi/ant if Page 32 of 41 enhance the appearance of the project. Staff Comment: See discussion under FOF 20, Zoning Development Standard: Landscaping. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. Stoff Comment: A lighting plan was not provided with the application; therefore staff recommended that a lighting plan be provided at the time of building permit review (See Lighting discussion under FOF 25, Design Review: Lighting). f. On Site Impacts. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation. Staff Comment: The building has a primary orientation to the west. The entrance has a large porte-cochere to provide both an architectural entry statement and weather protection for hotel guests arriving and departing by car, van, or tour bus. Location of the hatel's main vehicular and pedestrian entrance is located on the south side of the site, furthest /ram the existing residential units to the north. The building also vertically steps back along north property line ta transition ta the Live/Work development to the north. With the front yard building setback at 22-feet and the location of the raams an the northern far;ade the privacy of the existing residential units ta the north and the proposed hate/ guest would be protected. It is anticipated that mast of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. In addition, the project wauld be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance regarding construction hours. e------------------------------------1 Condition of Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to Approval is natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and met HEX Report pedestrian and vehicle needs. Staff Comment: The hotel complies with the height standards of the UC-N2 zoning classification. According ta the massing study provided, the hotel building uses less of the development envelope than permitted by the zone. The building steps back along the north property line to transition the building to the Live/Wark development to the north. Additionally, the building is four-stories along street frontage with a fifth story portion stepped back to reduce perceived mass from the public realm. The step backs help ta avoid the impression of an oversized structure and allow for upper story terraces/patios. The scale and bulk of the building is reduced through the use of differing materials on the building facades, building articulation and modulation. The building materials vary and are a combination of painted lap siding, stone, stucco, ond vinyl windows (Exhibit 15). The proposed structure would not have o significant impact on light access or oir movement on adjacent properties. The use of the project is not influenced by factors of light or air. While the upper story decks will be exposed to the prevailing winds from the south, the location of the terrace an the north side of the building would provide protection from winds ond would provide an alternative outdoor space far guests. The City of Renton Department of Com RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES 'ty & Economic Development !earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA·m, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 HEX Report Page 33 of 41 design of the structure would not result in excessive shading of the property. The use of trees in along the street would provide shading of the sidewalk and plaza oreos with little, impact on adjacent properties. The applicant would be required to provide o detailed landscape pion to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. The pedestrian plaza has been strategically placed on site in order take advantage of sun exposure from the south and west most times of the year and would likely only be shaded at certain times of the day during the winter months. If all recommended conditions of approval are met the building's ground floor street frontage will be visually distinct from the upper floors of the building to create a well- defined, pedestrian-scaled base. Entrance canopies, exterior lighting elements, planted containers and outdoor dining furniture at the street intersection is recommended to be used to reinforce the pedestrian scale and orientation of the ground floor frontage. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces. Staff Comment: The site is currently developed with a small espresso stand and an asphalt drive aisle. The remainder of the site exists as a combination of grassy and forested areas. There are 42 trees located on site consisting of the following species: alder, cottonwood, fir, and maple. Per RMC4-4-130 the applicant is required to retain 10 percent of the trees on site. The applicant is proposing to retain 34 trees on site thereby complying with the tree retention requirements of the code. The applicant provided o geotechnical report, prepared by Earth Solutions Northwest {ESMW}, on December 18, 2014 (Exhibit 7). Topsoil was observed in the upper 12 inches from existing grode. Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of medium dense to dense silt, silty sand, poorly graded sand, and silty grovel with sand were encountered to a maximum exploration depth of 41.5 feet below grade. Shallow groundwater was observed at depths of 9 to 13 feet below existing grades and is likely to represent o locally perched condition. A deeper ground water condition was observed at depths of 23 to 25 feet below grade and likely represents the loco/ ground water table. Based on the results of the geotechnical study the proposed facility could be supported by conventional spread and continuous footings. The applicant is proposing the excavation of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of on- site material that would be removed from the site. Approximately, 5,000 cubic yards of structural fill would be imported. Excavated material may be used, if suitable, in compacted fills on site. It is also expected that below grade cuts would be to approximately 25 to 45 feet. Given the location of the groundwater table, measures to collect and discharge groundwater from the proposed excavations is anticipated as well as permanent sub- s/ob drainage to mitigate groundwater conditions. However, the provided geotechnicol report includes o request for the reevaluation of measures/recommendations to address groundwater at the time of final construction design. Given the shallow groundwater table o SEPA mitigation measure was imposed requiring the applicant to provide an updated Geotechnicol Report with o reevaluation and specific recommendations to address groundwater conditions related to excavation and permanent sub-slob drainage. Additionally, another SEPA mitigation measure wos imposed requiring compliance with oll design recommendations included City of Renton Department of Com · RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES ·ty & Economic Development '/earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-,.,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 34 of 41 within the Geotechnicol Report. Critical slopes on site represent approximately 24,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to encroach into 4,185 square feet of critical slope necessitating a critical area variance per RMC 4-3-100 {See FOF 23, Critical Area Variance Analysis). Approximately 56% of the site would remain in a natural state, which is well beneath the requirements af the UC-N2 zone. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. Sta[t Comment: See FOF 20, Zoning Development Standard: Landscaping. g. Access Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties. Staff Comment: All vehicular access to parking areas would be via a single curb cut along Lake Washington Blvd N at the south end of site. The location of the curb cut would minimize conflict with the exisitng curb cut on the abutting property to the north. Additionally, the applicant hos provided two levels of below ground parking provided with an entry into garage locoted at the rear of building in order to reduce conflicts. Additionally, service elements (trash/recycling) are located within the building adjacent to the parking garage entry, to reduce impocts on pedestrians. The proposed development is expected to maintain the safety and efficiency of pedestrian and vehicle circulation on the site if all conditions of approval ore complied with. Compliant if Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation Condition of system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian Approval is access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency met access ways. Staff Comment: See Location and Consolidation discussion obove. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas. Statt Comment: There ore no dedicated loading or delivery areas proposed on site. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access. Staff Comment: Per RMC 4-4-0BOF.11.a bicycle parking spoces are required at 10% of the number of required off-street parking spaces. Based on the proposed uses, a minimum of 111 parking spaces would be required in order to meet code. Therefore, 11 bicycle parking stalls shall be required. The applicant has proposed bicycle parking on Level 1 {Ground level) (Exhibit 17). For in-building bike parking fixed structures for locking individual bikes, such as rocks, must be provided within the facility. It is unclear if the proposal provides fixed structures for locking individual bikes. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit bicycle parking detail demonstrating compliance with the bicycle requirements outlined in HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES 'ty & Economic Development iearing Examiner Recommendation WA14-000061, SA-,.,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 Page 35 of 41 RMC 4-4-0BOF.11.c for fixed structures. The bicycle parking detail shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. Stat[_ Comment: See FOF 25, Design District Compliance h. Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the ,/" occupants/users of the site. Stat[_ Comment: See FOF 25, Design District Compliance: Recreation Areas and Cammon Open Space. i. Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors ta shorelines ,/" and Mt. Rainier, and incarparoting public access ta shorelines Stat[_ Comment: The proposed structure would not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier. The public access requirement is not applicable to the proposal. N/A j. Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. k. Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use: Police and Fi re. Stat[_ Comment: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on new multi-family units and square foot of non-residential area is required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The applicant would be required to pay an appropriate Fire Impact Fee. Water and Sewer. Staff Comment: The site is served by the City of Renton for all utilities. It has been Compliant if determined that the preliminary fire flow demand for the proposed development is Conditions 2,500 gpm. There is an existing 12-inch water main in Lake Washington Blvd N which of Approval are met would provide adequate fire flow to the proposal. There is an 8-inch sewer main in Lake Washington Blvd N which is of sufficient size to support the proposed development. Any use in the building {kitchen, restaurant) involving the handling of grease requires installation of a properly sized grease interceptor. A system development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the proposed project. Drainage. Staff Comment: The site is located within the Lake Washington Drainage basin. Runoff from the site currently drains to the southwest of the project site and then travels along Lake Washington Blvd N. The drainage then continues to travel south and crosses the railroad tracks and then continues south underneath the roadway via a 12- inch culvert. The drainage then travels southwest along Lake Washington Blvd in a roadside ditch until it travels underneath Lake Washington Blvd via four separate HEX Report City of Renton Deportment of Comm RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES 1 & Economic Development ~aring Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-.•. , ~A-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 HEX Report Page 36 of 41 culverts (two 54-inch and two 48-inch culverts). The flows then head north via roadside ditches and several culverts eventually discharging directly into Lake Washington. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted with the site plan application, prepared by Insight Engineering Co., dated December 19, 2015 /Exhibit 6). The report addresses compliance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. The applicant hos indicated that there is a Jack of downstream conveyance and there is theoretical 100-year flooding at the box culvert that discharges into Lake Washington. As a result, the proposal includes a tight lined connection to a 15-inch pipe underneath Lake Washington Blvd north of the project site. The report indicates the proposal is exempt from water quality requirements as the total pollution generating surfaces is 3,982 square feet which is Jess than the 5,000 square foot threshold. While City staff concurs with the stated water quality exemption the proposed storm water system layout is not acceptable to City staff. The proposed discharge location is not the natural discharge location and as a result Core Requirement No.1 would not be met. Additionally, the proposed stormwater connection to an existing City Parks drainage system is not supported by the City's Porks Department and may also be subject to review by BNSF depending on the location of the connection. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval, the applicant submit a revised Drainage Report and Plan in compliance with Core Requirement No. 1. Specifically, the applicant would be required to redesign the discharge of stormwater from the subject site to the natural discharge location to the south. The revised plan would be required to include stormwater conveyance along the entire frontage along Lake Washington Blvd extending southward to connect with the existing storm water pipe at the Lake Washington Blvd N/Houser Way intersection. The revised report shall also include a detailed description demonstrating compliance with the Direct Discharge exemption criteria per the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual. Finally, the revised report would be required to include a downstream capacity analysis (existing and future land use conditions) for the natural discharge direction. A detention vault or downstream capacity improvements would be required if the downstream quantitative analysis reveals downstream capacity is not adequate and/or the Direct Discharge exemption criteria is not met. Transportation. Staff Comment: Access to the site is proposed via a single curb cut from Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultant, dated October, 2013 as part of the original submittal. Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. Before the independent review could be completed the City received a submitted a revised Traffic Impact Analysis {TIA} prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants, dated June 4, 2014 /Exhibit 8} to reflect revisions to the scope of the proposed project. On August 5, 2014, an independent peer review of the provided June 4, 2014 TIA was provided to the City by Perteet /Exhibit 9). Applicable comments from the independent reviewer are provided below. The provided TIA /Exhibit 8) and found it met the intent of the TIA guidelines and is City of Renton Department of Comm RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES , & Economic Development •aring Examiner Recommendation WA14-000061, SA-I\,,, JA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 HEX Report Page 37 of 41 generally acceptable for preliminary review with recommendations for minor revisions which are not anticipated to change the likelihood of significant adverse impacts. Temporary Impacts: Given the concentration of potential development to occur in the immediate vicinity of the project site (Southport, Residence Inn, Gene Coulon Park, etc.) within the same construction time frame, staff anticipates that the proposed project would contribute to short term impacts to the City's street system. Therefore, Environmental Review Committee imposed a SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant create a public outreach plan in coordination with City of Renton to communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. Level of Service: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate approximately 1,021 average daily trips with 66 AM peak-hour trips and 75 PM peak- hour trips. The provided analyzed two locations (Exhibit 8}: Intersection 1: Lake Washington Blvd N at Gene Coulon Park entrance/Houser Way Intersection 2: Lake Washington Blvd Nat Site Access The provided analysis notes that the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd N at Gene Coulon Park entrance/Houser Way will operate at deficient LOS F with the conservatively high Southport Development volumes, regardless of whether the subject project is constructed. It is important to note that the actual impacts of the Southport Development are anticipated to be lower and the intersection is anticipated ta operate at LOSE or better with the actual reduced impacts of the Southport Development. Comments were received regarding the need for LOS analysis at additional intersections not included in the provided TIA given the number of trips at each intersection (Exhibit 10). While the number of trips were used to determine the need for a traffic study (20 peak hour trips), specific percentage increases in trips are used to determine the need to analyze a specific intersection. More specifically the TIA guidelines require that intersections which experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of a proposed development are to be studied. The Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance/Lake Washington Blvd N intersection was the single intersection which met this threshold. The intersection at 44'" and Lake Washington Blvd N would not meet the 5% criteria and therefore would not be required to be analyzed. As for the request to analyze the Houser Way conversion intersection, the City has independently studied the two-way conversion of Houser Way. The study concluded that converting Houser Way to a two-way street would provide an alternative route for traffic to continue northbound on Lake Washington Blvd N, continue through the intersection to Coulon Park and Southport, and continue southbound on Lake Washington Blvd N. This improvement could potentially improve the level of service of the overall Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance/Lake Washington Blvd N intersection. As a result, the applicant's analysis without the two-way Houser Woy project is considered a more conservative (worse case) scenario and is sufficient for review in determining probable significant impacts. The following pipeline projects were also considered when looking at levels of service: Hawk's Landing -Hotel development; Quendall Terminals -Residential and commercial development; and Southport Development -Residential and commercial City of Renton Department of Comm RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES 1 & Economic Development ~aring Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-I\,,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Report of April 7, 2015 HEX Report Page 38 of 41 development. The analysis for the Quendall Terminals and Southport developments both included multiple development scenarios. The highest trip generating scenario, which resulted in the highest impacts to the study intersections, were included for both developments. However, a detailed toble should be included in the report that identifies the pipeline projects, the size of eoch project, and the number of trips generated by each project used in the analysis. Therefore stoff recommends, as a condition Hearing Examiner for Site Plan Review approval, the TIA be revised to include a detailed table for each pipeline project. The revised TIA shall be submitted to the Pion Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval. The analysis hos been performed for the horizon year of 2015 based on o former timeline of the project. As o result, staff recommends a condition of Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval, the applicant revise the transportation study prior to engineering permit approval to change the horizon year to the year that the project will be constructed (currently proposed for 2016). Concerns were raised regarding the methods for the collection of transportation data, within the provided TIA, in the submitted public comment letter /Exhibit 10). It should be noted that the analysis performed by the applicant is on data collected in August 2013, which represents summer conditions and the influence of seasonal visitors and boat traffic. However, the TIA does not present AM peak directional volumes. likewise the analysis adequately presents the turning movements at the two study area intersections analyzed for the PM peak hour, but no data for the AM peak. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of Hearing Examiner Site Pion approval, the applicant submit a revised TIA which includes a discussion of the AM peak hour trips and/or a justification for the exclusion of the AM peak hour trips from the analysis. The revised TIA shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval. The TIA identifies no specific mitigation requirement for site development other than full frontage improvements and appropriate transportation impact mitigation fees. Included in the public comment letter is a concern that the proposed development is not paying for its fair share of costs for Lake Washington Blvd N/Gene Coulon Park/Houser Way intersection improvements being completed as part of the Southport development /Exhibit 10}. While the proposed development is not expected to impact the Level of Service of the intersection additional trips would be generated by the proposed development which would impact the intersection. A SEPA mitigation measure was imposed requiring that a prorated share of the traffic signal and roadway improvement costs (currently being constructed by SECO Development} be collected from the proposed project based upon the ratio of number of trips that will be added by the project to the number of future baseline trips at the Southport/Gene Coulon Pork entrance/Lake Washington Blvd N Intersection. Finally, increased traffic created by the development on the remainder of the transportation system would be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. Currently this fee is assessed at $1,512.77 per room (estimated $158,840.85 for 105 hotel rooms}. The fee is expected to increase in 2016 and is determined by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit issuance. Concurrency: Staff recommends a transportation concurrency approval based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation (Exhibit 12). City of Renton Department of Com RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES Report of April 7, 2015 ity & Economic Development ~earing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-,.,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Page 39 of 41 N/A I. Phasing: The applicant is not requesting any additional phasing. I K. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Site Plan, Parking Modification, Street Modification, Critical Area Variance, and Setback Variance for the Renton Hampton Inn & Suites, File No. LUA14-000061, as depicted in Exhibit 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated, dated March 16, 2015. 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan depicting significant landscaping along the street frontage, within planters adjacent to the building or within common open spaces, and roof patio screens. The landscape plan shall also include a planting plan for cleared areas which enhance slope stability. The landscaping plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed plan identifying the location and screening provided for surface and roof mounted equipment. The screening plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 4. The proposal shall be revised to include an additional 285 square feet of area dedicated to refuse and recycables. Alternatively, the applicant may request an Administrative modification, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250, in order to reduce the square footage required. The revised floor plan or Administrative Modification request shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 5. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate there is adequate area for refuse pickup within the parking structure which may require the relocation of a parking stall(s). The revised floorplan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 6. The applicant shall be required to revise the parking plan to include a total of 105 stalls and the following: relocation of proposed stalls which would preclude refuse and recycle pickup; the provision of adequate ADA accessible parking stalls; and the replacement of tandem parking spaces with direct access stalls. The revised parking plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting a 4.5 foot (subject to a final survey) right-of-way dedication along Lake Washington Blvd N. The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 8. A revised Geotechnical report shall be submitted prior to engineering permit approval noting proposed impacts to steeps slopes and any changes in recommendations accordingly. The geotech report would also be required to include information regarding the stability for soil infiltration, with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options. If infiltration is proposed, then falling head permeability rates are required to be provided. 9. The applicant shall submit a detailed common open space/plaza plan which includes specifications for pedestrian amenities that add to the pedestrian experience and the human scale intended for the development. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 10. The applicant shall submit a revised elevation depicting some recess depth for each window, in which the HVAC unit is abutted directly below the window and within a frame that gives the appearance that HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comr RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES Report of April 7, 2015 · -y & Economic Development rearing Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-11,,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Page 40 of 41 it's an integrated window system. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 11. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting added architectural detailing elements along the ground floor of the Lake Washington Blvd N facade. The applicant is encouraged to provide additional glazing and a continuous canopy (or a series of canopies) appropriately placed above the first level windows with an upward angle to mimic the (shed) roofline above with particular attention paid to the entry on the western facade. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 12. The applicant shall increase the pitch of the shed roof element in order to strengthen the building design to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. Revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 13. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include color and materials for the following: guardrails, fa~ade treatments, retaining walls, raised planters, metal screens, sunshades, windows/frames, and columns. Acceptable materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other superior materials approved at the discretion of the Administrator. 14. The applicant shall be required to submit a conceptual sign package which indicates the approximate location of all exterior building signage. Proposed signage shall be compatible with the building's architecture and exterior finishes and contributes to the character of the development. The conceptual sign package shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 15. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. 16. The applicant shall submit bicycle parking detail demonstrating compliance with the bicycle requirements outlined in RMC 4-4-0SOF.11.c for fixed structures. The bicycle parking detail shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 17. The applicant shall submit a revised Drainage Report and Plan in compliance with Core Requirement No. 1. Specifically, the applicant would be required to redesign the discharge of stormwater from the subject site to the natural discharge location to the south. The revised plan would be required to include stormwater conveyance along the entire frontage along Lake Washington Blvd extending southward to connect with the existing storm water pipe at the Lake Washington Blvd N/Houser Way intersection. The revised report shall also include a detailed description demonstrating compliance with the Direct Discharge exemption criteria per the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual. Finally, the revised report would be required to include a downstream capacity analysis (existing and future land use conditions) for the natural discharge direction. A detention vault or downstream capacity improvements would be required if the downstream quantitative analysis reveals downstream capacity is not adequate and/or the Direct Discharge exemption criteria is not met. 18. The TIA shall be revised to include a detailed table for each pipeline project. The revised TIA shall be submitted to the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval. 19. The applicant shall revise the transportation study prior to engineering permit approval to change the horizon year to the year that the project will be constructed (currently proposed for 2016). HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comm RENTON HAMPTON INN & SUITES Report of April 7, 2015 1 & Economic Development ~aring Examiner Recommendation LUA14-000061, SA-A,,, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A, VA-H Page 41 of 41 20. The applicant shall submit a revised TIA which includes a discussion of the AM peak hour trips and/or a justification for the exclusion of the AM peak hour trips from the analysis. The revised TIA shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200 the Hearing Examiner shall determine, and document in writing, an appropriate expiration date for the master plan, granting up to five (5) years. An applicant shall submit a complete site plan application for the development within the specified time frame if a site plan was not combined with the master plan application. The Administrator may grant a one year extension for good cause. Site Plan Approval expires two (2) years from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC section 4-9-200. Pursuant to RMC 4-9-250 any variance granted, unless otherwise specified in writing, shall become null and void in the event that the applicant or owner of the subject property for which a variance has been requested has failed to commence construction or otherwise implement effectively the variance granted within a period of two (2) years after such variance has been issued. For proper cause shown, an applicant may petition for an extension of the two (2) year period during the variance application review process, specifying the reasons for the request. The time may be extended but shall not exceed one additional year in any event. HEX Report EXHIBITS Project Name: Project Number: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA- A, VA-H Date of Hearing 4/7/2015 Staff Contact Rocale Timmons Project Contact/Applicant Project Location Faizel Kassam 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: ERC Report Site Plan Landscape Plan Renderings/ Design Package Tree Removal Plan Drainage Report (May 1, 2015) Geotechnical Report (December 18, 2014) Traffic Impact Analysis (dated June 4, 2014) Independent Peer Review -Transportation (August 5, 2014) Public Comment Letter: Christ Applicant Response to Christ Comment Letter Transportation Concurrency Memo SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures (dated March 16, 2015) Parking Analysis (dated November, 2014) Elevations Request for Exception (dated January 16, 2014) Floorplans Hearing Examiner Staff Recommendation (dated April 7, 2015) r• _____ __.__. r; City of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN,, , AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: March 16, 2015 Project Name: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites -------------------- Owner/Applicant: Faizel Kassam, Legacy Renton; 10700 NE 4'" St, 113006; Bellevue, WA 98004 Contact: Scott Clark, Clark Design Group; 169 Western Ave W; Seattle, WA 98119 ----- •-.. -. ------ File Number: LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A Project Manager: Roca le Timmons, Senior Planner ----- Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, a Parking Modification, Street Modificaiton, and a Critical Area Variance in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) zone and Design District 'C'. The proposed hotel would be approximately 5 stories above grade in height. A total of 105 parking stalls would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 111 to 105 stalls. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-6-060 in order to reduce the amount of right-of-way dedication from 11.5 feet to 2.5 feet along Lake Washington Blvd N. The applicant is also requesting a Variance in order to encroach into critical slopes on site (4,185 square feet). Project Location: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N 1.26 acres Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance· Mitigated (DNS-M). EXHIBIT 1 ····--------·-· ------······--··-··-----··· Project Location Map ERC Report 9,;0Q6 YM 'NC\1- H_l,_'tjQN OHVA3lnoa NO.l~ ' V ' \; ---_) _,.---· --- 3Wl 00£:L ·:,' ' . •, \ I ' -+--------------- ' ·- I I \ ' \ -----,_)__ ------=r ~ ..-: a. 0 I ~ ; <( 'i I M ~ ca 1-t ::c >< w Hampton Inn & Su ites -Renton 1300 Lake Washington Blvd North Land Use Application -Supplemental Package 22 December 2014 Entire Document Available Upon Request : .. IIJ.!.11 =• ~~ )ESIGN GROUP P~lt EXHIBIT 4 0 0 ~ z ~ / < C ' 2 l 1! I l! ; I I ' ' I I ' ' ' ' I I I I I i I I 1 ; '1 I I -~ Entire Document Available Upon Request .. ~-----·------·----·-------------------------------------------------------·---·-------------'--'----__ _:::~.::-:=.::..::·.:.::.: .. ::.:.:.. ... ---. -. -.. l TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT For LEGACY RENTON Prepared for City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Project Site Location: 1300 Lake Washington Boulevard N. Applicant: Legacy Hospitality, Inc. 650 I America's Parkway NE -Suite 1050 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Contact: F azel Kassam Ph. (505)243-6000 Renton, WA 98056 Tax Id: 3344500007 File#: ---IECO Project: 13-0623 Contact: !ECO P.O. Box 1478 Everett, WA 98206 425-303-9363 Certified Erosion and Sedimentation Control Lead: To be named by contractor Storm water Site Plan Prepared By: Jacob D. Mealey, E.I.T. TlR Preparation Date: December 19, 2014 Approximate Construction Date: May 1, 2015 P O Box 14 78 • Everett. WA 9820G • P 425. 303. 93G3 F: 425 303.9362 • info@ins1ghtengmeenng.net EXHIBIT 6 I;...-1,1, l'f Earth Solutions NWLLC Geotechnical Engineering Geology Environmental Scientists Construction Monitoring EXHIBIT 7 Entire Document ,.Available Upon Request UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY HAMPTON INN & SUITES PROPOSED HOTEL FACILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2553.03 ~·-y;~.·;;c ...... -....•.... u----1:-:·: '-'·c------------- Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2802 Wetmore Avenue Suite 220 Everett, WA 98201 425.339.8266 EXHIBITS ., ' ntire Document Available Upon Request Renton Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis Jurisdiction: City of Renton June 2014 GTC #12-163 ) Entire [ .j.lment Available Upcfn Request DRAFT Peer Review Report For itj 'erteet Renton Hotel (aka Renton Hampton Hotel) -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: July 2014 Overview The City of Renton has retained Perteet, Inc. to conduct a peer review of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of the proposed construction of a new hotel, referenced in the TIA as the "Renton Hotel," and otherwise identified as "Renton Hampton Hotel." Perteet has reviewed the TIA, visited the project area, and reviewed available area traffic operations data. This DRAFT Report is an initial identification of issues, intended to better focus the development of a Final Peer Review Report. At the time of this DRAFT Report, Perteet has not yet met with city staff to discuss findings or assumptions contained in this draft peer review report. To produce a final report and recommendations, Perteet will meet with the City and resolve some initial review concerns with the TIA, detailed within the DRAFT report comments below. There are some missing aspects of the TIA relative to the city's TIA Policy Guidelines which might be excused with staff sanction, or otherwise require significant changes to the TIA. Concerns include: • The area of project impact • The time frames of impact analysis • The necessity of additional traffic operational data (i.e.: accident data, AM peak data, non- motorized facility plans) • Trip distribution • Identification of the appropriate pipeline development project aspects • Roadway network facility assumptions at study time scenarios This DRAFT report organizes comments in a format following the sections of the City of Renton "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development" (attached). Comment 1: A TIA for the "Renton Hotel (aka Renton Hampton Hotel)" is warranted Policy guidelines identify that a TIA is required when generation exceeds 20 vehicles in either AM or PM peak (or 200 ADT). A TIA is warranted per City policy as the proposed development would generate 66 new AM peak hour trips, 75 new PM peak hour trips, and a daily trip generation of 1,021 trips per the draft TIA. The TIA utilizes methodology in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9'" Edition, and with LOS analysis utilizing Synchro 8 software -satisfying the City's requirement to use a commonly accepted method. The TIA also satisfies the policy that a registered professional engineer with adequate experience prepares the TIA for the developer. Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 20: EXHIBIT9 EXHIBIT 10 M. Christ 1083 Lake Washington Blvd. N Suite SO Renton WA 98056 Dear Rocale: 1 have just reviewed the traffic study as provided by the applicant -the Renton Hotel being considered at (Hampton Inn) 1300 Lake Washington Blvd .N. The date of the traffic Impact Analysis is October 2013 by Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. The Hampton Inns project must be looked at in a traffic analysis which considers its impact on the entire area. The traffic study analysis only looked at two intersections: the intersection at Lake Washington Blvd. N and the Southport /Gene Coulon Park entrance, which is being funded by Southport; and the entrance to the subject site. The study area and study intersections need to be expanded to be consistent with City TIA Guidelines which require LOS evaluation of intersections impacted by 20 or more peak hour trips. The TIA has an insufficient description of existing transportation system in the study area and does not consider summer conditions at the LWB/Houser/Coulon intersection given the proximity and access for Gene Coulon Park and the influence of visitor and boat traffic from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The applicant's hotel project needs to be understood in terms of its impact on morning and evening peak hour traffic and reflect the irnpact on visitors, workers and residents which are coming in and out of the surrounding neighborhood, including the Southport site, to make sure affected intersections do not get degraded, and to allow for Southport operations to run smoothly. The Southport EIS transportation analysis and subsequent traffic studies for the area were required to include the factors discussed above; the Hampton Inns project should be held to the same standard. Two nearby intersections not included in the applicant's traffic study are perfect examples of why the scope of the study should be expanded. According to the Dec 2014 staff presentation to the city council, the intersection at 44'' and Lake Washington Blvd N. will be of issue, yet it was not part of the Hampton Inns analysis. In addition the potential two-way conversion of Houser Way currently is in the city's 6-Year TIP, so the intersection at Houser Way, Gene Coulon Park/Southport and Lake Washington Blvd should be analyzed. It is immediately adjacent to the subject site and is an important aspect of circulation in this area. The Stoneway concrete plant on Houser had certain conditions which enabled it to be placed near this proposed hotel. The impact/influence of other projects identified in the TIP also should be included in the analysis. The Lake Washington Blvd N and the Southport/Gene Coulon Park entrance intersection is being improved as part of the final phase of Southport, yet the traffic study for the Hampton Inns did not adequately address the impact of the applicant's hotel development on this intersection -100% of all the cars arriving at the Jpplicant's hotel site both from the north and the south will be utilizing Lake Washington Blvd N. The traffic analysis also must include projects planned and in various stages of permitting to be realistic and 1alid. The study looked at Southport '"to be built" or "not built" alternatives; in tact Southport has been under construction a11d development since 2001, with two phases of multifamily hou•;ing completed, a hotel under construction since October 2014, the office site actively proceeding, and many of the utilities and ro,1rJ irnproverncnts under construction or cornoleted. ; h,, traffic study should include full build out of ,outhport as an approvtcd pipeline project. Tf,e traffic analysis :nu;t also look at l11e effect of this proposal on ')outhport's' queuing at intersections 1li1ithin its traffic models. Otht>r approved pipelim~ developments such ; as Hawks Landing and Port Quendail need to be included in the background traffic conditions. The future redevelopment of the Puget Power site also should be included in the analysis. The city needs to make sure that the project will not create unacceptable delays on area streets and intersei;tions, and if it does, that adequate mitigations are required. Southport is spending what will be millions of dollars towards the traffic improvements on Lake Washington Blvd N. and the entrance to Gene Coulon Park to both allow for the full build out of Southport and to improve the overall traffic circulation in this area. Southport's offsite traffic mitigations were predicated on a full 10 intersection study which allows for a tolerable access and egress movement for the full build out. Other projects also should be required to study their impacts on the overall traffic circulation in the area and mitigate their impacts. Finally, the applicant is seeking a modification of the city's parking standards ta reduce the number of parking spaces required for a hotel. If approved, the reduction will create a burden on Gene Coulon Park and other properties in the area. The Park is absolutely full during the summer, which coexists with the peak hotel demand period. There is no other use within tl1e site to provide shared parking and there currently is no public transportation near the site. In short, automobiles will be the means by which hotel guests and employees arrive and depart the hotel. The property owners to the North an Lake Washington Blvd are the most expensive in the Renton morket, and those residents pay some of the highest property taxes on residential homes in Renton. When Southport was planned we reached out to that community to achieve an end result that was desirable and Jcceptable. The Hampton Inns traffic study should be rejected and a traffic study prepared that meets the same requirements imposed on other traffic studies for this area in order to protect citizens' use of Gene Coulon Park, minimize impacts on area residents, and t1ssure that the city's overall transportation system functions proper!y. Sincerely, Michael Christ GTC Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Brad Lincoln, PE ~. Date: Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) -Comment Response March 2, 2015 Project: GTC #12-163 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. (GTC) has been retained to provide a response to comment regarding the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) traffic impact analysis by Michael Christ. The background of the traffic analysis for the development and responses to Mr. Christ's comments are included in this memorandum. 1. Background The initial traffic impact analysis was completed in October 2013 and a revised report, based on comments by City of Renton staff, was completed in December 2013. Subsequently, a peer review was performed by Perteet, Inc. on a revised report dated June 2014. The peer review found that the analysis included in the June 2014 analysis adequately satisfied the requirements outlined in the City of Renton "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for new Development." The peer review did identify that pedestrian facilities should be provided between the site and the Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way intersection. 2. Comment Response The traffic analysis completed for the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development was initially scoped with City of Renton staff to determine the intersections that would be analysis, the timeframe for analysis and the pipeline developments to be included. During this process it was determined that the following intersections would be analyzed: I. Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beack/Houser Way 2. Lake Washington Boulevard at Site Access These intersections were analyzed since they are the only ones that were anticipated to meet the threshold of the development trips representing 5% of the total intersection volume. The weekday PM peak-hour was identified for the analysis since this is when the development generated the highest number of trips. Intersections north of the site are anticipated to be impacted with less than S total PM peak-hour trips and intersections south of Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way are not anticipated to meet the 5% threshold of total intersection volume. The following developments were included as pipeline trips: EXHIBIT 11 802 Wetmore Avenue · Suite 220 · Everett WA, 98201 39-8266 • Fax: 425-258-2922 · E-mail: info@gibsontraflic.com ) Legacy Renton (Hamption Inn) • Southport Development • Hawk's Landing • Quendall Terminals I .,)T Comment Response The analysis was performed based on data collected in August 2013, which represents the summer conditions. The analysis was performed without and with additional development in the Southport area since it was not known at that time if the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development would occur before or after additional development in the Southport area. The analysis showed that the development would not cause either of the study intersections to operate at an unacceptable level. The peer review included a thorough review of the traffic impact analysis and found that the analysis sufficiently identifies the impacts of the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development and meets the requirements of the City of Renton. Additionally, a parking study was performed for the development. The parking analysis was performed using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) data. The analysis shows that the proposed supply of 1 parking space per room is approximately 57% higher than what is anticipated 11•.' 6 ,u~ ITE data. The proposed parking supply is therefore anticipated to sufficiently serve the development. 3. Conclusion Tlie m, ,irity of the comments included in Mr. Christ's comments were addressed in the traffic impact analysts and were subsequently evaluated as part of the peer review. The City of Renton and peer review identified that the traffic analysis for the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development is appropriate and that additional analysis is not required. The comments include a comparison of the analysis for the Southport development and the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) developments. This is not appropriate since the analysis included in the Southport EIS is for a development generating more than I 0-times as many trips as the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) development. The analysis for the Legacy Renton (Hampton Inn) report will therefore be much smaller in scope than the analysis completed for the Southport development. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 2 March 2015 GTC #12-163 Entire Document Available Upon Request utl'ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 31, 2015 TO: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner FROM: SUBJECT: Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager ~ Traffic Concurrency Test -Renton Hampton Inn & Suites; File No. LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A The Renton Hampton Inn & Suites Project (herein referred to as Hampton Inn) seeks to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The parcel is located on 1.26 acres is generally located west of Interstate 405 on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd. The total square footage of the proposed building would be approximately 108,000 square feet (including the parking garage square footage) and with a height of 58 feet and O inches. The Traffic Analysis prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. (dated June 2014) included information that the net new peak hour trips generated by the project will be 66 in the weekday AM peak hour and 75 net new trips in the PM peak hour with a total of 1,024 net new daily trips. This project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows: Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan Yes Within allowed growth levels Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes EXHIBIT 12 Entire Document Available Upon Request March 18, 2015 a Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 ¢ t1 a .. City_of~ .. · .J< µ1 r· .. 1·1wrc·· .!··rr.·l t .. . .. , . , I\ . , , .. '. '" 1J , . \ ... ' ' ·.._... -..._,-..._,,,,:. •J ..._._ · · ---.. su;, ui Community & Economic Development Department CE. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC} on March 16, 2015: SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (ONSM) PROJECT NAME: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites PROJECT NUMBER: LUA14-000061, ECF, SA-H, MOO, MOO, VA-H Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 3, 2015, 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 information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the 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) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Rocale Timmons Senior Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazookl, WSDOT, NW Region Larry Fisher, WOFW Duwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers EXHIBIT 13 Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98! /SI~~-··· Gibson Traffic Consultants 2802 Wetmore Avenue Suite 220 Everett, WA 98201 425.339.8266 EXHIBIT 14 Entire Document Available Upon Request Renton Hotel Parking Analysis November 2014 GTC #12-163 '·""""'"'"''"''' "·" • .,, • ..,..,. ''""'X . '"" ... , .• , ..... "' 8- -Ill (1) -::I C: C" (1) Cl) EC:: ::I C: u 0 0 Q, C ::::, Cl) Cl) ... _ .:: .Q C: ctl w ::: J ~ ., " t "'' 9S086VM ~ HH:JON mf\l/\3lr\08 N SVM :J)f,/1 ooci ff--1.ff-l[.1 ---t ' i~ t ·~ I l •' 1t ~d i; t~ ·" ! ! ' l / ---J ,, !, 'I' ,, ( I ,,A,,. J .-==i ,U-,LL . ,-... z ~ ~ a ~ 0 z a ! -----\ r,------:-~~ fAff---llH ii 0-------~ @- ' ' 8-;---- e-5f.: __ i_ ' I• ,. 1! • @- ! 11! I I i ., la t ·'" I I H3 ll H4 1 ... 1 - 1 '°"" l i 1 t i i; ii: ' h ' ! .,i-,,. ,!,OL ,!-,CL .. -,SL .,-... ..... z Q ~ a :;; ~ " January 16, 2014 ES-2553.03 Legacy Renton Entire Document Available Upon Request 8809 Scarlet Knight Northeast Albuquerque, New Mexico 87122 Attention: Mr. Faizel Kassam Subject: Request For Exception Existing Slopes Proposed Hampton Inn Suites Renton, Washington Reference: Aerial Photographs (1961, 1967, and 1970) Resource Mapping Section Review Comments Department of Natural Resources Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Study ES-2553.01, dated November 12, 2013 Dear Mr. Kassam: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotedrnic;il Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environrncntrtl Sciences I·'·,.] .. • In accordance with your request, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter and assessment of existing slope areas throughout the subject property. The primary objective of our review was to assist in the determination of an exception through modification with respect to existing steep slope areas and proposed development activities. ESNW previously prepared the referenced geotechnical engineering study for the proposed hotel development. The approximate location of the subject property is depicted on the attached Vicinity Map (Plate 1). As depicted on the attached topographic survey, the easterly portions of the site contain areas of steep slope. Based on review of aerial photographs, grading activities and related site disturbance have occurred historically throughout the site and surrounding area. Aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area (1961, 1967, and 1970) are provided as attachments to this letter. The image from each aerial photo was also enlarged to provide greater detail. A description of each photograph is provided below. 1961 Aerial Photo (Plates 2 and 2A) -The subject site and surrounding area is almost entirely cleared. The enlarged image (Plate 2A) depicts a series of road cuts and building structures. Excavations throughout the central portions of the property also appear to have occurred. 1967 Aerial Photo (Plates 3 and 3A) -Interstate 405 and grading associated with the southbound off ramp (Exit 5) are depicted in the photo. The site is cleared and road cuts are evident. A retaining wall (likely associated with the 1-405 construction) is also depicted in the photo. At present, this retaining wall still exists on the property. EXHIBIT 16 1 ROS -BGth Pl"re N.E., Suile 201 • Rellevue, W/\ ~18()05 • (,125) 449-4704 • ~ !l) ::m ,, ~) 8 3 8 8 8 (~) 3 !l) ::, ,-) O" ::!: ~g 1.l''-JY." ,·-,t,_· ,.._.,.. r-4,· ,,._,w --. !Q-1' IT> IT> ! i ~ C 0 ' ~ ~ ~--t -r-t, "C 0 , r 0 0 ~: ~ \ ----::, C: 5 ;;o 3 0 \ \ IT> IT> • .c ::, • \ \ ~ C: .... \ \ IT> UI .... \ '!11 9 ,~~ \ ,_ • ' • • ~ r ! ; ~ • ' ' ' ll \ w--l'-4" ---~I ~ G ' ' ' \ \ I_ I _,, !z \ ,<> \ !-'; _,, \ \ G _,, i,1'-0" •. \ ro4 \G w--_,, '{'!' ------w \ ' \ _,, 0 1J " \ i. di \ ~1,j ai!'c- ' ' ' .• I', ~J: HI/ I-'f' \ ~1:. t ~:~ ' '' G \ ' I -· \ I • ~ ' _,. <: ' ~ ; '-01 by i.; 8:. Ii ! '"1~ _,, ~\ i w ' G ---> _,, _,. _,, ' \ "' "' _,, 0 i' ! ~ G "" ---~; ~ @ \ \ ' t ' m \ >< \ T-G" • ' 0 :::t j~~ ~ . . . . . . f ' ' ' ' ' ' \ s 1-1 ca \ \~ ~ ~ @ .... -I .... .... \ 4'" \ \ \ \ \ )> r-P !~ i Ii~~~~ ©~ ..... ,,;,,~~ i Om;,;;: : I ;~ Q "' ~ .... ~ ....... "U Or- ::ON~ ' 1300 I.AKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD NORTH ~;.,:::,;~,;:,::;.'.: r,,:, RENTON, WA 98056 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 31, 2015 TO: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner FROM: Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager ~ SUBJECT: Traffic Concurrency Test -Renton Hampton Inn & Suites; File No. LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H, ECF, MOD, MOD, VA-A The Renton Hampton Inn & Suites Project (herein referred to as Hampton Inn) seeks to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The parcel is located on 1.26 acres is generally located west of Interstate 405 on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd. The total square footage of the proposed building would be approximately 108,000 square feet (including the parking garage square footage) and with a height of 58 feet and O inches. The Traffic Analysis prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. (dated June 2014) included information that the net new peak hour trips generated by the project will be 66 in the weekday AM peak hour and 75 net new trips in the PM peak hour with a total of 1,024 net new daily trips. This project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows: Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan Yes Within allowed growth levels Yes Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees Yes Site specific street improvements to be completed by project Yes Traffic Concurrency Test Passes EXHIBIT 12 Transportation Concurrency Test -Hampton Inn Page 2 of 3 March 31, 2015 Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2014. Within allowed growth levels: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 94,209 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 1,024 additional trips from this project. A resulting 93,185 trips are remaining. Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit occupancy. The Gibson report also provided a 'Transportation Impact Fees Analysis' on page 12 of their original report that does not fully comply with the adopted composite of development fees found in Section XI of Resolution No. 4164 and Ordinance 5670. Traffic impact fees will be imposed at the time of building permit. Note that the 2015 transportation impact rate for each new hotel room is $1,512.77. In addition, the project will be subject to it's fair share of Lk Washington Blvd signal/intersection improvement costs that would be prorated based upon it's future traffic impact for the development trips versus a certain future trips at the intersection. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to final occupancy. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference: D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval af any nonexempt development activity permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits Transportation Concurrency Test -Hampton Inn Page 2 of 3 March 31, 2015 Evaluation of Test Criteria Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the city's investment in completion of the forecast traffic improvements are at 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2014. Within allowed growth levels: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary, the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2014 is 94,209 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the 1,024 additional trips from this project. A resulting 93,185 trips are remaining. Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees: The project will be subject to transportation impact fees at time of building permit occupancy. The Gibson report also provided a 'Transportation Impact Fees Analysis' on page 12 of their original report that does not fully comply with the adopted composite of development fees found in Section XI of Resolution No. 4164 and Ordinance 5670. Traffic impact fees will be imposed at the time of building permit. Note that the 2015 transportation impact rate for each new hotel room is $1,512.77. In addition, the project will be subject to it's fair share of Lk Washington Blvd signal/intersection improvement costs that would be prorated based upon it's future traffic impact for the development trips versus a certain future trips at the intersection. Site specific street improvements to be completed by project: The project will be required to complete all internal and frontage street improvements for the plat prior to recording. Any additional off-site improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to final occupancy. Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference: D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS: 1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test. 2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity permit application, o written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be mode by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits Transportation Concurrency Te Page 3 of3 March 31, 2015 lampton Inn required for o development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the application and development permit. 3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application. The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page Xl-65 of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. .. ....:.--·------------~ Denis Law . [) S City of . ----~M:a:o:, ___ .............. , p) (rii~--/ • -L~]ll[IDfID ., February 23, 2015 Scott Clark Clark Design Group 169 Wester Ave W Seattle, WA 98119 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Renton Hampton Inn & Suites/LUA14-000061, ECF, MOD, V·A, SA·M/H, MOD Dear Mr. Clark: Thank you for submitting the additional materials requested in the January 29, 2015 letter from the City. Your project has been taken off hold and the City will continue review of the Renton Hampton Inn & Suites project. The Master Site Plan Review and associated permits have been rescheduled for Environmental Review on March 9, 2015 and is tentatively scheduled to go before the Hearing Examiner on April 7, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, j~;<::!:- Senior Planner cc: Owner(s) Applicant Party{ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov INSIGHT l!NGINU:RING CO. Rocale Timmons Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 SouthGradyWay Renton, WA 98057 Re: Legacy Renton (LUA14-000061) Street Modification Request Dear Ms. Timmons, February 16, 2015 The project referenced above is requesting a street modification. We are requesting that the dedication of right of way be reduced from 11.5' to 4.5'. The existing requirement for Lake Washington Blvd North is for 83 feet of right of way with a two lane road, per RMC 4-6-060. The existing right of way is 60 feet, therefore requiring an 11.5' dedication is required on our side of the road. However, the transportation department has ultimate plans for Lake Washington Blvd North such that less than 11.5' dedication would be required for full build out of the frontage improvements. The ultimate frontage improvements along the road would require a dedication of 4.5'. Justification for the request must meet the following criteria. Answers to the criteria are in italics as follows: a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; The street dedication would follow the ultimate build out of the road per the transportation department's needs. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; The frontage improvements will follow the city transportation department plans. PO Box 1478 • Everett, WA 98206 • Phone: (425) 303-9363 Fax: (425) 303-9362 • Email:info@insightengineering.net c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; The neighboring property to the north has already installed the proposed frontage improvements and the property to the south would be required to install the proposed frontage improvements when they develop. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; The dedication would allow the fall planned build out of the right of way, therefore it conforms to the intent of the code. e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and The reduced dedication would facilitate the frontage improvements that the transportation company has deemed necessary for this project. f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. The neighboring property to the north has already installed the proposed frontage improvements and the property to the south would be required to install the proposed frontage improvements when they develop. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely, Brian R. Kalab, PE PO Box 1478 • Everett, WA 98206 • Phone: (425) 303-9363 Fax: (425) 303-9362 • Email:info@insightengineering.net ,J Legacy Renton Hampton Inn & Suites 1300 Lake Washington Blvd North Variance Requests DESIGN GROUP PLLC The applicant is seeking the following variance to Renton Municipal Code 4-9-250: 1. Request for variance to construct within sensitive and protected steep slopes. Sensitive areas (25-40% slope) +/-3,060 sf sensitive areas impacted by proposed development There are +/-9,394 sf of sensitive areas located on site. Protected areas(< 40% slope) +/-3,012 sf of protected areas impacted by proposed development There are+/-21,502 sf of protected areas located on site. 6. Special Review Criteria -Reasonable Use Variance -Critical Areas Regulations Only: For variance requests related to the critical areas regulations not subject to subsections B7 to Bll of this Section, a reasonable use variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) a. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; Per the Geotechnical Report dated 12/18/14, 'Based on the slope reconnaissance, stability of the slope areas of the property can be characterized as good. The planned building structure incorporating structural foundation wall elements will effectively improve overall site stability.' b. There is no reasonable use of the property left if the requested variance is not granted; No. The combined area af sensitive and protective areas are +/-30,896 sf, which is approximately 54% of the site area. The original scheme that was submitted to City of Renton in December of 2013 was impacting +/-75% of the sensitive and +/-72% of the protected areas, while the current proposal is impacting 33% of the sensitive areas and 14% of the protected areas. The development has reduced the impacts to the sensitive and protected areas through the following redesign: 1. Relocating the structured parking garage to 2-levels of below grade parking. 2. Reducing the hotel room count from 125 to 105 rooms. Clark Design Group PLLC 21 January 2015 Pagel af2 ' DESIGN GROUP PllC c. The variance granted is the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the proposal objectives; Yes. The current site plan has located the building along Lake Washington Boulevard North (western portion of the site) to minimize impacts to the sensitive and protected areas, located on the northeastern portion of the site. The proposal will impact 33% of the sensitive areas and 14% of the protected areas. d. The need for the variance is not the result of actions of the applicant or property owner; and No. The steep slopes were created by past grading activities. Per the Geotechnica/ Report dated 12/18/14, 'Historic excavation activity has occurred on site and has created portion of the steep slopes throughout the northeasterly portion of the property. Combined with the existing slope areas, the alignment of Interstate 405 and related off- ramp embankment fills border the easterly side of the site.' e. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. {Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-21-2000) Yes. Clark Design Graup PLLC 21 January 2015 Page 2 of 2 Peer Review Report For ~ Perteet Renton Hotel (aka Renton Hampton Hotel) -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: July 2014 Overview The City of Renton has retained Perteet, Inc. to conduct a peer review of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) of the proposed construction of a new hotel, referenced in the TIA as the "Renton Hotel," and otherwise identified as "Renton Hampton Hotel." Perteet has reviewed the TIA, visited the project area, and reviewed available area traffic operations data. Perteet prepared a DRAFT Peer Review Report for city review. City input to Perteet clarified issues sufficiently to enable this final report to focus on germane concerns and identify peer review recommendations. City staff has worked directly with hotel representatives to appropriately define several of the parameters utilized in the TIA, including: • The area of project impact • The time frames of impact analysis • The necessity of additional traffic operational data (i.e.: accident data, AM peak data, non- motorized facility plans) • Trip distribution • Identification of the appropriate pipeline development project aspects • Roadway network facility assumptions at study time scenarios This peer review report of the "Renton Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis" (Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., June 2014) evaluates the TIA against the requirements outlined in the City of Renton "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development" (attached}. The following comments are generally organized to follow the outline of these policy guidelines. Comment 1: A TIA for the "Renton Hotel (aka Renton Hampton Hotelt is warranted Policy guidelines identify that a TIA is required when generation exceeds 20 vehicles in either AM or PM peak (or 200 ADT). A TIA is warranted per City policy as the proposed development would generate 66 new AM peak hour trips, 75 new PM peak hour trips, and a daily trip generation of 1,021 trips per the draft TIA. The TIA utilizes methodology in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, and with LOS analysis utilizing Synchro 8 software -satisfying the City's requirement to use a commonly accepted method. The TIA also satisfies the policy that a registered professional engineer with adequate experience prepares the TIA for the developer. Final Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 1 ~ Perteet Comment 2: The project description offers the reader a minimal description of the development proposal but are adequate The policy guidelines define TIA elements in its introduction. Suggested format requires a narrative with graphics. The project description narrative in the TIA is not detailed, stating only that "The development is proposed to consist of a hotel facility with 125 rooms and associated amenities." The vicinity graphic is brief in that it is large scale. Specific local physical and transportation facility features can't be identified. More detail on the proposed project would improve this section of the TIA. Graphics at a scale sufficient to clearly depict project context should be provided to identify potential issues. For instance, the removal of an existing espresso stand is mentioned yet not depicted. The intersection diagram provided in Attachment C is good information, yet there is no graphic or description adequate to reveal the existing local transportation environment, roadway cross-section, adjacent land uses, traffic control devices, channelization, lighting, or other local physical feature. Some graphics are misleading, such as the vicinity graphic not depicting the existence of Garden Avenue N as the fourth leg of the signalized intersection within which 95% of project trips are loaded. However, the project is fairly small and is well understood in detail and context by this both Perteet and by city staff. The project description and graphics of the TIA are sufficient to inform staff and this peer review. Comment 3: The projected opening year is optimistic but satisfactory The TIA identifies the build-out year for the proposed project as 2015. Completion of this project on this rapid time frame may be difficult. Still, a change in opening year would not result in a significant change in TIA assumptions or impact calculations. Comment 4: Study area boundaries seem appropriate. The TIA does not specifically identify the study area boundaries, but provides analysis at only two locations: Intersection 1: N Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way Intersection 2: N Lake Washington Boulevard at Site Access The Renton Hotel TIA is shown to load 71 PM peak hour trips into the intersection of Garden Avenue N at NE Park Drive, yet it is not included in the TIA. Likewise, the intersection of Park Drive N at NE Park Drive is projected to have 19 PM peak hour trips from the development. Although the very limited study area may seem inappropriate, policy guidelines state that intersections and segments burdened by new trips adding more than a 5% increase in volume would be included in the analysis. The hotel is expected to add less than 1% to the PM peak volumes. Although these locations are proximate to the project and are traffic-sensitive locations, the guidelines do not require their inclusion in the TIA. Also, it is noted in the TIA (Section 5) that, "During the scoping process with City of Renton staff it was determined that the adjacent intersection of N Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach / Houser Way and the site Final Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel· Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 2 ~ Perteet access intersection." This determination sets the study area boundaries, the study intersections, and makes the magnitude of the analysis acceptable for the TIA. Comment 5: Area land use descriptions are minimal yet satisfy staff familiar with area development scenarios There is no narrative, graphic, or other identification of the study area's existing or anticipated land uses provided by the TIA. The adjacent proposed developments of Hawk's Landing, Quendall Terminals, and Southport Development are mentioned but not sufficiently defined to inform the reader of the Hotel TIA as a stand-alone document. There is mention of previous analysis for these projects but no specific data or information is included in the TIA. Staff has indicated a good understanding of area development proposals sufficient to determine that this project and its mitigation would fit appropriately into the anticipated overall transportation system development scenario. Comment 6: The study area transportation system description is brief. However, the system description is sufficient to inform the city staff already familiar with area transportation operations and inform mitigation recommendations. The city's TIA guidelines suggest analysis of the following system components: • Transit routes. No information on local transit facilities is provided by the TIA. • Roadways. The TIA provides a description of the area roadways in Section 5.3, where the posted speed limit (25), the number of travel lanes (one each direction), and current lack of segregated turn lanes at the project entrance are mentioned. Section 6 of the TIA provides a narrative of the existing area pedestrian and bicycle facilities (existing bike lanes on both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard, existing contiguous sidewalk to the north but none to the south of the project). There is no mention of the nearby railroad at-grade crossing or railroad operational implications. • Intersection conditions and configuration. There are two intersections reviewed by the TIA, and only one currently exists (Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/ Houser Way). As suggested in the policy guidelines, there is a graphic demonstrating the existing intersection conditions and configuration provided in Attachment C of the TIA. • Currently proposed improvements. The TIA narrative describes that "The intersection of N Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach / Houser Way will be improved in the future to include additional channelization and a signal." There is no graphic or narrative defining the proposed improvements or timeframe, yet city staff has indicated familiarity with proposed area transportation system modifications sufficient to guide mitigation determinations without requiring a detailing in the TIA. • Analysis areas determined in coordination with city. The TIA states that the scope of the analysis is based upon scoping discussions with City of Renton staff. Final Peer Review Comments~ Issues, Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 3 ~ Perteet Comment 7: Trip Generation methodology is appropriate Policy guidelines suggest generation assumptions be provided with a tabular summary with land use, units, rates for daily, AM, PM and generation for each type of land use. The TIA adequately provides a tabular summary of trip generation. Comment 8: Trip Distribution aligns with staff expectations The policy guidelines suggest a graphic to display project trip distribution, and that the basis for the distribution should be appropriately defined. The trip distribution utilized in the TIA "is based on surrounding uses and similar uses in the area of the development." There is no further explanation of this statement. No similar uses in the area are identified. Although the basis for the distribution is not clearly established in the TIA, the consultant and staff align on distribution expectations, sufficiently satisfying this policy expectation. Comment 9: The Site Generated Traffic Assignment is adequate for the ADT and PM peak, yet no AM peak data is presented The policy guidelines suggest a traffic assignment graphic with ADT, AM-PM directional volumes, turning movements at all intersections, driveways, and roadways within the study area. The TIA graphic presenting directional volumes (Figure 2) satisfy the City policy with ADT and PM directional volumes for study area roadways. However, the TIA does not present AM peak directional volumes. Likewise, Figure 4 adequately presents the turning movements at the two study area intersections analyzed for the PM peak hour, but no data for the AM peak. Due to the small size of the proposed project and staff familiarity with traffic operational conditions in the project area, the collection and analysis of AM peak hour traffic data is not warranted with this TIA. Comment 10: The amount of existing year traffic volumes provided limited Existing year turning movement volumes are presented for the two study intersections, both with and without the project only for the PM peak period. There is no AM peak data provided, area intersection volumes, nor any area roadway segment ADT data in the TIA. If the volumes on NE Park Drive (32,000 ADT), Garden Ave N {10,400 ADT), or N Lake Washington Boulevard (9,700 ADT), other segments and intersection turning movement numbers were provided it would produce a more informative analysis. However, the small area of project impact determined in conjunction with the city result in a limited volume data requirement. The data provided in the TIA and readily available on the city's database is sufficient to adequately inform mitigation determinations by city staff and this peer review. Comment 11: The horizon year for analysis of project year is adequate for the Renton Hotel proposed project The appropriate year for use as the horizon year for project impact analysis has been determined through coordination with the Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development Final Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" August 26, 2014 Page4 ~ Perteet staff. With staff concurrence, the horizon year analysis could be the project opening year as has been done in this TIA, but is more commonly a future planning year far enough in the future to incorporate the planned roadway network improvements and build-out of area land uses and the growth in area traffic as projected in the regional travel forecast model. The TIA offers no projected future area volume forecasts beyond the project opening year. Comment 12: The horizon year utilized (2015) volume projections are adequately presented Horizon year (2015) volumes both with and without the project are adequately presented graphically at the two study area intersections covered by the TIA. Comment 13: The projected growth rate is acceptable in the horizon year time frame A background traffic volume growth rate of 1% has been utilized by the TIA, building on the 2013 count volumes to the build-out year of 2015. The growth rate would be seen as too low should the horizon year be redefined for long-term analysis. Comment 14: The stand-alone volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development may not include all pending projects, yet the data provided is sufficient to adequately inform staff and the peer review. The TIA identifies three pending projects (Hawk's Landing, Quendall Terminals, and Southport Development). It mentions multiple development scenarios. The TIA states that it incorporates the most conservative traffic loading from earlier analysis of the Southport Development pending project without providing specific data on the project. Yet it does not appear to incorporate trip loading from the other two identified adjacent projects (Figure 5 depicts volumes only with and without the Southport Development). It would be helpful to clarify the appropriate pipeline project traffic impact and mitigation, phasing, and other supportive information provided. However, staff is sufficiently aware of adjacent roadway development scenario to formulate appropriate mitigation for the proposed Renton Hotel project. Comment 15: Section 5.2 of the TIA adequately provides LOS calculations The two intersections are analyzed with and without development of the adjacent Southport project and that project's anticipated roadway network improvements in geometry and traffic control at the Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach / Houser Way intersection. Should changes be made to volume projections, no changes are necessary to calculation methodology. Comment 16: There is no accident data or analysis provided by the TIA "An analysis should be made of the proposed project in light of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems" (Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development). Final Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 5 r"\-1 ~ Perteet Lake Washington Boulevard is a regional roadway and bicycle corridor crossing a transitioning area of widely mixed land uses at the project location. Accident potential appears to be above normal in the project area. The local roadway network is complex with multiple intersections in a small area, one-way segments, horizontal curves and significant intermittent rail impact. There is no accessible corridor for pedestrian movement in the project area. Street lighting levels are marginal in the area. There are no segregated turn lanes. There are areas of uncontrolled roadside access management in the project area. Frequent turning movements by large vehicles were observed just south of the project site. (The large truck activity appears to be longer-term temporary use for construction staging). There are likely some patterns or specific issues which may be mitigated as necessary public safety improvements in the immediate project area should a safety audit and analysis be accomplished. For instance, the railroad crosses Lake Washington Blvd N at a significant skew and presents a high potential for bicycle accident at a narrow point in the corridor. An accident analysis would seem appropriate. Comment 17: The TIA recommends no specific off-site roadway mitigation. This report differs by recommending that an adequate pedestrian facility be provided on lake Washington Boulevard between the project and the Coulon Park intersection The TIA states in Section 7 that the development is not anticipated to generate a significant number of pedestrians but offers no basis for the statement. Based upon this statement the TIA goes on to say that "The Renton Hotel development should therefore not be conditioned to provide any off-side improvements." They reinforce this stance with a Section 6 statement that because two residential developments to the north of the site did not provide off-site pedestrian improvements and "the Renton Hotel should therefore not be required to construct off-site pedestrian improvements." The TIA does note the lack of pedestrian facilities between the site and the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach / Houser Way intersection. It is noted that both Gene Coulon Park, The Landing, and proposed projects as pedestrian trip generators south of the project, and that the existing accessible pedestrian facility northward of the project would terminate at the southern edge of the hotel site. There is considerable benefit in providing connectivity of this pedestrian corridor to the intersection. This report therefore differs from the TIA and recommends that the project provide connection of a pedestrian path along the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard between the hotel site and the crosswalk on the northern leg of the Lake Washington Boulevard / Coulon Park / Southport / Houser Way intersection. City staff is sufficiently familiar with area traffic operations, opportunities, and constraints to identify system shortcomings and areas of operational concern in the project area. Staff has recommended the extension of an accessible pedestrian connection across the project and southward to the Coulon Park/ Southport / Houser Way intersection as mitigation modifications necessary for safety and efficient circulation around the site. This peer review concurs. Final Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" August 26, 2014 Page6 ~ Perteet Comment 18: A northbound right-turn lane into the project driveway from Lake Washington Boulevard is not necessary The TIA provides an analysis of the need for segregated left-turn or right-turn lanes into the proposed project entrance driveway. Segregated turn lanes, particularly a left-turn / refuge lane, reduce the likelihood of traffic accidents and increase corridor traffic throughput. Although the TIA acknowledges that a northbound entrance right-turn lane into the development "could be warranted" per the WSDOT Design Guidelines, the TIA does not recommend this mitigation. In the TIA Section 8 Conclusions, the report misstates their point (typing error) by neglecting an intended "not" was left out of their statement "An inbound right-turn pocket or taper could be considered, although it is (not) required to allow the access to operate at an acceptable level of service." The intent of the TIA recommending no right turn lane is clear in spite of this error. It may be incongruous to apply WSDOT highway warrant evaluation methodology in this unique environment. A comprehensive safety audit to better inform city staff would more accurately explore the issue of segregated turn lanes and note other necessary safety and efficiency modifications. We concur with the TIA that a northbound right-turn lane is not needed at the project entrance driveway. Comment 19: Recommendation: The TIA executive summary, definition of problems and mitigation summary should be modified to include a requirement to extend an accessible pedestrian facility on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard between the hotel site and the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard/ Coulon Park/ Southport/ Houser Way. Final Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 7 Final Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 8 Final Peer Review Comments, lssues 1 Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 9 Final Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 10 Final Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 11 Final Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 12 ~ Perteet POLICY GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT A traffic impact analysis is required when estimated vehicular traffic generated from a proposed development exceeds 20 vehicles per hour in either the AM (6:00 -9:00) or PM (3:00 --6:00) peak periods. A peak hour volume of 20 vehicles per hour would relate to daily volume of approximately 200 vehicles per day. Generally this includes residential plats of 20 lots or more and commercial sites that generate 20 vehicles per hour. The developer shall select a registered professional engineer with adequate experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering. Upon request, the Public Works Department will offer potential candidates. The analysis shall incorporate the following elements in the suggested format: Introduction: The introduction should, in a narrative fashion with graphics where appropriate to enhance the text, describe the proposed development (including proposed time frame), establish study area boundaries (study area should include all roadways and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development), describe existing and proposed land uses within the study area, and describe the existing transportation system to include transit routes, roadway and intersection conditions and configuration as well as currently proposed improvements. Roadways and intersections to be analyzed will be determined through coordination with the Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development staff. Site Generated Traffic Volumes: The analysis should present a tabular summary of traffic generated from the proposed development listing each type of proposed land use, the units involved, trip generation rates used Final Peer Review Comments, Issues, Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 13 ~ Perteet (to include total daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour) and resultant trip generation for the time periods listed. Site Generated Traffic Distribution: The distribution of site-generated traffic should be presented by direction as a percentage of the total site generated traffic in a graphic format. The basis for the distribution should be appropriately defined. Site Generated Traffic Assignment: A graphic presentation should be provided illustrating the allocation of site-generated traffic to the existing street network. The presentation should include Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and AM-PM peak hour directional volumes as well as turning movements at all intersections, driveways, and roadways within the study area. Existing and Projected Horizon Year Traffic Volumes With and Without the Proposed Development: The report should include graphics, which illustrate existing traffic volumes as well as forecasted volumes for the horizon year of the proposed development. Forecasted volumes should include a projected growth rate and volumes anticipated by pending and approved developments adjacent to the proposed development. If the development is multi-phased, forecasted volumes should be projected for the horizon year of each phase. The site-generated traffic should then be added to the horizon year background traffic to provide a composite of horizon year traffic conditions. Condition Analysis: Based upon the horizon year traffic forecasts with the proposed development, a level of service (LOS) analysis should be conducted at all intersections (including driveways serving the site). Based upon this analysis, a determination should be made as to the ability of the existing and proposed facilities to handle the proposed development. The level of service (LOS) analysis technique may include any of the commonly accepted methods. An analysis should be made of the proposed project in light of safety. Accident histories in close proximity to the site should be evaluated to determine the impact of proposed driveways and turning movements on existing problems. Final Peer Review Comments, lssues 1 Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 14 ~ Perteet Mitigating Measures Based upon the results of the prev10us analysis, if it is determined that specific roadway improvements are necessary, the analysis should determine what improvements are needed. If the developer can reduce vehicular traffic by means of promoting transit and ridesharing usage, these methods are acceptable. Any proposed traffic signals should be documented with an appropriate warrant analysis of conditions in the horizon year with the development. Traffic signals should not be contemplated unless they meet warrants as prescribed in the Federal Highways "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Proposed traffic signals shall provide coordination programs to compliment the system. Any modifications necessary to insure safe and efficient circulation around the proposed site should be noted. Conclusions: This section should serve as an executive summary for the report. It should specifically define the problems related directly to the proposed developments and the improvements necessary to accommodate the development in a safe and efficient manner. A draft report shall be presented to the Development Services Division so that a review might be made of study dates, sources, methods, and findings. City Staff will then provide in writing all comments to the developer. The developer will then make all necessary changes prior to submitting the final report. Revised 3/12/2008 H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Plan.rev\TIA GUIDELINES\GUIDELINES FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2008.doc Final Peer Review Comments, lssues 1 Concerns and Recommendations August 26, 2014 "Renton Hotel -Traffic Impact Analysis: Jurisdiction: City of Renton: June 2014" Page 15 City of .. -nton Department of Community & Economic elopment GREEN FOLDER NOTIFICATION OF REVIEW REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:f;i" , ;-;/;~l\~ -· 1 .. ENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 21, 2015 APPLICATION NO: LUA14-00006'l, ECF, MOD, VAR, SA-H, SA-M DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 7, 2015 APPLICANT: Scott Clark PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites PROJECT REVIEWER: Rohini Nair SITE AREA: 57,002 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): LOCATION: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd. North PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 108,717 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In January 2014 the applicant requested Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, an Exception through Modification, and a Variance in order to construct a 125 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The project has been revised and the applicant is now requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, and a Parking Modification in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way Nat 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) zone and Design District 'C'. The proposed hotel would be approximately 5 stories in height. A total of 105 parking stalls would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. There is no construction proposed within critical areas. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 115 to 105 stalls. 2/24/14 -Project placed on hold. 12/31/14 -Received submittal revising the scope of the project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Element of the Environment Element of the Environment Earth Housino Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/G/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans rtation Environmental Health Pvblic Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Preservation Natural Resources Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000 Feet i,,-1~- Where to enter your comments: Manage My Reviews Which type of comments ore entered: Recommendation: Comments that impact the project including any of the Environemental Impacts above. Correction: Corrections to the project that need to made before the review can be completed and/or requesting submittal of additional documentation and/or resubmittal of existing documentation. What Status should be used: Reviewed-I have reviewed the project and hove no comments. Reviewed with comments -I have reviewed the project and I have comments entered in Recommendations. Correction/Resubmit-I have reviewed the project and the applicant needs to submit and/or resubmit documentation and I have added corrections in Corrections. PROJECT LUA14-000061 Legacy Renton (Hotel) (Possibly Renamed Renton Hampton Inn & Suites) City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENTAL APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET (Continuation) POLICE RELATED COMMENTS 87 Police Calls for Service Estimated Annually CONSTRUCTION PHASE Theft from construction sites is one of the most commonly reported crimes in the City. To protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up when not in use. The site should have security lighting, and any construction or storage trailers should be completely fenced-in with portable chain-link fencing. The fence will provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective criminal and will demonstrate that the area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept locked when not in use, and should be fitted with heavy-duty deadbolts with a minimum 1-1/2" throw when bolted. Any construction material that contains copper should be removed from the construction site at the end of each working day. Glass windows in construction trailers should be shatter-resistant. Toolboxes and storage containers should be secured with heavy-duty padlocks and kept locked when not in use. "No Trespassing" signs should be posted on the property during the construction phase. These signs allow officers, upon contact, to provide a verbal warning to trespassers that should they be contacted on the property again, they could be cited and/or arrested. COMPLETED COMPLEX All exterior doors (to include the structured garage) should be made of solid metal or metal over wood, with heavy-duty deadbolt locks, latch guards or pry-resistant cylinders around the locks, and peepholes. All strikeplates should have 2-1/2 to 3" wood screws. If glass doors are used, they should be fitted with the hardware described above and additionally be fitted with a layer of security film. Security film can increase the strength of the glass by up to 300%, greatly reducing the likelihood of breaking glass to gain entry. Access to the back of the buildings should be limited, preferably with security fencing or gates, as these areas could be vulnerable to crime due to the lack of natural surveillance by hotel guests or staff. It is recommended that all commercial areas be monitored with recorded security. It's common for hotels to experience theft, burglary and/or vandalism -especially during the hours of darkness. This particular part of Renton (following commuter hours) is very quiet and secluded, which tends to attract property thieves. An auxiliary security service should be used to patrol the property during random times, preferably between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. It is important to direct all foot traffic into the main entrance of the building. TAC Plan Review Page 1 of 2 14-000061 Any alternative employe or guest entrances should hm :oded access to prevent trespassing. Exterior doors should be checked routinely to insure they are not being propped open (this includes the structured garage). This is a common occurrence, especially when hotel guests or employees go outside to smoke, take out the garbage, etc. All areas of this project need to have adequate lighting. This will assist in the deterrent of theft from motor vehicle (one of the most common crimes in Renton) as well as provide safe pedestrian travel for both guests and employees. The structured garage will be a Y§J::J. tempting target for auto thieves. Theft from motor vehicle and auto theft are prevalent, and with this garage housing vehicles utilized by travelers, there are likely to be items of value left inside (luggage, clothing, electronic equipment, GPS units, etc.). This will be the only hotel along Lake Washington Blvd in our City (at least for now ... ) and it will probably be a prime target for this type of activity. I recommend the installation, and substantial advertisement of, surveillance cameras inside and outside this garage, an overabundance of lighting, and a noticeable presence of courtesy patrol -especially between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. I strongly recommend this garage be limited-access and that a fob or security card system be utilized. During the summer months, there will be a very large influx of vehicles brought into the area, with very little parking to accommodate. Beach-goers will be searching for alternatives places to park their cars and with the garage being private property, Police will not be monitoring, towing or citing vehicles inside this structure. You may also want to provide temporary tags for your hotel guests to hang by their rearview mirrors, designating their vehicle as an authorized hotel guest's car. Landscaping should be installed with the objective of allowing visibility -not too dense and not too high. Too much landscaping will make guest and employees feel isolated and will provide criminals with concealment to commit crimes such as burglary, theft, malicious mischief, etc. There is mention of a "public plaza" in the front of the hotel building on the Site Plan. This should be designated as "For Hotel Guests Only" so as not to attract unwanted subjects from loitering in this location. During the summer months, this part of Renton is heavily traveled by both foot and vehicle traffic and it will be important to differentiate between public and private space. If this hotel will not be on a 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week schedule, there will need to be a keypad Knox box provided for Police and Fire so emergency personnel has access keys, fobs, or security cards to all areas of the hotel and garage structure. I highly recommend that the developer have a Renton Police Crime Prevention Representative conduct a security survey of the premises once construction is complete. TAC Plan Review Page 2 of 2 14-000061 • ·i0%€IT¥0FiRENTON ,:c:>>'2"'.'.:>,0::'L:", , , , ,,,,,,i''oi, DEPARTMENTOF COMII/IUl\l;l~'i'[~()N.OIVIICDEVELOPMENT-PLANNll\lG DIVISl(?l\l ;J:20 AFFIDA~IJJ:.O[SERVICE•B'flVIAILIN.G On the 14th day of January, 2015, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance and Notice of Application documents. This information was sent to: Agencies See Attached 300' surrounding property owners See Attached Clark Design Group Applicant/Contact Legacy Renton Owner Don and Marge Schumsky Party of Record Parties of Record See Attached ' I , (Signature of Sender): '· ...... STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) Renton Hampton Inn & Suites LUA14-000061, ECF,MOD, MOD, SA-H, SA-M, VAR template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology** Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region • Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers*** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW . Larry Fisher* 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Duwamish Tribal Office* 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle Attn: Steve Roberge Director of Community Development 13020 Newcastle Way Newcastle, WA 98059 Puget Sound Energy Municipal Liaison Manager Joe Jainga PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-OlW Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015-172nd Avenue SE Auburn 1 WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Kent Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 •Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application . .,..Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov •**Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing ' TORJAN RONHOVDE 14900 Interurban Ave S, 138 Tukwila, WA 98168 Jack Elsner 6811 Brave Way San Antonio. TX 78256 ONKAAR DHALIWAL GRADY WAY RESTAURANT GROUP LLC dba YANKEE BAR & GRILL 1 S Grady Way Renton. WA 98057 Faizel Kassam Legacy Renton 10700 NE 4th St, 3006 Bellevue. WA 98004 MICHAEL CHRIST SECO HOLDINGS LLC dba RIVERSTONE RESIDENTIAL GROUP (BRISTOL 11) 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, SUITE SO Renton, WA 98056 Kurt Jenson 7730 Leary Way Redmond. WA 980S2 Kevin Brown 201 S Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104 Brian Beckley The Renton Reporter 9426 68th Ave SE, Suite A Kent. WA 98032 MARCIE BARTLETI Don & Marge Schumskv. 2019 Jones Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Clark Design Group 169 Western Ave W, 263 Seattle. WA 98119 3344500390 BRE-FMCA LLC C/0 BRE PROPER 525 MARKET ST #4TH FLR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 3344500006 PUGET WESTERN INC 19515 N CREEK PKWY 310 BOTHELL, WA 98011 823059056 PUGET WESTERN INC 19515 N CREEK PKWY 310 BOTHELL, WA 98011 3344500005 POOL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION LLC 1322 LAKE WASHINGTON BV N RENTON, WA 98056 523059072 BRE-FMCA LLC C/0 BRE PROPER 525 MARKET ST #4TH FLR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 523059003 BNSF PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH, TX 76161 3344500007 SCHUMSKY DON & MARGE 2019 JONES AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056 823059055 BUILDING CAT SOUTHPORT L 1083 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N STE 50 RENTON, WA 98056 ·---Denis Law ··· C' f ---~M=ay:o,-------~· rJ A", Jlt_yo( l • ' .!\~ r \J~SJJJ January 29, 2015 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Scott Clark Clark Design Group 169 Wester Ave W Seattle, WA 98119 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Renton Hampton Inn & Suites, LUA14-000061, ECF, MOD, V-A, SA-M/H Dear Mr. Clark: The Planning Division of the City of Renton removed the on-hold notice for the above master application for review on January 7, 2015. 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 April 30, 2015 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: • All plans shall be revised to reflect the following water main for fire protection and for domestic use: o An on-site 10-inch (minimum diameter) water main looped around the building because the fire flow demand is over 2,500 gpm. The new line shall be connected to the existing 12-inch main in Lake Washington Blvd N. at 2 locations. o The proposed building footprint needs to be revised to provide a 15-foot wide easement for the looped water main around the building. The water easement area around the building must be accessible for maintenance purposes. • All plans shall be revised to reflect an estimated 4.5 feet ROW dedication. To verify, please provide the survey information that shows the location of the existing curb north of the subject property. Additionally, a street modification request will be required to be submitted in order to reduce the ROW dedication from the code required 11.5 feet to 4.5 feet. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton.Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, j,~~ Senior Planner cc: Owner{s) Applicant Party(ies) of Record H titYOFiRENTON P~PARtr,,il,r,ir OF cbMMUN1,ji~i~EP~HMJS DE\i'ECp~MENflilll'Pta.NNIN~lo1v1s10N AF.FIDJ;\!\:ii;tl.~i~,~R'qitE BY MAILING Agencies See attached Clark Design Group Legacy Renton Don and Marge Schumsky Parties of Record (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) sS ) See Attached 300' surrounding property owners Applicant/Contact Owner Party of Record See Attached . '/..-'-Y Poiz., __ :-_ ).._o ~''''''"\''''' <-· "".$'..._,.SK),.. 1;''"', ~ . ff* OT~ :+..,o ',:, tJ) ·,; I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante : i:J + ,t,_ 'ii,\ ·, .... ::: -• ... Ga"" ~ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act ff)~ usi.s ani pur!fosei , d , h , , ~. "•1.~ -... -ment1one int e instrument ~' "A•,, ll.2 9 \1 ./ o -''!"'"" -........ ~ 1,, 0 '*'"''"'''''"' (; " 1 :iois J Not -= -111 ~ WAS\'\\~ -· C>w-I ,· ublic in and for the State of Wasti Notary (Print): ____ .c,4,cc,,,.IL __ ? ... · -=ow-=-~-"-"'"'").,_· __________ _ My appointment expires: A Q f :)_ 'f ,::) 0 l t ,At-j ... ~ ' Renton Hampton Inn & Suites LUA14-000061, ECF, MOD, SA-H, SA-M template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology'' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Bo, C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers*** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Bo, 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Bo,34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY {DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW ~ Larry Fisher* 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Duwamlsh Tribal Office * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 2015. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle Attn: Steve Roberge Director of Community Development 13020 Newcastle Way Newcastle, WA 98059 Puget Sound Energy Municipal Liaison Manager Joe Jainga PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-OlW Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program* Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Kent Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing TORJAN RON HOVDE 14900 Interurban Ave S, 138 Tukwila. WA 98168 Jack Elsner 6811 Brave Way San Antonio, TX 78256 ONKAAR DHALIWAL GRADY WAY RESTAURANT GROUP LLC dba YANKEE BAR & GRILL 1 S Grady Way Renton. WA 98057 Faizel Kassam Legacy Renton 10700 NE 4th St, 3006 Bellevue. WA 98004 MICHAEL CHRIST SECO HOLDINGS LLC dba RIVER5TONE RESIDENTIAL GROUP (BRISTOL II) 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N, SUITE 50 Renton, WA 98056 KurtJenson 7730 Leary Way Redmond. WA 98052 Kevin Brown 201 s Jackson St Seattle. WA 98104 Brian Becklev The Renton Reporter 9426 68th Ave SE, Suite A Kent, WA 98032 MARCIE BARTLETI Don & Marge Schumskv. 2019 Jones Ave NE Renton. WA 98056 Clark Design Grau p 169 Western Ave W, 263 Seattle. WA 98119 3344500390 BRE-FMCA LLC C/0 BRE PROPER 525 MARKET ST #4TH FLR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 3344500006 PUGET WESTERN INC 19515 N CREEK PKWY 310 BOTHELL, WA 980118200 823059027 BNSF PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH, TX 76161 3344500005 POOL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION LLC 1322 LAKE WASHINGTON BV N RENTON, WA 98056 823059055 BUILDING CAT SOUTHPORT L 1083 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N STE SO RENTON, WA 98056 3344500007 SCHUMSKY DON & MARGE 2019 JONES AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056 823059056 PUGET WESTERN INC 19515 N CREEK PKWY 310 BOTHELL, WA 98011 8200 City oj ENVIRONMENTAL :on Department of Community & Economic _/opment & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES APPLICATION NO: LUA14-000061, ECF,, MOD, MOD, VAR, SA-H, SA-M APPLICANT: Scott Clark, Clark Design PROJECT TITLE: Renton Hampton lnn&Suites SITE AREA: 57,002 square feet COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 21, 2015 DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 7, 2015 PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT REVIEWER: Rohini Nair EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): SHEET LOCATION: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd. North PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 108,717 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: In January 2014 the applicant requested Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, an Exception through Modification, and a Variance in order to construct a 125 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The project has been revised and the applicant is now requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, and a Parking Modification in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way Nat 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) zone and Design District 'C'. The proposed hotel would be approximately 5 stories in height. A total of 105 parking stalls would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. There is no construction proposed within critical areas. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 115 to 105 stalls. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Elemeat of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water LiqhtJGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14 OOOFeet • Wtnf-~fl'~ l<~Ot-1 IN ~ING -,Jon, 77f11:T NO ~ii~~ p,tt.JCIAtGW11.,t-Br;;~ 11-T VJV.l..lil'J p,,#. • [?Ewa;b J.e,,1€1..,op$~1e.€ foR ~~ ~~ wtr1fiN~ rmtrr1f WH tN~f,4Ri<. ~R-frff!t, At,o~G Ul · lllf6(+. 81-VD • Foft =N1™~ ti a IT • ~ TAAr Sf'-NAf-lZArio,J A-'f S. ~1Ct'l'l!Mc..t.1b ~ /t-wtID Be ~pt£1@ ~to~ -ro ,AN~ CM,t~c.TktJ. o -5", t1J_I o{;-.._ '31 C Ci,_ /, lJ!l9Z!Jt .,(/}-, c?u, c( l51:f'l O c/ s d-~: 8. POL/CY-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have ideritified areas of probable impact or areas wh re additional informatio ede to properly assess this proposal. /-!Cf-/5 Date C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS st-NJ-~<;. -i'v. o..u '>eSf«C.~ 1 ~J -1o 3{)' ()II. -r~ curll,/.ffr -1rm C,lou_ (sii,ow 01\('f_ t; ~~{ 1 S W~ 1t«r~ 1} -2. -{r.,.t <;, ~ ~ t WU/\ clrl vt_ (2.1\.{.ro .tt£ : -t--{·,M-;C\cfc-M<+-'t k_ q( °if :S p{.,M d"--frlf 1 ~ 4{t/tl-Mf '{-~b¥- -CU1b ~ ~ Sk.<u~t .:.. tla~'"I s,{,~p (_~w) -.U)M.1YV.K avl-1"~ l,J1t.t.u-~ ()r l Mvl_ Q/-/,u,..sf olO -.P,t..t:1 ~ "'1leAtn J;r-~vq_ -lo cu.Jo,cO s;f(--obSfrk~ no ..i.1 ~ r C ""'1""" -w. \) -,b, ~u , • It "' "'(__ f ~ ./J, .fa 1-,,, qµ._ o~ wJll,4t, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which · . . . or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date January 7, 2015 Scott Clark Clark Design Group 169 Wester Ave W Seattle, WA 98119 Community & Economic Development Department C. E."Chip" Vincent, Administrator Subject: Notice of Complete Application Renton Hampton Inn & Suites, LUA14-000061, ECF, MOD, SA-H, SA-M Dear Mr. Clark: 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 February 2, 2015. 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 February 24, 2015 at 11:00 AM, 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) 430-7219 if you have any questions. R ale Timmons Senior Planner cc: Legacy Renton/ Owner(s) Don and Marge Schumsky, Michael Christ1 Marcie Bartlett, Jack Elsner, Kurt Jenson, Onkaar Dhaliwal, Kevin Brown, Brian Beckley/ Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov City vf / NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: January 7, 2015 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000061, ECF,MOD, SA-H, SA-M PROJECT NAME: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In January 2014 the applicant requested Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, an Exception through Modification, and a Variance in order to construct a 125 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The project has been revised and the applicant is now requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, and a Parking Modification in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) zone and Design District 'C' _ The proposed hotel would be approximately 5 stories in height. A total of 105 parking stalls would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. There is no construction proposed within critical areas. The applicant is requesting a Modification from RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 115 to 105 stalls. PROJECT LOCATION: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd. N. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: December 31, 2014 January 6, 2015 Scott Clark, Clark Design Group Environmental (SEPA) Review, Modification, Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Master Site Plan Review Construction, Building, Fire, Sign Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffic Impact Study If you would 1ike to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project1 complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED-Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites/LUA14-000061, ECF,MOD, SA-H, SA-M NAME: MAILING ADDRESS:--------------------City/State/Zip:-------------- TELEPHONE NO.: ------------------ Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for February 24, 2015 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 11:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Commercial Neighborhood on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Urban Center North 2 (UC-N2), Overlay - Urban Design District Con the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-120C and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Compliance with the provided Geotechnical Report. • Compliance with the provided Transportation Report. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, CED -Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on January 21, 2015. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on February 24, 2015, at 11:00 AM, 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: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219; Eml: rtimmons@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION Accounts Receivable Invoice 1055 South Grady Way/ Renton, WA 98057 / (425) 430-6897 CLARK DESIGN GROUP ATIN: scon CLARK 169 WESTERN AVE W SEATILE, WA98118 - Invoice No. .. Date . , ·· ... Amount Due .. · , ;Due Date ;,,::,-, ,,--. :· '. AR Account No. 5282 36989 07/23/2014 3,668.00 ; 08/27/2014 Amount Enclosed Make Checks Payable to the CITY OF RENTON Please include your AR account number ---------------------------------------------When paying by check, detach and return the above with payment. --------------------------------------------- CITY OF RENTON ' .... . DESCRIPTION .: \(; . . ..... ·, ....... AMOUNT;•,•,,,, Transportation Secondary Review for Legacy Renton Hotel (LUA14-000061) 3,668.00 Miscellaneous: 3,668.00 AR ACCOUNT NO. 5282 Total Amount Due: 3,668.00 f U/frf·Fti.£ L-W\-\ t\ -0 000 t.cc• ( TO AVOID INTEREST AND/OR PENAL TY CHARGES 3,668.00 PLEASE REMIT PAYMENT BY DUE DATE Please Remit to: CITY OF RENTON ATIN: FINANCE/ AR 1055 S. GRADY WAY RENTON. WA 98057 ~ Perteet CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1bis Consultant Agreement for Professional Services ("Agreement") is made and entered into on this 22nd of July , 2014, between the City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 hereinafter referred to as "CLIENT" and Perteet, Inc., 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900, Everett, WA 98201, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." CLIENT and CONSUL TANT for mutual consideration hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: I. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The CONSULTANT agrees to perform certain consulting, design, studies, and/or advisory services for the CLIENT as follows: Provide an independent review of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed development, "Renton Hotel", seeking confirmation whether the TIA was adequately conducted, and if the recommended TIA mitigation is appropriate as show in Exhibit "A", Scope of Services attached hereto and made a part of this agreement. II. PAYMENT CLIENT agrees to pay CONSULTANT as compensation for these services as follows: At CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates plus expenses to a maximum amount payable of Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Eight Dollars ($3,668). CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates shall be billed as attached hereto. The maximum amount payable shall not be exceeded without written approval of CLIENT. CLIENT shall be invoiced monthly in accordance with the attached Standard Provisions and Schedule of Billing Rates. ID.STANDARD PROVISIONS The attached Standard Provisions and Schedule of Billing Rates are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement. CLIENT and CONSULTANT also agree to the following additional provisions: No further provisions. PERTEET, INC. CITY OF RENTON / By. ~If /2M£' I Signat= Peter G. De Boldt C' E . ' c.t11P"' V I N = r--'T ..... --.. ' Name Name (Please Print) Vice President Title Title Page I C:\Users\peterd\AppData\Local\MicrosoftlWindows\Temporary Internet Files\Cooteot0utlook\87PSBIDV1Legacy Hotel TIA Review Contract_7-22-14.docx ii Perteet Exhibit "A" Scope of Services Legacy Hotel (Hampton Inn) Transportation Study Peer Review Prepared by Perteet, Inc. INTRODUCTION The City of Renton ("CITY'') desires an independent review of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed development "Renton Hotel," Oune 2014, Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc.), seeking confirmation whether the TIA was adequately conducted, and if the recommended TIA mitigation is appropriate. To accomplish the assignment, Perteet Inc. ("CONSUL TANT") will review and evaluate the TIA for thoroughness, methodology, accuracy, and the appropriateness of mitigation. Perteet will provide a peer review report to the City documenting the results of this evaluation. Perteet's services will be billed per the Standard Hourly Rate sheet attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Services not included in this scope of services are specifically excluded from the scope of the CONSUL TANTs services. The CONSUL TANT assumes no responsibility to perform any services not specifically listed in this scope of services. If agreed to in writing by the CITY and the CONSULT ANT, the CONSUL TANT shall provide Optional Services. Optional Services are not included as part of the Basic Scope of Services and shall be paid for by the Client in addition to payment for Basic Services, in accordance with the CONSULTANTs prevailing fee schedule as agreed to by the CITY and the CONSULTANT. Task I Project Manaii:ement The project is not expected to extend beyond one billing period. However, as a general part of project management, Perteet prepares monthly progress reports that describe the work items and percentage of work items that were accomplished during a given month, as well as a forecast of work to be completed over the following month. The monthly progress reports will also identify any other issues or problems that may occur in any given month. The CONSUL TANT wili submit these monthly progress reports to the City's Project Manager with the monthly invoices. The monthly invoices will bill by individual tasks. Perteet's Project Manager will notify the City's Project Manager, in writing (memo format), of any out of scope and/or budgetary issues that are inconsistent with this Scope of Work. Perteet's project manager will also perform Quality Control (QC) on any documents or products prior to delivery to the City. Work Elements: • Prepare project schedule • Prepare monthly progress reports I invoices • Telephone coordination/check-ins (2 per month) • QC Deliverables: • Monthly progress reports / invoices Page2 C:\Userslpclerd\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content0utlook\87P5111 DV\Legacy Hotel TIA Review Contract_ 7-22-14.docx ~ Perteet Assumptions: • This contract duration shall be no longer than 2 months (all work will be completed within month) • After the initial kick-off meeting, Perteet will coordinate with the City via telephone and email to manage project activities Estimate of Hours and Cost of Time, Materials, and Expenses: $468 (3 hours of labor) Task 2 Site Reconnaissance and Data Research Perteet' s project manager will meet with the City project manager to align on objectives and expectations for scope, issues of concern, schedule, communications and deliverables. At the kick-off meeting, the City will provide Perteet with relevant documents that identify specific issues previously raised regarding proposed project traffic. At the kick-off meeting, Perteet will ascertain from city staff the minimum TIA expectations for this project including city requirements for the area of study and the Intersections involved, required timeframe scenarios, pipeline development and roadway network projects to be considered, and the city's insight into area trip distribution patterns. Perteet staff will visit and observe traffic operations around the project area and at study intersections. Staff will observe site conditions, traffic patterns, constraints, pedestrian activity, and street configurations and controls. Perteet will research available area traffic count and collision data seeking to confirm TIA data. Work Elements: • Facilitate and attend project kickoff meeting at the City of Renton • Site reconnaissance • Data collection Deliverables: • Data review summary Estimate of Hours and Cost of Time, Materials, and Expenses $1,360 (8 hours of labor and $21 of mileage) Task 3 Technical Review and Comments on the TIA Perteet will conduct a peer review of the TIA A report will be generated providing comments, issues. concerns and recommendations for each section of the TIA. Work Elements: • Review the project TIA • Provide comments and recommendations regarding the TIA accuracy, thoroughness, and the adequacy of the TIA proposed mitigation Deliverable: • Peer review report Page3 C:\Users'¢erd\AppDatall.ocal\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\ContenLOutlookl87P5BlDV\Legacy Hotel TIA Review Contract_ 7-22-14.docx [l] Perteet Estimate of Hours and Cost of Time, Materials, and Expenses: $580 (4 hours in labor) Task 4 TIA Peer Review Report Presentation. Response to Comments. and Final Report Perteet will present and discuss the TIA Peer Review Report at a meeting at the City. Based upon City comment and direction, Perteet will respond to comments. revise the Peer Review Report and provide a Final Report to conclude this assignment. Work Elements: • Presentation meeting • Response to comments • Conduct Secondary Review • Prepare Final Report Deliverables: • Final Report Estimate of Hours and Cost of Time, Materials, and Expenses: $1,260 (8 hours in labor, $21 in mileage) TOTAL BUDGET: $3,668 TIME FOR COMPLETION We estimate no more than one (I) month is needed for completion of the work described in this scope, plus up to another one (I) month for the Secondary Review. The contract will be in effect for 2 months after notice to proceed to provide time for any Options Services if desired by the CITY. Task 5: OPTIONAL SERVICES Perteet would be available for additional services in support of the TIA peer review and presentation, at the discretion of the City. Support could include additional meetings, presentations, the development and justification of alternative mitigation measures, and other support as desired. Page4 C:\Users\pe(enl\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temponuy Internet Filc.s\Content.Oudook\87P5BIDV\Legacy Hotel TIA Review Contract_ 7-22-14.docx ~ Perteet ...... -·-hl'IIA---_ .. _ PII --"·r ---.,_ -- ---_ .. _ ----·---~-- laol----.... ~ Perteet PagcS C:\Usersl><terd\AppDatall.ocal\MicrosoftlWindowslTemponuy Internet Filcs\Conteot.Outlook187PSBIDV\Logacy Hotel TIA Review Cnntract_ 7-22-14.docx il Perteet PERTEET, INC. Standard Provisions All professional services provided by Perteet, Inc. ("CONSULTANT") are subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and any written modifications to this Agreement and signed by both CONSULTANT and CLIENT. I. Scope of Services. As outlined in Exhibit "A" Scope of Services. 2. Hourly Charges For Personnel. Personnel will be charged at the hourly rates provided in the attached Schedule ofBilling Rates. The hourly rates are in effect for the calendar year of the proposal. Billing rates are subject to change effective January I st next year. 3. Direct Expenses. CONSULTANT's Direct Expenses are those costs incurred on or directly for the CLIENf's project. Direct expenses shall be billed in accordance with the attached Schedule of Billing Rates. Direct Expenses are not included in our fee unless specifically noted in this Agreement. 4. Standard of Care. Notwithstanding any other provision within this Agreement, nothing shall be construed to raise the standard of care applicable to the CONSULTANT's Services. The applicable standard of care shall be that practiced by similarly situated professional engineers or surveyors practicing in the same geographic location under similar circumstances. CONSULTANT makes no other warranty, express or implied. Because professional services are based on judgment tempered by time constraints and human error, a certain level of errors and omissions should be expected. CONSULT ANT's Services under this Agreement are provided with the assumption that CLIENT (or Project Owner) has provided adequate budget reserves to cover associated construction costs. CONSULTANT makes no other warranty, express or implied. 5. Personnel. CONSULTANT shall furnish the personnel required to perform the services covered by this Agreement ("the Services") and shall engage any other professional parties as it deems necessary for the performance of the Services. The cost of the Services of such other professionals shall be the responsibility of CLIENT. 6. Instructions and Approvals. CLIENT shall cooperate with the CONSULTANT in providing the Services. CLIENT shall name an authorized representative at or before the start of the work who shall be responsible for providing information, instructions, and approvals on CLIENT's behalf. Such representative shall be available to CONSULTANT at all reasonable times. CLIENT shall be responsible for all delays in performance of the Services caused by or arising out of CLIENT's unavailability or its failure to timely provide information, instructions, or approvals. 7. Terms of Payment Invoices shall be issued by CONSULTANT on a monthly basis and shall be payable on presentation. 8. Differing Conditions. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of all testing, services, reports, data, and other information furnished by CLIENT regarding the project or the site. If CONSULTANT believes that any condition encountered at the site or during the course of the project is inaccmate or differs materially from that indicated, reflected or referred to at the time of CONSULTANT's proposal, CONSULTANT shall notify CLIENT within a reasonable time. Such differing conditions shall include but are not limited to: condition of existing structures; and the presence of asbestos or any substance or material categorized as hazardous or toxic by federal, state or local laws and regulations. In such a case, CONSULTANT shall not be required to continue performing the Services until such time as a change in compensation, time for performance, and/or other resolution of the differing condition has been mutually agreed to by CLIENT and CONSULTANT. Page6 C:\Users\pelen!\AppData\local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary lnlem,. FileslC-OtllentOutlook\87PSBIDVl!.egacy Hotel TIA Review Contract_ 7-22-14.docx il Perteet CONSULTANT shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of, or exposure of persons to, hazardous materials in any form at the project site, including, but not limited to asbestos, asbestos products, polychlorinated biphenyl or other toxic substances. 9. Changes and Delays. In addition to the change in compensation and/or time for performance referred to in Paragraph 8 above, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to an increase in compensation and/or time for performance for any other changes made in the scope of the Services so long as such changes do not arise from the negligence of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall not be required to perform any work connected with a change unless the parties have agreed in writing on the amount of or the basis for calculating the time and/or compensation associated with the change. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to additional time and/or compensation for delays caused by or resulting from acts of CLlENT, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, or other third parties over whom CONSULTANT has no control so long as the delay(s) are not caused by CONSULTANT's negligence. I 0. Opinions of Cos~ Financial Considerations, and Schedules. In providing financial analyses or opinions· of cos~ economic feasibility, and scheduling for the Project, CONS ULT ANT has no control over costs or prices of labor and materials; unknown or latent conditions; competitive bidding procedures; market conditions; time or quality of performance by third parties; quality, type, managemen~ or direction of operating personnel; or other economic and operational factors that may materially affect the ultimate Project cost or schedule. Therefore, CONSULT ANT makes no warranty that the CLIENTs actual Project costs, construction costs, financial conditions, economic feasibility, or schedules will not vary from CONSULT ANT's opinions, analyses, projections, or estimates. 11. Insurance. CONSULTANT, at its own expense, carries professional liability, workers' compensation and employer's liability coverage as required by applicable state law, and general liability insurance (including automobile liability). The amount of insurance available may vary from year to year. The professional liability insurance is written on a claims-made basis. All policies are available for inspection at CLIEN1's request If CLIENT desires insurance coverage in addition to that carried by CONSULTANT at the time this Agreement is issued, CONSULTANT will cooperate to obtain such additional insurance, if available, at CLIENTs expense. Notwithstanding any other provision in the Agreement between CONSULTANT and CLIENT, nothing shall be construed to void, vitiate or adversely affect the insurance coverage of either party. 12. Indemnity. CLlENT agrees to require that CONSULTANT be named as an additional indemnitee in all provisions, clauses, contracts, or agreements made between or among CLIENT, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and/or other third parties in which CLlENT is named as an indemnitee. 13. Limitation of Liability. CLIENT agrees to require CONSULTANT be named as an additional insured for all insurance policies carried by contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers on which CLIENT has been or will be named as an additional insured Regardless of the presence or absence of insurance coverage, CONSULTANT shall not be liable for loss or damage occasioned by delays beyond CONSULTANTs control, or for loss of earnings, loss of use, or other incidental or consequential damages suffered by CLIENT or others, however caused. CONSULTANTs liability to CLIENT shall be limited as follows: (a) for insured liabilities, to the amount of insurance then available to fund any settlemen~ award or verdict; (b) for uninsured liabilities, to 50 percent (50%) of the fee earned by CONSULTANT under this Agreement. This Limitation of Liability was negotiated by CLIENT and CONSULTANT. CUENT expressly agrees to this Limitation of Liability. 14. Performance by Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers. CONSULTANT shall not be required to make exhaustive, extensive, or continuous on-site or off-site inspections of the work. No acceptance or approval by CONSULTANT of the work of contractors, subcontractors, or suppliers, whether express or implied, shall Page7 C:\Us=l)ctc:rd\AppData\Local\Microsoftl Windows\ Temporary Internet Files\Conteot. Outlook:'8 7P5B IDV\Legacy Hotel TIA Review Contract_ 7-22-14.docx. ~ Perteet relieve contractors, subcontractors or suppliers of their obligations to CLIENT for the proper performance of their work. 15. Construction Means and Safety. CONSULTANT shall have no responsibility for, control or right of control o-any contractor, subcontractor or supplier, their agents, employees, or others for "1lom they may be liable in connection with the means, methods, techniques, sequences, procedures and equipment used or not used by such contractors, subcontractors, or suppliers in their performance of any phase of the work, for placing into operation any plant or equipment, or for any safety precautions or programs related to the Project Responsibility and control for all such activities shall be solely and exclusively that of CLIENT and such contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. 16. Ownership of Documents. All designs, drawings, specifications, notes, data, samples, materials, reports, reproducibles and other work developed by CONSULTANT are "instruments of service" and shall remain the property of CONSULTANT after the services have been completed or terminated. CLIENT agrees not to use, reuse, or adapt any instruments of service developed by CONSULTANT on any other project or application unless agreement has been reached with CONSULTANT regarding the terms and conditions for such use or reuse. CLlENT also agrees not to use, reuse, or adapt any instruments of service developed by CONSULTANT for the specific project or application intended if CONSULTANT's services have been terminated prior to completion, unless agreement has been reached for such further use. CLIENT shall release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless CONSULTANT from all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, expenses, and costs arising out of the unauthorized use or reuse of such instruments of service. 17. Costs and Attorneys' Fees. If any claim is made by either party under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees at trial and on appeal. All disputes shall be subject to litigation. Venue shall be in the Superior Court of the county wherein the Project is located. 18. Termination. CLIENT and CONSULTANT have the right, with or without cause, to terminate this Agreement by giving five (5) days' written notice to the other party. If CONSULTANT is terminated for any reason other than a material breach of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, CLIENT shall be responsible for payment of all reasonable demobilization costs, all expenses incurred or obligated at the date of termination, and all the Services performed by CONSULTANT through the date of termination. CONSULTANT may, at its sole discretion, withhold plans, studies, reports and other services that have been completed but not paid for until full payment is made. 19. Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as giving any rights or benefits to anyone other than CONSULTANT and CLIENT. 20. Go~g Law; Integration; Severability. This Agreement shall be governed by Washington law unless otherwise provided. If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any circumstances is determined to be invalid or unenforceable to any extent, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected but shall instead remain valid and fully enforceable. This is the entire Agreement, which incorporates and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements and representations. Any amendments or modifications to this Agreement must be in writing signed by both parties. 21. Waivers. No waiver by either party of any default hythe other will operate as, orbe construed as, a wai-of any future default, whether like or different in character. 22. Headings. The headings used in this Agreement are for convenience and reference purposes only and are not to be used in inteipreting or construing the substantive provisions of this Agreement Pages C:\Users\petad\AppData\Local\Microsofl\Windows\Temponuy Intern.et Files\Contmt0u1look\87P5B1DV\Lcgacy Hotel TIA Review Contract_ 7-22-14.docx ~ Perteet PERTEET, INC. Schedule of 2014 Billing Rates Engineering, Planning and Environmental Classifications Principal Seoior Associate Senior Engineer/Manager Lead Engineer/Manager Engineer ill Engineer II Encnneerl Seoior Planner/Manager Lead Planner/Manager Planner ill Planner II Planner I Senior Ecologist/Manager Lead Ecologist/Manager Ecologist ill Ecologist II Ecolomst I Lead Technician/Designer Technician m Technician II Technician I Contract Administrator Accountant Clerical Expert Witness Rates: Consulting & Preparation Time Court Proceedings & Depositions ( 4 hour minimum) 2014 Hourly Rate 190.00 180.00 170.00 140.00 120.00 100.00 85.00 160.00 140.00 115.00 100.00 80.00 160.00 140.00 115.00 100.00 80.00 110.00 95.00 80.00 70.00 95.00 85.00 70.00 @ standard hourly rates @ 1.5 times hourly rates Page9 C:\Users'¢erd\AppData\Loeal\Microsoft\WindowslTempcmuy Internet Files\Contont.Outlook\87PSBIDV\Legacy Hotel TIA Review Contract_ 7 -22-14.docx i] Perteet Direct Expenses PERTEET, INC. Schedule of 1014 Billing Rates Page2 Living & travel expenses outside of service area Authorized Subconsultants Outside Services (printing, traffic counts, etc.) CADD Station Project Controls / Primavera GIS / Traffic Modeling Color Copies Mileage Survey Classifications Principal Surveyor Survey Manager Senior Professional Laod Surveyor Professional Land Surveyor ! Office Technician III Field Technician III Field Technician II Field Technician I One Person Survey Crew Two Person Survey Crew Three Person Survev Crew Direct Survey Expenses Dual Frequency GPS Receiver Robotic Total Station Data Collection System Digital Level Survey monuments & cases Rate Cost plus 10 percent Cost plus IO percent Cost plus 10 percent $10.00 per hour $10.00 per hour $15.00 per hour $.80 each @ current federal rate 2014 Hourly Rate 185.00 135.00 130.00 115.00 100.00 90.00 75.00 65.00 90.00 165.00 235.00 Rate $150.00 per unit per day $100.00 per day $50.00 per day Cost plus 10 percent Page 10 C:\Usen'l>ete,d\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Tempor.uy Internet Files\Contont0utlook\87PSB1 DW,,,gacy Hotel TIA Review Contract_7-22-14.docx ~ Perteet PERTEET, INC. Schedule o/2014 Billing Rates Page3 Construction Classifications Construction Engineering Supervisor Construction Engineering Manager Construction Manager Assistant Construction Mana!!er Construction Engineer III Construction Engineer II Construction Eninneer I Senior Construction Observer Construction Observer II Construction Observer I Senior Construction Technician Construction Technician III Construction Technician II Construction Technician I 2014 Hourly Rate 175.00 165.00 120.00 105.00 120.00 100.00 85.00 110.00 80.00 70.00 105.00 95.00 80.00 70.00 Page II C:\Us='¢erd1AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Tcmpora,y Internet FilC8\ContcntOutlook\87PSBIDV\Legacy Hotel TIA Review Cootract_ 7-22-14.docx February 24, 2014 , Torjan Ronhovde The Ronhovde Architects · .. 14900 Interurban Ave 5 #.138 Tukw;ila, WA 981&8 Department of Community and Economic Dgvelopment · C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator -·.SUBJECT: "On.Hold" Notice, legacy Renton; LUA1~DD00&1, ECF, MOD, VAR, SA-H . . . -. Dear Mr .. Ro11hovde: The Pla~ningDivision of the City of Renton accepted tne above master applic~tion for: revie.w on January 19; 2014. During our review, staff has determinedthatadditional information is necessary in order to proceed further. . . ' . . . . · The following information will need tobe subinitted before August 24,2014 so that we. may continu·e the review of the above subject application: · · • Independent· Secondary Review of Geotechnii:al Report: Per RMC. 4-3°050.F .. please provide s copies of .an. evaluation b','. an independent qualified ·. : . profession 01 regarding t.he · applicant's a_nalysis .and the effective~ess of any · proposed mitigating measures or programs; t6 include any recommendations as· .. . appropriate. The. Administrator will. be-selecting the third-party review ·_ profos;iona1 andthe evaluation shall be paid at the app'licant's expense. • lndepe~dent Secondary. Review of traffic Study: ·Please provide 5 copies of an . evaiuation by an independent qualified" professional regarding the applicant's analysis ~nd the effectiveness ota·nyproposed mitigating measures orprogi-a'ms,. to. include any recommendations as appropriate. The Administrator will. be selecting the third-party review professional and the evaluation shall be paid at the applicant's expense. · · . · · · • Development · is prohibited o~ protected slopes .. You have requested an. · Exception through a modification however the proposal would not .be eligible for an Exce'ption thmugh Modification pursuant to RMC 4,3-0SOJ.5.b. There is currently not· an allowance for Critical Area Variances Within c.ritical slopes for more than one single family residence. However, the City will be working to draft an Administrative lnterpre\ation, within 30 days, to create "critical Area Variance Criteria for exceptions to the prohibition 9f deve.lopment within protected siopes wh_en the prnposal is not· eligible for an exception through a modification or waiver. You can eit_her choose revise .the propos;:,I to eliminate· developme_nt . Renton Ci1y Hall • 1 OSS South Grady Way • Renton, Wa,;_hington 98057 • rentonwa.gov within protects>d slopes or alternatively apply for a Critica.1 Area Variance once an ·· Administrative Interpretation is issued. . . . • Based on the preliminary fire flow demand -of 3,000 gpm for the building, as determined by Renton Fire Prevention, a ,;looped" water main. is required around the building and parking structure. A 15-foot wide e,lsement will .be required for the>installatiori of the water main. The prop~se site plan shows that · the building is 8 feet away.from the south property line. As such, the buildings · will· need t6 be m.ovecl further to the north, or resized to prnvide the required · 15-foot wide ·easement .. A_t this time, your project has been placed ''on h~ld" pending rect;ipt of therequested . information. Please contact me at{425) 430~7219 if you have any questions, Sincerely, YJ~~ Senior Planner cc: _ Owner(s) ·Appliq1_nt . .Party{ies) Of Record .. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Oe.,..:;opment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 12, 2014 APPLICATION NO: LUA14-000061, ECF, MOD, VAR, SA-H DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 29, 2014 APPLICANT: Torjan Ronhovde PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Legacy Renton PROJECT REVIEWER: Rohini Nair SITE AREA: 54,886 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): LOCATION: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd. North PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 130,000 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, an Exception through Modification, and a Variance in order to construct a 125 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) zone. The proposed hotel would be approximately 6 stories in height. A total of 131 structured parking stalls would be provided in a four-level parking garage on the eastern portion of the site. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. The applicant is requesting an Exception through Modification from RMC 4-3-050 in order to construct within the critical slopes on site. In addition the applicant is requesting a Variance, from RMC 4-2-120E, in order to exceed the maximum front yard setback offive feet. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housifln Air Aesthetics Water .,__. ....... Unht/Glare "' Plants Recreation .-"'C Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trons"'"'rtation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14 000 Feet 1. ¥: i\ s f We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or ~reas where additi~ation is needed to properly assess this proposal. ~()/.1/4 E1±iad ) 0\-!/-11 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date .• C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have experUse 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 Agencies See attached Torjan Ronhovde, The Ronhovde Architects Legacy Renton Don and Marge Schumsky (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) ss ) See Attached 300' surrounding property owners Applicant/Contact Owner Party of Record '.',.,,,,\\\\\1 \ ~----~\..'( PO~ ~ .Of;\""•~· r --l:°L, ,, \), I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that L ,s ti... rn C, E-( ,re,;;. I {:.. +0'"'~ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act f~ th~ usesaM pui"'p~ses . . . .~. ~ ~ -~ mentioned in the instrument. ·,, -"'., \ 8 •'-' 1 · ,. ', :.,. 11,,, ·29-\,f '' ~ •11,"""''' ... 0,11-VVAS'<' Dated: $ a(D, 14 ,:'.:J Notary (Print): ___ .....:.b+t,.:..e...i~_..... __ ]? ...... · _l'l..,.._\.11,1-),.ffS~------------ My appointment expires: -, . ~Wf--~j ;).oLf template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology*"' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers* Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers .,*"' Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher* 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 Duwamish Tribal Office* 4717 W Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106-1514 KC Wastewater Treatment Division* Environmental Planning Supervisor Ms. Shirley Marroquin 201 s. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 City of Newcastle Attn: Steve Roberge Director of Community Development 13020 Newcastle Way Newcastle, WA 98059 Puget Sound Energy Municipal Liaison Manager Joe Jainga PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-OlW Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.* Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program* Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Attn: Gretchen Kaehler PO Box48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Kent Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Acting Community Dev. Director 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing 3344500390 BRE-FMCA LLC C/0 BRE PROPER 525 MARKET ST #4TH FLR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 3344500006 PUGET WESTERN INC 19515 N CREEK PKWY 310 BOTHELL, WA 98011 823059056 PUGET WESTERN INC 19515 N CREEK PKWY 310 BOTHELL, WA 98011 3344500005 POOL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION LLC 1322 LAKE WASHINGTON BV N RENTON, WA 98056 523059072 BRE-FMCA LLC C/0 BRE PROPER 525 MARKET ST #4TH FLR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 523059003 BNSF PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH, TX 76161 3344500007 SCHUMSKY DON & MARGE 2019 JONES AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056 823059055 BUILDING CAT SOUTHPORT L 1083 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N STE SO RENTON, WA 98056 . ' !} r1··!1~~ lo j i fj J i!i!1aJ ;; " ' ' 1;£ ~ ' ' . '! 11 '1'•·1' ,l: £ ~ ! -.. ~ ti " ,j ' I !, Jp!qll " ! ,. •!j 1,11111 ~~J i.o: i:~1 ·,'; r .f ill ,,li,l;I j l !i '1·!! lif!1lljl, ~ l sJ i B5 r fzf[ !!l " ~ ~ ~ ; :;i i • ! ! ,~i r I 1•1 1j1, 1 t:Ji;1a1 II • · • ' •I'" "·11•1•·j I 11 I ll IHi! li1·,1hl,1, ·: ,!:~) .dl·d~::!Jif!~!!j ' 1 • '/l, "l', ! "P1 1! ! ii . 't !1· ,.!11, ' ! l II j IJ 1i,H,1' •! i I i i '' lip,,,,i fil, ~s i 1 q f f I t:ifH!i[ b I ij Ji /! l : ! Jijlli111 1· ~ ~ eN ~l ~ ! Hu 8 .5 J,,,,,.,. ''''! · 0 l!p1J 1 1 1-;1 0 ~ If 1 l!lj1lit li111 f f II ;:; i-Ji 1 ~ 1 ~ .. i 1 !j; Htii l 1 ti 9 ! ; ·I ;l/1!llfil Hit! I i I If ic: s@i' , illf!HJli !!11!1 11 l h 0 ,,U ~ ~ lff ! '.IIJIJ{!!dl j !JilH i f J I l H ----....'~::;:} ~ rlq}l~! HfiiS lij-l'f '1 L~, ~~,I ' •iJ11hJI! t l!·•Jl ' l' f' l1 ~ 5 ll I ! llj:)lj!i i 1ilh1 I l .l , I P1 g ~ l! l j 'l1!1l;l.ii ! 11HH ! . I ! ~~ H' ',l''j' '1' Ii 11 ! ll ;;::' Z ii ~ I~ • ~ ! ;; • r ~ ~ i1• I l,i-11rp1 llil.i 1 ! 1 j t 1 o ! . , ; 1 H!. li '1 , p .i r I I , 1 • ! i 1H ! i I mun!li I 1iUli I i 11 11 ll i ' a ~ ~ ' i 1, I; • I 1 ··· Ji f j! ' l n 11! iP 11 l ,. ! ~ j '1 '! i ! iJ j I l (l) .t::. C ... .., 0 C ~ ~ (l) 0 "" E ~ -~ :::, u .r. u "' V1 0 > "' ~ ~ 5 (l) .., ~ > C 0 0 C :::l ~ 0 O n:, > > (l)t: ~ /-.. ..C: OJ C: I ~ a. ro 0 0 (l) ~ (l) Vic. 01-.~ ~ 0 ~ ~ (l) ~ 0 ·-u P-rv~ ~ \.L-.., ,, ~ ~ \'· I ~ J:! z cu ,j.J .......... 0 ..c: rtl .!::'.:! VJ -... .., .r. .r. O.> .:-(l) I- ro> .._. c: '- .r. ~ ~ (l) (l) • c:-·-·-<I: ..,~ w u~t: n:, 0:: ~ U >ro c cow .., >< -~w o.o GJ,j.JE o w !::!:: 'f:c vi ~:!=:::, z ~ ~ ~0 6iai~ a w >"'OJ 2:'ooc z U ~ ~ ,_ QJ u O cu QJ lo..~ U-..c: QJC.. rt1$'.,j.J ~VJ V'l ~Oc: ' :::::; IJl ·-C: ·-'t.::~ a _ ro~-a ...... ::::I --VJ u Q.) \ u rtl C: L. ·a. ~ "O 0 vi roC:·p )c z .t::."'c -o -0 ~+-'(l) u O C E \_ ~ f-(l) 'r· rl!1 3:E:D . I z l!)O:::,v, ·t' ~:c z~~g_ C: V') :::.::: -c:i... <t +-' ·-::::I "0 .-s LL l"OV"JQ. QJ u... 0 -:5 :..c "O ti >-+-' C \Jo o f-,i:"~"'~ J c. UJ z '-EQJV"J Q.) OJ Cl.JI-::,cuc:curo i... +"' ~ 0 u .!:.O ~ o cu ro,. U-vi --3: Cl Vl NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED}-Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: January 29, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA14-000061, ECF, MOD, VAR, SA-H PROJECT NAME: Legacy Renton PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, an Exception through Modification, and a Variance in order to construct a 125 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way Nat 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N, The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) zone. The proposed hotel would be approximately 6 stories in height. A total of 131 structured parking stalls would be provided in a four-level parking garage on the eastern portion of the site. Access is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. The applicant is requesting an Exception through Modification from RMC 4-3-050 in order to construct within the critical slopes on site. In addition the applicant is requesting a Variance, from RMC 4-2-120E, in order to exceed the maximum front yard setback of five feet. PROJECT LOCATION: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd. N. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: January 17, 2014 January 29, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: TorJan Ronhovde, The Ronhovde Architects Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Modification, Variance, He~ring Examiner Site Plan Review Construction, Building Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report, Traffic Impact Study Department of Community & Economic Development {CED)-Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 !f you would like ta 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.: Legacy Renton/LUA14-000061, ECF, MOD, VAR, SA-H NAME:------------------------------------ MAILING ADDRESS: ________________ City/State/Zip: __________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: --------------- PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 25, 2014 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is desisnated Commercial Neighborhood on the City of Renton ComprehensiYe Land Use Map and Urban Center North 2 (UC-N2) on the City's Zonins Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-120E and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. Compliance with the provided Geotechnica/ Report. Compliance with the provided Transportation Report. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner, CED -Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on February 12, 2014. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on March 25, 2014, at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearins, 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: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner; Tel: (42S) 430-7219; Eml: rtimmons@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION January 29, 2014 Torjan Ronhovde The Ronhovde Architects 14900 Interurban Ave S #138 Tukwila, WA 98168 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject; Notice of Complete Application Legacy Renton, LUA14-000061, ECF, MOD, VAR, SA-H Dear Mr. Ronhovde: 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 · February 24, 2014. 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 March 25, 2014 at 9:00 AM, 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) 430-7219 if you have any questions. r~ly, A .f__ • .. C ~~ R ale Timmons Senior Planner cc: Legacy Renton/ Owner(s) Don and Marge S~humsky / Party{ies) of Record Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way , Renton,Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov ' 1./(-!i.} City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER($) NAME: Legacy Renton LLC Contact: Faizel Kassam ADDRESS: 6501 Eagle Rock NE, Suite B-5 87113 CITY: Albuquerque ZIP: I TELEPHONE NUMBER: (505) 489-4474 APPLICANT (if other than owner) 1 NAME: Scott Clark ! I I COMPANY (if applicable): Clark Design Group ,~,, 169 Western Ave W Seattle ZIP: 98119 CITY: I TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206) 782-8208 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Scott Clark I COMPANY (if applicable): Clark Design Group ADDRESS: 169 Western Ave W CITY: Seattle ZIP:98119 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADORES (206) 782-8208 I I sclark@clarkdg.com i i.,•. ' PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Renton Hampton Inn & Suites PROJECTIADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 1300 Lake Washington Blvd North Renton, WA 98056 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 3344500007 EXISTING LAND USE(S): I Cowgirls' Espresso Coffee Stand PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Hampton Inn & Suites Hotel EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: District 'C' PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) N/A EXISTING ZONING: Urban Center-North 2 (UC-N2) PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N/A SITE AREA (in square feet): 57,002 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE I DEDICATED: 266 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: 0 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NIA NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) NIA ;\" :_:, .. :· /\:\' NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS,{i~pi/cabie);c,'.: N/A ' --. ,,· f'ii E £ J~L- C :\Users \fkassam \App Data \Local\M icrosoft\ W indows\TN etCaeh.e\Gon:tetllOuttook\PM BB I 11 SR \Land U sc Penn It Master App I 1 cation Form. Joe -I - P. . J E CT IN FORM A T~IO_::_:Nc_::__,_( c=----=o::_:_n=--=-t------'-1e=d=l)--------~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PR0JEcT VALUE: $13,650,000.00 N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 108,717 D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE D AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 108,717 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable):30 D FLOOD HAZARD AREA D GEOLOGIC HAZARD D HABITAT CONSERVATION D SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES D WETLANDS ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ------------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the followina information included) SITUATE IN THE __ SW __ QUARTER OF SECTION _5_, TOWNSHIP _23_, RANGE _5_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Toi zeJ '\--\. 'KtJ7X)('.)VY) ' declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am (please check one) v the current owner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 2· Signatur~wner/Representative /~,1.r/,11/ , I Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATEOFWASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that taize \ '-'I . Ka-6-')QYV) signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument. \i / lta/ 2-01~ Date Notary Public State of Washington VANESSA VARGAS Notary (Print): _\&-e..:...__D_~ ___ \b_~Y-jeJ--Q~S::;__ _____ _ My Appointment Expires Apr 17, 2018 My appointment expires: -L11'-112"-r,._'1,....l.___J)LJL.1-,, -'1-._,0.c.._,l_.6..,_ ____ _ C: \ U sers\tkassam\A.ppData\LocaJ\M icrosoft\ Windows \IN etC ache\Content Outlook \PMB Bl f l SR \Land lJ se Perm it Master Application Form. doc . 2 . PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIR1::MENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Calculations 1 Colored Maps for Display 4 Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND 4 Deed of Right-of-Way Dedication Density Worksheet 4 rYJ r Drainage Control Plan 2 Drainage Report 2 Elevations, Architectural 3AND 4 Environmental Checklist 4 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) 4 Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Flood Hazard Data 4 ;j--j:., Floor Plans 3 AND• {..,/ Geotechnical Report 2 AND 3 Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Grading Plan, Detailed 2 Habitat Data Report 4 /~ Improvement Defenal 2 {_/ Irrigation Plan 4 King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 Landscape Plan, Conceptual• Landscape Plan, Detailed 4 Legal Description 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Master Application Form 4 Monument Cards (one per monument) 1 Neighborhood Detail Map 4 Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 Post Office Approval 2 . This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services · 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning PROJECT NAME: --'L::::...::e:...c._c:...,A_-c_.· '_,,l:...1 :...;._e_-t=c_-..:_Afl.:::_1_D:__· .J __ DATE: ---"-/_2-_,/'-'--/-"-<1°)_,_/-=2c_u_· '/_,,._j"'------ H:\CED\Data\Forms-Temptates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\wai-.,erofsubmittalreqs 06/09 '> ,, .... A PLANNING DIVISION WAIVl!R OF SUBMITTAL REQUu'\EMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITIAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Plat Name Reservation 4 Preapplication Meeting Summary 4 Public Works Approval Letter 2 Rehabilitation Plan 4 Screening Detail 4 Shoreline Tracking Worksheet 4 Site Plan 2 AND 4 Stream or Lake Study, Standard 4 i y;;J-, Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental 4 n?. Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan 4 w-- Street Profiles 2 Title Report or Plat Certificate • Topography Map, Traffic Study 2 Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 Urban Design Regulations Analysis 4 Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4 1::J"f' Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary 4 127' Wetlands Report/Delineation 4 !r'7" Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 ANO 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 ANO 3 Map of View Area 2 ANO, Photosimulations 2 AND, This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: L EL:...,4e..u fr>f=.,vr-,:;,,,J DATE: ======!=2==1:/:6,=1=!=3========= 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning H:\CED\Oata\Forms-Templates\Se!f-Help Handouts\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs 06/09 ' PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR HAMPTON INN & SUITES 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N PRE 12-086 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division November 15, 2012 Contact Information: Planner: Rocale Timmons, 425.430.7219 Public Works Plan Reviewer: Arneta Henninger, 425.430. 7298 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425.430. 7024 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 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 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 & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council}. .r -·,.._, .. FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT r-_c;~~of , . ;. ~~~~~-l~~Il[~IJ , __ / M E M O R A N D U M DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 6, 2012 Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector Hampton Inn and Suites 1. The preliminary fire flow is 3,000 gpm A minimum of three fire hydrants are required. One within 150-feet and two within 300-feet of the building. It appears adequate fire flow is available in the area. Rre flows exceeding 2,500 gpm requires a looped fire main around the building. Hydrants shall be equally spaced around the complex at a maximum spacing of 300-teet. Hydrants are required within 50-feet of all fire department connections for standpipes and sprinkler systems. Existing hydrants may be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code, some of the existing hydrants do and some do not. 2. Fire mitigation impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of commercial space. No charge for covered parking area. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 3. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout the buildings. Ory standpipes are required in all stairways. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser rooms. Fire alarm systems are required to be fully addressable and full detection is required. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. 4. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Fire access roads are required to be a minimum of 20-feet unobstructed width with turning radius of 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside minimum. Fire lane s1gnage required for the onsite roadways. Maximum grade on roadways is 15%. Roadways shall support a minimum of a 30-ton vehicle and 322-psi point loading. Dead end access roadways exceeding 150-feet will require an approved turnaround. 5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre-fire planning purposes. ' ' 6. Separate plans and permits are required for any fuel tanks associated with the proposed emergency generator. 7. All buildings equipped with an elevator in the City of Renton are required to have at least one elevator meet the size requirements for a bariatric size stretcher. Car siie sh1fl accommodate a minimum of a 40-inch by 84-inch stretcher.fl.,. 8. The building shall comply with the City of Renton Emergency Radio Coverage ordinance. Testing shall verify both incoming and outgoing minimum emergency radio signal coverage If inadequate, the building shall be enhanced with amplification equipment in order to meet minimum coverage. Separate plans and permits are required for any proposed amplification systems. / _.,, .. , ,•--.1 ,; ,; .-,•/ /z/ .i ;/> ;( •. / /. CT:ct hampton c:\documcnts and settings\St\lckcr\lo,eal settings\temporary internet filcs\oontcnt.outJook\4sf61 o:in\bamptoo.doc - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (~@fc@fill (: / MEMORANDUM ·--------------- DATE: November 13, 2012 TO: Roca le Timmons, Planner FROM: Arneta Henninger, Plan Review ,f # SUBJECT: Hampton Inn & Suites 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. PRE 12-086, Parcel 3344500007 ~----... --------------· 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 six story hotel with an indoor pool, on a 13 acre site, with 117 parking stalls. The project includes a two story parking structure. The proposed hotel height will be approximately 78 feet. The hotel will be located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N near N 13"' St and in the vicinity of the project Southport, all in the SW X of Section 5 Township 23N, Range SE. The following comments are based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant for the hotel. Water 1. This site is located in the City of Renton Water service area. 2. The project will be required to install a looped water main, minimum 10 inch diameter around .7 the building within a 15-foot wide utility easement to be dedicated to the City. 3. It is located in the 320 Water Pressure Zone. 4. It is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 2. s. There is an existing 12" DI water main located in Lake Washington Blvd N. See City of Renton water drawing W2131 for detailed plans. 6. There is an existing 10" DI water main located in Lake Washington Blvd N. See City of Renton water drawing W3401for detailed plans. 7 There is an existing 4"01 water main located in the parcel to the north. See City of Renton water drawing W3401 for detailed plans. 8. Static pressure at the street level is approximately 118 psi. A Reduced Pressure Back flow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind the domestic water ---,' ·-a.. 1 • /J 1.,....l~-1, ' Hampton inn & Suites.-PRf 12.-., , .. Pagt:.' 2of3 Novembe( 13, 2012 meter. The RPBA shall be installed in an above-ground "Hot-Box" per City standard plan no. 350I ! 9. A separate landscape irrigat,on meter and double check valve assembly will be required. 10. Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. 11. Buildings that exceed 30' in height shall install a backflow pressure device. l2 Per the City of Renton Fire Marshal, the preliminary fire flow is 3,000 gpm. A minimum of three fire hydrants are required, one within 150 feet and two within 300 feet of the building. It appears adequate fire flow is available in the area. Fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm require a looped fire main around the building. Hydrants shall be equally spaced around the complex at a maximum spacing of 300 feet. Hydrants are required within SO feet of all fire department connections for standpipes and sprinkler systems. Existing hydrants may be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code. All fire hydrants need to be brought up to current code if not existing. 13. Approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required throughout the buildings per the City of Renton Fire Marshal. 14. Installation of backflow prevention assemblies (DDCVA's) is required for the fire sprinkler system. The DDCVA shall be located in vaults outside of the buildings. The proposed location of DDCVA inside the building must be submitted to the City for approval and shall meet the conditions of the City standard plan no. 360.5. 15. System Development Charges for water are based on the size of any and all water meters. These fees are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. This fee is currently being reviewed by the City and may change January 1, 2013. Sanitary Sewer 1. There is an existing 8" PVC sanitary sewer main in Lake Washington Blvd N. See City of Renton drawing 5-3220. 2. Any use in the building (kitchen, restaurant) involving the handling of grease requires installation of a properly sited grease interceptor. -/i{, , ·,;,~ 3. The project proposes an indoor pool; the pool will need to be connected to the sanitary sewer per the UPC. 4. The covered parking garage needs to be tied to the sanitary sewer ··-- 5. A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. 6. System Development Charges for sanitary sewer are based on the size of any and all domestic water meters. These fees are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. This fee is currently being reviewed by the City and may change January 1, 2013. Storm Drainage 1. There are storm drainage facilities in Lake Washington Blvd N. City records show that there is an 18" PVC storm crossing Lake Washington Blvd Nanda 12" PVC storm crossing in Lake Washington Blvd to the north of this site. See City of Renton drawing TEO 2836 for details. 2. A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. H:\CfD\Planning\Current Planning\12.086.Rocale\Ptan Review Comments PRE 12-086.docx !-Jarnpton Inn & Suites -PRE 12-0oo Page 3 of 3 November 13, 2012 3. A ron£~drainage plan and report is required to be submitted with the formal application for a commercial project. The report shall comply with Appendix C of the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 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, ~ted t:ond it ions. ,E' ~ ,._ .• ">' 4. 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. 5. Payment of Surface Water System Development Charges of $.405 per square foot of new ,mpeNious area, but not less than $1012.00, is required. This fee is collected prior to the I., issuance of the construction permit. This fee is currently being reviewed by the City and may change January l, 2013. Street Improvements l. Additional offsite improvements to include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting will be required when a building permit is applied for. Frontage improvements include 8' sidewalks and 8' planter strips per the current code. 2. Street Lighting on Lake Washington Blvd: Installation of decorative LED street lights, per the City of Renton Arterial Street Decorative Roadway Luminaire Pole detail, Standard plan 117.1, is required. Lower pedestrian light and banner bracket arms will be required since a sidewalk is to be installed ,-,· 3. A Traffic Study is required. When the study is received, staff will have additional information as to what the specific frontage improvements will be triggered. 4. Traffic Impact Fees apply. General Comments l. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer in the state of Washington. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Network. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for watef" service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. H:\CEO\Planning\Current Planning\12.086.Rocale\Plan Review Comments PRE 12-086.docx ' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 15, 2012 TO: Pre-Application File No. 12-086 FROM: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Hampton Inn & Suites 1300 lake Washington Blvd N ------------------------ General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www._rento_nwa:&QY Project Proposal: The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000 square feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North -2 (UC-N2) wne. The pre- application packet indicates that the proposal is to construct a 125 guestroom hotel for Hampton Inn & Suites. The proposed hotel would be approximately 6 stories in height. A total of 117 structured parking stalls would be provided in a two level parking garage on the eastern portion of the site. Access to the site is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. Current Use: There is an espresso stand located on site that is proposed for removal. Zoning: The property is located within the Urban Center North (UCN) land use designation and the Urban Center North· 2 (UCN-2) zoning classification. Hotels are in the UCN-2 zone provided the following are met: • Not permitted within one thousand feet (1,000') of the centerline of Renton Municipal Airport runway. • Structured pqrkinq is required. 1.i.)~ h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\12-086.rocale\12-086 (ucn-2 hampton inn slopes).doc Hampton Inn & Suites Page 2 of 6 November 15, 2012 • Buildings oriented to pedestrian streers must have qround-f/()_or commerci<il uses w1thm th.ern ... .Tl!~Q[Qp_osal would be required to be~~desiqned in order tg include C()IJ1mercial uses along the ground floor of Lake Washinqton Blvd N. fhe property is also located within Urban Design District 'C', and therefore subject to additional design elements. Proposals should have unique, identifiable design treatment in terms of landscaping, building design, signage and street furniture. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-120E, "Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "UC-N2 standards" herein). Minimum Lot Size. Width and Depth -There is a minimum Jot size of 25 acres. However, the minimum lot size would not be applicable to the proposal. There are no other minimum requirements for lot width or depth within the UC-N2 zone. Lot Coverage -The UCN-2 zone allows a maximum building coverage of 90 percent, or 100 percent if parking is provided within a building or within an on-site parking garage. The project proposal appears to comply with the lot coverage requirements of the zone. Setbacks -Setbacks are the distance between the building and the property line or any private access easement. Setback requirements in the CA zone are as follows: O feet minimum for the front yard and a 5 foot maximum front yard setback. There are no other setbacks in this zone The applicant would be required to relocate the structure to meet the maximum front yard setback of 5 feet or request and have granted a /r®t yard setback variance. Add,tionally, buildings that are immediately adjacent to or abutting a public park, open space, or trail shall incorporate at least one of the features in items a. through c. and shall provide item d.: a. Incorporate building modulation to reduce the overall bulk and mass of buildings; or b. Provide at least one architectural projection for each dwelling unit of not less than two feet (2') from the wall plane and not less than four feet {4') wide; or c. Provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet (2') at an interval of a minimum of forty feet (40') on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project; and d. Provide building articulation and textural variety. Gross Floor Area -There is no minimum requirement for gross floor area within theUC-N2 zone. Bui/ding Height -The maximum building height that would be allowed in the UC-N2 zone is 6 stories along a residential/minor collector. It appears the proposed structure is 6 stories. Building elevations and detailed descriptions of elements and building materials are required with your land use application submittal. Screening -Screening must be provided for all surface-mounted and roof top utility and mechanical equipment. The site plan application will need to include elevations and details for the proposed methods of screening. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\12-086.rocale\12.{)86 (ucn-2 hampton inn slopes).doc Hampton Inn & Suites Page 3 of 6 November 15, 2012 Refuse and Recycling Areas -Refuse and recycling areas need to meet the requirements of RMC 4 4-090, "Refuse and Recyclables Standards" (enclosed). For commercial developments a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas with a total minimum area of 100 square feet. The size of the proposed refuse and recyclable area could not be verified with the pre- application materials. Landscaping -Except for critical areas, all portions of the development area not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought-resistant vegetative cover. The development standards require that all pervious areas within the property boundaries be landscaped. The minimum on-site landscape width required along street frontages 1s 10 feet, except where reduced through the site plan development review process. Further landscaping requirements can be found below in the Design Guidelines. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4--070) for additional general and specific landscape requirements (enclosed). A conceptual landscape plan and landscape analysis meeting the requirements in RMC 4-8-lJ.OD.12, shall be submitted at the time of application for Site Plan Review, Parking -The following ratios would be applicable to the site: . ' I E . :m:,:~:~:m and maximum 0T1-per-guest-room plus l for ev~;y 3 I itie-.,ppii~nt is pro,;;,si;;9-;,t-.,tal of 111 pa~king stalls which does n~ ;.,eet the parking code ,,.tJ/ P.. requirements. Where practical difficulties exist in meeting parking requirements, the applicant may request a modification from these standards. Prior to determining support for the parking modification the applicant would be required to provide a parking analysis as part of the required traffic study. Parking may not be located between the proposed building associated with parking and pedestrian-oriented public streets unless located within a structured parking garage. The applicant will be required at the time of formal land use application to provide detailed parking information (i.e. stall and drive aisle dimensions) and calculations of the subject site and the overall campus use. It should be noted that the parking regulations specify standard stall dimensions. Surface parking stalls must be a minimum of 9 feet x 19 feet, compact dimensions of 8}1 feet x 16 feet, and parallel stall dimensions of 9 feet x 23 feet. For structured parking a parking stall must be a minimum of 8X feet x 15 feet; a stall that has greater than a 45 degree angle must be BX feet x 16 feet. Structured compact stalls must have dimensions of 7Y, feet x 12 feet; a stall with greater than a 45 degree angle must be 7}1 feet x 13 feet. Compact structured parking spaces shall not account for more than SO percent of the spaces in the structured parking areas Structured parallel stall dimPnsions have a minimum of 9 feet x 23 feet also. Compact surface parking spaces shall not account for more than SO percent of the spaces ,n the surface parking lots. h·.\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\12-086.rocale\12-086 (urn-2 hampton inn slopes).doc Hampton Inn & Suites P..ige 4 of 6 November 15, 2012 ADA accessible stalls must be a minimum of 8 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent access aisle of 8 feet in width for van accessible spaces. The appropriate amount of ADA accessible stalls based on the total number of spaces must be provided. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070 and RMC 4-4-0SOF.7) for further general and specific landscape requirements (enclosed). Additiona/Jy, the proposal would need to be revised in order to provide bicycle parking based on 10 % of the required number of parking stalls. Access -Driveway widths are limited by the driveway standards, in RMC 4-40801. Pedestrian Access -A pedestrian connection shall be provided from all public entrances to the street, in order to provide direct, clear and separate pedestrian walks from sidewalks to building entries and internally from buildings to abutting properties. Addj(ionally, there is an l!!<isting historic/ pedestri'an pa)J,way connecting the Higialands nei'ghborh0od to take Wa,shingto,i· Blvd .. ·' T/Je ~i,lican.r'would qe require/I to_ r~ise #le eroposeti site p/bn in orcfer,..mailitttln a connect/(m frolfl the Higlllonds to lake '4/JlShirtgton Blvd. . Signage -Only one freestanding business sign (restricted to monument/ground signs only) is permitted per street frontage, however pole signs are not permitted within the CA zone. Each sign shall not exceed an area greater than one and one-half square feet for each lineal foot of property frontage that is occupied by the business. In no case shall the sign exceed a total of 300 square feet (150 square feet per face). The ground/monument sign is limited to 5 feet in height. In addition to the permitted freestanding sign, wall signs with a copy area not exceeding 20% of the fa~ade, to which it is applied, are also permitted. If ft,ft ix(stjng ,PYion si9? is req_i,ired to be ,remowid as PDr,t of tlJe rigf*()f-woy /ledi'cr'1iqi, \he c1,,r;1;Jpn~ ~uld'lfe reqrt(red to r~ce {Vjth a l,rot1nd//minume1>t sid,, limited to 5 feel1i/ height. --· Building Design Standards -Compliance with Urban Design Regulations, District 'C', is required. See the attached checklist and Renton Munidpa/ Code section 4-3-100. The following bullets are a few of the standards outlined in the regulations. If you are unable ta meet the prescriptive standards of the code the applicant would be required to demonstrate compliance with the intent and guidelines of the respective section that includes the standard. Criticgj__Areas -The site contains protected slopes (40% plus) and sensitive slopes (20% -40%). Development is prohibited on protected slopes. This restriction is not intended to prevent the development of property that includes forty percent (40%) or greater slopes on a portion of the s,te, provided there is enough developable area elsewhere to accommodate building pads. The proposal appears to include construction within protected slopes. Therefore, a Critical Areas Reasonable Use Variance would be required. Special Review Criteria for the Reasonable Use Variance are the fo/Jowing; a. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; h \ced\planning\current planning\preapps\12-086.rocale\12-086 (ucn-2 hampton inn slopes).doc ' Hampton Inn & Suites Paee5of6 November 1S, 2012 b. There is no reasonable use of the property left ,f the requested variance is not granted; c. The variance granted is the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the proposal objectives; d. The need for the variance is not the result of actions of the applicant or property owner; and e. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. The applicant is required to provide an updated geo-techinkol report os part of the formal land use application. Environmental Review The proposed project would be subject to Washington State Environmental Pa/icy Act (SEPA) review due to the size of the project and cr"1tical areas on site. Therefore, an environmental checklist is a submittal requirement An environmental determinatiOn will be made by the Renton Environmental Review Committee. This determination is sUbJect to appeal by either the project proponent, by a citizen of the community, or another entity having standing for an appeal Permit Requirements The proposal would require Master Site Plan Review. The purpose of the Master Plan process is to evaluate projects at a broad level and provide guidance for development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site. The Master Plan process allows for analysis of overall project concepts and phasing as well as review of how the major project elements work together to implement City goals and policies. Master Plan review allows for consideration and mitigation of cumulative impacts from large-scale development and allows for coordination with City capital improvement planning. Master Plan review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. The applicant shall submit a complete Hearing Examiner Site Plan application for the development within the specified time frame if a Site Plan was not combined with the Master Plan application. The purpose of the Site Plan process is the detailed arrangement of project elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area An additional purpose of Site Plan is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies General review criteria includes the following: a. Compliance and Consistency. Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: b. Off-Site Impacts. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses. c. On-Site Impacts. Mitigation of impacts to the site d. Access and Circulation. Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\12-086.rocale\12-086 (ucn-2 hampton inn slopes).doc Hampton Inn & Suites Page 6 of 6 November 15, 2012 e. Open Space. Incorporation of public and private open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site; f. Views and Public Access. Provision of view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, incorporates public access to shorelines, and arranges project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. g. Services and Infrastructure. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; h. Signage. Use of signs primarily for the purpose of identification and management of sign elements -such as the number, size, brightness, lighting intensity, and location - to complement the visual character of the surrounding area, avoid visual clutter and distraction, and appear in proportion to the building and site to which they pertain; and i. Phasing. Inclusion of a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, if applicable. The applicant will also be subject to Design Review as part of the Site Plan Review and a Design Checklist shall be completed and submitted as part of the application materials (see attached). All applications can be neviewed concurrently in an estimated time frame of 16 weeks once a complete application is accepted. The Master Site Plan application fee is $2,000 and the Site . Plan Review application fee is also $2,000. The application fee for SEPA Review (Environmental oY O • i-' Checklist) is $1,000. The application fee for the parking modifications are $100 each. There is 1 f~ / ,•' an additional 3% technology fee at the time of land use application. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts. In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction, building and sign permits would be required. The review of these permits mav occur concurrently with the review of the land use permits, but cannot be issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods. Impact Mitigation Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. The fees are subject to change but ore currently the following: • A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per fil'Y!! daily trip attributed to the development; • A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per square foot of new commercial building area. Expiration: The Hearing Examiner shall determine, and document in writing, an appropriate expiration date for the Master Plan, granting up to fNe (5) years. Upon site plan approval, the site plan approval is valid for two years with a possible two-year extension. h:\ced\planning\current planning\preapps\12-086 rocale\12-086 (ucn-2 hampton inn slopes).doc Legacy Renton Hampton Inn & Suites 1300 Lake Washington Blvd North Variance Requests DESIGN GROUP PLLC The applicant is seeking the following variance to Renton Municipal Code 4-9-250: 1. Request for variance to construct within sensitive and protected steep slopes. In this case, the development proposal will impact approximately: +/-4,185 sf (15% of 28,251 sf) greater than 40% steep slopes 6. Special Review Criteria -Reasonable Use Variance -Critical Areas Regulations Only: For variance requests related to the critical areas regulations not subject to subsections B7 to Bll of this Section, a reasonable use variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) a. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; Per the Geotechnical Report, 'Based on the slope reconnaissance, stability af the slope areas of the property can be characterized as goad. The planned building structure incorporating structural foundation wall elements will effectively improve overall site stability, and will not encroach into the steep slope areas.' b. There is no reasonable use of the property left if the requested variance is not granted; No. The protective areas are +/-32,104 sf, which is approximately 56% of the site area. The site plan has been revised from the previous application to reduce impacts to the protective areas. c. The variance granted is the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the proposal objectives; Yes. The proposal will only impact+/-4,185 sf of the protected areas. d. The need for the variance is not the result of actions of the applicant or property owner; and No. Clark Design Group PLLC 22 December 2014 Page 1 o/2 DESIGN GROUP PllC e. The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000; Amd. Ord. 4851, 8-21-2000) Yes. Clark Design Group PLLC 22 December 2014 Page2 of 2 Legacy Renton Hampton Inn & Suites 1300 Lake Washington Blvd North Modification Requests DES1GN GROUP PLLC The applicant is seeking the following modifications to Renton Municipal Code: 1. Request for parking reduction from 115 parking stalls to 105 parking stalls (a 9% reduction). Renton Municipal Code 4-4-080. Allows the Department of Community ond Economic Development to reduce the number of parking stalls by up to 25% when an applicant can justify the modification to the satisfaction of the Administrator. In this case, the development is providing 1 stall per hotel room as required by the hotel franchise, see enclosed letter from Hilton Worldwide dated 19 December 2014. Gibson Traffic Consultants prepared a parking analysis, dated November 2014, which states the proposed 105 parking spaces is '57% higher than what is calculated based on the average /TE parking demand and high occupancy rate.' Per RMC 4-9-250 Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification: a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; The proposed parking stalls exceeds the parking demand exhibited in the Parking Analysis report prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants, dated November 2014. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; Yes. The proposed parking stalls exceeds the parking demand exhibited in the Parking Analysis report prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants, dated November 2014. . _; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; I'\ Clark Design Group PLLC 22 December 2014 · Page1of2 DESIGN GROUP PLLC No. The proposed parking stalls exceeds the parking demand exhibited in the Parking Analysis report prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants, dated November 2014. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; Yes. The proposed parking stalls exceeds the parking demand exhibited in the Parking Analysis report prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants, doted November 2014. e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and Yes. The proposed parking stalls exceeds the parking demand exhibited in the Parking Analysis report prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants, dated November 2014. Clark Design Group PLLC 22 December 2014 Page2 of2 A HILTON Focused Service Architecture & Construction 755 Crossover Lane Memphis, TN 38117 \\X WALDORF ASTORIA' WORLDWIDE December 19, 2014 Ms. Rocale Timmons, Sr. Planner City of Renton -Current Plannng 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Hilton Parking Requirements Dear Ms. Timmons: via email rtimmons@rentonwa.gov At the request of Faizel Kassam, our franchisee for the Hampton project in Renton, I am writing to confirm the Hilton Focused Service brand requirement that each hotel parking area must accommodate one space per guestroom. Sincerely, Peter Rudewicz, Sr. Director Focused Service Architecture & Construction Cc: Faizel Kassam via email, fkassam@legacy-hospitality.com CON RAD ®. Hilton DoU!lLETREE Ii " .......... .. 9 l' t T JS,.,_. HOME.WOOD ... ~~~ @. Hilton Grand Vacations I J I \ Rocale Timmons City of Renton DESIGN GROUP PLLC Development of Community & Economic Development 1055 Grady Way South Renton, WA 98055 Legacy Renton -Project Description 1300 Lake Washington Blvd North The property is located in the City of Renton, on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd North, just north of Houser Way North. The project site totals 1.3 acres in area (57,002 SF), is zoned Urban Center -North 2 (UC-N2) in the Urban Design District "C". The project is subject to City of Renton site plan review, including zoning review, SEPA, and Design Review. The site is currently occupied by an espresso stand, which will be removed. The project was originally submitted for Site Plan Application on 16 December 2013 by The Ronhovde Architects as a 6 story, 125 room hotel with 130 parking stalls provided in a separate parking structure. In April of 2014 Clark Design Group and the owners have been working with the City of Renton to revise the proposal. In 1 July 2014 a Peer Review for the Traffic Report began and comments were received by the team in 5 August 2014. The revised proposal is for a 5 story building with the 5th story stepped back along Lake Washington Blvd N and 105 guest rooms. Site access is located at the southwest portion of the site. There are 2 surface parking stalls and 103 stalls located in a two-level, below-grade parking garage. We are requesting a 9% parking modification request. The estimated construction cost for the project is $13,650,000.00. There are steep slopes occupying most of the northeast portion of the site. The site primarily consists of native soils of medium dense to dense silt, see provided Geotechnical report for more information. We have revised the Critical Areas Variance to reduce the impacts to the protected slopes. Clark Design Group PLLC 22 DecemberztH4 Page 1 of 2 DESIGN GROUP PLLC Estimated cut for the proposed development is 40,000 cubic yards and 10,000 cubic yards of fill. There are 8 of 42 trees over 6" to be removed, see Tree Retention plan for more information. There is a 2.5' R.O.W dedication to the city along Lake Washington Blvd N. Clark Design Group PLLC 22 December 2014 Page 2 of 2 T H E RONH O VDE ARCHITECTS L L C Legacy Renton Construction Mitigation Description Proposed Construction Dates: Hours and Days of Operation: Proposed Hauling Routes: Noxious Characteristics Mitigation: Special Hours: Traffic Control Plan: Construction is expected to begin upon obtaining all the necessary permits. Start dates are expected to be during the summer of 2014. Construction is expected to take approx. 12 -18 months. This project will require a two phase construction process due to the site constraints. The first phase will be the excavation, installation of the shoring wall and construction of the parking structure. The second phase will be the construction of the hotel building. Construction operations will conform to the hours set forth in City of Renton ordinances and will not take place on weekends. Hours are expected to be from 6 am to 5 pm. Construction material hauling is expected go from the site in a southerly direction to Sunset them via 1-405 to the approved disposal sites. This project will comply with all Renton regulations regarding transportation, construction, noise, dust, mud and other noxious mitigation measures. No special provisions are anticipated. No special hours for construction or hauling are anticipated. A traffic control plan will be included with the civil plan portion of the permit submittal package. 14900 Interurban Ave. S., #138, Tukwila, WA 98168, PH. (206) 859-5500 FAX. (206) 859-5501 T H E RONHOVC•E ARCHITECTS L L C Legacy Renton Critical Areas Exemption Steep Slope Modification Request Modification Requested: Construct a shoring wall and a portion of the proposed parking structure in an area of the site that has protected slopes exceeding 40% slope. Decision Criteria: a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan land use element and the community design element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. The property is located in an Urban Center North land use designation. Objective LU-NN: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at sufficient intensity to maximize efficient use of land. Up to 100% lot coverage is allowed in the UC-N2 zone. The steep slope portion of this property takes up approx. 25% of the land area. The proposed use as designed will result in approx. 77% building lot coverage. b. Will meet the objectives and safety function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the code requirements, based on sound engineering judgment. The steep slope was created by dumping of excess fill on the property and was substantially altered during the construction of 1-405. See Earth Solutions letter dated January 16, 2014. A geotechnical report has been prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer indicating that the soils and slopes are suitable to be supported by a soil nail shoring wall. c. Will not be injurious to other properties in the area. The geotechnical report indicates easement extends across the frontage of the north and south adjoining properties that the soils and slopes are suitable to be supported by a soil nail shoring wall. This wall is setback approx. 30 feet from the adjoining property to the north allowing for adequate soil nail length needed for wall stabilization. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the code. 14900 Interurban Ave. S., #138, Tukwila, WA 98168, PH. (206) 859-5500 FAX. (206) 859-5501 The modification allows for the installation of a parking structure required by code to service the project. e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended. code. The modification request allows for the installation of a parking structure required by code to service the primary project. f. Will not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The wall is setback approx. 30 feet from the north property line where the majority of the steep slope is located. A geotechnical report has been prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer indicating that the soils and slopes are suitable to be supported by a soil nail shoring wall with adequate setback distance for installation of the soil nail length. T H E RONHOVDE ARCHITECTS L L C Legacy Renton Variance Request Variance Requested: Increase the front setback distance from 5 feet to 15 feet. UC-N2 zone requires front yard setback of zero feet minimum to 5 feet maximum. Decision Criteria: a. That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship. The applicant is prevented from compliance with the required setback due to a 15 ft wide Puget Power electrical easement along the front yard of the property. b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property. The easement has been in place since 1984. c. That the approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. The easement extends across the frontage of the north and south adjoining properties. They are subject to the same limitation with respect to building front yard setback. d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. The proposed structure is situated so that the building abuts the easement. No additional setback is requested. 14900 Interurban Ave. S., #138, Tukwila, WA 98168, PH. (206) 859-5500 FAX. (206) 859-5501 January 16, 2014 ES-2553.03 Legacy Renton 8809 Scarlet Knight Northeast Albuquerque, New Mexico 87122 Attention: Mr. Faizel Kassam Subject: Request For Exception Existing Slopes Proposed Hampton Inn Suites Renton, Washington Reference: Aerial Photographs (1961, 1967, and 1970) Resource Mapping Section Review Comments Department of Natural Resources Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Study ES-2553.01, dated November 12, 2013 Dear Mr. Kassam: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnic;:il Engineering • Cc)nstruc1ion Monitoring • Environnwnt;il Sciences In accordance with your request, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter and assessment of existing slope areas throughout the subject property. The primary objective of our review was to assist in the determination of an exception through modification with respect to existing steep slope areas and proposed development activities. ESNW previously prepared the referenced geotechnical engineering study for the proposed hotel development. The approximate location of the subject property is depicted on the attached Vicinity Map (Plate 1 ). As depicted on the attached topographic survey, the easterly portions of the site contain areas of steep slope. Based on review of aerial photographs, grading activities and related site disturbance have occurred historically throughout the site and surrounding area. Aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area (1961, 1967, and 1970) are provided as attachments to this letter. The image from each aerial photo was also enlarged to provide greater detail. A description of each photograph is provided below. 1961 Aerial Photo (Plates 2 and 2A) -The subject site and surrounding area is almost entirely cleared. The enlarged image (Plate 2A) depicts a series of road cuts and building structures. Excavations throughout the central portions of the property also appear to have occurred. 1967 Aerial Photo (Plates 3 and 3A) -Interstate 405 and grading associated with the southbound off ramp (Exit 5) are depicted in the photo. The site is cleared and road cuts are evident. A retaining wall (likely associated with the 1-405 construction) is also depicted in the photo. At present, this retaining wall still exists on the property. HH15 -U61 h PLice N.E., SuilP 201 • fkllevue, \NA 98005 • (425) 449·4704 • FAX (42~) 449-4T1 I Legacy Renton January 16, 2014 ES-2553 03 Page 2 1970 Aerial Photo (Plates 4 and 4A) -The central portions of the property remain cleared, with a road cut traversing the site north to south. Building structures and the aforementioned retaining wall are visible in the photo. In our opinion, based on site reconnaissance and review of the referenced aerial photographs, historic excavation and related site disturbance (and developments) have substantially altered the original topography of the site and surrounding area. The steep slope areas that currently exist throughout the easterly portions of the site are largely the result of this past disturbance and excavation activity. In this respect, it is our opinion that an exception through modification should be approved for the proposed development. We trust this letter and assessment meet your current needs. If you have any questions or if additional information is needed, please call. Sincerely, \' ,., Raymond A. Coglas, P.E. Principal Attachments: Plate 1 -Vicinity Map Plates 2 and 2A (1961 Aerial Photograph) Plates 3 and 3A (1967 Aerial Photograph) Plates 4 and 4A (1970 Aerial Photograph) Topographic Survey Earth Solutions tf.N, LLC Reference: King County, Washington Map626 By The Thomas Guide ' Rand McNally 32nd Edition NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretatkm of the Information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Vicinity Map Proposed Hampton Inn and Suites Renton, Washington J Drwn. GLS Date 11/16/2014 Proj. No. 2553.03 Checked RAC Date Jan. 2013 Plate 1 " • Aerial Photograph 1961 Proposed Hampton Inn and Suites Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 01115/2014 Proj. No. 2533.03 Checked RAC Date Jan. 2014 Plate 2 • Aerial Photograph 1961 Proposed Hampton Inn and Suites Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 01/15/2014 Proj. No. 2533.03 Checked RAC Date Jan. 2014 Plate 2A • Drwn. GLS Checked RAC Date 01/15/2014 Pr . N OJ. o. Date Jan. 2014 Plate 2533.03 3 _____ ] ' ! ,,u ,, '~:, • Aerial Photograph 1967 Proposed Hampton Inn and Suites Renton, Washington Drwn, GLS Date 01/15/2014 Proj, No, 2533,03 Checked RAC Date Jan, 2014 Plate 3A • A . . ·'. Drwn. Propos:r~a~=~ot~graph 1970 · · Renton pwoan hl~n and Suites ' s ington GLS Date 01/1512014 p . roJ. No. 2533.03 Checked RAC Date Jan. 2014 Plate 4 ~. ~. ' .,• •. '" \ . ' "' 'I . • Aerial Photograph 1970 Proposed Hampton Inn and Suites Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 01/15/2014 Proj. No. 2533.03 Checked RAC Date Jan. 2014 Plate 4A ----- ---- i' \ • CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION (FOR SEPA EXEMPT ACTIVITIES} Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 Applicant Name Project Name f<l_i~el Kassam Legacy Renton rarcel Number ., 3344500007 ___ ~~ Brief Description of Project Hotel and parking structure. - Type of Critical Area ; Critical Slopes Project Address BOO lake Washington blvd_ ,VJ Work Occurs in Critical Area r ------- Phone Number 5054894474 D Work Occurs in Buffer PURPOSE: Exempt activities provided with a letter of exemption from the Development Services Administrator may mtrude into a critical area or required buffer (Subject to any conditions or requirements provided by the Administrator). APPLICABILITY OF EXEMPTIONS: The following is a general list of activities that may be exempt from the critical areas regulations. More specific descriptions of the activities are contained in the Critical Areas Regulations. Some of the listed activities may not be exempt in certain critical areas. The Planning Division will evaluate you request according to the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations in RMC 4-3- 050C, J, L, and N. I AM REQUESTING A CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES: C Conservation, Enhancement, and Related Activities: • Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, and other wildlife • Enhancement activities as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC D' • Any critical area, buffer restoration, or other mitigation activities that have been approved by the City Research and Site Investigation: • Nondestructive education and research • Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil logs, etc. 0 Agricultural, Harvesting, and Vegetation Management: • Harvesting wild foods C:\User,s\fkass _000\AppDato\Local\M•(:Osoft\Windo,..s\ 1 ernaar.,,ry lnter'lel F1:es\Conte nl Out:ook \OSI' JF80G\Cr1ti,:::al Areas Exernpt1on Shor1 form .doo: 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 and complete. Applicant Signature: __ ,. ' -r 7--- \ -----·-----,,,r----------·-·- ! For City Use Only - Exemption Granted C.E, "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director Planning Division I ~on;itions of Approval: Exemption does not apply in Aquifer Prorecrion Areas 2Exemption does not apply in Flood Hazard Areas 3Exemption does not app\y m Geologic Hazard Areos 4 Ex.emption does not apply i~ Habitat Conservation Areas 5 Exemption does not apply in Stream~ ond Lakes Class 2 to 4 ~Exemption does not apply 1n Wetlands Date: -----.... ---~-----. ________ ----~ ~ Exemption Denied Date C :\U~~r~\fkass_OOOVl.ppData\loc.il\M•.c rosoH\ Windows\ l i,:rTiporarv Internet F1!es\Cor.te rot OuUoo1,;\0SPJF80G\Crit;cal Are.a~ E)(empt1on S.hDrt f i"Jrm.doci.; T E ROl'lrOVDE AF:CHITECTS L L C Legacy Renton Urban Center Design Overlay District Report Zoning: UC-N2, Urban Design District "C" Pedestrian Building Entries: This project provides 2 pedestrian oriented entries. One directly from the west elevation via a sidewalk and elevated plaza adjacent to Lake Washington Blvd. and an additional pedestrian entry from a covered drive through entrance at the north side also accessed via a sidewalk adjacent to lake Washington Blvd. Transition to Surrounding Development: This project is 6 stories. 5 stories of wood hotel rooms over a 1 story concrete podium that houses the hotel offices service and public common areas, pool, meeting and food services A 4 story concrete parking structure will be located at the rear of the building. The parking structure is located in the steep slope area of the property. The walls adjoining the excavated bank will be stabilized by shoring. This is similar to the shored wall on the property to the north, except that this parking structure will obscure the shored wall. There is undeveloped property immediately to the south. A 4 story mixed use project is located across Lake Washington Blvd adjacent to Coulon Park and this project is located within approx. Y. mile of the Landing Development. Location and Design of Parking: The parking areas are located to the rear of the properties away from the street. There is no parking proposed between the building and the street. Blvd There is a 4 story parking structure proposed at the east side of the property, this parking structure will also house the refuse area and the service entrance. This structure is not visible from Lake Washington. Vehicular Access: Vehicular access is via a single curb cut from lake Washington Blvd. located at the northwest property comer. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access to the commercial areas of the project are from 2 entrances; one directly adjacent to a new sidewalk and plaza proposed bordering Lake Washington Blvd and another entering the commercial areas of the project from a covered drive through area. This drive through area also has a walkway that is accessed from the new sidewalk bordering Lake Washington Blvd. Common Space: These is no common space on this property, it is a single parcel under single ownership. There are proposed public spaces in the form of a plaza located on the west side of the building that is 14900 Interurban Ave. S., #138, Tukwila, WA 98168, PH. (206) 859-5500 FAX. (206) 859-5501 .. " , Landscaping: Building Character/Massing: • Page2 accessed directly from the news· · alk adjoining Lake Washington Blvd . All pervious areas are landscaped. The landscaping will meet the minimum standards as ouHined in 4-3-1 OO(H). See Landscape plan. All building facades facing the street contain massing modulation and varying building materials. The modulation/massing are in excess of the standards outlined in 4-3-100 (I). The modulation includes facade setbacks, pttched roofs, deck recesses and overhangs. See Design District "C: checklist for additional descriptions. PLANNING DIVISION DESIGN DISTRICT "C" CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: Ensure compliance with design review regulations located in the Renton Municipal Code in order to: a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This design district checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City will use this checklist to determine whether the your proposal complies with the Urban Design Regulations in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-100). Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. There are two categories that have been established: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Planning Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. 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. A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. EXISTING ROADS. 2.5' DEDICATION ALONG LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N R.O.W. .i Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. YES (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. STREET CLASSIFICATION -COLLECTOR (c) Pedestrian-Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on-street parking, and wide sidewalks. YES (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). YES 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. Minimum Standard: Buildings on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian-oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian-oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian-oriented streets is prohibited. PEDESTRIAN PLAZA LOCATED ALONG LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N. ENTRY FACES LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N. Minimum Standard: Buildings fronting on pedestrian-oriented streets shall contain pedestrian-oriented uses. YES Minimum Standard: Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. YES Minimum Standard: Buildings containing street-level residential uses and single-purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of 10 feet and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 100E7b). N/ A Minimum Standard: If buildings do not feature pedestrian-oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 100E7c). YES. LANDSCAPING AND PEDESTRIAN PLAZA PROPOSED. Guideline: Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). YES Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. N/ A. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. N/A Minimum Standard: Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. N/ A Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. YES Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. YES Minimum Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian-oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street-oriented facade. YES Guideline: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. N/ A 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long- established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e). YES Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095. Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. YES Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7f). YES Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. MATERIALS NOT USED. Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian- oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. N/ A Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. YES 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.Elg). N/A Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7h). YES Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more of the following: a. Public art; b. Monuments; c. Special landscape treatment; YES d. Open space/plaza; YES e. Identifying building form; f. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; YES g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); YES h. Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: On Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on- street parallel parking. No more than 60 feet of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. YES (b) On-street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. N/A (c) On-street parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. N/A Minimum Standard: All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-0SOF, Parking Lot Design Standards. N/ A Minimum Standard: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500') maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200'), unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection F5a of this Section). N/A. Below-grade parking provided. Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. N/A Guideline: If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off and pick-up, they shall be parallel to the building facade. YES. LOADING AREA PROVIDED ADJACENT TO BUILDING ENTRY. Guideline: When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian-oriented, parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. YES 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.FSb). YES Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). YES Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts. YES Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. YES Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. N/A 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75% of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.FSc). YES (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. YES Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Non-Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures fronting non-pedestrian-oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian-oriented facade shall be set back at least 6 feet from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to high visibility streets. N/ A (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: N/ A (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre-cast decorative panels; (6) Vine-covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.FSd). YES Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. YES Guideline: Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. YES Guideline: The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. YES Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. YES Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. YES Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. YES 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian-oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non-pedestrian-oriented streets when available. YES Minimum Standard: Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian-oriented streets. YES Minimum Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. YES C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi-modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. YES Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4a). YES 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4b). YES Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. YES Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4c). YES Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d). N/ A (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. YES (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10 -12 foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller 5 -6 foot pathway will accommodate two individuals. YES Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. YES Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. YES Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. YES Guideline: Mid-block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. N/ A Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. N/ A Guideline: Through-block connections should be made between buildings, between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces. Preferred location for through-block connections is mid-block (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4e). N/A Guideline: Between buildings of up to and including two stories in height, through-block connections should be at least 6 feet in width. N/ A Guideline: Between buildings three stories in height or greater, through-block connections should be at least 12 feet in width. N/ A Guideline: Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum 0.25 mile apart. EXISTING Guideline: As an alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian-scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than 14 feet in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per 30 lineal feet of the required walkway should be provided. YES 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian-oriented streets, provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2' feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade facing the designated pedestrian-oriented street, a maximum height of fifteen feet (15') above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet) above ground level. YES Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal-and weather-resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. YES Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. YES Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. YES Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided. YES Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade-mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground-related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian-oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4f). YES D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. YES Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). YES Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. YES Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian-oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a). YES Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. YES Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. YES Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b). YES Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. YES Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. YES Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. YES Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. YES Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: N/A (1) Required Amount: Total Number of Spaces Minimum Required Landscape Area• 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space • Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. YES (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. YES (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least 16 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. YES (5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. YES (6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. YES (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. YES Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. YES Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. YES Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. YES Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. YES Guideline: Use of low maintenance, drought-resistant landscape material is encouraged. YES Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. YES Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. YES Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather-resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. YES Guideline: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. YES 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian-oriented streets particularly at street corners. Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100 units. N/A (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. N/ A Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi-private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3c). N/A Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. YES Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. N/A Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian- oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3d) according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area+ 1% of the building area= Minimum amount of pedestrian- oriented space YES Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian-oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; YES (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; YES (c) On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average) on the ground; and YES (d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. YES Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian-oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3e) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian-oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian- oriented space. YES (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security -such as adjacent to a building entry. YES (c) Provide pedestrian-oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. YES (d) Provide movable public seating. YES Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian-oriented space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; YES (bl Adjacent chain link fences; YES (c) Adjacent blank walls; YES (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and YES (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. YES Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian- oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian-oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian-oriented space. YES Minimum Standard: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro-climatic conditions. YES Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. N/ A Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. YES Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. N/A Guideline: Developments located at street intersections corners on designated pedestrian-oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian-oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3f). N/A E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.ISa). YES Minimum Standard: All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: (a) Defined entry features; YES (b) Window treatment; YES (c) Bay windows and/or balconies; NO (d) Roof line features; or YES (e) Other features as approved by the Director. Minimum Standard: Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.ISb): (a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be 40 feet. N/A (b) The minimum width of modulation shall be 15 feet. N/A (c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet or not less than two- tenths multiplied by the height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). N/A Guideline: Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. YES Guideline: Buildings should be urban in character. YES Guideline: Buildings greater than 160 feet in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.ISc). YES 2. Ground-Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or NONE (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. NONE Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.ISd): (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; YES (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; NO (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; YES (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or NO (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. YES Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. YES Minimum Standard: Provide human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. YES Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian-oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. NO. 50% GLAZING PROVIDED. HAMPTON INN AND SUITES PROTOTYPICAL WINDOWS ARE 4' WIDE. 7' WIDE WINDOWS PROVIDED ALONG LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N TO MAXIMIZE TRANSPARENCY. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 percent. YES (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. N/ A (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. YES (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are prohibited. NONE Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.ISe): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; YES (2) Overhang; YES (3) Canopy; YES (4) Trellis; YES (5) Portico; NO (6) Porch; NO (7) Clerestory. NO (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; NO (2) Glass windows flanking door; YES (3) Large entry doors; YES (4) Ornamental lighting; YES (5) Lighted displays. YES (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; YES (2) Ornamental building name and address; YES (3) Planted containers; YES (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). YES Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground-level detail. YES Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. YES 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.ISf): (a) Extended parapets; NO (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; YES (c) Projected cornices; NO (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. YES Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. YES Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof-Top Equipment. YES Minimum Standard: Match color of roof-mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. YES Guideline: Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the building. YES 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. YES Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. YES Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. YES Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. YES Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast-in-place concrete. YES Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap-tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. YES Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. YES Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above. YES F.SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. YES Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. YES Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.Ba): i. Pole signs; NONE ii. Roof signs; NONE iii. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten {10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back-lit. NONE Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. N/ A Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. YES Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. YES Guideline: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. YES Guideline: Front-lit, ground-mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign. YES Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian-oriented streets. YES G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On-Site. YES Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. YES Minimum Standard: Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian-oriented spaces. YES Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. YES Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. YES • INSIGHT ENGINEERING CO. TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT For Applicant: Legacy Hospitality, Inc. LEGACY RENTON Prepared for City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Project Site Location: 1300 Lake Washington Boulevard N. Renton, WA 98056 Contact: !ECO 650 I America's Parkway NE -Suite I 050 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Contact: Faze! Kassam P.O. Box 1478 Everett, WA 98206 425-303-9363 Ph. (505)243-6000 Tax Id: 3344500007 File#: __ _ IECO Project: 13-0623 Certified Erosion and Sedimentation Control Lead: To be named by contractor Stormwater Site Plan Prepared By: Jacob D. Mealey, E.I.T. TIR Preparation Date: December 19, 2014 Approximate Construction Date: May I, 2015 P.O Box 1478 • Everett, WA 98206 • P: 425.303.9363 F: 425.303.9362 • info@insightengineerifl,Q,nel r-s: ...-,-,,. ;·" : ·, i )--·· ~ ) ,-~-f"·- \ ;,--. . . "· . . .. , r·, ., ... -....,, "· '·· ~· . \..::, L. "'·· .. ·- •\ ~---... . ,, ,. . /J-.-'1,.1..·/'I \) ' TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 0 Project Overview .................................................................................................. ,, ................ 3 2.0 Condition of Approval .......................................................................................................... 5 3. 0 Offs ite Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Upstream Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Downstream Analysis .................................................................................................................. 9 4.0 Core and Special Requirements .......................................................................................... 12 5.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Analysis .......................................................................... 14 5.1 Developed Basin Summary ........................................................................................................ 14 5.2 Frontage Basin Summary ........................................................................................................... 15 5.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................. 15 6.0 Conveyance Analysis and Design ....................................................................................... 17 7 .0 Erosion/Sedimentation Control Design ............................................................................. 18 8.0 Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 18 Figures Figure 1 -Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2 -Soil Map ........................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3 -Downstream Analysis Map ...................................................................................... 11 Insight Engineering Co. -Stormwater Site Plan 12119/14 -I - Acronyms and Abbreviations------------------- BMP DOE EDDS ESC !ECO MR SCDM SWPPP SWMMWW TESC WWHM Best Management Practices Department of Ecology Engineering Design and Development Standards Erosion and Sediment Control Insight Engineering Company Minimum Requirement Snohomish County Drainage Manual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Stonnwater Management Manual for Western Washington Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Western Washington Hydrology Model Insight Engineering Co. -Stormwater Site Plan -2- 12119114 1.0 Project Overview The proposed project "Legacy Re11ton" is located at 1300 Lake Washington Boulevard N. in King County, Washington. More generally, the project site is located in Section 6, Township 23 North, and Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington. Please refer to the Vicinity Map attached later in the section. This report will follow the Technical Information Report requirements, per 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The project contains 1.31 Acres. The site is currently developed with a small building with an asphalt drive aisle. The remainder of the site exists as a combination of grassy and forested areas. The site contains one drainage basin that slopes to the southwest. Please refer to the downstream analysis map for more details. There are no critical areas located on the site. Per SCC survey of King County, the project site contains AkF (Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep). Please refer to the soils map and descriptions attached later in this report for more details. The proposal is to construct new hotel, parking garage and approximately 175-lf of asphalt drive aisle for access with associated utilities. The access for the site will be from Lake Washington Blvd. N. The project is located within the Lake Washington E drainage basin and is not subject to special runoff detention and flow controls. The proposal includes a tight lined connection to the 15-inch pipe that runs underneath Lake Washington Blvd. N. located north of the project site. The capacity of the downstream path was analyzed to determine if the downstream system was capable of accepting the I 00-yr storm event flows for the entire upstream basin. Refer to section VI -Conveyance Analysis and Design for a detailed conveyance of the downstream system. The project is exempt for water quality because the total pollution generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) is 3,982 SF which is less than the threshold of 5,000 SF per section 1.2.8 of the KCSWDM. All covered parking areas will be connected to the sanitary sewer. Insight Engineering Co. -Stormwater Site Plan 12119114 -3 - ' FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP f.> bing !'~;r.i;Vi .. Gen~ Coulon Memo1iJI Bea(h P.ark ........,\ \I (-~·.·._:··/ { ;:;·;,,s,_, • 5 ; w Z NE 11 w z J C § ::, NE 14th St N TAKEN FROM THE BING MAPS IEC INSIGHT ENGINEERING CO. P.O. Box 1478 Everett, WA 98206 425-303-9363, 425-303-93621. ln,-nslghtenglneering.net Insight Engineering Co. -Stormwater Site Plan SCALE: NTS BY: JDM -4 - Figure 1 -Vicinity Map Legacy Renton Renton, Washington DATE: 12119/14 JOB #: I 3-0623 FILENAME: 13-0623/doc/drainage report 12119/14 ' 2.0 Conditions of Approval The conditions of approval will be forthcoming. Insight Engineering Co. -Stormwater Site Plan 12/19/14 .5. FIGURE 2. SOIL MAP SOILS LEGEND AkF Alderwood and Kitsap sons. very steep Ur-Urban land INSIGHT ENGINEERING CO. P.O. Box 1.478 Everett, WA 98206 425-303-9363, 425-303-9362 f. lnfo@lnslghtengtneerlng.net SCALE: NONE BY: JDM Insight Engineering Co. -Stormwater Site Plan Figure 2 -Soil Map Legacy Renton Renton, Washington DATE: 12/19/14 JOB H: 13-0623 FILENAME: 13-0623\docsldrainage report -6 - 12/19/14 King County Area, Washington AkF Alderwood and Kitsap sojls, very steep Map Unit Setting • Elevation: 50 to 800 feet • Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 60 inches • Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 52 degrees F • Frost-free period: 160 to 220 days Map Unit Composition • Alderwood and similar soils: 50 percent • Kitsap and similar soils: 25 percent Description of Alderwood ~ • landform: Moraines, till plains • Parent material: Basal till with some volcanic ash Properlies and qualities • Slope: 25 to 70 percent • Depth lo restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to densic material • Drainage class: Moderately well drained • Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksal): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) • Depth to water table: About 18 to 37 inches • Frequency of flooding: None • Frequency of ponding: None • Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.5 inches) lnteroretire ,muns • Farmland classification: Not prime farmland • land capobility (nonirrigated): 7e • Hydro/ogic Soil Gr011p: B Typical proflle • 0 to 12 inches: Gravelly ashy sandy loam • 11 to 17 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam • 17 to 60 inches: Very gravelly sandy loam Description of Kitsap ~ • Landform: Terraces • Parent material: Lacustrine deposits with a minor amount of volcanic ash Prooerties and aualities • Slope: 25 to 70 percent • Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches • Drainage class: Moderately well drained • Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Insight Engineering Co. -Stormwater Site Plan 12/19/1~ -7- • Depth to water /able: About 18 to 36 inches • Frequency of flooding: None • Frequency of ponding: None , Available water capacity: High (about 11.4 inches) Interpretive groups • Farmland classification: Not prime farmland , land capability (no11irriga1ed): 7e • Hydl'Ologic Soil Group: C Typical profile • 0 to 5 inches: Ashy silt loam • 5 to 24 inches: Ashy silt loam • 24 to 60 inches: Stratified silt to silty clay loam King County Area, Washington Ur-Urban land Map Unit Composition • Urban land: 100 percent Description of Urban Land Interpretive groups • Farmland classification: Not prime fannland • land capability (nonirrigated): 8 Insight Engineering Co. -Stormwater Site Plan -8 - 12/19/14 3.0 Offsitc Analysis A site reconnaissance was performed by Brian R. Kalab of Insight engineering on November 23, 2013 to verify the downstream flow paths and observe any drainage problems downstream of the site. The sky was overcast with a temperature of 45 degrees. The project contains 1.31 Acres. The site is cmTently developed with a small building with an asphalt drive aisle. The remainder of the site exists as a combination of grassy and forested areas. The site contains one drainage basin that slopes to the southwest. 3.1 Upstream Analysis Based on the site reconnaissance and the topographic survey of the site, the upstream flows appear to be minimal. Refer to the Downstream Analysis Map attached in the next page for more details. 3.2 Downstream Analysis Refer to the Downstream Analysis Maps 1 and 2 attached to the next pages for a visual description of the downstream flow. Existing Conditions The existing site appears to drain to the southwest of the project site and then travels south along Lake Washington Blvd. N. The drainage continues to travel south and crosses railroad tracks and a roadway and enters a slight depression. The drainage continues south underneath roadway via a 12" dia. culvert. The drainage then travels southwest along a roadside ditch along Lake Washington Blvd. where it then travels northwest underneath Lake Washington Blvd. N. via four separate culverts (two 54" dia. and two 48" dia. culverts). The drainage then travels northeast within a roadside ditch along Lake Washington Blvd. N and then travels northwest underneath railroad tracks via several culverts. The flows continue to flow northwest through a ditch and then underneath a roadway via several culverts. The drainage flows north and then enters a box culvert that flows to the north to a stream that eventually discharges to Insight Engineering Co. -Stormwater Site Plan 12/19/14 -9- Lake Washington. This is where the I mile downstream observations were stopped. It is our understanding that there is theoretical 100 year flooding at the box culve1t. Because of this flooding and the lack of a downstream conveyance system the proposed downstream from the site will be redirected as described in the developed conditions below. Developed Conditions The proposed discharge from the site ( developed basin-I) will be connected to the exiting 15" pipe that runs underneath Lake Washington Blvd. N located to the north of the proposed project. The proposed system includes a 12" dia. system that travels underne11th Lake Washington Blvd. N and then north along Lake Washington Blvd. N for approximately 215-ft. From the point where the drainage is connected to the existing 15" pipe, the pipe flows west for approximately 20 additional feet before discharging to an open channel system. The open channel conveys the flows south for about 120 feet, parallel to the road and railroad tracks. The open channel is comprised of 4 to 6 inches of quarry spalls, and is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide and 18 inches deep, with 3 to I side slopes. The channel flows into a 24 inch CMP culvert that conveys the water to the west under the railroad tracks, through a catch basin and into another 24 inch CMP pipe. The outfall from the pipe flows into Johns Creek which flows to the west and discharges into Lake Washington. This is where the downstream analysis was completed. There did not appear to be any restrictions or erosion problems downstream of the site. The developed downstream discharges within V. mile of the natural downstream condition and is in the same threshold discharge area. A small portion of the developed site (developed basin-2) will continue its existing drainage path. About 3,765 SF of the developed site will be contained within this basin. This area will continue this drainage path because of elevation constraints. This portion of the site could not be conveyed to the north along with the majority of the site. The overall runoff for the existing drainage course will be less because the entire developed basin-I will be redirected to the north and will no longer flow to the south. Insight Engineering Co. -Technical Information Report 12/19114 -JO - FIGURE 3. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS MAP INSIGHT ENGINEERING CO. P.O. Box 1478 Everett, WA 98206 425-303-9363, 425-303-9362 f. lnfo@lnslghlenglneerlng.net SCALE: NONE BY: JDM Figure 3 -Dowustream Analysis Map Legacy Renton Renton, Washington DATE: 12/22/14 JOB#: 13-0623 FILE NAME: 13-0623\docs\drainage repo11 Insight Engineering Co. -Technical Information Report 12/19/14 -11 • 4.0 Core and Special Requirements 1.2.1 Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location The proposed project's storm water will be discharged to the drainage system within Lake Washington Blvd N. at the southwest comer of the site to follow its natural location. 1.2.2 Core Requirement #2: Off-site Analysis Refer to Section 3 for the level one downstream analysis. 1.2.3 Core Requirement #3: Flow Control The project is located within the Lake Washington E drainage basin and is not subject to special runoff detention and flow controls. The proposal includes a tight lined connection to the 15-inch pipe that runs underneath Lake Washington Blvd. N. located north of the project site. The capacity of the downstream path was analyzed to determine if the downstream system was capable of accepting the I 00-yr storm event flows for the entire upstream basin. Refer to section VI -Conveyance Analysis and Design for a detailed conveyance of the downstream system. The following conditions need to be met before direct discharge can be accepted. The conditions are summarized with our answers to the conditions italicized. a) The flowpath from the project site discharge point to the edge of the 100-year floodplain of the major receiving water will be no longer than one-half mile, except for discharges to Lake Washington, AND The flowpath from the proposed downstream is less than JI, mile from the project site to the receiving water body. b) The conveyance system between the project site and the major receiving water will extend to the ordinary high water mark, and will be comprised of manmade conveyance elements (pipes, ditches, etc,) and will be within public right-of-way or a public or private drainage easement, AND The conveyance system will be entirely within public right of ways and public park conveyance systems. c) The conveyance system will have adequate capacity to convey the 25-year peak flow (per Core Requirement #4, Conveyance System) for the entire contributing drainage area, assuming build-out conditions to current zoning for the equivalent area portion (defined in Figure 1.2.3.A, below) and existing conditions for the remaining area, AND The entire basin will be built out. with the construction of this proposal. Two previous upstream projects have calculated the downstream capacity of the conveyance system. We have used these previous calculations and added the current proposal to the model. The downstream conveyance system has enough capacity to pass the 100 year storm. Please see the conveyance system calculations in section 6.0 of this report. Insight Engineering Co. -Technical Information Report 12119/14 -12 - d) The conveyance system will be adequately stabilized to prevent erosion, assuming the same basin conditions as assumed in Criteria (c) above, AND The conveyance system is adequately stabilized to prevent erosion for the entire basin flows. e) The direct discharge proposal will not divert flows from or increase flows to an existing wetland or stream sufficient to cause a significant adverse impact. The discharge will not divert any flows from a wetland and will actually decrease flows to a known problem in the natural downstream system. 1.2.4 Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System Site runoff will be collected by means of yard drains, catch basins and roof drains. Collected runoff will be conveyed to the within pipelines designed to 25-year peak flows and checked for flooding conditions at the I 00 year event. 1.2.5 Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control During construction of the infrastructure for Legacy Renton hotel, temporary erosion control methods will be implemented to prevent sedimentation and erosion using those methods as outlined in section 1.2.5.1 of the KCSWDM. 1.2.6 Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations This requirement will be fulfilled by the property owner until bonds have been released and public drainage system(s) have been conveyed to City of Renton. 1.2.7 Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability Bond and insurance in accordance with City of Renton requirements will be provided by or at the behest of the owner during site construction and until the drainage facilities in public street rights-of-way have been accepted by City of Renton for ownership. 1.2.8 Core Requirement #8: Water Quality The project is exempt for water quality because the total pollution generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) is 3,982 SF which is less than the threshold of 5,000 SF per section 1.2.8 of the KCSWDM. lnsigl1t Engineering Co. -Technical Information Report 12/19114 -13. Special Requirements -Section 1.3 of KCSWDM 1.3.1 Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area Specific Requirements Not applicable to this project 1.3.2 Special Requirement #2: Flood Plain / Floodway Delineation Not applicable to this project 1.3.3 Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities Not applicable to this project 1.3.4 Special Requirement #4: Source Controls Not applicable to this project 1.3.5 Special Requirement #5: Oil Control Not applicable to this project Insight Engineering Co. -Technical Information Report -14 - 12/19/14 5.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Analysis and Design The site contains one drainage basin that sheet flows to the southwest across the property and enters into the existing storm drainage system on Lake Washington Blvd N. Total site area Offsite frontage Area Existing Road Area Included in the Analysis = 1.31 Acres = 0.07 Acres = 0.08 Acres = 1.46 Acres 5.1 Developed Basin-1 Summary The proposed analysis parameters are as follows: KCRTS methodology with level I flow control and 15 minute time-step Seatac Rainfall region with a scale factor of 1.0. Alderwood and Kitsap Soils have a hydrologic classification of"C". This corresponds to Till soils of AkF soil group. Developed Conditions Basin: Portion of site area Offsite frontage Area Existing Road Area Included in the Analysis Impervious area: Roof area Interior road Walkways Existing Road Total Impervious Pervious Areas= 0.77 Acres = 1.26 Acres = 0.04 Acres = 0.08 Acres = 1.38 Acres = 0.39 Acres (17,015 SF) = 0.07 Acres (2,950 SF) = 0.05 Acres (2,295 SF) = 0.08 Acres (3.640 SF) = 0.61 Acres Refer to the Developed Basin Map and the following pages for more details. Insight Engineering Co. -Technical Information Report -15 · 12119114 5.2 Developed Basin-2 Summary Developed Baisn-2 = 3. 765 SF /0.08 Acres) Impervious Areas: Frontage Road and Sidewalk Improvements Interior Road Total Impervious Pervious Areas = 0.05 Acres Insight Engineering Co. -Technical Information Report -16 - = 1,041 SF (0.03 Acres) = 504 SF (0.0 I Acres) = 1,545 SF (0.03 Acres) 12119114 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2802 Wetmore Avenue Suite 220 Everett, WA 98201 425.339.8266 RECEIVED DEC 31 2014 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISIO~ NOIS//110 ~NINN\fld N01N3~ :fO All::> Renton Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis Jurisdiction: City of Renton June 2014 GTC #12-163 Renton Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DEVELOPMENT IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................. I 2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. I 3. TRIP GENERATION .............................................................................................................. 4 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................... 4 5. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS .......................................................... 6 5.1 Turning Movement Calculations ...................................................................................... 6 5.2 Level of Service Calculations ........................................................................................ 10 5.3 Access Channelization Analysis .................................................................................... 11 6. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 11 7. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES ................................................................................. 12 8. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure I: Site Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Development Trip Distribution PM Peak-Hour .............................................................. 5 Figure 3: 2013 Existing Turning Movements ................................................................................. 7 Figure 4: 2015 Baseline Turning Movements ................................................................................ 8 Figure 5: 2015 Future with Development Turning Movements ..................................................... 9 LIST OF TABLES Table I: Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Trip Generation Summary ................................................................................................ 4 Table 3: Level of Service Summary ............................................................................................. I 0 Table 4: Level of Service Summary -without Southport Development.. .................................... I 0 ATTACHMENTS Trip Generation Calculations ......................................................................................................... A Count Data and Turning Movement Calculations .......................................................................... B Level of Service Calculations ......................................................................................................... C WSDOT Channelization Guidelines .............................................................................................. D Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 1 June 2014 GTC #12-163 Renton Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis 1. DEVELOPMENT IDENTIFICATION Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. (GTC) has been retained to provide a traffic impact analysis for Renton Hotel development. This report is intended to provide the City of Renton with the necessary traffic generation, trip distribution and intersection analysis to facilitate their reviews of the development. The Renton Hotel development is located on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard, north of Coulon Beach/Houser Way, in the City of Renton. A site vicinity map is included in Figure 1. The development is proposed to consist of a hotel facility with 125 rooms and associated amenities. Brad Lincoln, responsible for this report and traffic analysis, is a licensed professional engineer (Civil) in the State of Washington and member of the Washington State section ofITE. 2. METHODOLOGY The analysis contained in this report is based on scoping discussions with City of Renton staff. The development's access and the adjacent intersection of N Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way have been analyzed. The level of service analysis has been performed in accordance with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service (LOS). Road facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A and LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or over-capacity conditions. A summary of the level of service criteria is included in Table 1. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 1 June 2014 GTC #12-163 z ~ Iii z ,iii AIRPORT WAYS RENTON AVES S2NDST \ GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS RENTON HOTEL LEGEND 125ROOMS ~ CITY OF RENTON -$- z ~ I z ~ I DEVELOPMENT SITE STUDY INTERSECTIONS N __ \;'< - N27THST 06/27114 w lz ~ ' :g ·~ 1 lil ! TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC#12-163 FIGURE 1 SITE VICINITY MAP \ Renton Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis Table 1: Level of Service Criteria Intersection Control Delay Level of 1 Expected (Seconds oer Vehicle) Unsignalized and Service Delay Roundabout Signalized Intersections Intersections A Little/No Delav <10 <10 B Short Delavs >10 and <15 >10 and <20 C AveraQe Delavs >15 and <25 >20 and <35 D LonQ Delavs >25 and <35 >35 and <55 E Ve-' Lonu Delavs >35 and <50 >55 and <80 F Extreme Delays2 >50 >80 The level of service at two-way stop-controlled intersections is based on the average delay for the stopped approach with the highest delay. The level of service at all-way stop-controlled intersections and signalized intersections is based on the average delay for all vehicles. The level of service analysis for unsignalized and signalized intersections has been performed utilizing the Synchro 8, Build 803 software. The trip generation calculations for the development are based on average trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9'h Edition (2012). 1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010. LOS A: Free-flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection). LOS B: Generally stable traffic flow conditions. LOS C: Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable. LOS D: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal). LOSE: Intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays. LOS F: Jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at times. 2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 3 June 2014 OTC #12-163 Renton Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis 3. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation calculations for the Renton Hotel development have been performed utilizing data published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Volume 2: Data (2012). The average trip generation rates for ITE Land Use Code 310, hotel, have been used for the trip generation calculations. The trip generation of the 125-room Renton Hotel development is summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Trip Generation Summary Average Daily Trips AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips 125 Room Hotel Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Generation Rate 8.17 trips per room 0.53 trips per room 0.60 trips per room Splits 50% 50% 100% 59% 41% 100% 51% 49% 100% Trips 511 510 1,021 39 27 66 38 37 75 The Renton Hotel development is anticipated to generate approximately 1,021 average daily trips with 66 AM peak-hour trips and 75 PM peak-hour trips. There is an existing espresso stand on the site that will be removed with the hotel development. It is important to note that a credit for this espresso stand has not been applied to the analysis in this report. Typically espresso stands only deal with pass-by trips and it is assumed that these trips, which would be on N Lake Washington Boulevard regardless of the espresso stand, will remain and therefore the volumes on N Lake Washington Boulevard will not decrease when the espresso stand is removed. 4. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The Renton Hotel development is proposed to have one access to N Lake Washington Boulevard. The distribution of trips is based on surrounding uses and similar uses in the area of the development. It is anticipated that 55% of the development's trips will travel along l-5, thirty-five percent to and from the south and twenty percent to and from the north. Approximately 25% of the development's trips are anticipated to travel to and from the west, ten percent to and from local areas and fifteen percent along Logan Avenue N. It is estimated that 15% will travel to and from the east along NE Park Drive. The remaining 5% of the development's trips will travel to and from the north along N Lake Washington Boulevard. A detailed trip distribution for the PM peak-hour is shown in Figure 2. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 4 June 2014 GTC #12-163 ~1·11 ( (j /,ii 1 I RENTON AVES GIBSON TRAFFIC RENTON HOTEL 125ROOMS CITY OF RENTON AIRPORT WAYS S2NOST CONSULTANTS LEGEND AWDT PM -C ---> PEAK (2s) N N 27TH ST", 06/27/14 7 - :ic20) 7 -~~~ ' j TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC#12-163 FIGURE2 NEW SITE lRAFFIC (DAILY/PEAK HOUR) DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION lRIP OIS1RIBUTION % PM PEAK-HOUR Renton Hotel Traffic Impact Analysi_s_ 5. INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS During the scoping process with City of Renton staff it was determined that the adjacent intersection ofN Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way and the site access intersection. The off-site intersection of N Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way is conditioned to be improved, channelization and signalization improvements, by the Southport development. The Renton Hotel development is likely to be constructed before the Southport development. The intersection has therefore been analyzed without and with the Southport development to ensure the intersection operates acceptably without the conditioned improvements. 5.1 Turning Movement Calculations The existing PM peak-hour turning movements at the study intersections were collected by the independent count firm IDAX in August 2013. The existing turning movements at the study intersections are shown in Figure 3. The future analysis has been performed for the year 2015, which is when the development is anticipated to be constructed. The 2015 baseline turning movements have been calculated by applying a 1 % annually compounding growth rate to the 2013 existing turning movements and adding the following pipeline projects: • Hawk's Landing-Hotel development • Quendall Terminals -Residential and commercial development • Southport Development -Residential and commercial development The analysis for the Quendall Terminals and Southport developments both included multiple development scenarios. The highest trip generating scenario, which resulted in the highest impacts to the study intersections, were included for both developments. For the Southport Development, the volumes are based on the 1999 EIS. Subsequently, the trip generation of the Southport Development has been decreased. However, the trip generation from the 1999 EIS has been utilized for the analysis in this report to represent the highest potential impact. The 20 IS baseline turning movements at the study intersections are shown in Figure 4. The 201 S future with development turning movements at the study intersections have been calculated by adding the development's trips to the 2015 baseline turning movements. The 2015 future with development turning movements are shown in Figure S. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 6 June 2014 GTC #12-163 ' RENTON AVES GIBSON TRAFFIC RENTON HOTEL 125ROOMS ~ CITY OF RENTON // / / I z ~ ffi / z ~ __) Jl'>~AIRPOR~-T WAYS CONSULTANTS LEGEND JOO( • I PM PEAK-HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS 06/27114 --- TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC#12-163 FIGURE3 2013 EXISTING TURNING MOVEMENTS PM PEAK-HOUR without Southport Development ; ;//! l!!I; ,//' i; / I (( / ,; ;/ ;II; ;//Ii /j;l/1 11// ;:-11· with Southport Development // lt:itJI I.JJ"-\ /---~~ / ~!ilii \./ ,,-\ ,,__1 ' 1 r I ,' \~..:~ ii~ I .) ) \. ' \ 12/ ... \if/ \ .. : ::;-\; :;; ~--- RENTON AVES GIBSON TRAFFIC RENTON HOTEL 125ROOMS "-----~- AIRPORT WIIY S S2NDST CONSULTANTS LEGEND N30THST ,/ PM PEAK-HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS ~ CITY OF RENTON ___ _L_ __________ _ N ,, ·---.~N~27TH=c-:S=T' 00/27114 1 ' Ill I ~/ _/ TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC#12-163 FIGURE4 2015 BASELINE TURNING MOVEMENTS PM PEAK-HOUR i \___ ~ without Southport Davelopman1 ~: ---"\ / ..) l \.... \ 1 12_)"'\lr·I \ a~ g~m / 101, ..... / ~---- RENTONAVES GIBSON TRAFFIC RENTON HOTEL 125 ROOMS CITY OF RENTON AIRPORT WAYS S2NDST CONSULTANTS LEGEND xxx~ PM PEAK-HOUR N27THST /./------.. 06/27114 / !N \_2/\ i ) \..I ..... 3ti \ I , ' \ G :!! i \ vr· I 't------__ / I / TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GTC#12-163 TURNING MOVEMENTS FIGURES 2015FUTURE WITH DEVELOPMENT TURNING MOVEMENTS \ I PM PEAK-HOUR _) Renton Hotel Tratfi~ !mpa_ct Analysis 5.2 Level of Service Calculations The 2013 existing level of service calculations have been performed utilizing the ex1stmg channelization, existing intersection control and peak-hour factors and heavy vehicle factors from the 2013 turning movement counts. The intersection ofN Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way will be improved in the future to include additional channelization and a signal. The 2015 baseline and 2015 future with development conditions include these improvements, which are the improvements conditioned to the Southport Development. It is important to note that the volumes from the Southport Development included in the analysis are conservatively high. The level of service summary is included in Table 3. Table 3: Level of Service Summary 2013 Existing 2015 Baseline 2015 Future w Development Intersection Conditions Conditions Conditions LOS Delay LOS Delav LOS Delav I. N Lake Washington Boulevard at B 12.5 sec F 80.2 sec F 84.2 sec Coulon Beach/Houser Way 2. N Lake Washington Boulevard at C 19.8 sec Site Access ------------ The analysis shows that the intersection ofN Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way will operate at deficient LOS F with the conservatively high Southport Development volumes, regardless of whether the Renton Hotel is constructed. It is important to note that the actual impacts of the Southport Development are anticipated to be lower and the intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS E or better with the actual reduced impacts of the Southport Development. The intersection ofN Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way has also been analyzed with the existing channelization and stop-control, but without the Southport Development. This analysis shows the impacts of the Renton Hotel if it is constructed before the Southport Development. The level of service analysis with the Renton Hotel development, but without the Southport Development and conditioned improvements is summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Level of Service Summary -without Southport Development Intersection I . N Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Wav 2. N Lake Washington Boulevard at Site Access Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 2013 Existing Conditions LOS Delay B 12.5 sec ------ 10 2015 Baseline Conditions LOS Delay C 16.1 sec ------ 2015 Future w Development Conditions LOS C C Delav 18.7sec 19.8 sec June 2014 GTC #12-163 Renton Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis The analysis shows that the N Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way intersection will operate acceptably with the Renton Hotel development with the existing configuration, but without the Southport Development. The level of service calculations are included in the attachments. 5.3 Access Channelization Analysis The Renton Hotel development is proposed to have one access to N Lake Washington Boulevard near the south side of the property. Currently, the posted speed limit is 25 in the site vicinity and there is one lane in each direction. The access to the Renton Hotel development has been analyzed to determine if inbound left-tum or channelization warrants are met. The left-tum channelization has been analyzed based on the Exhibit 1310-7a from the WSDOT Design Manual, July 2013. The right-tum channelization has been analyzed based on Exhibit 1310-11 from the WSDOT Design Manual, July 2013. The channelization analysis has been performed for the 2015 future with development conditions utilizing the turning movements shown in Figure 5. The analysis shows that a southbound left-tum lane is not required. However, a right-tum pocket or taper could be warranted. It is important to note that the access analysis was performed without a northbound right-tum taper or pocket and the access was shown to operate acceptably and that the WSDOT guidelines, included in the attachments, state that right-tum channelization should be considered for several reasons, one of which is maintaining level of service. Although the volume meets the warrant, a right-tum pocket or taper is not required to maintain the level of service and is therefore not a requirement, but should be considered. The channelization warrants are included in the attachments, as well as the WSDOT right-tum guidelines. 6. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Pedestrian generation rates for a hotel are not published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, similar to how the vehicle trip generation rates are published. Although the exact number of pedestrians that will be generated by the development is known, it is anticipated that the Renton Hotel will generate pedestrian traffic. It is anticipated that this pedestrian traffic will be minimal since the hotel is anticipated that up to 65% of visitors will be business related, which are not anticipated to create pedestrian trips. However, the remaining visitors, which will be a mix of vacationers, travelers and others, could generate pedestrians. The existing pedestrian facilities in the area have therefore been inventoried. There are bicycle lanes on each side ofN Lake Washington Boulevard. North of the development there is curb, gutter and sidewalk north of the site. South of the site, between the site and the Coulon Beach/HouserWay intersection, there are not any pedestrian facilities, but there is a large gravel area. The development is anticipated to provide standard frontage improvements that will connect to the curb, gutter and sidewalk north of the site. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 11 June 2014 GTC #12-163 Renton Hotel Traffic Impact Analysis It is important to note that the development north of the site, both of which are residential developments and are likely to generate more pedestrian trips than the Renton Hotel development, did not provide off-site pedestrian improvements. The Renton Hotel should therefore not be required to construct off-site pedestrian improvements for the limited number of pedestrians that could be generated. 7. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES The level of service analysis shows that the Renton Hotel development will not cause the adjacent intersection of N Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way to operate at a deficient level of service. Additionally, the development is not anticipated to generate a significant number of pedestrians. The Renton Hotel development should therefore not be conditioned to provide any off-site improvements. The development will be required to provide the appropriate frontage improvements and payment of the City of Renton transportation impact fee will be required. Currently, the fee is $612.75 per room for hotels. This equates to a total transportation impact fee of $67,593.75 for the 125-room hotel development. The actual transportation impact fee will be based on the fee in effect when a complete building permit application is filed. 8. CONCLUSIONS The Renton Hotel is proposed to consist of 125 rooms and associated amenities. The development is anticipated to generate 1,021 average daily trips with 75 PM peak-hour trips. The development is not anticipated to cause the off-site intersection of N Lake Washington Boulevard at Coulon Beach/Houser Way to operate at a deficient level of service and should therefore not be conditioned to provide any off-site improvements. An inbound right-turn pocket or taper could be considered, although it is required to allow the access to operate at an acceptable level of service. The current transportation impact mitigation fees total $76,593.75 for the development; however, the actual fee will be determined when a complete building permit application is filed. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 12 June 2014 GTC #12-163 Trip Generation Calculations A Trip Generation for: Weekday (a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT) Gross Trips ITE Trip % % ln+Out LAND USES VARIABLE LU code Rate IN OUT (Total) Hotel 125 rooms 310 8.17 50% 50% 1021 Totals 1021 ;i, Renton Hotel GTC #12-163 Internal TOTAL Crossover "lo of Trips ln+Out Gross ln+Out Trips (Total) (Total) 0% 0 1021 0 1021 NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW LINK LINK o/o of ln+Out o/o of ln+Out ln+Out Ext. Ext. In Out In Out In Out Trips (Total) Trips (Total) (Total) 0% 0 0% 0 1021 0 0 0 0 511 510 0 0 1021 0 0 0 0 511 510 Renton Hotel GTC #12-163 Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM (a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak Hour NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Gross Trips Internal TOTAL PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW Crossover LINK LINK ITE Trip % % ln+Out %of Trips ln+Out %of ln+Out %of ln+Out ln+Out LAND USES VARIABLE LU Rate IN OUT (Total) Gross ln+Out (Total) Ext. (Total) Ext. (Total) (Total) In Out In Out In Out code Trips (Total) Trips Trips Hotel 125 rooms 310 0.53 59% 41% 66 0%, 0 66 0% 0 0% 0 66 0 0 0 0 39 27 Totals 66 0 66 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 39 27 > "' Renton Hotel GTC #12-163 Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM (a.k.a.): Weekday PM Peak Hour NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Gross Trips Internal TOTAL PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW PASS-BY DIVERTED NEW Crossover LINK LINK ITE Trip % % ln+Out %of Trips ln+Out %of ln+Out %of ln+Out ln+Out LAND USES VARIABLE LU Gross ln+Out Ext. Ext. In Out In Out In Out code Rata IN OUT (Total) Trips {Total) (Total) Trips (Total) Trips (Total) (Total) Hotel 125 rooms 310 0.60 51% 49% 75 0% 0 75 0% 0 0% 0 75 0 0 0 0 38 37 Totals 75 0 75 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 38 37 )> w Count Data and Turning Movement Calculations B www.idaxdata.com LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N ~-HOUSER WAY N ~ Date: Tue, Aug 27, 2013 N Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM z 0 Peak Hour: 4:45PM to 5:45 PM ... ~1 r~ co z Jo :i: ~ s: z WO ~~ .... .... C> a, -.., .., .J l l. HOUSERWAYN Joorn,"L. !77 L 0 12 _J -= = ~ ' TEV: 988 -' = ~ = Jo (W)B CJ,.... ' 8 -PHF: 0.95 r -c::::J B , ' = 0 125 105-,_ 52 2~v \". ., l r l!l0D30D[)il COULON BEACH ACCESS C> ., ... wzz HV%: PHF ... ... ~Oo -... I-> ... co _, EB 0.8% 0.87 ~1 :;,; "' WB --Di I "' NB 1.0% 0.95 i-~ 5! SB 1.7% 0.85 TOTAL 1.2% 0.95 Two-Hour Count Summaries COULON BEACH ACCESS HOUSERWAYN LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N Interval 15-mln Rolling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 4:00 PM 1 2 38 0 0 0 42 44 2 8 52 2 191 4:15 PM 2 6 31 0 0 0 35 72 2 5 55 2 210 4:30 PM 0 2 36 0 0 0 45 75 1 14 77 1 251 4:45PM 3 3 23 0 0 0 39 82 0 9 65 4 228 880 5:00PM 5 0 30 0 0 0 38 93 1 9 n 8 259 946 5:15 PM 1 2 33 0 0 0 39 78 4 8 71 6 242 980 5:30 PM 3 3 19 0 0 0 44 82 1 12 94 1 259 988 5:45 PM 1 2 28 0 0 0 42 76 1 15 58 4 227 987 Count Total 16 20 238 0 0 0 324 602 12 80 549 26 1,867 Peak Hr 12 8 105 0 0 0 160 335 8 38 307 17 988 Note: Two-hour count summalY' volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB 4:00 PM 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 4:15 PM 0 0 4 1 5 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 , 0 4:45PM 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 5:00PM 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 5:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5:30PM 1 0 1 1 3 2 0 5:45 PM 1 0 , 0 2 B 0 Count Total 3 0 12 7 22 12 0 Peak Hr 1 0 5 6 12 2 0 Mark Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 Bicycles NB SB Total 1 1 3 1 0 1 2 1 4 0 2 2 3 1 4 1 1 2 2 2 6 0 3 11 10 ,, 33 6 6 14 East 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Padasbians (Crossing Leg) West 0 , 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 3 North South Total 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 7 13 0 3 7 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com B -I 1 Lake Wash Blvd N @ Coulon Synchro ID: Existing Counts I I 362 709 347 Average Weekday 17 307 38 PM Peak Hour <? j) " Lake Washington Boulevard N " 0 Year: B/27/2013 177 ¢, 0 0 <? 0 t Data Source: IDAX 302 Coulon Beach ~ Houser Way 52 North 12 " 125 8 q 52 105 " Lake Washington Boulevard N " 1l" " 160 335 6 I I 412 913 501 Plpellne Trips I I 5 10 5 Average Weekday 0 5 0 PM Peak Hour <? j) " Lake Washington Boulevard N " 0 0 ¢, 0 0 <? 0 t Hawk's Landing 0 Coulon Beach CiIJ Houser Way 0 North 0 " 0 0 q 0 0 " Lake Washington Boulevard N " 1l" " 0 5 0 5 10 5 Pipeline Trips I I 75 145 70 Average Weekday 0 75 0 PM Peak Hour <? j) " Lake Washington Boulevard N " 0 0 ¢, 0 0 <? 0 t Quendall Terminals 0 Coulon Beach Dill Houser Way 0 North 0 ., 0 0 q 0 0 " Lake Washington Boulevard N " 0 " 0 70 0 I I 75 145 70 Pipeline Trips I I 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour <? j) " Lake Washington Boulevard N " 0 474 ¢, 0 0 <? 0 t Southport 1,397 Coulon Beach ! 1,397 ! Houser Way 0 North 0 ., 923 0 q 0 923 " Lake Washington Boulevard N " 0 ., I 1,3971 474 0 0 I I 923 474 B-2 1 Lake Wash Blvd N @ Coulon Future without Development I I 449 878 1 429 Average Weekday 17 393 39 PM Peak Hour 0 0 "' Lake Washington Boulevard N "' 0 Year: 2015 654 e, 0 0 Growth Rate = 1.0% 0 0 t Years of Growth = 2 1,704 Coulon Beach I 2,5591 Houser Way 53 North Total Growth = 1.0201 12 " 1,050 8 .. 53 1,030 " Lake Washington Boulevard N "' i) " I 637 I 417 I 6 I I 1,423 12,483: 1,060 Development Trips I I 36 71 35 Average Weekday 0 36 0 PM Peak Hour 0 0 "' Lake Washington Boulevard N "' 0 0 e, 0 0 0 0 t 0 Coulon Beach CzI::I Houser Way North 0 " I 0 0 q 0 0 "' Lake Washington Boulevard N "' i) " 0 35 0 I I 36 71 35 Future with Development I I 485 949 464 Average Weekday 17 429 39 PM Peak Hour 0 0 "' Lake Washington Boulevard N "' 0 654 e, 0 0 0 0 t 1,704 Coulon Beach I 2,6301 Houser Way 53 North 12 " 1,050 8 q 53 1,030 " Lake Washington Boulevard N "' i) " 12,5541 637 1 452 1 6 I I 1,459 1,095 B -3 2 Lake Wash Blvd N @ Site Synchro ID: Existing Counts 362 709 347 Average Weekday 0 362 0 PM Peak Hour "' 1l "' N Lake Washington Boulevard "' 0 Year: 8/27/2013 0 ¢, 0 0 "' 0 t Data Source: IDAX 0 ~ Site Access 0 North 0 ,, 0 0 "' 0 0 "' N Lake Washington Boulevard "' i) ,, 0 347 0 I I 362 709 347 I Pipeline Trips I 5 10 5 Average Weekday 0 5 0 PM Peak Hour "' 1l "' N Lake Washington Boulevard "' 0 0 ¢, 0 0 "' 0 t Hawk's Landing 0 DD Site Access 0 North 0 ,, I 0 0 "' 0 0 "' N Lake Washington Boulevard "' i) ,, 0 5 0 I I 5 10 5 Pipeline Trips I I 75 145 I 70 Average Weekday 0 75 0 PM Peak Hour "' 1l "' N Lake Washington Boulevard "' 0 0 ¢, 0 0 "' 0 t Quendall Terminals 0 Dill Site Access 0 North 0 ,, I 0 0 "' 0 0 "' N Lake Washington Boulevard "' i) ,, 1451 0 70 0 I I 75 70 Pipeline Trips: I I 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour "' 1l "' N Lake Washington Boulevard "' 0 0 ¢, 0 0 "' 0 t Southport 0 [TI Site Access 0 North 0 ,, 0 0 "' 0 0 "' N Lake Washington Boulevard "' i) ,, 0 0 0 I I 0 0 0 B-4 2 Lake Wash Blvd N @ Site Future without Development I I 449 878 429 Average Weekday 0 449 0 PM Peak Hour "' -Oe " N Lake Washington Boulevard "' 0 Year: 2015 0 ¢, 0 0 Growth Rate : 1.0% "' 0 t Years of Growth = 2 0 ~ Site Access 0 North Total Growth = 1.0201 0 " 0 0 "' 0 0 " N Lake Washington Boulevard "' il " 878 I 0 429 0 I I 449 429 Development Trips 2 4 2 Average Weekday 0 0 2 PM Peak Hour "' -Oe " N Lake Washington Boulevard "' 2 0 ¢, 0 38 "' 36 t 0 Du Site Access 75 North 0 " 0 0 "' 37 0 " N Lake Washington Boulevard "' il " 0 0 35 I I 36 71 35 Future with Development I I 451 882 431 Average Weekday 0 449 2 PM Peak Hour "' iJ " N Lake Washington Boulevard "' 2 0 ¢, 0 38 "' 36 t 0 ~ Site Access 75 North 0 " 0 0 "' 37 0 " N Lake Washington Boulevard "' il " 0 429 35 485 949 464 B -5 Level of Service Calculations C HCM2010AWSC 1 : N Lake Washington Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Way Renton Hotel Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 12.5 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 12 8 105 0 0 0 160 335 6 38 307 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 8 111 0 0 0 168 353 6 40 323 18 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Aeeroach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Righi NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 0 1 HCM Control Delay 9.8 12.6 13.4 HCM LOS A B B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left,% 100% 0% 10% 10% Vol Thru, % 0% 98% 6% 85% Vol Right,% 0% 2% 84% 5% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 160 341 125 362 LT Vol 0 335 8 307 Through Vol 0 6 105 17 RT Vol 160 0 12 38 Lane Flow Rate 168 359 132 381 Geometry Grp 7 7 2 5 Degree of Util (X) 0.267 0.518 0.197 0.523 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.714 5.197 5.398 4.938 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 625 689 658 724 Service Time 3.486 2.969 3.484 3.006 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.269 0.521 0.201 0.526 HCM Control Delay 10.6 13.5 9.8 13.4 HCM Lane LOS B B A B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 3 0.7 3.1 Notes -: Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined 2013 Existing Conditions PM Peak-Hour Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 12-163] C -1 SHO~N. <JLS ON THIS SHEET, SHOWN, \ ' ' ' ' ' ....... , \ @(''~, I ' \ 5FT LT , STRIPE, 1" RT : STRIPE Fl LT JNE. STRIPE A O 4 .0 5. FT RT :GIN CENTER UNE STRIPE sTA 0+4 .0 .5FT T BEGIN APPROACH LINE STRIPE I ', RENTON nns SHEET ·-10 ~ on' A 19+ 76.5 H: FT LT INSTALL STOP BAR CEMENT CONCRETE BARRIER CURB ANO GUTTER, SEE CML PLANS C-2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: N Lake Washinaton Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Wa"i. Renton Hotel /' -+ -. f -' ' t I" \. + ,.; Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations .., f. .., f. .., f. Volume (vph) 12 8 1030 0 0 0 637 417 6 39 393 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.851 0.998 0.994 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 Said. Flow (pro!) 1770 1585 0 0 0 0 1770 1859 0 1770 1852 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.121 0.505 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1585 0 0 0 0 225 1859 0 941 1852 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Said. Flow (RTOR) 641 1 2 Link Speed (mph) 25 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 189 95 760 215 Travel Time (s) 5.2 2.2 20.7 5.9 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 8 1084 0 0 0 671 439 6 41 414 18 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 1092 0 0 0 0 671 445 0 41 432 0 Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 49.0 49.0 38.0 71.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split(%) 40.8% 40.8% 31.7% 59.2% 27.5% 27.5% Yellow nme (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None Max None None Act Effct Green (s) 45.0 45.0 67.0 67.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.56 0.56 0.24 0.24 vie Ratio 0.02 1.10 1.19 0.43 0.18 0.96 Control Delay 23.8 75.2 134.7 17.0 38.7 79.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.8 75.2 134.7 17.0 38.7 79.3 LOS C E F B D E Approach Delay 74.6 87.8 75.8 Approach LOS E F E Queue Length 50th (ft) 6 -627 -579 190 25 331 Queue Length 95th (fl) 20 #888 #813 270 58 #538 Internal Link Dist (fl) 109 15 680 135 2015 Baseline Conditions -with Chann w GTC Volumes PM Peak-Hour Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 12-163] C -3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: N Lake Washin9ton Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser WaY. .,} Lane Groue EBL Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 663 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.19 _.,. " f -'- EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR 995 0 0 0 1.10 Intersection Signal Delay: 80.2 Intersection LOS: F Intersection Capacity Utilization 1312% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 -Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: N Lake Washington Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Way ' NBL 100 563 0 0 0 1.19 '102 ~4 19· 2015 Baseline Conditions -with Chann w GTC Volumes Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 12-163) Renton Hotel t I' '-. ! .,, NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1038 227 449 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.18 0.96 PM Peak-Hour C-4 HCM 2010AWSC 1: N Lake Washington Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Way Intersection Intersection Delay, slveh 16.1 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL Vol, veh/h 12 8 107 0 0 0 163 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 8 113 0 0 0 172 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Aeeroach EB NB Opposing Approach SB Opposing Lanes 0 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 0 HCM Control Delay 10.5 16 HCM LOS B C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left,% 100% 0% 9% 9% Vol Thru, % 0% 99% 6% 88% Vol Right,% 0% 1% 84% 4% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 163 423 127 449 LT Vol 0 417 8 393 Through Vol 0 6 107 17 RT Vol 163 0 12 39 Lane Flow Rate 172 445 134 473 Geometry Grp 7 7 2 5 Degree of Util (X) 0.278 0.657 0.217 0.664 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.932 5.417 5.854 5.054 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 609 672 618 704 Service Time 3.632 3.117 3.854 3.15 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.282 0.662 0.217 0.672 HCM Control Delay 10.9 17.9 10.5 17.7 HCM Lane LOS B C B C HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 4.9 0.8 5.1 Notes -: Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined 2015 Baseline Conditions -without Southport Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 12-163] Renton Hotel NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 417 6 39 393 17 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 2 2 2 2 439 6 41 414 18 1 0 0 1 0 SB NB 2 0 EB 1 17.7 C PM Peak-Hour C · 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: N Lake Washinaton Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Wa'i. Renton Hotel .,> -+ -. 'f -'-' t ,. '-+ ,.; Lane Graue EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations .., f. .., f. .., f. Volume (vph) 12 8 1030 0 0 0 637 452 6 39 429 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.851 0.998 0.994 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1585 0 0 0 0 1770 1859 0 1770 1852 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.121 0.488 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1585 0 0 0 0 225 1859 0 909 1852 0 Right Tum on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 630 1 2 Link Speed (mph) 25 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 189 95 760 215 Travel Time (s) 5.2 2.2 20.7 59 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 8 1084 0 0 0 671 476 6 41 452 18 Shared Lane Traffic(%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 1092 0 0 0 0 671 482 0 41 470 0 Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Detector Phase 4 4 5 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 20.0 20.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 49.0 49.0 38.0 71.0 33.0 33.0 Total Split(%) 40.8% 40.8% 31.7% 59.2% 27.5% 27.5% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None Max None None Act Effct Green (s) 45.0 45.0 67.0 67.0 29.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.56 0.56 0.24 0.24 vie Ratio 0.02 1.11 1.19 0.46 0.19 1.05 Control Delay 23.8 78.5 134.7 17.6 38.9 99.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.8 78.5 134.7 17.6 38.9 99.4 LOS C E F B D F Approach Delay 77.9 85.8 94.6 Approach LOS E F F Queue Length 5oth (ft) 6 -639 -579 212 25 -395 Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 #899 #813 297 58 #606 Internal Link Dist (ft) 109 15 680 135 2015 Future Conditions with Development -with Chann w GTC Volumes PM Peak-Hour Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 12-163] C-6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 1: N Lake Washington Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Way ,.,. Lane Group EBL Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph) 663 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.02 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Natural Cycle: 110 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum vie Ratio: 1.19 Intersection Signal Delay: 84.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 133.1% Analysis Period (min) 15 _..., -. EBT EBR 988 0 0 0 1.11 -Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. f WBL -'- WBT WBR Intersection LOS: F ICU Level of Service H # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 1: N Lake Washington Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Way ' NBL 100 563 0 0 0 1.19 '1 i,2 44 2015 Future Conditions with Development -with Chann w GTC Volumes Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 12-163] Renton Hotel t I" \. * ~ NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1038 219 449 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.46 0.19 1.05 PM Peak-Hour C-7 HCM 2010 AWSC 1: N Lake Washington Boulevard & Coulon Beach/Houser Way Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 18.7 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL Vol, veh/h 12 8 107 0 0 0 163 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 8 113 0 0 0 172 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Aeeroach EB NB Opposing Approach SB Opposing Lanes 0 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB Conflicting Lanes Righi 2 0 HCM Control Delay 10.7 18.8 HCMLOS B C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left,% 100% 0% 9% 8% Vol Thru, % 0% 99% 6% 88% Vol Right,% 0% 1% 84% 4% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 163 458 127 485 LT Vol 0 452 8 429 Through Vol 0 6 107 17 RT Vol 163 0 12 39 Lane Flow Rate 172 482 134 511 Geometry Grp 7 7 2 5 Degree of Util (X) 0.285 0.731 0.223 0.723 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.976 5.461 6.004 5.215 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 604 665 600 699 Service Time 3.689 3.174 4.02 3.215 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.285 0.725 0.223 0.731 HCM Control Delay 11.1 21.6 10.7 20.6 HCM Lane LOS B C B C HCM 95th-tile Q 1.2 6.3 0.8 6.2 Notes -: Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined 2015 Future Conditions -without Southport Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 12-163] Renton Hotel NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 452 6 39 429 17 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 2 2 2 2 476 6 41 452 18 1 0 0 1 0 SB NB 2 0 EB 1 20.6 C PM Peak-Hour C-8 HCM 2010 TWSC 2: N Lake Washington Boulevard & Site Access Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh/h 36 2 429 35 2 449 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 0 0 Grade,% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 39 2 466 38 2 488 Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 Major/Minor Major 1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 977 485 0 0 504 0 Stage 1 485 Stage 2 492 Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 278 582 1061 Stage 1 619 Stage 2 615 Time blocked-Platoon,% 0 0 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 277 582 1061 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 277 Stage 1 619 Stage 2 613 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 19.8 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBT NBR W8Ln1 SBL SBT Cap, veh/h 285 1061 HCM Control Delay, s 19.8 8.4 0 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.14 0.00 HCM Lane LOS C A A HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.5 0.0 Notes -: Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined 2015 Future Conditions with Development -with Southport Improvements Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. [BJL 12-163] Renton Hotel PM Peak-Hour C-9 WSDOT Channelization Guidelines D 0 i; ...J C) C: -C: ... ~ > :c C -I'll -~ ~ Notes: Renton Hotel GTC #12-163 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS N Lake Washginton Boulevard at Site Access Left Turn Storage Guidelines 250 /o -=i--u~ ~-i -----1 AboveCu~e:Storag~ ~ I , recomm~~ded. 1 20o/o -------i-· -' I : I I . . , 15% ,--· ,--,""'--------t, ---: 1----· 1 ...... \... ' ' " ! ! 1 II 1 Oo/c 1 "-"-· ""-1 · ~ I J_ · -_-···-···-----o I '---......::: -'i...... 1............._ , : I ' ' ' ' ' 5 Ofo --, --------I ----------: ; ' --l. ---~=~~~dcf~~~~:~~~~ge not 1 -I _= __ =_=_= __ =_=_= __ =_=_,FIA::::.= __ =_=_= __ =_=_=_ *L:::: __ ::::_;;;; __ ;_;_;;; __ ;;;_;;;_;;T;;;_=,= __ =,=_=_:=_aa_," __ -ii -------------,..-------p--1--f-1---,--,--1--1--1--1 --1 i--1--,--,--1--i -j I I· T ! -y-----f-I I I i I I I ' 00/o 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 Total DHV Total DHV: 915 Posted Speed Limit[ 25 [MPH Left Turns: 2 % Left: 0.2% [1] DHV is total volume from both directions. [2] Speeds are posted speeds. Based on WSDOT July 2013 Design Manual: Exhibit 1310-?a, Page 1310-14. !S: C .... ~ .!. .c Cl i:i2 .... ::1 0 ::c .II: ca GI II. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 Renton Hotel GTC #12-163 GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS N Lake Washginton Boulevard at Site Access Right-Turn Lane Guidelines ' ' ' ' Consideriright-turn lane [5] ' ' ' ' ' ' Consider right-turn pocket or taper [4] Radius only [3] 200 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ------------~---------------------- 400 ' ' ' ' 600 Peak Hour Approach Volume (DDVH) 111 Posted Speed I 25 Right Turn Volume: 35 [DDHV] Adjusted Right Turn Volume: 35 [DDHV] Pk Hr Curb Ln Approach Vol: 485 [DDHV] Notes: [1] For two-lane highways, use the peak hour DDHV (through+ right tum}. For multilane, high speed highways (posted speed 45 mph or above), use the right-lane peak hour approach volume (through + right turn}. [2] When all three of the following conditions are met, reduce the right-turn DDHV by 20: The posted speed is 45 mph or less, the right-turn volume is greater than 40 VPH, the peak hour approach volume (DDHV} is less than 300 VPH. [3] For right-turn corner design, see Exhibit 1310-6. (4] For right-turn pocket or taper design, see Exhibit 1310-12. Based on WSDOT July 2013 Design Manual: Exhibit 1310-11, Page 1310-27. D-2 Intersections Chapter 1310 1310.04(3) Right-Turn Lanes Right-tum movements influence intersection capacity even though there is no conflict between right-turning vehicles and opposing traffic. Right-tum lanes might be needed to maintain efficient intersection operation. Use the following to determine when to consider right-tum lanes at unsignalized intersections: For two-lane roadways and for multilane roadways with a posted speed of 45 mph or above, when recommended by Exhibit J 310-U. A collision study indicates an overall crash reduction with a right-tum lane. • The presence of pedestrians requires right-turning vehicles to stop. • Restrictive geometrics require right-turning vehicles to slow greatly below the speed of the through traffic. • There is less than decision sight distance for traffic approaching the intersection. For unsignalized intersections, see 131 0.0'\( 4) for guidance on right-tum lane lengths. For signalized intersections, use a traffic signal analysis to determine whether a right-turn lane is needed and what the length is (see Chapter 1330). A capacity analysis may be used to determine whether right-turn lanes are needed to maintain the desired level of service. Where adequate right of way exists, providing right-tum lanes is relatively inexpensive and can provide increased operational efficiency. The right-turn pocket or the right-turn taper (see Exhibit 1310-12) may be used at any minor intersection where a right-tum lane is not provided. These designs reduce interference and delay to the through movement by offering an earlier exit to right-turning vehicles. • If the right-tum pocket is used, Exhibit 1310-lZ shows taper lengths for various posted speeds. Page 1310-26 WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.10 July 2013 D-3 Intersections Chapter 1310 Posted Speed Limit Below40 mph - 40 mph or above ------·-.. -~------ L (see table) 60 ft min :-- Right-Turn Pocket Right-Turn Taper L 40 ft 100 ft See Exhibit 1310-6 for right- turn corner design Right-Turn Pocket and Right-Turn Taper Exhibit 1310-12 1310.04(4) Speed Change Lanes A speed change lane is an auxiliary lane primarily for the acceleration or deceleration of vehicles entering or leaving the through traveled way. Speed change lanes are normally provided for at- grade intersections on multilane divided highways with access control. Where roadside conditions and right of way allow, speed change lanes may be provided on other through roadways. Justification for a speed change lane depends on many factors, including speed; traffic volumes; capacity; type of highway; design and frequency of intersections and collision history When either deceleration or acceleration lanes are to be used, design them in accordance with Exhibits 13 l 0-D_ and 1310-14. When the design speed of the turning traffic is greater than 20 mph, design the speed change lane as a ramp in accordance with Chapter 1360. When a deceleration lane is used with a left-turn lane, add the deceleration length to the storage length. A dedicated deceleration lane (see Exhibit 13 l 0-D_) is advantageous because it removes slowing vehicles from the through lane. An acceleration lane (see Exhibit 13 l 0-1_4) is not as advantageous because entering drivers can wait for an opportunity to merge witbout disrupting through traffic. However, acceleration lanes for left-turning vehicles provide a benefit by allowing the turn to be made in two movements. Page 1310-28 WSDOT Design Manual M 22-01.10 July 2013 D-4 Gibson Traffic Consultants 2802 Wetmore Avenue Suite 220 Everett, WA 98201 425.339.8266 Renton Hotel Parking Analysis November 2014 . '• ,.. GTC #12-163 Renton Hotel Parking Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DEVELOPMENT IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................. I 2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. I 3. PARKING ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... I 4. CITY OF RENTON PARKING REQUIREMENTS .............................................................. 2 5. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 2 LIST OF TABLES Table I: Renton Hotel Parking Demand Calculations .................................................................... I LIST OF TABLES !TE Parking Data ........................................................................................................................... A Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com November 2014 GTC #12-163 Renton Hotel Parking Analysis 1. DEVELOPMENT IDENTIFICATION Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. (GTC) has been retained to provide a parking analysis for the proposed Renton Hotel. Brad Lincoln, responsible for this report, is a licensed professional engineer (Civil) in the State of Washington and member of the Washington State section of!TE. The Renton Hotel is located along the east side ofN Lake Washington Boulevard, north of Coulon Beach/Houser Way, in the City of Renton. The development is proposing to include I 05 rooms and I 05 parking spaces. The Renton Hotel is anticipated to have 17 employees. 2. METHODOLOGY The parking analysis for the Renton Hotel is based on parking data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (!TE) in Parking Generation, 4th Edition. !TE presents parking data for several different hotel-type uses in Parking Generation, 4th Edition, but the Renton Hotel is most closely associated with a typical hotel (!TE Land Use Code 310). The parking analysis has been performed using the average rates published by !TE to determine the typical parking required by the site. Additionally, occupancy data from !TE has been utilized to determine the average number of occupied rooms. 3. PARKING ANALYSIS The parking demand for the Renton Hotel development has been calculated using the average weekday parking rate for !TE Land Use Code 3 I 0, Hotel. Additionally, !TE provides data in Parking Generation, 4th Edition under !TE Land Use Code 310 that shows that the occupancy ranges from a low of 48% to a high of 72% with an average of 63.8%. The parking demand calculations based on this data are summarized in Table I. Table 1: Renton Hotel Parking Demand Calculations Rooms Occupancy Occupancy Demand per Parking Demand Rate Occunied Room 105 Low 48% 0.89 soaces 45 spaces 105 Hi~h 72% 0.89 snaces 67 spaces 105 Average 63.8% 0.89 spaces 60 spaces The Renton Hotel is proposed to have I 05 parking spaces, which is 57% higher than what is calculated based on the average !TE parking demand and high occupancy rate. The proposed supply is equivalent to I space per room. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com November 2014 GTC #12-163 Renton Hotel Parking Analysis 4. CITY OF RENTON PARKING REQUIREMENTS The parking requirements for development in the City of Renton are included in Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4.4.080.1 O.d. A hotel is required to have I parking space per room plus I space per 3 employees. The Renton Hotel, consisting of I 05 rooms and 17 employees, would require 111 parking spaces. It is important to note that this calculation is based on all 17 employees, although not all employees are anticipated to be on the site the entire day. City Council passed Ordinance 5729 to address parking demand of developments. This ordinance changes RMC 4.4.080 to allow for a 25% reduction to the parking demand. The l 05 spaces that are proposed is approximately a 5% reduction from what is identified in RMC 4.4.080.1 O.d. The demand calculations that were previously shown in this report, which show that the anticipated demand will be lower than the supply, should satisfy the requirements of the RMC 4.4.080 to allow the Department of Community and Economic Development to approve the proposed parking supply. 5. CONCLUSIONS The Renton Hotel is proposed to consist of I 05 rooms and 17 employees. The proposed parking supply of I 05 spaces is anticipated to be approximately 57% higher than the demand calculated (67 parking spaces) using the average parking demand and occupancy rates documented in the !TE Parking Generation, 4rh Edition. The 105 spaces represents a 5% reduction from the requirements documented in RMC 4.4.080.1 O.d and should be approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development based on Ordinance 5729 and the data in this report. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. info@gibsontraffic.com 2 November 2014 GTC #12-163 ITE Parking Data A December Land Use: 310 Hotel SOURCE: Smith Travel Research, average data from North American hotels from 2000. www.wwstar.com Study SitesNears Rosemont, IL (1969); Chicago, IL (1973); Newport Beach, CA (1981); Boca Raton, FL (1983); Scottsdale, AZ. (1983); Concord, CA (1985); O~ando, FL (1988); Cypress, CA (1989); La Palma, CA (1989); Burlingame, CA (2001); Millbrae, CA (2001 ); Milpitas, CA (2001); San Mateo, CA (2001 ); Ventura, CA (2007) 4"' Edition Source Number 1015 11Un1tute of Transportation Engineers [ 75] Parking Generation, 4th Edition A-I Land Use: 31 O Hotel Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. Occupied Rooms On a: Weekday Location: Suburban ' ·! ,,; Peak Period 12:00--1:00 p.m.; 7:00-10:00 p.m.; 11 :00 .m.-5:00 a.m. Demand 95% Confidence Interval Ran e 85th Percentile 33rd Percentile Weekday Suburbah Peak Period Parking Demand 900 ~~----800 P = 1.1 Ox _-_..5.-c.9 _________ .__ 700 +------"R'--2-==c...s0'-".7'-=4'----------~---:7",,,-::__------j 600 +-- 500 • 400 +--------~~;..,-...c=----------1 300 +-------_,,,,""'-..--..----------1 200 +-----~"""-----+-----"----------1 100 +---~.:__--------------1 0 -+---- 0 200 400 600 800 x = Occupied Rooms • Actual Data Points --Fitted Curve ----Average Rate Institute of Transportation Engineers I 76 l Parking Generation, 4th Editlan A-2 I~,! -\ I I ·~ ~;; "'"' /nv:w.:-sss1 ~ -I I v;f:·t~? ~ \ I I ,cm,,,," 15'U'cP 11~,959 _. I ' l j " ,,,, .. "·" ,.,,. .... . «· r«\\·"" --~ /. sV ~ ~/ I·/,"--.. ....- 1 //·. ~)_. .. ...-#1 C \ C f'fi..lf· SD /'--~ 1'1 ~ '\J1!.,) · I(. I -· .// oR0"'' I I. r,-,t,,,-w I ~1: I 11 Si· l~ i ' ;:~;:::;:;:;; . •I. "-a'\QiP I -• •, ~; lf•S_(" ~ P'IC f ,r~i2,;) \ i .. 1 .. i (\ ~t -SD -7:~w, '" ,,,rn•,,[i 1 , ,.•.J.JC! Ir "II/ !i/( I \I '< CNi' ~~2B J., 15' Pu(:[T POWER [AS£M[N! Ii / R[C NO 8403260623 ! I C/1. OF RO· 60' / DEED w:c. 1/0. f035D0.5 DATED ll/29/19J5 -·---------14- -------- / ....... / ~,-•$"\~"'.. l':..---- )c,f!C.J CJ ~~ --i----50 ---~ I w.i,-, ~r ->S/5 a,:,~~-I /1;~5 -I if S'f\t/1• I If ll" Pl-: S• "\ -, L:=NG L ".--- I I I I ..---/ -~· PN?Ca SEE PUAl8ING PIAN /a.nM RIii DRAIN ,I, PIPC D£TNL --~ DEVELOPED BAS/N-2 (0.08 AC) ---.... .... ~ \ SWAt£ 'Ill ' 'Y~ DIWH "" l~l \ V.\ I 7l1ASH & REC'YCIJNG EliCLosfD IN GROUND l£VE1. 'KING ARl-4 _/ PARCH #JJ44:,()(J006 DEVELOPED BAS/N-1 (1.28 AC) r,EE ------ ~ ----- -:'\ h.':,?,i:• 0 4".<'•' COl,:RU[ R/N 1/(A1J~Ui' ==----\\ ~~-r;:.. X (;J'S! ,!§i l '~"' '°' "" ret~,o •/r RtSJ.~ ~ c,p 51,whlJ <.s rws· G?'N IC2".t. ------------ ~ r ------------------------------SCALE: 1" = 40' \ \ \ 0 ~ .o DEVELOPED BASIN MAP 5.3 Water Quality The project is exempt for water quality because the total pollution generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) is 3,982 SF which is less than the threshold ofS,000 SF per section 1.2.8 of the KCSWDM. Refer to the following page for the Perk Filter calculation sheet. Insight Engineering Co. -Technical Information Report 12119114 -17 - 6.0 Conveyance Analysis and Design Onsite Conveyance A I 00-yr conveyance analysis was performed for the exiting downstream 15-inch pipe. The existing I 00-yr runoff flows that is currently conveyed through the exiting 15-inch pipe have been calculated and are presented within the TIR's for the Kennydale Cafe and the "The Bluffs" Phase 2. The 100-yr runoff flow from the Kennydale Cafe is 0.46 cfs, and the 100-yr runoff flow from "The Bluffs" Phase 2 is 5.21 cfs. The TIR's for each project has been included within the appendix of this report. Using the Seatac Rainfall region with a scale factor of 1.0 and 15-minute time-step, the I 00-yr runoff flow for the proposed project was determined to be 1.11 cfs. Therefore, the total flow through the 15-inch pipe will be 6. 78 cfs. The conveyance analysis was performed by FlowMaster by Haestad Methods, Inc. Per the analysis, the 15-inch pipe will be able to convey the 100-yr combined flows and will only have a depth of 5.6 inches within the 15-inch pipe. The 24-inch downstream pipe was also analyzed. With a slope of 3.83 percent, the depth of the water for the 100-yr storm event will only be 6.3 inches within the 24:inch pipe. Refer to the following pages for the detailed analysis. Insight Engineering Co. -Technical Information Report 12/19114 -18 - Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:convey.tsf Project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.291 6 8/27/01 18:00 0.227 8 1/05/02 15: 00 0.718 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.234 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.490 3 11/17 /04 5: 00 0.375 5 10/27/05 10:45 0.419 4 10/25/06 22:45 1.11 1 1/09/08 6: 30 computed Peaks convey.pks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks --Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 1.11 1 100.00 0.990 0.718 2 25.00 0.960 0.490 3 10.00 0.900 0.419 4 5.00 0.800 0.375 5 3.00 0.667 0.291 6 2.00 0.500 0.234 7 1.30 0.231 0.227 8 1.10 0.091 0.978 50.00 0.980 Page 1 Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For Input Data Legacy Renton-Pipe Capacity 24" Worksheet for Circular Channel r:~obs\_2013 jobs-593 -637\13-0623 legacy renton\documents\legacy r.fm2 pipe capacity Circular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Mannings Coefficient Channel Slope Diameter 0.013 3.8300% 24.00 in Discharge Results Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Full Flow Capacity Full Flow Slope Flow is supercritical. 12119/14 02:21:50 PM 6.78 cfs 6.3 in 0.66 ftZ 2.16 ft 1.76 ft 0.92 ft 26.45 0.004731 ft/ft 10.20 ft/s 1.62 ft 2.14 ft 2.93 47.62 cfs 44.27 cfs 0.000898 ft/ft Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of1 Project Description Project File Worksheet Flow Element Method Solve For Input Data Legacy Renton-Pipe Capacity 15" Worksheet for Circular Channel r:~obs\_2013 jobs -593 -637\13-0623 legacy rentonldocuments\legacy r.lm2 pipe capacity Circular Channel Manning's Formula Channel Depth Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope Diameter Discharge Results Depth Flow Area Wetted Perimeter Top Width Critical Depth Percent Full Critical Slope Velocity Velocity Head Specific Energy Froude Number Maximum Discharge Full Flow Capacity Full Flow Slope Flow is supercritical. 12/19114 02:22:21 PM 12.3000 % 15.00 in 6.78 els 5.6 in 0.42 ft' 1.65 ft 1.21 ft 1.05 ft 37.51 0.010631 ft/ft 16.13 ftls 4.04 ft 4.51 ft 4.82 24.37 els 22.65 cfs 0.011017ft/ft Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755·1666 FlowMasler v5.15 Page 1 of 1 7.0 Erosion/ Sedimentation Control Design Erosion and sedimentation control will be provided by utilization BMPs selected from the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. These BMPs will likely include, but are not necessarily limited to, sediment pond(s) and/or trap(s), silt fencing, construction safety fencing, interceptor v-ditches, rock check dams, plastic sheeting of stockpiles, straw mulch, hydro- seeding, catch basin protection, and rocked construction entrance, etc. Refer to the Temporary Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan attached in the construction documents detailing the means by which sediment and erosion control will be handled during construction. Refer to the following pages for SWPPP. Insight Engineering Co. -Technical Information Report 12/19/14 -19 - Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Owner Legacy Hospitality, Inc. 650 I America's Parkway NE - Suite 1050 Albuquerque, NM 87110 For LEGACY RENTON Prepared For City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Developer Legacy Hospitality, Inc. 6501 America's Parkway NE - Suite 1050 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Project Site Location 1300 Lake Washington Boulevard N. Renton, WA 98056 Operator/Contractor Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead Contractor to provide SWPPP Prepared By Insight Engineering Company (!ECO) PO Box 1478 Everett, WA, 98206 425-303-9363 SWPPP Preparation Date January 16, 2014 Approximate Project Construction Dates May 1, 2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Contents 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Site Description ........................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Proposed Construction Activities ...................................................................................... 3 3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs ............................................................................................... 5 3. I The 12 BMP Elements ...................................................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Element #I -Mark Clearing Limits ................................................................ 5 3 .1.2 Element #2 -Establish Construction Access .................................................. 5 3 .1.3 Element #3 -Control Flow Rates .................................................................... 6 3.1.4 Element #4-Install Sediment Controls .......................................................... 6 3.1.5 Element #5-Stabilize Soils ............................................................................ 8 3.1.6 Element #6-Protect Slopes ............................................................................ 9 3. I. 7 Element #7 -Protect Drain Inlets .................................................................... 9 3.1.8 Element #8-Stabilize Channels and Outlets ................................................ 10 3.1.9 Element #9-Control Pollutants .................................................................... 10 3. I. IO Element #IO -Control Dewatering ............................................................... 13 3.1.11 Element # 11 -Maintain BMPs ..................................................................... 13 3.1.12 Element #12-Manage the Project.. .............................................................. 13 3.2 Site Specific BMPs ......................................................................................................... 16 3.3 Additional Advanced BMPs ........................................................................................... 16 4.0 Construction Phasing and BMP Implementation ................................................................... 17 5.0 Pollution Prevention Team ...................................................................................................... 19 5. I Roles and Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 19 5.2 Team Members ................................................................................................................ 20 6.0 Site Inspections and Monitoring ............................................................................................. 21 6.1 Site Inspection ................................................................................................................. 21 6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency ............................................................................. 21 6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation ...................................................................... 22 6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring ...................................................................................... 22 6.2.1 Turbidity ........................................................................................................ 22 6.2.2 pH .................................................................................................................. 23 7.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping ................................................................................................ 24 7. I Recordkeeping ................................................................................................................. 24 7.1.1 Site Log Book ................................................................................................ 24 7 .1.2 Records Retention .......................................................................................... 24 7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records ......................................................................... 24 ii Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP ..................................................................................... 24 7.2 Reporting ......................................................................................................................... 25 7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports ...................................................................... 25 7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance ..................................................................... 25 7.2.3 Permit Application and Changes ................................................................... 26 Appendix A -Site Plans ...................................................................................................... 267 Appendix B -Construction BMPs ......................................................................................... 28 Appendix C -Alternative BMPs ............................................................................................ 29 Appendix D -General Permit ................................................................................................ 30 Appendix E-Site Inspection Forms (and Site Log) .............................................................. 31 Appendix F -Engineering Calcnlations ................................................................................ 33 iii Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 1.0 Introduction This Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared as part of the Construction stormwater permit requirements for the Legacy Renton in Renton, Washington. The site is located at 1300 Lake Washington Boulevard N. in King County, Washington. The site is currently developed with a small building with an asphalt drive aisle. The remainder of the site exists as a combination of grassy and forested areas. The site contains one drainage basin that drains to the west. Per Soils Survey of King County area, the majority of the project site contains AkF (Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep) soils. The project contains approximately l.31 acres. The proposal is to construct new hotel, parking garage and approximately 300-lf of asphalt road for access with associated utilities. The access for the site will be from Lake Washington Blvd. N. The purpose of this SWPPP is to describe the proposed construction activities and all temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures, pollution prevention measures, inspection/monitoring activities, and recordkeeping that will be implemented during the proposed construction project. The objectives of the SWPPP are to: I. Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and sedimentation, and to identify, reduce, eliminate or prevent stonnwater contamination and water pollution from construction activity. 2. Prevent violations of surface water quality, ground water quality, or sediment management standards. 3. Prevent, during the construction phase, adverse water quality impacts including impacts on beneficial uses of the receiving water by controlling peak flow rates and volumes of stormwater runoff at the Permittee's outfalls and downstream of the outfalls. This SWPPP was prepared using the Ecology SWPPP Template downloaded from the Ecology website on February 19, 2007. This SWPPP was prepared based on the requirements set forth in the Construction Stonnwater General Permit and in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW 2005). The report is divided into seven main sections with several appendices that include stormwater related reference materials. The topics presented in the each of the main sections are: • • Section I -INTRODUCTION. This section provides a summary description of the project, and the organization of the SWPPP document. Section 2 -SITE DESCRIPTION. This section provides a detailed description of the existing site conditions, proposed construction activities, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and calculated storn1water flow rates for existing conditions and post- construction conditions. • Section 3 -CONSTRUCTION BMPs. This section provides a detailed description of the BMPs to be implemented based on the 12 required elements of the SWPPP (SWMMEW 2004). • Section 4 CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND BMP IMPLEMENTATION. This section provides a description of the timing of the BMP implementation in relation to the project schedule. • Section 5 -POLLUTION PREVENTION TEAM. This section identifies the appropriate contact names (emergency and non-emergency), monitoring persom1el, and the onsite temporary erosion and sedimentation control inspector • Section 6 -INSPECTION AND MONITORING. This section provides a description of the inspection and monitoring requirements such as the parameters of concern to be monitored, sample locations, sample frequencies, and sampling methods for all stormwater discharge locations from the site. • Section 7 -RECORDKEEPING. This section describes the requirements for documentation of the BMP implementation, site inspections, monitoring results, and changes to the implementation of certain BMPs due to site factors experienced during construction. Supporting documentation and standard forms are provided in the following Appendices: Appendix A -Site plans Appendix B -Construction BMPs Appendix C -Alternative Construction BMP list Appendix D -General Permit Appendix E -Site Log and Inspection Fonns Appendix F -Engineering Calculations 2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 2.0 Site Description 2.1 Existing Conditions The proposed project "Legacy Renton" is located at 1300 Lake Washington Boulevard N. in King County, Washington. More generally, the project site is located in Section 6, Township 23 North, and Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian in King County, Washington. The project . contains approximately 1.31 acres. The proposal is to construct new hotel, parking garage and approximately 300-lf of asphalt road for access with associated utilities. The access for the site will be from Lake Washington Blvd. N. The site contains one drainage basin that drains to the west. Per Soils Survey of King County area, the majority of the project site contains AkF (Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep) soils. 2.2 Proposed Construction Activities The proposal is to construct new hotel, parking garage and approximately 300-lf of asphalt road for access with associated utilities. The access for the site will be from Lake Washington Blvd. N. The project will provide a 52'x 24 'x I 0.5' underground vault located underneath the drive aisle is proposed to meet the flow control requirements conforming to the 2009 KCSWDM and the city of Renton's requirements. A stormfilter manufactured by Contech Engineered solutions is proposed downstream of detention to provide adequate water quality. The outflow from the detention facility will be tight lined to the existing storm system on Lake Washington Blvd. N to continue its natural drainage path. The following summarizes details regarding site areas: • • • • • • Project development area: Percent impervious area before construction: Percent impervious area after construction: Disturbed area during construction: Disturbed area that is characterized as impervious (i.e., access roads, staging, parking): 2-year stormwater runoff peak flow prior to construction ( existing): 3 1.31 acres <5% 80% 1.31 acres 1.03 acres 0.04 cfs • • • • • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 10-year storm water runoff peak flow prior to construction ( existing): 2-year storm water runoff peak flow during construction: 10-year stormwater runoff peak flow during construction: 2-year stormwater runoff peak flow after construction: 10-year storrnwater runoff peak flow after construction: 0.07 cfs 0.28 cfs 0.34 cfs 0.04 cfs 0.07 cfs All storrnwater flow calculations are provided in Appendix F. 4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs 3.1 The 12 BMP Elements 3.1.1 Element #1 -Mark Clearing Limits To protect adjacent properties and to reduce the area of soil exposed to construction, the limits of construction will be clearly marked before land-disturbing activities begin. Trees that are to be preserved, as well as all sensitive areas and their buffers, shall be clearly delineated, both in the field and on the plans. In general, natural vegetation and native topsoil shall be retained in an undisturbed state to the maximum extent possible. The BMPs relevant to marking the clearing limits that will be applied for this project include: • High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP Cl03) Install orange barrier fencing along the clearing limits, according to the approved construction plans, prior to any construction activities. Maintain until all construction activities are completed. Alternate BMPs for marking clearing limits are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Storrnwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.2 Element #2 -Establish Construction Access Construction access or activities occurring on unpaved areas shall be minimized, yet where necessary, access points shall be stabilized to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public roads, and wheel washing, street sweeping, and street cleaning shall be employed to prevent sediment from entering state waters. All wash wastewater shall be controlled on site. The specific BMPs related to establishing construction access that will be used on this project include: • Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP CIOS) 5 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Install the temporary construction entrance, according to the approved construction plans, prior to any clearing or grading activities. Maintain until the access road is paved. Alternate construction access BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Pennit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stom1water permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.3 Element #3 -Control Flow Rates In order to protect the prope11ies and waterways downstream of the project site, stormwater discharges from the site will be controlled. Flow control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event ilie BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. In general, discharge rates of stormwater from the site will be controlled where increases in impervious area or soil compaction during construction could lead to downstream erosion, or where necessary to meet local agency stmmwater discharge requirements (e.g. discharge to combined sewer systems). 3.1.4 Element #4 -Install Sediment Controls All stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through Wet vault#! which will be used as a sediment pond during construction. The specific BMPs to be used for controlling sediment on this project also include: • Silt Fence (BMP C233) Install silt fencing, according to the approved plans, prior to any clearing or grading activities. Maintain until all construction activities are completed. • Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) 6 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Install catch basin filters, according to the approved construction plans, as catch basins are installed and become operable. Maintain until all construction activities arc completed. Alternate sediment control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. In addition, sediment will be removed from paved areas in and adjacent to construction work areas manually or using mechanical sweepers, as needed, to minimize tracking of sediments on vehicle tires away from the site and to minimize wash-off of sediments from adjacent streets in runoff. Whenever possible, sediment laden water shall be discharged into onsite, relatively level, vegetated areas (BMP C240 paragraph 5, page 4-102). In some cases, sediment discharge in concentrated runoff can be controlled using permanent stormwater BMPs (e.g., infiltration swales, ponds, trenches). Sediment loads can limit the effectiveness of some permanent stormwater BMPs, such as those used for infiltration or bio- filtration; however, those BMPs designed to remove solids by settling (wet ponds or detention ponds) can be used during the construction phase. When permanent stormwater BMPs will be used to control sediment discharge during construction, the structure will be protected from excessive sedimentation with adequate erosion and sediment control BMPs. Any accumulated sediment shall be removed after construction is complete and the permanent stormwater BMP will be re-stabilized with vegetation per applicable design requirements once the remainder of the site has been stabilized. The following BMP will be implemented as end-of-pipe sediment controls as required to meet permitted turbidity limits in the site discharge(s). Prior to the implementation of these technologies, sediment sources and erosion control and soil stabilization BMP efforts will be maximized to reduce the need for end-of-pipe sedimentation controls. • Temporary Sediment Pond (BMP C241) Construct the temporary sediment pond, according to the approved construction plans, prior to any grading activities. Maintain until site grading is completed and the detention vault is operable 7 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.1.5 Element #5 -Stabilize Soils Exposed and un-worked soils shall be stabilized with the application of effective BMPs to prevent erosion throughout the life of the project. The specific BMPs for soil stabilization that shall be used on this project include: • Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP Cl20) Apply temporary hydro-seed to exposed and un-worked soils, according to the approved construction plans, as needed to prevent erosion during site grading. Apply permanent hydro-seed to areas at final grade as site grading is completed. • Mulching (BMP Cl21) Apply mulching to exposed and un-worked soils, according to the approved construction plans, as needed to prevent erosion during site grading. Maintain until site grading is completed and permanent hydro-seed is applied. • Plastic Covering (BMP Cl23) Cover stockpiles with plastic sheeting, according to the approved construction plans, as needed to prevent erosion during site grading. Maintain until stockpiles are removed from site. • Early application of gravel base on areas to be paved Place gravel base on roadways, according to the approved construction plans, after roadways are graded to sub-grade. Maintain until roads are paved. Alternate soil stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater pennit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, no soils shall remain exposed and unworked for more than 7 days during the dry season (May I to September 30) and 2 days during the wet season (October I to April 30). Regardless of the time of year, all soils shall be stabilized at the end of the shift before a holiday or weekend if needed based on weather forecasts. 8 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan In general, cut and fill slopes will be stabilized as soon as possible and soil stockpiles will be temporarily covered with plastic sheeting. All stockpiled soils shall be stabilized from erosion, protected with sediment trapping measures, and where possible, be located away from storm drain inlets, waterways, and drainage channels. 3.1.6 Element #6 -Protect Slopes All cut and fill slopes will be designed, constructed, and protected in a manner than minimizes erosion. The following specific BMPs will be used to protect slopes for this project: • Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) Apply temporary hydro-seed to cut and fill slopes, according to the approved construction plans, as needed to minimize erosion during site grading. Apply permanent hydro-seed to cut and fill slopes at final grade as site grading is completed. Alternate slope protection BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.7 Element #7 -Protect Drain Inlets All storm drain inlets and culverts made operable during construction shall be protected to prevent unfiltered or untreated water from entering the drainage conveyance system. However, the first priority is to keep all access roads clean of sediment and keep street wash water separate from entering storm drains until treatment can be provided. Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) will be implemented for all drainage inlets and culverts that could potentially be impacted by sediment-laden runoff on and near the project site. The following inlet protection measures will be applied on this project: Drop Inlet Protection • Catch Basin Filters Install catch basin filters, according to the approved construction plans, as catch basins become operable. Maintain until all construction activities are completed. 9 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan If the BMP options listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set fmth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D), or if no BMPs are listed above but deemed necessary during construction, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall implement one or more of the alternative BMP inlet protection options listed in Appendix C. 3.1.8 Element #8 -Stabilize Channels and Outlets Where site runoff is to be conveyed in channels, or discharged to a stream or some other natural drainage point, efforts will be taken to prevent downstream erosion. The specific BMPs for channel and outlet stabilization that shall be used on this project include: • Outlet Protection (BMP C209) Place rip-rap pad at the temporary sediment pond outfall, according to the approved construction plans, before the pond becomes operable. Maintain until the pond is removed or made in-operable. Alternate channel and outlet stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, all temporary on-site conveyance channels shall be designed, constructed, and stabilized to prevent erosion from the expected peak 10 minute velocity of flow from a Type IA, IO-year, 24-hour recurrence interval storm for the developed condition. Alternatively, the IO-year, I-hour peak flow rate indicated by an approved continuous runoff simulation model, increased by a factor of 1.6, shall be used. Stabilization, including armoring material, adequate to prevent erosion of outlets, adjacent stream banks, slopes, and downstream reaches shall be provided at the outlets of all conveyance systems. 3.1.9 Element #9 -Control Pollutants All pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, that occur onsite shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater. Good housekeeping and preventative measures will be taken to ensure that the site will be kept clean, well organized, and free of debris. If required, BMPs to be implemented to control specific sources of pollutants are discussed below. 10 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Vehicles, construction equipment, and/or petroleum product storage/dispensing: • All vehicles, equipment, and petroleum product storage/dispensing areas will be inspected regularly to detect any leaks or spills, and to identify maintenance needs to prevent leaks or spills. • On-site fueling tanks and petroleum product storage containers shall include secondary containment. • • • Spill prevention measures, such as drip pans, will be used when conducting maintenance and repair of vehicles or equipment. In order to perform emergency repairs on site, temporary plastic will be placed beneath and, if raining, over the vehicle. Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any discharge or spill incident. Chemical storage: • • Any chemicals stored in the construction areas will conform to the appropriate source control BMPs listed in Volume IV of the Ecology stormwater manual. In Western WA, all chemicals shall have cover, containment, and protection provided on site, per BMP Cl53 for Material Delivery, Storage and Containment in SWMMWW 2005 Application of agricultural chemicals, including fertilizers and pesticides, shall be conducted in a manner and at application rates that will not result in loss of chemical to storm water runoff. Manufacturers' recommendations for application procedures and rates shall be followed. Excavation and tunneling spoils dewatering waste: • Demolition: • • Dewatering BMPs and BMPs specific to the excavation and tunneling (including handling of contaminated soils) are discussed under Element 10. Dust released from demolished sidewalks, buildings, or structures will be controlled using Dust Control measures (BMP Cl 40). Storm drain inlets vulnerable to stormwater discharge carrying dust, soil, or debris will be protected using Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220 as described above for Element 7). 11 • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Process water and slurry resulting from saw-cutting and surfacing operations will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by implementing Saw-cutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention measures (BMP Cl52). Concrete and grout: • Process water and slurry resulting from concrete work will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by implementing Concrete Handling measures (BMP C151). Sanitary wastewater: • • Solid Waste: • Other: • Portable sanitation facilities will be firmly secured, regularly maintained, and emptied when necessary. Wheel wash or tire bath wastewater shall be discharged to a separate on- site treatment system or to the sanitary sewer as part of Wheel Wash implementation (BMP C106). Solid waste will be stored in secure, clearly marked containers . Other BMPs will be administered as necessary to address any additional pollutant sources on site. The facility is transportation-related and therefore not subject to the Federal requirements of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan under the Clean Water Act (CW A). If applicable, the Contractor shall prepare an SPCC Plan according to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Requirements (see the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction 2004). A SPCC plan is required for this site. As per the Federal regulations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and according to Final Rule 40 CFR Part 112, as stated in the National Register, a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan is required for construction activities. A SPCC Plan has been prepared to address an approach to prevent, respond to, and report spills or releases to the environment that could result from construction activities. This Plan must: • Be well thought out in accordance with good engineering; 12 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Achieve three objectives -prevent spills, contain a spill that occurs, and clean up the spill; • Identify the name, location, owner, and type of facility; • Include the date of initial operation and oil spill history; • Name the designated person responsible; • Show evidence of approval and certification by the person in authority; and • Contain a facility analysis. 3.1.10 Element #10 -Control Dewatering No dewatering is anticipated for this project. If dewatering occurs, Baker tanks are proposed for dewatering. Alternate dewatering control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.11 Element #11-Maintain BMPs All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with each particular BMP's specifications. Visual monitoring of the BMPs will be conducted at least once every calendar week and within 24 hours of any rainfall event that causes a discharge from the site. If the site becomes inactive, and is temporarily stabilized, the inspection frequency will be reduced to once every month. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after the final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil resulting from removal of BMPs or vegetation shall be permanently stabilized. 13 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.1.12 Element #12 -Manage the Project Erosion and sediment control BMPs for this project have been designed based on the following principles: • Design the project to fit the existing topography, soils, and drainage patterns. • • • • • • Emphasize erosion control rather than sediment control. Minimize the extent and duration of the area exposed . Keep runoff velocities low . Retain sediment on site . Thoroughly monitor site and maintain all ESC measures . Schedule major earthwork during the dry season . As this project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest, the project will be managed according to the following key project components: Phasing of Construction • The construction project is being phased to the extent practicable in order to prevent soil erosion, and, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the site during construction. • Re-vegetation of exposed areas and maintenance of that vegetation shall be an integral part of the clearing activities during each phase of construction, per the Scheduling BMP (C 162). Seasonal Work Limitations • From October I through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities shall only be permitted if shown to the satisfaction of the local permitting authority that silt-laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site through a combination of the following: o Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to receiving waters; and o Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and 14 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan o Proposed erosion and sediment control measures. • Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the local permitting authority may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on site disturbance. • The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading limitations: o Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs; o Routine maintenance of public facilities or ex1stmg utility structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil; and o Activities where there is 100 percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. Coordination with Utilities and Other Jurisdictions • Care has been taken to coordinate with utilities, other construction projects, and the local jurisdiction in preparing this SWPPP and scheduling the construction work. Inspection and Monitoring • All BMPs shall be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Site inspections shall be conducted by a person who is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. This person has the necessary skills to: o Assess the site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of storm water, and o Assess the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. • A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall be on-site or on-call at all times. • Whenever inspection and/or monitoring reveals that the BMPs identified in this SWPPP are inadequate, due to the actual discharge of or potential 15 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to discharge a significant amount of any pollutant, appropriate BMPs or design changes shall be implemented as soon as possible. Maintaining an Updated Construction SWPPP • This SWPPP shall be retained on-site or within reasonable access to the site. • The SWPPP shall be modified whenever there is a change in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or could have, a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. • The SWPPP shall be modified if, during inspections or investigations conducted by the owner/operator, or the applicable local or state regulatory authority, it is determined that the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site. The SWPPP shall be modified as necessary to include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems identified. Revisions to the SWPPP shall be completed within seven (7) days following the inspection. 3.2 Site Specific BMPs Site specific BMPs are shown on the TESC Plan Sheets and Details in Appendix A. These site specific plan sheets will be updated annually. 3.3 Additional Advanced BMPs 16 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 4.0 Construction Phasing and BMP Implementation The BMP implementation schedule will be driven by the construction schedule. The following provides a sequential list of the proposed construction schedule milestones and the corresponding BMP implementation schedule. The list contains key milestones such as wet season construction. The BMP implementation schedule listed below is keyed to proposed phases of the construction project, and reflects differences in BMP installations and inspections that relate to wet season construction. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, the dry season is considered to be from May I to September 30 and the wet season is considered to be from October I to April 30. • Estimate of Construction start date: • Estimate of Construction finish date: Site inspections and monitoring conducted weekly and for applicable rain events as detailed in Section 6 of this SWPPP. Implement Element #12 BMPs and manage site to minimize soil disturbance during the wet season. • Dry Season begins: • Mobilize equipment on site • Mobilize and store all ESC and soil stabilization products • Install ESC measures: • Install stabilized construction entrance: • Begin clearing and grubbing: • Site grading begins: • Grade road and stabilize with gravel base • Begin excavation for new utilities and services • Soil stabilization on excavated side slopes (in idle, no work areas) • Dry Season begins: • Temporary erosion control measures (hydro-seeding) • Site grading ends: • Wet Season Begins: • Begin pouring concrete curbs & sidewalks and implement BMP Cl 51: • Pave asphalt roads 17 May 1, 2013 December 30, 2013 May 1, 2013 May I, 2013 May I, 2013 May I, 2013 May 1, 2013 June 15,2013 June 25,2013 June 25,2013 July 10,2013 July 25, 2013 May 1, 2013 May 1,2013 July 10, 2013 Oct 1, 2013 July 25, 2013 August 5, 2013 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Wet Season started: • Implement Element #12 BMPs and manage site to minimize soil disturbance during the wet season: • Final landscaping and planting begins: • Pe1manent erosion control measures (hydro-seeding): 18 Oct 1, 2013 Oct 1, 2013 November 10,2013 November 25, 2013 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 5.0 Pollution Prevention Team 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities The pollution prevention team consists of personnel responsible for implementation of the SWPPP, including the following: • Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) -primary contractor contact, responsible for site inspections (BMPs, visual monitoring, sampling, etc.); to be called upon in case of failure of any ESC measures. • Resident Engineer -For projects with engineered structures only (sediment ponds/traps, sand filters, etc.): site representative for the owner that is the project's supervising engineer responsible for inspections and issuing instructions and drawings to the contractor's site supervisor or representative. • Emergency Ecology Contact -individual to be contacted at Ecology in case of emergency. • Emergency Owner Contact -individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner to be contacted in the case of an emergency. • Non-Emergency Ecology Contact -individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner than can be contacted ifrequired. • Monitoring Personnel -personnel responsible for conducting water quality monitoring; for most sites this person is also the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead. 19 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 5.2 Team Members Names and contact information for those identified as members of the pollution prevention team are provided in the following table. Title Namc(s) Phone Number Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) TBD xxx-xxx-xxxx Resident Engineer Brian Kalab / Insight Engineering 425-303-9363 Emergency Ecology Contact Tracy Walters 425-649-7000 Emergency Owner Contact Faze! Kassam 505-243-6000 Non-Emergency Ecology Contact Tracy Walters 425-649-7000 Monitoring Personnel TBD xxx-x:n-xu:x 20 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6.0 Site Inspections and Monitoring Monitoring includes visual inspection, monitoring for water quality parameters of concern, and documentation of the inspection and monitoring findings in a site log book. A site Jog book will be maintained for all on-site construction activities and will include: • A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements; • • Site inspections; and, Stormwater quality monitoring . For convenience, the inspection form and water quality monitoring forms included in this SWPPP include the required information for the site log book. This SWPPP may function as the site Jog book if desired, or the forms may be separated and included in a separate site log book. However, if separated, the site Jog book but must be maintained on-site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 6.1 Site Inspection All BMPs will be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. The inspector will be a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) per BMP Cl60. The name and contact information for the CESCL is provided in Section 5 of this SWPPP. Site inspection will occur in all areas disturbed by construction activities and at all stormwater discharge points. Stormwater will be examined for the presence of suspended sediment, turbidity, discoloration, and oily sheen. The site inspector will evaluate and document the effectiveness of the installed BMPs and determine if it is necessary to repair or replace any of the BMPs to improve the quality of stormwater discharges. All maintenance and repairs will be documented in the site log book or forms provided in this document. All new BMPs or design changes will be documented in the SWPPP as soon as possible. 6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency Site inspections will be conducted at least once a week and within 24 hours following any rainfall event which causes a discharge of stormwater from the site. For sites with temporary stabilization measures, the site inspection frequency can be reduced to once every month. 21 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation The site inspector will record each site inspection using the site log inspection forms provided in Appendix E. The site inspection log forms may be separated from this SWPPP document, but will be maintained on-site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring 6.2.1 Turbidity Sampling Monitoring requirements for the proposed project will include either turbidity or water transparency sampling to monitor site discharges for water quality compliance with the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D). Sampling will be conducted at all discharge points at least once per calendar week. Turbidity or transparency monitoring will follow the analytical methodologies described in Section S4 of the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D). The key benchmark values that require action are 25 NTU for turbidity (equivalent to 32 cm transparency) and 250 NTU for turbidity ( equivalent to 6 cm transparency). If the 25 NTU benchmark for turbidity (equivalent to 32 cm transparency) is exceeded, the following steps will be conducted: I. Ensure all BMPs specified in this SWPPP are installed and functioning as intended. 2. Assess whether additional BMPs should be implemented, and document revisions to the SWPPP as necessary. 3. Sample discharge location daily until the analysis results are less than 25 NTU (turbidity) or greater than 32 cm (transparency). If the turbidity is greater than 25 NTU (or transparency is less than 32 cm) but less than 250 NTU (transparency greater than 6 cm) for more than 3 days, additional treatment BMPs will be implemented within 24 hours of the third consecutive sample that exceeded the benchmark value. Additional treatment BMPs to be considered will include, but are not limited to, off-site treatment, infiltration, filtration and chemical treatment. If the 250 NTU benchmark for turbidity (or less than 6 cm transparency) is exceeded at any time, the following steps will be conducted: I. Notify Ecology by phone within 24 hours of analysis (see Section 5.0 of this SWPPP for contact information). 22 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 2. Continue daily sampling until the turbidity 1s less than 25 NTU ( or transparency is greater than 32 cm). 3. Initiate additional treatment BMPs such as off-site treatment, infiltration, filtration and chemical treatment within 24 hours of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 4. Implement additional treatment BMPs as soon as possible, but within 7 days of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 5. Describe inspection results and remedial actions taken in the site Jog book and in monthly discharge monitoring reports as described in Section 7 .0 of this SWPPP. 6.2.2 pH Sampling Storm water runoff will be monitored for pH starting on the first day of any activity that includes more than 40 yards of poured or recycled concrete, or after the application of"Engineered Soils" such as, Portland cement treated base, cement kiln dust, or fly ash. This does not include fertilizers. For concrete work, pH monitoring will start the first day concrete is poured and continue until 3 weeks after the last pour. For engineered soils, the pH monitoring period begins when engineered soils are first exposed to precipitation and continue until the area is fully stabilized. Stormwater samples will be collected daily from all points of discharge from the site and measured for pH using a calibrated pH meter, pH test kit, or wide range pH indicator paper. If the measured pH is 8.5 or greater, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Prevent the high pH water from entering storm drains or surface water. 2. Adjust or neutralize the high pH water if necessary using appropriate technology such as CO2 sparging (liquid or dry ice). 3. Contact Ecology if chemical treatment other than CO2 sparging is planned. 23 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 7 .0 Reporting and Recordkeeping 7.1 Recordkeeping 7.1.1 Site Log Book A site log book will be maintained for all on-site construction activities and will include: • A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements; • Site inspections; and, • Stormwater quality monitoring. For convenience, the inspection form and water quality monitoring forms included in this SWPPP include the required information for the site log book. 7.1.2 Records Retention Records of all monitoring information (site log book, inspection reports/checklists, etc.), this Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and any other documentation of compliance with permit requirements will be retained during the life of the construction project and for a minimum of three years following the termination of permit coverage in accordance with permit condition SS.C. 7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records The SWPPP, General Permit, Notice of Authorization letter, and Site Log Book will be retained on site or within reasonable access to the site and will be made immediately available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. A copy of this SWPPP will be provided to Ecology within 14 days of receipt of a written request for the SWPPP from Ecology. Any other information requested by Ecology will be submitted within a reasonable time. A copy of the SWPPP or access to the SWPPP will be provided to the public when requested in writing in accordance with permit condition SS.G. 7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP In accordance with Conditions S3, S4.B, and S9.B.3 of the General Permit, this SWPPP will be modified if the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing 24 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site or there has been a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the site that has a significant effect on the discharge, or potential for discharge, of pollutants to the waters of the State. The SWPPP will be modified within seven days of determination based on inspection(s) that additional or modified BMPs are necessary to correct problems identified, and an updated timeline for BMP implementation will be prepared. 7.2 Reporting 7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports Water quality sampling results will be submitted to Ecology monthly on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) forms in accordance with permit condition S5.B. If there was no discharge during a given monitoring period, the form will be submitted with the words "no discharge" entered in place of the monitoring results. If a benchmark was exceeded, a brief summary of inspection results and remedial actions taken will be included. If sampling could not be performed during a monitoring period, a DMR will be submitted with an explanation of why sampling could not be performed. 7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance If any of the tem1s and conditions of the pennit are not met, and it causes a threat to human health or the environment, the following steps will be taken in accordance with permit section S5.F: 1. Ecology will be immediately notified of the failure to comply. 2. Immediate action will be taken to control the noncompliance issue and to correct the problem. If applicable, sampling and analysis of any noncompliance will be repeated immediately and the results submitted to Ecology within five (5) days of becoming aware of the violation. 3. A detailed written report describing the noncompliance will be submitted to Ecology within five (5) days, unless requested earlier by Ecology. In accordance with permit condition S4.F.6.b, the Ecology regional office will be notified if chemical treatment other than CO 2 sparging is planned for adjustment of high pH water (see Section 5.0 of this SWPPP for contact information). 25 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 7.2.3 Permit Application and Changes In accordance with permit condition S2.A, a complete application form will be submitted to Ecology and the appropriate local jurisdiction (if applicable) to be covered by the General Permit. Appendix A -Site Plans Appendix B -Construction BMPs Element #1 -Mark Clearing Limits High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP Cl03) Element #2 -Establish Construction Access Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C 105) Element #3 -Control Flow Rates Detention Vault Element #4 -Install Sediment Controls Silt Fence (BMP C233) Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) Interceptor Dike and Swale (BMP C200) Element #5 -Stabilize Soils Mulching (BMP Cl21) Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP Cl20) Element #6 -Protect Slopes Plastic Covering (BMP Cl23) Element #8 -Stabilize Channels and Outlets Outlet Protection (BMP C209) 26 Element #10 -Control Dewatering Additional Advanced BMPs to Control Dewatering: Element #11 -Maintain BMP's Scheduling (BMP Cl62) Element #12 -Manage the Project CESC Lead (BMP Cl60) 27 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix C -Alternative BMPs The following includes a list of possible alternative BMPs for each of the 12 elements not described in the main SWPPP text. This list can be referenced in the event a BMP for a specific element is not functioning as designed and an alternative BMP needs to be implemented. Element #1 -Mark Clearing Limits Preserving Natural Vegetation (CIOI) Element #2 -Establish Construction Access Wheel Wash (CI06) Construction Road/Parking area stabilization (BMP C107) Element #3 -Control Flow Rates Temporary Sediment Pond (BMP C241) Sediment Trap (BMP C240) Element #4 -Install Sediment Controls Triangular Silt Dike (BMP C208) Element #5 -Stabilize Soils Surface roughening (BMP C 130) Element #6 -Protect Slopes Nets and Blankets (BMP Cl 22) Element #8 -Stabilize Channels and Outlets Channel Lining (BMP C202) Element #10 -Control Dewatering Element #11 -Maintain BMP's Element #12 -Manage the Project 28 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix D -General Permit 29 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix E -Site Inspection Forms (and Site Log) The results of each inspection shall be summarized in an inspection report or checklist that is entered into or attached to the site log book. It is suggested that the inspection report or checklist be included in this appendix to keep monitoring and inspection information in one document, but this is optional. However, it is mandatory that this SWPPP and the site inspection forms be kept onsite at all times during construction, and that inspections be performed and documented as outlined below. At a minimum, each inspection report or checklist shall include: a. Inspection date/times b. Weather information: general conditions during inspection, approximate amount of precipitation since the last inspection, and approximate amount of precipitation within the last 24 hours. c. A summary or list of all BMPs that have been implemented, including observations of all erosion/sediment control structures or practices. d. The following shall be noted: i. locations of BMPs inspected, 11. locations of BMPs that need maintenance, iii. the reason maintenance is needed, 1v. locations of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or intended, and v. locations where additional or different BMPs are needed, and the reason(s) why e. A description of storm water discharged from the site. The presence of suspended sediment, turbid water, discoloration, and/or oil sheen shall be noted, as applicable. f. A description of any water quality monitoring performed during inspection, and the results of that monitoring. g. General comments and notes, including a brief description of any BMP repairs, maintenance or installations made as a result of the inspection. 30 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan h. A statement that, in the judgment of the person conducting the site inspection, the site is either in compliance or out of compliance with the terms and conditions of the SWPPP and the NPDES permit. If the site inspection indicates that the site is out of compliance, the inspection report shall include a summary of the remedial actions required to bring the site back into compliance, as well as a schedule of implementation. 1. Name, title, and signature of person conducting the site inspection; and the following statement: "I certify under penalty of law that this report is true, accurate, and complete, to the best of my knowledge and belief'. When the site inspection indicates that the site is not in compliance with any terms and conditions of the NPDES permit, the Permittee shall take immediate action(s) to: stop, contain, and clean up the unauthorized discharges, or otherwise stop the noncompliance; correct the problem(s); implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), and/or conduct maintenance of existing BMPs; and achieve compliance with all applicable standards and permit conditions. In addition, if the noncompliance causes a threat to human health or the environment, the Permittee shall comply with the Noncompliance Notification requirements in Special Condition S5.F of the permit. 31 Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix F -Engineering Calculations See Stormwater Site Plan dated December 6, 2013 32 • 8.0 Appendix A. Kennydale Cafe TIR B. "The Bluffs" Phase l and 2 TIR C. Sensitive Areas Map Insight Engineering Co. · Stormwater Site Plan 12/19114 -19 - I ' I f I ~"1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Kennydale · Cafe 1322 Lake Washington Boulevard. SURFACE WATER TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT March 16, 2006 Prepared by: LPD Engineering, PLLC 7936 Seward ParkAvenue South, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98118 Contact Steve Hatzenbeler, P.E. (206) 725-1211 Prepared for: Poo1 Brothers Construction PO Box 3023 Renton, WA 98056 Contact: Matt Pool CITYOFAfNTON (253J 405-3475 R EC EI VE' D MAR 2 9 2007 BUILDINGDIVISION -:d340/ I I I ' • -I I • • I I I I I I I I I I Kennydale Cafe 1322 Lake Wasliington Boulevard Surface Water Technical Information Report Table of Contents SECTION I: PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................ 1 SECTION II: PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY ........................................ 2 SECTION Ill: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 3 SECTION IV: RETENTION/DETENTION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ..................... 4 SECTION V: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ........................ 5 SECTION VI: SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES ................. , ........................ , ...• 5 SECTION VII: BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS ....................................... 6 SECTION VIII: OTHER PERMITS ........................................................................... 6 SECTION IX: EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN ......................... 6 SECTION X: BOND QUANTITIES WORKSHEET, RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT ................. 7 SECTION XI: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS MANUAL .............................. 7 FIGURES Figure I TIR Worksheet Figure 2 Vicinity Map Figure 3 (a, b) Soils Map and Legend Figure 4a Off Site Anal)'sis Drainage System Table Figure 4b Off Site Downstream Drainage Map · APPENDICES Appendix A -Preliminary Design Documents Appendix B -Design .Calculations Appendix C -Supporting Information /'I; CITYOfflENTO/\ ,, Ece,v1=r MAR 2 9 2007 BUflDINGD1v1sror t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY SURFACEWATERTECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Kennydale Cafe -1322 Lake Washington Boulevard Section I: Project Overview This Technical Information Report is for the Kennydale Cafe project located at 1322 Lake Washington Blvd N in Renton, Washington. The TIR addresses the seven core and twelve special requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). A Level I downstream analysis is also included. Note that this report updates the preliminary TIR submitted in January 2006. The proposed development is the constmction of a 3-story mixed use building with associated parking and public open space. Given the topography of the existing site, a number of stmctural retaining walls will be included in the proposed design. To minimize the impact on the steeper portion of the site io the eas~ proposed improvements are located as far to the west of the property as is feasible. The building has been sited fronting the street as encouraged by land use to facilitate pedestrian access· ~d enhance the aesthetic of the street. Existing site The existing site slopes up from a low point along Lake Washington Blvd westerly towards the Interstate 405 right of way. The slopes vary from 15% up to 40% and greater (Please note that a protected slope exemption has been·granted for this project). The site is in an Aquifer Protection Zone 2. The existing site is currently undeveloped; a building that was previously located on the site has been demolished, and the foundation remains. The site is vegetated with some mature·12 to 18-inch trees and an under story of blackberry and other invasive vegetation. The site soils are brown, silty sand overlying dense silt and fine sand. The site soils investigation determined that the upper 3 to 8 feet of soil is relatively loose while the deeper soils are dense and characterized as highly moisture sensitive. According to the King County Soil Survey maps the site soils are Alderwood and Kitsap soils (AkF) (See Figure 3a & 3b-Soils Map). Based on the surveyed topography and site observations; the existing site appears to drain via surface runoff from ~ast to west across Lake Washington Blvd, with runoff from some of the area being directed to a catch basin on ·private property northwest of the site, on the same side of the street. The roadway is super-elevated fronting the site and there is no ditch or drainage collection system along the east side of the road, so runoff leaving the site sheet flows across. Proposed site The proposed development will constmct approximately'l2,000 square feet (sf) of impervious area subject to vehicular use. Parking lot runoff will be collected in catch basins and routed through a water quality treatment wetvault. Discharge from the water quality facility will join the tightlined drainage from the building downspouts and be routed to an existing storm drain manhole located in the unimproved Morgan Ave. (SE I 10th St) right of way just north of the property (refer to permit documents in Appendix A). Storrn\'l'aterlrnprovernents Per the City of Renton, the project is subject to the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual with City of Renton Amendments. The project is located within an Aquifer Protection Zone 2. Based on these requirements, the project will provide basic water quality treatment for runoff from impervious KING COUNTY TIR LPD Engineering, PLLC Page I Kennydale Cafe March 16, 2007 areas subject to vehicular use. Toe project will create a negligible increase in the peak nmoffrate so detention is not required. Refer to Section II and Section IV below for additional infonnation. Section II: Preliminary Conditions Summary This section addresses the requirements set forth by the 1990 KCSWDM, Core and Special Requiremeniia listed in Chapter 1. I. Discharge at the Natural Location (1.2.1): All flows from this project site will remain in the natural drainage patterns within a quarter mile downstream of the project. See the off site investigation included in Section Ill of this report. 2. Off-Site Analysis (1.2.2): An off site analysis was performed for this project and is included in Section III of this report. 3. Runoff Control (1.2.3): The project is within the Lake Washington E drainage sub basin and is not subject to special nmoff volume controls. The estimate of the peak nm off rate from the proposed project site I 00- year, 24-hour duration design storm event is calculated to be less than a 0.5 cfs increase above the peak runoff rate for the existing site JOO-year, 24-hour duration storm event;'therefore, the project is exempt from on-site runoff.control based on the Negligible Peak Runoff Rate Increase exemption defined in Core Requirement #3. The estimated peak runoff rates for the 100-year, 24-hour duration storm events are as follows: Existing 100-year peak= 0.38 cfs Post-Developed I 00-year peak = 0.46 cfs Net change in 100-yearpeakrate = 0.08 cfs. The proposed project will result in surface water nmoff from more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of impervious surface subject io vehicular use. Per COR code 4-6-030 E.3.b, this impervious nmoff shall be treated prior to discharge with biofiltration measures. A biofiltration swale design was evalnated, but we are requesting that the City of Renton consider a water quality wetvault as an equivalent method of treatruent. See Section IV of this report for additional infonnation and justification. 4. Conveyance System (1.2.4): The project includes a tight line conveyance system in the proposed parking lots that. will collect onsite drainage from the proposed impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use and route it through the stormwater treatruent facilities. A separate storm drainage conveyance system will be installed to bypass flows from non-vehicular areas arourid the water quality facility. Per City of Renton Code 4-6-030 E.3.g, any open channel may require a liner to prevent groundwater contamination; however, no open channels are proposed as part of this project. Refer to Section V of this report. 5. Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan (1.2.5): A full TESC plan is included with this submittal and is designed in accordance with the 1990' KCSWDM requirements. This plan will be considered the minimum for anticipated site conditions. The Contractor will be responsible for implementing all TESC measures and upgrading them as ·necessary. The TESC facilities will be installed prior to any clearing, grubbing or construction. 6. Maintenance and Operation (1.2.6): A copy of the KCSWDM recommended maintenance guidelines for catch basins and conveyance systems is included in Appendix B. 7. Bonds and Liability (l.2.7): This Core requirement is specifically required for projects constructed and pennitted in King County and is not applicable for the City of Renton. City of Renton requires bonding for all improvements in the pnblic right of way. The Owner will post a bond equal to 100% of the estimated KING COUNTY TIR LPD Engineering, PLLC Page 2 Kennydale Cafe March 16, 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I value of improvements in the public right of way, prior to construction. An engineer's estimate of probable cost will be included with the permit application. Special Requirements 1. Critical Drainage Areas -Project is not within a designated critical drainage area. 2. Compliance. with an Existing Master Drainage Plan -Project is not within an area covered by an approved Master Drainage Plan. 3. Conditions Requiring a Master Drainage Plan -Project is not a Master Planned Development or a subdivision or Planned Unit Development that will have more than 100 lots. It is not a commercial development or Planned Unit Development that will construct more than 50 acres of impervious surface. And the project will not clear more than 500 acres within a contiguous drainage sub-basin. Therefore 1 a Master Drainage P1an is not required. 4. Adopted Basin or Community Plans -Project is not within an area with an adopted plan. · 5. Special Water Quality Controls -The project proposes discharge to a conveyance system that eventually outfalls to Johns Creek in Gene Coulon Beach Pllrk and discharges to Lake Washington. See Section ill for the Off-Site Analysis. Water quality treatment for impervious areas subject to vehicular use will be required as indicated by City of Renton codified amendments to the KCSWDM as noted above. 6. Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separators -The project will not construct more than 5 acres of impervious surface. 7. Closed Depressions -The proposed project will not discharge runoff to an existing closed depression. 8. Use of Lakes, Wetlands, or Closed Depressions for Peak Rate Rtmoff Control -The project will not use a lake, wetland, or closed depression for peak rate runoff control. 9. Delineation of 100 Year Floodplain -The proposed project site does not contain or abut a stream, lake, wetland or closed depression. · 10. Flood Protection Facilities for Type 1 and 2 Streams-The proposed project does not contain or abut a Class 1 or 2 stream that has a flood protection facility. 11. Geotechnical Analysis and Report -A geotechnical analysis should not be required for the construction of the stormwater facilities, however a geotechnical study has been performed and consideration has been given to the geotechnical recommendations regarding site, wall, · and foundation drainage. A copy of the geotechnical study is attached in Appendix C. 12. Soils Analysis And Report -The soils analysis is included in the geotechnical report noted above. Section Ill: Off-Site Analysis The following is the preliminary Level I downstream analysis. This downstream analysis is based upon the following: • LPD Engineering, PLLC site investigation January 17, 2006 -The site was visited on .a partly sunny day which followed a period of nearly 30 consecutive days of record amounts of rainfall. • Meeting with Ameta Henninger, City of Renton Engineering Specialist, 10/26/05 and 11/23/04. • Review of City of Renton as-bnilt records including Pinnacle at the Biuffi; Grading and Drainage, as built drawings (1/30/02). • Re.view of project topographic survey by Sadler/Barnard. KING COUNTY TIR LPD Engineering. PLLC Page 3 Kennydale Cafe March 16, 2007 Existing condition The subject property is currently undeveloped. There is an existing abandoned building foundation on the site. The site is vegetated with what appears to be second growth with an under story of blackberry and other invasive vegetation. The site is bounded to the east by Interstate Highway405 right of way, to the north by unimproved SE I 10th St (Morgan St) right of way, on the west by Lake Washington Blvd right of way, and on the south by a privately owned parcel that is currently being used for vehlcle storage and an espresso stand. The existing site slopes up from a low point a.long Lake Washlogton Blvd easterly towards .the I-405 right of way. The slopes vary from 15% up to 40% and greater (note that a protected slope exemption has been granted for this project). The site is in au area designated by the City of Renton as Aquifer Protection Zone 2. Developed condition The proposed discharge point for ruooff from the site is au existing storm drainage manhole located in the unimproved Morgan St right of way immediately north of the proposed development, and just east of the Lake Washlngton Blvd right of way. · The path of drainage from the site is described as follows (see Figure 4a -Off Site Analysis Drainage System Table, and Figure 4b -Off-Site Drainage Map): • From the existing storm drain manhole the flow is conveyed west across the Lake Washington Blvd right of way in au 18-inch diameter PVC pipe, a distance of approximately 70 LF. • The 18-inch pipe outfalls west of the Lake Washington Blvd right of way to an open channel that conveys the flow south, parallel to the road and the railroad tracks. The channel is armored with 4 to 6-inch quarry spalls, and is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide and 18 inches deep, with 3(H): l(V) side slopes. The chanoel is approximately 120 feet long. • The channel flows into a 24-inch CMP culvert whlch conveys the water to the west under the railroad tracks, through a catchbasin, into another 24-inch CMP pipe, and to an outfall at Johns Creek in Gene Coulon Beach Park. • Johns Creek is a stream reach that flows through Gene Coulon Beach Park and discharges into Lake Washlngton. Existing and Predicted Problems The downstream conveyance system within Y. mile of the proposed development property is in good condition with no indications of drainage problems observed and none predicted. Section IV: Retention/Detention Analysis and Design Preliminary drainage drawings are in~luded in Appendix A. Detention As noted in the core requirements section of this report,· the project qualifies for the Negligible Peak Rwioff Rate Increase· exemption aod detention is not required for the project. See the attached preliminary drainage calculations in Appendix B. Water Quality Treatment As noted in the core requirements section of thls report, water quality treatment is required to treat the rwioff from the impervious areas subject to vehlcular use. LPD Engineering wrote a letter to the City of Renton (10/27/05) requesting a drainage requirement adjustment to allow an alternative method of treatment. A copy of the letter is attached in Appendix C and a SIUDID!ry of the key issues is included below. In coordination with City planners, the O\VIler and Archltect have arrived at a preliminary design that sites the building near Lake Washington Blvd. The building location was chosen to minimize the impact to the steep KING COUNTY TIR LPD Engineering, PLLC Page 4 Kennydale Cafe March 16, 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I slopes on the eastern portion of the site, to facilitate pedestrian access and enhance the aesthetic of the street. The Architect is proposing a landscaped plaza area with outdoor seating and multiple access points to the sidewalk along Lake Washington Blvd. The most feasible location for a biofiltration swale is in the space proposed for the plaza area. Siting the swale here would create restrictions and possibly safety issues for pedestrians in an area that is meant to encourage pedestrian activity. A preliminary biofiltration swale design was performed to verify that if required, a swale could be constructed in front of the building. We have requested that an adjustment to the drainage code be granted to allow an underground water quality treatment facility in lieu of a biofiltration swale on this site. Options include a wet vault or the Stormwater Management, Inc.'s-Stonnfilter treatment system. Our understanding is that the City of Renton does not allow Stormfilter systems, but they will allow use of a wetvault for water quality treatment of runoff from impervious surfaces subject to vehicular traffic. The design includes a wetvault for basic water quality treatment. The proposed wetvault-is 5 feet wide and 26 feet long, divided into 3 cells. The design includes a flow-splitter upstream of the wetvault to bypass flows greater than the water quality design storm. Wetvault sizing calculations are included in Appendix B. Section V: Conveyance System Analysis and Design On site, the drainage system is primarily comprised of 6-inch pipes at slopes steeper than 2%, which convey limited portions of the runoff from the various small sub-basins within the site. The excep!ion is the 8-inch storm drain line along the west edge of the site, which conveys all flows from the project The slope of the 8- inch line from the flow-splitter to the storm drain manhole off the northwest comer of the site is 0.6%, thus it is the limiting factor on the capacity of the on-site system. The maxinrum capacity of the 8-inch lioe at 0.6% is 1.21 cfs. Estimates of peak runoff rate from the site showed that the peak runoff rate for the I 00-~, 2±-hour stom1_event is 0.46 cfs, so the 8-inch storm drain line appears to provide excess capacity. As noted above in the off site aoalysis above, the dowostrearn drainage system begins in an 18-inch pipe ·heading to the west from the existing storm drain manhole near the northwest comer of the site. For the purpose of analyzing the capacity of the dowostrearn system we looked at the theoretical maximum capacity of the 18- inch storm drain line, which appears to be the mosi limited component of the dowostrearn system We do not have the information necessary to be able to analyze all flows into the existing storm drain manhole because of the contnbutions from so many different areas, so an analysis of peak runoff rates tributary to the 18-inch pipe has not been done. As.an alternative, we have analyzed the contnbution of the proposed Kennydale Cafe site development relative to the theoretical maximum capacity of the 18-inch storm drain line. Using a conservative slope estimate of 2.0%, we calculated a iheoretical maximum capacity of approximately 16.0 cubic feet per second (CFS) in the 18-inch storm drain line. In the storm drainage analysis done for the development's TIR, we determined that the peak runoff rate for the JOO-year, 24-hour storm on the proposed site is approxirnately 0.46 CFS, which is approximately 2.9% of the pipe's maximum capacity. The peak runoff rate for the 100-year, 24-hour storm on the existing site isapproximately 0.38 CFS, which is approximately 2.4% of the thecretical maximum capacity of the pipe. Therefore, the developed conditions result in an increase in peak runoff rate that is approximately 0.5% of the pipe's maximum capacity. Since there are no knowo capacity issues that we have been made aware of in the downstream·system, we assume that the nominal increase in peak runoff rate from our site will not present any concerns for the City of Renton. Section VI: Special Reports and Studies With the exception of the Geotechnlcal Engineering Report, no special reports or studies are required for this project. KING COUNTY TIR LPD Engineering, PLLC Page 5 Kennydale Cafe March 16, 2007 Section VII: Basin and Community Plan Areas The proposed development does not lie within an adopted Basin or Community Plan area. Section VIII: Other Permits No additional pennits will be required for this project. Section IX: Erosion!Sedimentation Control Design Project plans include a Prelirrinary Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (fESC) design (See Prelirrinary Design Docoments Appendix A), which includes the following TESC measures to be utilized: • Construction Access Pads • Perimeter Siltation Control Measures • Temporary Interceptor Swales • Temporary Sediment Pond-Sediment Pond sizing calculations are included in Appendix B. The implementation of the TESC plan and construction msintenance, replace meat and upgrading of the TESC facilities shall be 1he responsibility of the contractor per 1he contract documents. The TESC facilities will be constructed prior to and in conjunction with all clearing and grading activity and is a manner which sediment or sediment laden water does not leav.e 1he project site, enter the drainage system or violate applicable water standards. The TESC measures shown on 1he plan are considered the minimum requirements for anticipated conditions. During construction the contractor shall be responsible for upgrading these facilities as necessary. As per Section 2.3.1 of 1he KCSWDM, the 11 minimum requirements of Core Requirement #5 must be addressed. The following list explains how each minimum requirement is addressed: Clearing Limits: Clearing Limits are identified on the TESC plan. I. Cover Measures: Notes on the TESC plans have been included to address all relevant items .. 2. Perimeter Protection: Perimeter sedimentation control is shown on the TESC plans where necessary. 3. Traffic Area Stabilization: A stabilized construction access is shown on the TESC plans. 4. Sediment Retention: A temporary sediment pond is shown on the drawings. 5. Surface Water Control Temporary interceptor swales for directing stormwater runoff to the sediment pond are shown on the plans. 6. Dust Control: The TESC notes include requirements for dust control. 7. Wet Season Construction: Wet season special provisions are addressed in the TESC notes. 8. Construction within Sensitive Areas and Buffers: The project is not within a sensitive area or buffer. 9. Maintenance: TESC maintenance is addressed in the TESC notes. 10. Final Stabilization: Stabilization of the site, removal ofTESC facilities,. and cleaning of the drainage system are addressed in the Construction Sequence on the TESC plans. KING COUNTY TIR LPD Engineering, PLLC Page 6 Kennydale Cafe March 16, 2007 • r I I Section X: Bond Quantities Worksheet, Retention/Detention Facility Summary Sheet, and Declaration of Covenant The City of Renton has its own bonding requirements that do not require the Bond Quantity Worksheet. The Retention/Detention Facility Slll1lllla1)' Sheet and the Declaration of Covenant do not apply for this site because there is no retention/detention system proposed. Section XI: Maintenance and Operations Manual A copy of the KCSWDM recommended maintenance guidelines for catch basins and conveyance systems is included in Appendix B. KING COUNTY TIR LPD Engineering, PLLC Page 7 Kennydale Cafe March 16, 2007 l-I-· I-:-I-f-,'.all '.all '.all ...... '.------- · OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE . Surface Water Design Manual, Core Requirement #2 Basin: Subbasin Number: p,~~ /.t;/I YI I !;1::?o CJ.~/}~ t c!,e,/"'f'1 ~ JS#,/' (_ 1-"'-t,.,, b~-r~ ,;.h 'orl-J... = Z,, _.::1 .. litf I! Z.C;;D ?,jJe, ;z4" {,Mf t::500 ct, C.,1/}C-f kh11 '~ ~/',U, C-t-;ooo ¥ •. I ' ' a. /.te__ L1Table.doc 11'2/92 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F Q. .. ~ .o I C 0 , I m· LPD ENGINEERING, PLLC 7936 SEWARD P.ARK AVENUE S. S[AITl.E, WASHINGTON 98118 PH: 205.725.12\1 FAX: 206.725.1211 Kennydale Cafe Description Figure Off-Site Analysis 'th I • I I • I I I I I I I I • I I I I I SECTION4 Detention and Water Quality Analysis and Design Preliminary drainage drawings are included in Appendix A . Detention As noted in the core requirements section of this report, the project is subject to the negligible increase in peak rate runoff exemption and detention is not required for the project. See the attached preliminary drainage calculations. - Water Quality Treatment As noted in the core requirements section of this report, water quality treatment is required to treat the runoff from the impervious areas subject to vehicular use. LPD Engineering wrote a letter to the City of Renton ( I 0127106) requesting a drainage requirement adjustment to allow an alternative method of treatment. A copy of the letter is attached and a summary of the key issues is included below. In coordination with City planners the Owner and Architect have anived at a preliminary design that sites the buildiog near Lake Washington Blvd. The building location was chosen to minimize the impact to the steep slopes on the eastern portion of the site and to facilitate pedestrian access and enhance the aesthetic of the street. The Architect is proposing a landscaped plaza area with outdoor seating multiple access points to the sidewalk along Lake Washington Blvd. The most feasible location for a biofiltration swale is in the space proposed for the plaza area. Siting the swale here would create restrictions and possibly safety issues for pedestrians in area that intends to encourage pedestrian activity. A preliminary biofiltration swale design was performed to verify that if required, a swale could be constructed in front of the building. We request an adjustment of the drainage be granted to allow an underground water quality treatment facility in lieu of a biofiltration swale on this site. Options include a wet vault or the Stormwater Management, Inc. 's Stormfilter treatment system. Our preferred method is the Stonnfilter treatment system based on its performance and long term maintenance advantages. Washiogton State Department of Ecology has approved use of the proposed Stormfilter Treatment System as a basic stormwater treatment practice for total suspended solids (TSS) removal and King County has approved the System for basic water quality treatment. The proposed Stormfilter will be maintained by the Owner under a long term maintenance agreement with the manufacturer. A water quality vault would also be maintained by the Owner as required by the City. I I I I I I Special Requirements 1. Critical Drainage Areas -Project is not within a designated critical drainage area. 2. Compliance With An Existing Master Drainage Plan -Project is not within an area covered by an approved Master Drainage Plan. 3. Conditions Requiring A Master Drainage Plan -Project is not a Master Planned Development, a Planned Unit Development, a subdivision with at will have more than 100 lots, a commercial development that will construct more than 50 acres of impervious surface, or will not clear more than 500 acres within a drainage sub-basin so a Master Drainage Plan is not required. 4. Adopted Basin Or Community Plan -Project is not within an area with an adopted plan. 5. Special Water Quality Controls -The project proposes discharge to a conveyance system that eventually outfalls to a stream that runs througb Gene Coulon Beach Park and discharges to Lake Washington. See Section 3 Off Site Analysis. Water qnality treatment for impervious area subject to vehicular use will be required as indicated by City of Renton codified amendments to the KCSWDM as noted above. 6. Coalescing Plat Oil/Water Separators -The project will not construct more than 5 acres of impervious surface. 7. Closed Depressions -Proposed project will not discharge runoff to an existing closed depression. 8. Use of Lakes, Wetlands or Closed Depressions for Peak Rate Runoff Control -The project will not use a lake, wetland or closed depression for.peak rate runoff control. 9. Delineation of JOO Year Floodplain -The Proposed project site does not contain or abut a stream, lake, wetland or closed depression. 10. Flood Protection facilities for Type 1 and 2 Streams -The proposed project does not contain or abut a Class I or 2 that has a flood protection facility. 11. Geotechnical Analysis and Report -A geotechnical analysis should not be required for the construction of the stormwater facilities, however a geotechnical study will be performed for the site aod the Engineer will include information regarding drainage recommendations. A copy of the geotechnical study will be included in the final TIR. 12. Soils Analysis And Report-The soils analysis will be included in the geotechnical report noted above and the information will be included in the final TIR. Dodds Consulting Engineers TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Prepared by: Approved by: Date: Project No: FOR LEGACY PARTNERS "THE BLUFFS" PHASE 1 &2 RENTON, WASH Bruce J. Dodds Bruce J. Dodds, P.E., L.S. July, 1999 97169 .li''l. OF "'~1",i:\ D Ra::1,;Elv 1:. JUL 2 21999 BUILDING DIVISION 42Dl-148th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98007 lei. 421.861.4928 fax. 421.881.7963 III. OFFSITE & LEVEL ONE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS, PHASE 1 The existing conditions at the Bluffs are the same today as they were when the EIS was prepared in 1989. The design for both Phases, and particularly for Phase I for this TIR, is predicated on the fact there is adequate downstream capacity so that no detention is required or provided per KCSWM Manual 1.2.3 core requirement #3, exemptions. To accomplish this reference will be made in part to the EIS drainage calculations, a full copy of which is included in the Appendix. The following two pages contain reproductions of two exhibits from the EIS drainage calculations which show the original topography/drainage basins for the subject site and for Marina Landing (Exhibit III-A, "Pre-development Basins") and the downstream conveyance system (Exhibit III-B, "Downstream Culverts"). As the EIS drainage study states, the topography shown on Exhibits III-A and Bis from 1960 era City of Renton maps, and therefore does not represent current conditions but does show the drainage basins for each of the culverts prior to the diversions made by Marina Landing's development. Exhibit III-A is included mainly to show the original drainage basins/patterns and III-B is included to show downstream culvert number designations. Exhibit III-C shows the basins as they will exist after construction of Phase 2 of The Bluffs. The only significant difference between these basin maps is that on map III-B sub-basin F and Gare shown to drain through culvert #6 to #11 and then to Lake Washington where this is not the case on III-C. Flows from culvert #2 will now be redirected back through culvert #5 as they existed prior to construction of Marina Landing. The remainder of basin F plus a portion of basin G will continue to flow to culvert #6, the upper portion of basin G draining to the hole west ofI-405, the hole never having drained to culvert #6 in any event but still considered to do so in the EIS drainage report. The remainder of the downstream analysis is contained on the following pages: r-' ),, "' ·'"· ~ ),, "' ::c z 0:, -I 0 z. -m' :x ·-('/) \ ..,., . :z, ,G), ,O· : :a' : )> ,- !~ ! G) 1ltl I . tIJ I ),, I : CJ); ·- - z 0 "' ... ::c ~ , . .. 0 <!. ' i. W ~ 1 1 lm EJAt\&\'t Uri; ~t.lS'filSPl-\~tTS rZP'l \\\\\\\\\\~\\\\\~~~\\\I 1\ \~. t '\~ I 3l):t.) 'S \TE 'P~ \\\\Ill\\\\ TOFOt: M~ EK.+\1&,T m.-c:. 'rHA"'.)E ~ 'DW>t\N~GE ~S\N 1'l 1C C.UWE'1f u. , . l Planning• Engineering• Surveying JOB NO~-\ l 6'?) 4105~14BthAvenue. NE Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98007 DATE \ -'2, \ ,(:=,5 _ Tel. 425-885-7871 Fax. 415-885-7963 '2.__ ""' ·• E Mail.Office@DElonline.com BY '...;), L..10 D'f,}S . . ~. ' ~-. . . "V . 1\0'; Y'·· ... Planning'• Engineering~ Surveying 4205-/48th Avenue NE Suite 200 Bellevue, Washingtan 98007 Tel. 425-885-7877 Fax. 425-885-7963 E Mail. Office@DEtonJine.com JOB NO. C/ 1 l ~i°) DATE \, 1 \ ,C)C, syb,DawS, ."L:t-+1':l::Li:-!.-::tJ:-l::L-i::L\: ./" /. ¥'3 ~ ~ Zt!J LJ/dh! .&B,,~& ~,r ,:?,,e" ..I-,;',!?:, . C~tf)35 £,,?.:59/ .,,-~6£1 A'!IJ!"o ,:,.? :wa d~-s ~A"Y ~/6.. d, ,:?,W ,¢, #.£:&P /) !' v /.tJt) .#~ ,f)/ ~.,Jl;Y /~,4-vr· · · l··f··l-·-l-·+··•·-i--!··-,··!··-~·-(· 1 .} -1--!· -\-\-.r. C,,.t:?.~t? . ~, ~7?& Hill!IliflI!ll11in.J ~ -~ ,f),& -~~ ~f~j~ : ' ,_' ' : :: ! i ' ' ' ' ' . . . ' ' -~ ~ ,fl/ ,4?.,v,?J !Ifilr;1r1!Tl 11 I 4-,;,.t#/,l&E. c:;:~~ :::;/$/'-/~ H· ··:,L.:,i __ ·;,·: . . . . . . , . _ . .. .. .. . _,_ .· ... · .... , ... ·_ ................................... ..., .......... . i,_ .. _,_: ... _·H,··.:.--·._; .. ,_;_. ···.--.--.--.-·;·,··:·":'":'"':'':'": ... i •• :··:"": : : : : ; : : : ; l : -l T di" ll --. ·j -r-t·1' =-·-:--: .. -: ... ~ .. ! ·r-r-rr-r .u::rr;:::r::rrri: tL/:t:!::tJt.i:tj::/tttttttt :~::: .. \ r~~H~f.1~1~rrrw11~11n i:111 · 1 :1 M11 ! i ; i :11 11n11wn:111ri it 1 1 ;.;., (;J;r.tJUl:.t!efcr,·r \f 4, , · m , , T '" I ~1/·s·, & t.:!·r{t'3 ij(p:) (ti l?t'""'!TJi6Jt'.:ffS§0 lf;;t:i"tA!f: 1 II • I I I I I I I I I I ' . ' ' -,· "!--t.. ,~- ' I I L.,. I .:. - ' I , L_;_,i... t-1-- --' L .L. ... L CMART I ' : R If-:~ ff ' l-f--l--1...J'...J I '-1-o...--1- . ' ..... ii _l(TI i-T • • I f t-+++t '...!'~~I.I: _.....,_ • I f.r-~ +. . ' . I< . I . .,..... ... -1 .... +r-1. .< L L .. ,. f-t---~~ [ ' ' :::; -0:~. ;tti µ I LI. L -L 1--rt+-t t· -+-J ,-~ ·-' ·trr..r L i;.t L' ' !-.,_l+-· l : l 4-' j t-i:__: tt-,1-f--!'--l'-•-' ' . , ;tli'' ,. , ' , ' •. , .. ri-4.ijF''w.c . ,_._ . . , .. -,,+ --~r L, '._1u ;-rL L· .. lg t-4 i · .....,_ -. ,= '-·H--~' ,-i~H-,~ -: ~,":~ i-... ' 1 ~+Llt1~·j ~ L' :-::: '' ~; :11-~:~;,~, i:i:l;~~' I: J_lfj'--~: l...UL -/ ~~ ~trff Lr::J±~ ~ ~ ~:;: --_ r---+-· . i -,-• : • I -~ +-.L :=-~.,_ 1 ·:ii :_-1-.--: __ ..... : ~ f,! I --· ·: .,--t:L·+·-1-+l...;a' L.,.L I _;,L----.L'r .. '-··-. , ·;--,.t:1·· -Ll--H-i -Lr . i --i-. . ·1 " -... ...:._ ' ' -~+--~ ,·H· L • ~ -; •• , rT W-+ ... -·--.. ·- -/ , < , • • O 1-L• I . -._ _. J-. , . ._ j_ + ,•---F- .. : '/ j''. i . LLL L • • ._;. ,:.:.;; ·1, 1·· •"lii"T-t--·r: -:. 1-•. 1-l--''L ' ' ,-;-·-. - '-T·1 j< ,r,r·,··• 1 ' ._,. 1 l IL. .. , · ' _ , , , ' '. : ' '. t: lft'L H t --_ 1,_. [J_ L ; :.: _ ~-L _; ~ ' +.-=it" r· H-H --. ... f L-1-+1...c LI LL -±.·· L --, .... +...o' -'-, ....I. -=-~ '. ' ' ; 'T: ,+•· .,-'~ ;;_:L•· I -L".JH il" ;-L ' :--· I-~ • ......::· ~ .,-;------,.-·----l.H-+~-t. , r:·· L. J • t--1--.. __ ·.·.-~-1 • ' ' ·-g_ . . .. . . . ,· ,-,...j-1 ' • ··--i )·I . :... ' ' = -,-'+·-'-+ H++·~t-l-1-1-L ' ' , · .-+,., c c.~ .-~ ' ~~ ~-±t~ ~ ~~tt ·. -r-..;+ nt -: 1 L..... ·fl' i.. · -,i --t-i....;.--..i..L-:.1± --r~L+-~.J-1-1. .... _1 I .L. H .· +1-L1., I I---,. ,, • :--' l ..... .....)._;_.L I-• ~. --1---+' 1-L-·-ir' I ~ --' . -1:· . ~~ ' .. ' ·,...: -tL-1-:J' . -1 ... .l ... L,..J....;tl . ~ I -H ~ ,-., ·_ f±'-. I • • • 1· ~ --__..._ 1---: ; , , .. , .. r-1-t-J--+' I _,.. ;--I-!-... j. ~ .1-,.L . ,_ ' -H--i--~... I ,, , ..... , ·T •. ----~ :--+trf ·-:-...j · L,_ .• • ' • • . :; · ·, ' · , , • ' • , ,:--1 I --;-. -j .I < , , • -i ! ' • ; • ·r.-• ... L!.l LJ. j h.L· ~~ _ f"' , -t--,....,-'-11• : , --- ! < • I . 'I TL. #1 --, •• --~ .Lj.../. -, ... , , Ea . . . . r:...i r--... ' ' 10 Q !:? ' " ' . : q. +.: ,-! ' t-r-'· LL ..... , H+ I l (J.'.' -, .. ' • . .... .. . ' .... --- 1 ~T:_ 1-;.. -J.i :i"! f ' ' ... :. j + i< J • I I . .; J./.';J ..... ·rf: . '. ; .. , . . . ~ • 1 ·1+1-... 1 :t:L~-.,. r . r, ..... L .... f ·H-~r .. %· ,_ .... ~ .. -. . -1----. , ,..--+ t-r "-~FW ' .. r.·f-1-L ... 1 J 1--:=.t· ... 7f<j" f ~ ....... -t h '. . . . -= ---;---"-' ·- l I -~-• -~ ~ ~ .. t ...1-.J,.1 0 , 4 • • • I • -• ~-1--T _, . , , L , ~ • • -· ... , • • • -• , • , • • 1 · · .. ..!.... --' ":,Bf.·· , ... I ~ ! .-' .. ' ~ ,.L i~.;: .. ; . ··tr-· L1-"].. .. . . : ..... ~:.:---' I , I' ....:: • • , .... • I ; f '. H-·1·~-, , • • • ' • l -.. l .• -'. -+ -----~··----~-, .. L! .. --· ,. ~c -r-_, .. ····· ---'--· .. • . -"·-i_: 4 • • I • t . I • 0 ... ~ II) ... -· --t ::...;t.. ··:.-.~::.:. ... .. Planning• Engineering• Surveying 4205-l48thAvenue NE Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Tel, 425-885-7877 Fax. 425-885-7963 £ Mail. Office@DElonline.com -i ; .. ) ... ).)_i_.; .. i. .j .. } .. ( ~--·-.(((+ ; );·.·.·.\.· .. ·.·1,·_1.· __ ... ! .. ; ; ;: : I : _ LLL-·:····:r·· .1.: 1/21/99 ·F DOWNSTREAM Dodds Engineers~ Incorpqrated THE BLUFFS AT LAKE WASHINGTON, PHASE 1 CAPACITY ANALYSIS page JOB NO. C-)1 \<ti:J DATE \ •l.\ •°}'J BY \::-,,'};bn).{ 1 -:--; ... --------------~~-~----------------------------------========---=-c--- 1··-l-··1---~-+ .i... BASIN SUMMARY ··•··>-+++·: l:: (! ::(j .. :/ ::. ::f ::{:::f :t:l~ ::j ~··i···!···~··l···t·· ··t·+··t···f··I···: ~-++ .. H·+· BASIN ID: lOOPl NAME: PHASE 1 lOOYR. BVENT, FULL BSN ++++·l···l t .. { ·j--···\··}·· SCS METHODOLOGY ++·f· .. [·+·J .. ·:· TOTAL AREA .....•. : 12.20 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfa ·rr .. ;··1·T-! t·:·· RAINFALL TYPE •••• : USE~l PERVIOUS AREA +++++·I H· PRECIPITATION ..•• : 3.90 inches AREA .. : 5.00 Acres <··>·:--:··>·! (··{ TIME INTERVAL ...• : 10. 00 min CN .... : Bl. 00 f""i'-j""t' .. i·--(·i f':; TIME OF CONC .•.•. : 10. 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA [ 1 : i i : i r:-r ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0. 20 AREA .. : 7. 20 Acres .--/)+-f-+·1 i... • CN .... , 94. 00 ..... , ,··j ·"[ ]""[ .. PEAK RATE: 10.59 cfs VOL: 2.69 Ac-ft TIME: 470 min ··j·j .. ·j-+'J""-[ iLi••:••LEi.i1•i•i:·r·.:· 1•l-:::~::.!::iilfll::r1rr:1t.:.,., ::.: ::,:.ru:i•fl!iHi!l•iXii_l .. i:H++U·il··!H-!-1 •·; ~, .. ,11\t(f;·,-j:',Obqc'll1Jttil~'-'l7QJC1l'~ '='e"K· · ~)<. '1' j!-'l-/c)lfl1 g:;--,wJklJ¥;tiVA~V , ... H ., .. , .. , , !·tt. ! .·: .. '1.. :"·t--i··(T·r/rJ···t··t·T·-1··!---rr·i\-·:·. L: .'(f·t.!..1.~ .. =.··f·t··i··: ·-r-·rJ .. ·1··r1··'f"ft"t't-r =-··!·T·i""ri"°T .. f··r·rr-:-"r\-1·+-1·+-1---; SHEET OF i ' !·+ rr. i--; .. ' I: (_::Lt t:; .. t : ; -·-· _: _____ .: 1:r:_·: .. !:•t:•J::t:.t::1::t.:I/i·· · ' .. ' . '·· ' ·' :,....c...+...;..;..;...;.< t!:IJ:U+U.! i:t ,l\.ltt,-1?Jn:-·: :·c · t • I ', ,.,.'Y"., !·t I ! : I l : I I i-<' -'---'-'--'--'~~,...,,..,.~ j. .. ; . ! • f I:~JL!1! 1f 1·•.: ~d:11~. • Planning• Engineering• Surveying 4205-14BthAvenue NE Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 9800 7 Tel. 425../185-7877 Fax. 425-885-7963 E Moil. Office@DEJonline.com .::1 .j .•. j ;_ :+ii:! it-\ •i••1••1••i••:•••i•i .. l•·l•--1···~••1 ·-~ •V••I ..: .. : ... : .. : .. : .. _: __ = __ : __ : __ : __ : __ :__:~:::::} .. JOBNO. ___ _ DATE ____ _ BY _____ _ !Jilt /L ;T, l+!lj_j_ :.J.Li_J -~ ·i +-~--,--~ •. f, •_:_l,._:_·l,:_:~, ••• ~ +-~----!-+f ·! .. _._ .. f .. i __ . __ . __ . __ : ..... C'IJC:1:"T' BNAMI: BNUMB~J!; 'ROM CB .All IHDSJ Dl4" TO CB lifiiDSt -MHDS3 PIPE FLOW! LENGTH I {g'_Sl tnln"I 10.60 .!Q,_60 10.00 "' ~~ '" <HDS3 MJIDS4. 10.00 " <HDS< MHD5' 10.00 45 1/21/99 THEBWFfS AT LAKE WASH, PHASE 1 97169 PIPE DIA. ""' l4 18_ " " [B MANNING'S I OUTLET I INLET I PIPE • ELEVATION ELEVATION AR.EA VALUE tFEEn (FEETl IIU\TT' _!!,_Ql4 !6.40 2t.40 3.~ 0.024 21.40 24.00 1,17 0.012 2ll,S0 l.9.10 3.14 0.024 29.10 29.30 3.14 0.012 ll.80 33.40 L.77 FLOW VELOCJn' tvr/SEO l.37 ,.oo 3.13 3.18 '·" ~ .:~ PREPARED BY: DESIGNfil'.QJil!',I: FNTRANCEI ENTRANCE I EXIT VELOCITYITAD..WATER FRICTION] B.GL HEAD HEAD HEAD £1.EVATION LOSS ELEVATION LOSS LOSS ll!Trn 11:'S'.E (¥£!:Tl <FEETI IFEET QJ!..l __ ra~4Cfl 1.14 j 23.40 I o.09 I o.ts 0.56 I 23~~-' -1:ffJ 2S.50 I 0.28 j O.S6 O.Hi 23.50 0.21 31.JO 0.08 0.16 0.16 31.06 0.54 31.CSO 0.03 0.16 a.so 31.79 0.34 34.90 0.25 0.50 DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. &DCIDDS 100 YEAll Omu:T I INLET CONTllOL CONTROL ELEVATION ELEVATION lFEET\ n:T.ETI 23.67 26.34 31.34 31.79 35.6S ' ' 23.40 26AQ 31.10 31.30 34.90 A!'PROACB VELOCJn' BEAD """"' 0.'6 o.'i6 o.so 000 0.00 BEND BEAD I~~ 0.2S E 0.22 0.00 0.70 JUNCTION BEAD LOSS n;TF.'I'\ o.00 O_.QO I 0.00 0.00 0.21 HEADWATElt ELEVATION fl:.'Y.l;',T\ 23.lS 26.47 ll.06 31.?9 36.S:5 PAGE I RIME[ 25.70 21.20 36.90 33.70 40.JS j Planning· Engineering• Surveying 4205-/48thAvenue NE Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Tel. 425-885-7877 Fax. 425-885-7963 E Mail.Oflke@DElonline.com JOB NO. 9t \<cf\ DATE \ ,-Z. \ ,Oj °) ~,vavs:s BY III. OFFSITE & LEVEL ONE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS, PHASE 2 The drainage conditions at Phase 2 of the Bluffs are almost the same today as they were when the EIS was prepared in 1989. The design for both Phases 1 and 2 is predicated on the fact there is adequate downstream capacity so that no detention is required or provided per KCSWM Manual 1.2.3 core requirement #3, "exemptions." To show this is the case, reference will be made in part to the EIS drainage calculations, a full copy of which is included in the Appendix. The following foldout page shows the drainage basins contributing flows to Phase 2. This map is a composite of the project site's existing topography, a worksheet site plan overlaid on the topography (the southern portion of which also shows proposed grading for the entry road), asbuilt drainage plans from the WSDOT for I-405 (most current) and the topography on the east side ofI-405 taken from the drainage basin map used in the EIS. This map, together with the map on the page following, show that WSDOT has made alterations to the I-405 drainage system from that described in the EIS, in particular with reference to drainage basin 8 as defined in the EIS. Notice on the EIS map this basin is shown draining to the southern portion of the Phase 2 project site. With the changes made by WSDOT, this drainage now is directed south along the off-ramp so basin 8 no longer contributes flow to the site. This may have been altered by the state because the flows from the original system backed up and formed a pond east of the railroad embankment, and thereafter overflowed and washed out the embankment (see grading plan topography). We have confirmed there is no longer drainage from I-405 entering this swale where the washout occurred. The other change which will occur as a result ofthis project's construction is the I-405 flows now entering the "Hole" shared by the project and WSDOT (see callouts 21 and 14 on the WSDOT plans for discharge pipe lying east of and between the third and second most northerly phase 2 buildings). Where flows from this basin (EIS basin 3) now are captured by the hole and percolate into the soil, this project will route those flows through its conveyance system directly to Lake Washington. On the following pages is a set of calculations which show the downstream system is capable of accepting flows up to and above the 100 year event for the ultimate development of the basin upstream of the conveyance system analyzed. Note the final configuration of this site will represent the maxinium development (i.e. increase in flow) which could reasonably be expected to burden the downstream system. ·' + n-9-->-0 • Planning• Engineering· Surveying 4205-148thAvenu, NE Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Tel. 425-885-7877 Fox. 425-885-7963 E Mail. Office@DElonfine.com .f--i· JOB NO. C)l I ht:, DATE '01]2 ,'-}o7 BYND ·l·+ ~~n'i.·-i d >+··>·,fe:R\WQ' $' ,{!;.~A,,······· ''' '4,'·'B!·· >··<· ,. ' ,.,.,. >· •· 1 tj$~· , .. , .. ,. ·•·· <·IH,+A2!l .. f!pil'1"i~ ,., A .. ,., .. [ .. : .. H L.i. f __ J H· r-·1 .. i ... [ .. ) ... [ .. f .. j ... ~--i--~--1..-) -( ··i .; .. ;. ; ; ; : -: ::'.:.; : .; .. ~-·: l :! ' :1 ., ., ··! ., I ·t:t»1r,i;.,S t\-\~S~ L • Planning• Engineering• Surveying 4205;/48thAvenue NE Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 9800 7 Tel. 425-885-7877 Fax. 425-885-7963 E ~aif.Offic',e@DEfonfine.com JOB NO. ''Tl I tf'l DATE ~ ii '°l· •'lq BY '&:l,I) !JJJ: IJI~JJJj]!JJJ~i~~y~~!~~:;!i~:~s w~~~~~~~~~~t~~sE 'JI JI i H H H I J i·j-!·j··: AND WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS [:!::!:.! i-·~ .. -f .. J .. j -------------------------------------------------------------·--r .. 1···1 ::, '1 .. ·:: i; !; BASIN SUMMARY ]::Fi .. .!.J . .i t ~ l-} j ··'t'+·i ,--;---;°·:·; BASIN ID: lOOP;l NAME: lOOyr evnt to 12IN LK W CLVT -;-;--i lTITi ~g~A~Ei~~~~~~~ .. : 17. 69 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0. 00 cfs :jiJ 1::;.j,., RAINFALL TYPE .... : USERl PERVIOUS AREA TT! fj j(j PRECIPITATION .... : 3. 90 inches AREA .. : 12. 07 Acres :j::!::! I,: ... ·_:. :. :,: TTIIMMEE OINFTECRONVACL .... : 34 .1oo0 . ~1n min IM~:RVIO~S A!~i 00 :rn ' · ' ABSTRACTION COE FF~ 0. 2 0 ., AREA .. : 5. 62 Acres H i iiiii PEAK RATE: u...12 cfs VOL1 3.97 Ac-~~- 0 TI~E: 98 ·~~0 min T!I t··i .. ·(·(j .: .. : ...•.. :J..: .. : .. : .. i •• : •• .:.J .: ... .:. ... :,.,.=, ... ! ... :_ .. : ..... · . ..r ... : ___ : : : l : : t : : : ;. I : I : ; 1 : : : l t : r I ; I ··rT .. l ···-··-·-··· ·:··:··1··:· :· r : ·:··:··! ·1··,··!--(·(-·(·;··(·:-·(--!--i ..... , .... ----•··--·•-·-• I i ill i~i]Ei~~~~;~ · · : 1 7 ~=E ~c:::R. TO:::E:::w: :TE :~:: cfs. u .. L,l,; !. !. !,: i, i!'ft! RAINFALL TYPE .... : USERl PERVIOUS AREA iLlTl ~~~~Ii~~~~~~~::::: 3.i~.~~c~~~ ~~~::~ !~:~6 Acres /;i1+i : .. / i-/: i~~~~~Tig:c COEFF; 34 · oo min IMPERVIOUS AREA ,, , , , , (JHt"r:,~~~',,;,,',' ofa '·:L, , ",::·,~';~, ,:::::::· nr .. 1· ..•.• _;,!.•.•.i.: l··-1-··l···}··l ''' '' BASIN ID: 10P2 NAME: lOYR TOTAL DEV SITE FLOW . ''' r:rrr:r c ~::r) SCS METHODOLOGY .; hrH TOTAL AREA ....... : 17. 69 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0. 00 cfs u: ! ll r.u :i~i!~~A~i~~: : : : ; 3 . ~~E~!ches PE:i~~~: AREt2 . 0 7 Acres . H I i Li+H TIME INTERVAL .... : 10.00 min CN .... : 85.00 i'T: ii:'./ TIME OF CONC ..... : 34. 00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA :.;) .. j H-ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA .. : 5.62 Acres ; ... ; .. ; ... ; : : : ... : .. : ... j U: .. J ... f.-i. CN .... : 98. 00 i .• .; .. i---l t __ ::_:_: PEAK RATE: 7.33 cfs VOL: 2.77 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min i_i_;_} H··•·•··<·U$,E';:, .. ;'i?/h~~, , ~~f,. i!Jl fEf 1.J:?,:, ., ,+\/.,).11l+I ,t;:l.i:D~,,J.>;;N.D, .• ,,, ., +· , .. ,., ,. , , ~i11~t1Imtt1~~t=•r=1Jm1mr1+11 I 1rtt~¥~~~m:tIT1tq1 . 1 Planning •Engineering• Surveying 4205-148thA,ot1ue NE Suite 200 Belfevue,Washington 98007 Tel. 425-885-7871 Fax. 415-885-7963 E Mail. Office@DElonfine.com JOBNo.~LQ DATE 7:, ,17' 'JC) BY 'b!~S) .. :.: --L : _:_ r .:1.~--1 ~--:· -)--: : ; r+ -i ...... t:f .. -.. 1 ... [ .. j .. f-)-rr .1 .. ! ' Devsite.pka ! I t ' Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:devsite.tsf PrQject Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 2.44 4 2/09/01 2: 00 1.75 7 1/05/02 16:00 2.98 2 2/27/03 7,00 l. 62 B B/26/04 2:00 2.02 6 10/28/04 16:00 2.56 3 1/18/06 16:00 2.39 5 11/24/06 3:00 5.21 1· 1/09/08 6, oo· Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period _.., 5.21 1 100.00 0.990 --'? 2. 98 2 25.00 0. 960 2.56 3 10.00 0.900 2.44 4 s.oo 0.800 2.39 5 3.00 0.667 2.02 6 2.00 0.500 1. 75· 7 1. 30 0.231 1. 62 8 l. 10 0.091 4.47 50.00 0.980 n A.z \L ie.! " v, " 0 :I " .s, I'.) -<:!-z~ + Q '<:I--~ ;; -..J u. ,, ' ., fl \I_\ J .[! lam ::,Z ~, u,CJ .. '2 0 111 a 4\l ll -= ~ lia i, § 'S\ ~ N.0.LONIBSVM. NO.I.Nall ~l!::! l.:lill I -+t • "-BL...aBleoal Td "Ur sr.wn "ll ,1011 & ,-( 1M '3nl\.9-n38 sun'lami IILWl"l '11 - H.l.81>~. !ilC!al> s ...... ,11 ,~ . ii I\ blnS l!>Nll:ili:IN!DNS ,11\tO d/J'W N/SftS .:lf)tfNIIJ'NO SJM2fl 11 i !I N I O N i:I 8 Q Q. 0 Q &H1JSnonv -- .. ' • ... . -5 0 =· ',1 tJ) -,\· - Q ,.... .. w :.,:: (.) = :, . Eat ·c = w a: 0 i ON 1 , ON 110,n.unns z )llf\'d II> "' ), NOJ.!INJHSVM :lll\'1 ( ' -' . I\ I ..... ~.,.- ' . ----~/ . ~-~ ......... ....,.-,~.-.-.. ........ -.---1 • ,· "'-r- ·. l '\ ,.. '..·\' . I ' i'"·' [:'tl .,,....-...... "-.:'··,. . "-... .' I ~~ff 199~ 3g ~~ 11 i 959 l!I! 5~ 9! ~ I i ! .. 55S! !!! '' ,~ -~ I I .... ,. E~! ~ " i ' ~11 ! ~:=l; I i I! ~ ~~ ! ~a g id i .. ' ,. 11 lg i = 30 ~ .. q JOB NO. 9] 16'1 DATE ~ 1\-Z.. ,:)67 BY ~JP SLOPE IN FEET PER FOOT ..... , , ,.,, .. ,··r·i!·! i .. :.:.1ttrr\~12ihld:Uh!~:h!~:~t~:lmt~tlg;i~LlU1Lli SHEET~OF • Planning • Engineering • Surveying 4205-148thAvenue NE Suite 200 Belfevue, Washington 98007 Tel. 425-885-7817 Fox. 425-885-7963 £ Mail. 0/(tce@DElonline.oom JOB NO. "'l1 ( 6") DATE".::, I \'"2, •°! 0) BYb~O 10,000 8,000 EXAMPLE 6,000 g.;a:....,_ IU 5,000 lb1ZGdl: 4,0® ... D 3,000 ,,, ·-· ., ,., 2,000 ., ·-· ~-.. 1,000 600 """ BOO 400 300 If u ;i; (1 (2) .... •• ,. """ ,_. ·-, .. ,., 4. 2. 1.5 (3) .. ·- '· 2.--- ,., ,. ·- ·- ,. 2.- u JOB NO. 9)10"? DATAI ' \ 1..rOJ") BY b \ 1) / ·, \ ', ', I \\ 1 .. -tk~ W,1.o;.hi11gt(J11 Sensitive Areas NE21ST~ . I q } NE mll:P... Pi( 2Sht ST NEZN-JST - ~E 17ThST NJ;. 16tH_$-l NL 14"H1ST· / ;{ .... - i ,I . . . ,:• i .-.·.t '_.·. '{/<>~ . -... , .. .,.T ~q- r ,i '·'}" N f.A ... CNGWAY inform161m induad on 1hi1 map has bHrl compied by nty tom II variety Df 1ou1'cH and i. tubject to d'l8A9' ~ nob. Klrlg County makfl no reprHtntalioM or wananllN, •~ or lfnpl"*', •• lo eecuracy, ~. limelrleu. or right. lo ti. UH of iwch lnfonnalion. This doa.l~t lt not int.ndtd ro, use H • •lll'WY product.. King County shal ni;,t be Mable Liar any general, specill, lndir.et, ir'lcidMltal, or conMQVtnlfal dama~1 lncluiling. but not timlled lo, lost~ or losl proMs rnuftJrlg from the use or m11un or ltle lnlormaflon contan.d on lhis map. Any sale ol lhis map or ln!Ofl'Tlation on this map II prot,ibhd e,:c.pt b!f wrltt.n permlulon of King County. Dale: 111612014 Nt: 1lTtl.ST NE:1ITttP .. NF!fift-tpt . Htrm-,c,ff 890ft. N[ IOT!I ?~ NE 10nl ST NE'9Th ST ~ King County < Sensitive Areas Legend mil Highlighted Feature ~ Floodway Mtidmm -, ,_ County Boundary [] 100 Year Floodplain lhgh X Mountain Peaks Channel Migration Hazard Shaded Relief Highways Amas j./ Incorporated Area MODB!Alt Streets m SL\'Cllt flit!•-~ Sole Source Aquifer Arterds a SAO Wetiand La<OI mi SAO Landslide Parcels [RP, SAO Coal Mirn, Wildlife ~twork ffill SAO Seismic SAO Stream SAO Erosion '/; c .... 1 ~ Chinook Distribution CbH.2:Paren,unl • Sensitive Area Notice on TiUe l'i1 C iaff 2 Salmon td Drainage Complaints // ClaosS Areas Susceptible to ,, . UnclH!.rl"IDd Groundwaler Contamination . 11 Lakes and Large Rivers (_ / . .,./ Streams Low {contl lQ King County • • Geotechnical Engineering Geology Environmenlal Scientists Construction Monitoring / ·-·--"' UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUD't'i HAMPTON INN & SUITES PROPOSED HOTEL FACILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2553.03 \ PREPARED FOR Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 ~\\7~ H~T. Wright, E.1.T. Staff Engineer Raymond A. Coglas, P.E. Principal .i UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY HAMPTON INN & SUITES PROPOSED HOTEL FACILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2553.03 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 -1361h Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 • • Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report Subsurface problems are a pnncipal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, c!arms, and disputes The to!lowrng informatwn is provided to help you manage your rrsks Geotechnical Services Are Performed tor Specmc Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared so/elyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one -no/even you-should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Ri,port IS Based on A ~ique Set ol Pro)ect-Spacmc Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structwe on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnicat engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that afiect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes-even minor ones-and request an assessl11€nt of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability tor problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was pertormed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fiuctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnlcal Findings Are Professional Dpilions Site exploration identifies subsurtace conditions only at those points where subsurtace tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly- from those indicated in your report Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Repopt's RecommendatiOns Are Notfinal Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not fina( because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurtace conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geoteclmical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team mBmbers' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team atter submitting the report Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Re•aw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the fogs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable tor unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, bu/preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to pertorm additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Raad. RasponsibilitY Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limilations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Ara Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to pertorm a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to pertorm a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions. or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage lanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consullant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surtaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose ol mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surtaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in·this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in coonscfion with the geotechnicaf engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold lrom growing In or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Me11ber Geoteclmcial Eng1neer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more infonmation. ASFE Tie IUI flUII •• Earll 8811 Colesville Road/Sutte G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asle.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, (nc. Duplication, reproductJon, or copJ1no of this document In whole or In pan, by any means wf1atsoever, is strictly prohibited, except w"11 ASFE's specific written permission. Excerptirig, quoting, or otherwise extracting wordirlfl from this documr,nt is permittrJd only with the express written permission of ASFE. and only for purposes of scholarly research or book revk!w. Only members of ASFE may use this documfNlt as a complement to or as an element of a geofel;fmi~I engineering repof1. Any atfler firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or il1tentiona/ (fraudulent) misrepreserrtation. IIGER06045.0M November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 ES-2553.03 Legacy Renton 8809 Scarlet Knight Northeast Albuquerque, New Mexico 87122 Attention: Mr. Faizel Kassam Dear Mr. Kassam: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Construclion Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Updated Geotechnical Engineering Study, Hampton Inn & Suites Proposed Hotel Facility, Renton, Washington". This report has been updated to reflect the currently proposed new building layout. Based on the conditions encountered during the fieldwork, the site is underlain by firm pre- Fraser silt and sand deposits. We understand the site will be redeveloped with a hotel complex, and will incorporate two levels of below grade garage parking. Excavations on the order of 25 to roughly 45 feet at some locations are estimated to be necessary to complete the below grade garage construction: We understand due to property limit and on-site adjacent steep slope constraints, the use of temporary shoring will be necessary to complete the garage structure excavations. Preliminary recommendations for temporary shoring are provided in this geotechnical engineering study. Based on the results of our study, the commercial hotel structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soils, or two-inch crushed rock immediately underlain by competent native soils. Based on the proposed excavation depths and the subsurface data acquired at the test sites, we anticipate competent native soils suitable for support of foundations will generally be encountered throughout the proposed foundation level. The site slopes exhibit overall good stability, and are not expected to be adversely impacted by the proposed excavations. Recommendations for site excavations, foundation design, temporary shoring, subsurface drainage, and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in this study, as appropriate. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC ~,d~C!~.E. Prin. i al rJ' 1 - I 1805 -136Lh Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711 Table of Contents ES-2553.03 PAGE INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1 General........................................................................... 1 Project Description .. .. .. .... . .. .. . ...... . .. .. . .. .... .. . .. . .. .. .. ... .. . ...... . 2 SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 2 Surface............................................................................ 2 Slope Reconnaissance/Stability Assessment........................... 3 Subsurface....................................................................... 3 Topsoil................................................................................ 3 Native Soil........................................................................... 3 Geologic Setting................................................................. 3 Groundwater..................................................................... 4 CRITICAL AREAS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................... 4 Site and Construction Plans........................................................ 4 Landslide Hazard............................................................... 4 Steep Slopes...................................................................... 5 Erosion Hazard.................................................................. 5 Analysis of Proposal.................................................................... 6 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 6 General............................................................................. 6 Site Preparation and Earthwork...... .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. 7 Excavations............................................................. 7 Structural Fill........................................................... 8 Erosion Control........................................................ 8 Shoring Recommendations................................................ 9 Preliminary Soil Nail Wall Recommendations .. .. .. .. .. . .. 9 Cantilever & Single Tieback Soldier Piles.................. 10 Active Earth Pressures.................................... 10 At-Rest Earth Pressures.................................. 1 O Multiple Tieback Walls........................................... 11 Soldier Piles.......................................................... 11 Timber Lagging..................................................... 11 Tieback Anchors................................................... 12 Shoring Wall Drainage................................................... 12 Shoring Monitoring.................................................... 12 Earth Solutions MN, LLC Table of Contents Continued ES-2553.03 PAGE Foundations......................................................................... 13 Slab-On-Grade Floors........................................................ 13 Retaining Walls................................................................... 13 Garage Level Foundation Walls................................. 14 Site Retaining Walls................................................. 14 Excavations and Slopes.................................................... 15 Seismic Considerations.......................................................... 15 Drainage.......................................................................... 16 Permanent Sub-Slab Drainage.................................. 16 Utility Support and Trench Backfill...................................... 16 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................. 17 Additional Services............................................................ 17 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 9 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Vicinity Map Boring and Test Pit Location Plan Cross Section A -A' Cantilever & Single Tieback Wall Multiple Tieback Wall No Load Zone Shoring Wall Drainage Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Footing Drain Detail Subsurface Exploration Boring and Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results Grain Size Distribution Earth Solutions NW, LLC General UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY HAMPTON INN & SUITES PROPOSED HOTEL FACILITY RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2553.03 INTRODUCTION This updated geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed hotel facility to be developed at 1300 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton, Washington. This geotechnical engineering study has been updated to address the current project plans. The purpose of this study was to explore subsurface conditions across the site and develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed project. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: • Subsurface exploration and characterization of soil and groundwater conditions by way of borings and test pits excavated on the accessible areas of the site; • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained during field exploration; • Providing an assessment of slope stability; • Conducting engineering analyses including temporary shoring and foundations, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents/maps were reviewed as part of our report preparation: • Topographic survey provided by our client; • Floor Plans, prepared by Clark Design Group, PLLC, dated October 8, 2014; • Building Section, prepared by Clark Design Group, PLLC, dated October 24, 2014 • Geologic Map of Washington, Northwest Quadrant, and; • Renton Municipal Code, Development Regulations. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 Project Description ES-2553.03 Page 2 Based on the project information provided to us, we understand the subject site will be developed with a new five-level hotel facility with two levels of below grade garage parking, and associated improvements. The referenced topographic survey indicates the site is comprised of moderate to steep slopes throughout the northeasterly portions of the property. Based upon visual slope reconnaissance, in our opinion, historic excavation activity has occurred on-site and has created portions of the steep slopes throughout the northeasterly portion of the property. Combined with the existing slope areas, the alignment of Interstate 405 and related off-ramp embankment fills (and related slope) border the easterly side of the site. Based on the referenced project plans, the new hotel facility would be established along the Lake Washington Boulevard (west) frontage of the property, and would not impact the existing easterly slope areas. Based on the plans, we estimate excavations of up to approximately 25 to roughly 45 feet will be necessary to construct the below grade parking garage levels. The proposed hotel structure is anticipated to consist of four stories of wood framing constructed over a podium post-tensioned slab. Based on past experience with similar structures, we anticipate column loads associated with the concrete podium supported structure are estimated to be on the order of 300 to 400 kips. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to verify the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report have been incorporated into the plans. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located west of Interstate 405 at 1300 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton, Washington, as illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The majority of the site is undeveloped; however, there is a paved coffee shop drive through at the Lake Washington Boulevard North frontage. The site is approximately 1.26 acres in size, and is bordered to the west by Lake Washington Boulevard North, to the north by an apartment and associated improvements, to the east by Interstate 405 and to the south by a gravel parking lot. The referenced topographic survey indicates the site is comprised of moderate to steep slopes throughout the northeasterly portions of the property. The existing sloped areas were likely created by past grading activities. Encroachment into these existing steep slope areas is not planned as part of the proposed development. The alignment of Interstate 405 and related off- ramp embankment fills border the easterly side of the site. The site and related slope areas are vegetated with trees, saplings, and brambles. Earth Solutions t,N,1, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 Slope Reconnaissance/Stability Assessment ES-2553.03 Page 3 During our fieldwork, we performed a visual slope reconnaissance across portions of the steep slope areas of the site. The main focus of our reconnaissance was to identify signs of instability or erosion hazards along the site slopes. The typical instability indicators include such features as head scarps, tension cracks, hummocky terrain, groundwater seeps along the surface and erosion features such as gulleys and rills. During the slope reconnaissance, no signs of recent, large scale erosion or slope instability were observed. Signs of historic excavation activities such as steep to near vertical reliefs were observed. Based on the observed stability of the steep to near vertical reliefs (created by past grading activities), as well as data obtained during our subsurface exploration, the site soils exhibit good soil strength characteristics. In general, based on the slope reconnaissance, stability of the slope areas of the property can be characterized as good. The planned building structure incorporating structural foundation wall elements will effectively improve overall site stability, and will not encroach into the steep slope areas. Subsurface Three borings were advanced using a drill rig and operator retained by ESNW to assess soil and groundwater conditions. Five test pits were also excavated using equipment and a contractor retained by ESNW. The approximate locations of the borings and test pits are depicted on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the boring and test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Topsoil Topsoil was observed in the upper approximately 12 inches. The topsoil was characterized by dark brown color and the presence of fine organic material. Native Soil Underlying the topsoil, native soils consisting primarily of medium dense to dense silt (Unified Soil Classification ML), silty sand (SM), poorly graded sand (SP), poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) and silty gravel with sand (GM) deposits were encountered extending to the maximum exploration depth of 41.5 feet below existing grades. Geologic Setting The referenced geologic map resource indicates the site is underlain by pre-Fraser silt and sand deposits. The native soil conditions observed at the test pit and boring locations are generally consistent with the geologic mapping. The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey identifies Alderwood very gravelly sandy loam and Kitsap silt loam across the site. The soil conditions observed are generally consistent with the NRCS designation. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 Groundwater ES-2553.03 Page4 Groundwater was observed during our fieldwork (October 2012, July 2013 and November 2014) at depths of approximately 9 to 25 feet below existing grades. The deeper groundwater condition observed at depths of 23 to 25 feet below existing grades likely represents the local groundwater table. The shallow groundwater observed at depths of approximately 9 to 13 feet below existing grades likely represents a locally perched condition. Groundwater should be anticipated in the excavations for the underground garage structure. Localized perched zones of groundwater seepage should be expected in the site excavations, and could locally produce heavy flows. Based on the boring and test pit data, a static groundwater table and more persistent groundwater condition will likely be encountered below depths of 20 feet below existing grade. The need for measures to collect and discharge groundwater from the proposed excavations should be anticipated and reevaluated by ESNW during final design and construction. Permanent sub-slab drainage to mitigate groundwater conditions should be anticipated and reevaluated by ESNW during final design and construction. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. CRITICAL AREAS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT As part of this geotechnical engineering study and critical areas report, Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code was reviewed. Per the Renton Municipal Code requirements, the following topics related to development plans and site conditions are addressed. Site and Construction Plans Construction of a new six-level hotel facility with up to three levels of below grade garage parking, and associated improvements is planned. We understand the building pad will be located along the Lake Washington Boulevard North (west) frontage. Based on the referenced project plans, we understand the below grade garage elevation will be up to approximately 25 feet below the Lake Washington Boulevard North roadway elevation. We anticipate the cuts for the proposed underground garage levels will be on the order of 25 to 45 feet. Cross Section A -A'(Plate 3) illustrates the approximate excavation depths. The northeast corner of the structure will be aligned adjacent to the existing steep slope portion of the site. Based on the results of this study, overall stability of the steep slope areas will not be adversely impacted by the proposed development activities. Landslide Hazard With respect to landslide hazard areas, Part 4-3-050J-1 b of the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations defines landslide hazard areas as the following: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 • Low Landslide Hazard: Areas with slopes less than 15 percent. ES-2553.03 Page 5 • Medium Landslide Hazard: 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: 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: Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. The steep slopes at the northeasterly portion of the site exhibit moderate to high landslide hazard characteristic based on a greater than 40% slope condition (per the City of Renton Code). However, it is generally underlain primarily by dense to very dense silt and sand soil, and the overall stability of the slope can be characterized as good. As previously described in the Slope Reconnaissance section of this study, the site soils exhibit good strength characteristics. Additionally, it appears much of the existing steep slope area was created in part by historic excavation activities. Steep Slopes With respect to steep slope critical areas, the referenced section of the Renton Code defines steep slopes as follows: • Sensitive Slopes: Areas with slopes between 25 percent and 40 percent. • Protected Slopes: Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent. Based on our observations, review of the referenced topographic survey, and as demonstrated by the City of Renton GIS data, sensitive and protected slopes are present through the northeasterly portions of the property. Based upon visual slope reconnaissance, in our opinion, previous excavation activity has occurred on-site which created portions of the steep slopes to near vertical reliefs through the northeasterly portion of the property. Based on the identified subsurface conditions and site reconnaissance, the overall stability of the slope areas can be characterized as good. Erosion Hazard With respect to erosion hazard areas, the referenced section of the Renton Code defines erosion hazards as follows: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 ES-2553.03 Page 6 • Low Erosion Hazard: Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than 15 percent. • High Erosion Hazard: Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than 15 percent. Based on the City of Renton GIS data, the site presents a high erosion hazard. Based on our site reconnaissance work, there is no evidence of widespread severe erosion activity throughout the site. In our opinion, the planned development will not increase the erosion hazard at the site, provided appropriate Best Management Practices are implemented during the earthwork and development activities. General guidelines for erosion control are provided in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this study. Analysis of Proposal The planned development activity will involve grading and construction of a new five-level hotel facility with two levels of below grade garage parking, and associated improvements. The proposed development activity will include excavations of approximately 25 to 45 feet to accommodate the proposed below grade parking garage. As previously described, the site soils exhibit good strength characteristics and site slopes exhibit good stability, and in our opinion, portions of the steep to near vertical slopes were previously excavated to the current condition. The proposed development activity, in our opinion, is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, and (i). The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and (ii). The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and (iii). The development can be safely accommodated on the site." DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General In our opinion, construction of the proposed five-level hotel facility with two levels of below grade garage parking, and associated improvements at this site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. In our opinion, the proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soils, or two-inch crushed rock immediately underlain by competent native soil. Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on dense native soil, recompacted native soil or structural fill. We anticipate competent soils suitable for support of foundations should generally be encountered at foundation subgrade elevations. Where existing fill or loose and unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, overexcavation and replacement with two-inch crushed rock will be necessary at the location of proposed foundations. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 ES-2553.03 Page 7 Excavations to accommodate the planned below grade garage levels will require cuts on the order of 25 to roughly 45 feet below existing grade. Temporary shoring will be required for support of the cuts during construction. For purposes of this report, temporary shoring consisting of conventional soldier piles and soil nailing have been considered for preliminary design purposes. Additionally, measures to accommodate groundwater entering the excavation during construction will be necessary. Recommendations for excavation shoring, foundation design, subsurface drainage, and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in the following sections of this study. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Legacy Renton and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork The primary geotechnical considerations with respect to earthwork are related to the garage excavation, temporary excavation support and shoring, subsurface drainage, and foundation subgrade preparation. The soils encountered in the building excavations should largely consist dense to very dense silt and sand deposits. The native silt deposits can be characterized as having a generally moderate to high sensitivity to moisture. Excavations As excavation of the garage levels progress, the soil relative density should generally increase and is expected to exhibit good stability in open cut excavations. Localized perched zones of groundwater seepage should be expected in the site excavations, and could locally produce heavy flows. Based on the boring and test pit data, a static groundwater table and more persistent groundwater condition will likely be encountered below depths of roughly 18 to 20 feet below existing grade. Overall stability of the excavation is anticipated to be good, provided appropriate means for sloping and shoring the excavation are utilized. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test sites, the following allowable temporary slope inclinations can be used: • Loose to Medium Dense Native Soil • Dense to Very Dense Native Soil* 1 H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) 0.5H:1V to 0.75H:1V** * Based on data obtained during the subsurface exploration, the native silt soils should become dense to very dense at a depth of approximately five feet below existing grades. •• Steeper temporary slope inclinations of 0.25H: 1V may be feasible based on actual conditions encountered, and based on observation and approval by the geotechnical engineer. Earth Solutions tNV, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 ES-2553 03 Page 8 The geotechnical engineer should observe the excavation and assess the allowable temporary slope inclination based on the soil and groundwater conditions exposed in the excavation. Supplement recommendations for sloping the excavation may be made by the geotechnical engineer based on conditions observed. With respect to temporary shoring, recommendations are provided in the Shoring Recommendations section of this study. Structural Fill We anticipate structural fill placement will generally be required behind foundation walls and within utility trench excavations. Structural fill may also be necessary in slab-on-grade areas. Due to the building load and bearing capacity requirements, the building foundations should be founded directly on competent native soils, or two-inch crushed rock immediately underlain by competent native soils. Where structural fill is utilized outside foundation areas, a suitable granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level should be used. The native soils can be considered for use as structural fill provided the soil is at or near the optimum level at the time of placement. The native soils have a moderate to high sensitivity to moisture, and will become unstable if exposed to excessive moisture. If the native soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of five percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed as wall backfill and in slab-on-grade, utility trench, and roadway areas. Soils placed in structural areas should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557-02) and placed in maximum 12 inch lifts. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of the structural fill should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. As indicated above, structural fill placed below foundation elements should consist of two-inch crushed rock immediately underlain by competent native soils. Erosion Control In general, control of off-site erosion for this project will likely be limited to construction entrances. Silt fencing should be installed as appropriate, and as needed along the site perimeter. Construction entrances should consist of quarry spalls underlain by a non-woven filter fabric. Quarry spa II thickness will depend on subgrade stability at the entrance, but should typically be at least six inches. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 Shoring Recommendations ES-2553.03 Page 9 We anticipate cuts on the order of 25 to 45 feet will be required to construct the below grade garage levels. Where sufficient space is available, the garage level excavations will likely be completed using open cuts. Temporary shoring or a combination of shoring and temporary slopes will be necessary where buildings will be sited in close proximity to the property limits. In our opinion, where shoring is necessary, the use of a conventional cantilever or tieback shoring system is feasible for temporary support of excavations. In our opinion, soil nailing is also a feasible alternative for excavation shoring. For purposes of this study, we have provided preliminary recommendations for soil nailing, and recommendations for cantilever and tieback shoring. It is important to note that if tiebacks or soil nails are utilized, appropriate easements may be required from adjacent property owners to accommodate the tendons. Preliminary Soil Nail Wall Recommendations Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the soil conditions are generally favorable for soil nail walls. However, groundwater exposed in excavations may present greater challenges for a soil nail application. For preliminary design purposes, the following design parameters can be considered for temporary soil nail walls: • Angle of Friction (Upper Soils To 10') • Cohesion • Angle of Friction (Dense Soils Below 10') • Cohesion • Ultimate Pullout (Upper Soils) • Ultimate Pullout (Below 1 O') • Soil Moist Unit Weight • Maximum Nail Spacing • Vertical Elements 32 degrees 50 psf 38 degrees 125 psf 3.0 kips per foot 7.0 kips per foot 125 pcf 6 feet (horizontal I vertical) W6 x 25 (4 feet o.c.) The above design parameters are intended for preliminary analysis of a soil nail wall design. Modification of these values by the geotechnical engineer may be appropriate, based on the results of preliminary analysis. With respect to soil nail shotcrete facing, temporary or permanent (foundation wall) facing can be considered as part of the top-down construction. The soil nail wall designer will need to consider shotcrete thickness and reinforcement requirements (bending and punching shear), as appropriate for temporary or permanent facings. Surcharge loading from adjacent slopes or right-of-ways will also need to be considered. With respect to challenges presented by groundwater, the engineer should provide additional analysis of feasibility during the design phase. The use of vertical elements to improve excavation "face" stability (combined with dewatering) may be an option. Eartl1 Solutions !WV, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 Cantilever and Single Tieback Soldier Piles ES-2553.03 Page 10 Temporary shoring should be designed to resist lateral soil pressure based on an active or at- rest earth pressure condition. Surcharge loading from adjacent roadways and slopes should be included in the shoring design, as appropriate. For design, the following earth pressure and surcharge values should be used: • Active Earth Pressure (level backfill) 30 pct (equivalent fluid) • At-Rest Earth Pressure (level backfill) 48 pcf • Active Earth Pressure (sloped backfill, 1: 1 max) 42 pcf • • At-Rest Earth Pressure (sloped backfill, 1: 1 max) 63 pct• • Traffic Surcharge (where appropriate) 70 psf (rectangular distribution) • Preliminary Building Surcharge (where applicable) 125 psf (rectangular distribution)** • Passive Resistance (Very Dense Native) 450 pcf*** *Preliminary values, based on ten foot high broken slope above shoring. Values should be reevaluated based on final slope geometry, soil conditions and proximity of adjacent building structures. **Building surcharge values should be reevaluated based on further assessment of adjacent building foundation levels, proximity, and loading ••• Passive Resistance may be applied over two pile diameters Active Earth Pressures A typical earth pressure distribution for an Active Earth Pressure condition (cantilevered and single tieback walls) is provided on Plate 4 of this study. Allowable soldier pile deflections for walls subjected to Active Earth Pressures should be limited to approximately one-inch. At-Rest Earth Pressures At-Rest pressures should be used where the shoring system will support adjacent structures where deflection of the shoring wall and adjacent ground subsidence must be minimized. Where some deflection is determined to be acceptable, an earth pressure based on a value that is between the At-Rest and Active values may also be considered, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Recommendations for allowable soldier pile deflections can be provided once the alignment and proximity of shoring walls to adjacent structures has been established. The geotechnical engineer should review the shoring wall design, and provide supplement building surcharge recommendations, as appropriate. Where At-Rest Earth Pressures are applied, a triangular distribution of pressure similar to the distribution illustrated on Plate 3 should be used. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 Multiple Tieback Walls ES-2553.03 Page 11 Where deeper shored excavations will be necessary to construct the garage levels, a multiple tieback wall may be necessary. As illustrated on Plate 5 (Multiple Tieback Wall), an apparent earth pressure distribution should be used to design multiple tieback walls. The following design parameters should be used for multiple tieback walls: • Apparent Earth Pressure • Slope Surcharge • Traffic Surcharge (where applicable) • Preliminary Building Surcharge • Maximum Pile Deflection 19H (psf), where "H" is the height of excavation Hs/2 (ft.), where "Hs" is the height of slope* 70 psf, rectangular distribution 125 psf (rectangular distribution)** 1-inch ••• *Add "HS/2' to excavation height in calculating apparent earth pressure value. See Plate 4 for distribution of apparent earth pressure *"Building surcharge values should be reevaluated based on further assessment of adjacent building foundation levels, proximity, and loading •••where shoring will support adjacent foundations or other structures sensitive to excavation related movements, pile deflections should be limited to Y, inch or less, or as specified by the geotechnical engineer. Soldier Piles Soldier pile installation should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to confirm pile depths and soil conditions. If sloughing of the soldier pile excavation occurs, the contractor should be prepared to case soldier pile excavations, as necessary. Where groundwater seepage is encountered in excavations, localized sloughing should be expected. Timber Lagging Lagging should be installed in maximum four foot lifts as the excavation is advanced. Lifts of up to six feet maximum may be acceptable for short periods, provided the lagging is installed immediately. The geotechnical engineer should observe the shoring excavation to assess the stability of the cut. The lagging should be backfilled as the excavation is advanced to minimize voids between the lagging and cut face, and to reduce the potential for ground subsidence behind the shoring wall. Where sloughing of the excavation results in the development of a large void, injecting lean mix into the void area should be considered. Due to anticipated soil arching between soldier piles, the timber lagging can be designed with a reduced pressure equal to 35 percent of the design lateral earth pressure. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 Tieback Anchors ES-2553.03 Page 12 Tiebacks should be located as high on the wall as possible and should be designed based on the following parameters: • Allowable Anchor Friction • Declination Angle • Soldier Pile End Bearing • No Load Zone 1,900 psf * 15 to 20 degrees (from horizontal) 18,000 psf (preliminary) See Plate 6 of this study * Assumes approximately 4.0 kipsHt. allowable pullout for an 8-inch dia. tieback. Tieback anchors should be verification tested and proof tested in general accordance with of the Recommendations For Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors (41h Edition, 2004). A minimum of two verification tests (two hundred percent design load) should be performed. Verification test anchors can be used as production anchors provided the anchor is successfully tested and is acceptable. The production anchors should be proof tested to one hundred thirty percent of the design load. The geotechnical engineer should observe the anchor testing and provide documentation of the test results. Tieback anchors should be locked-off at 90 percent to 100 percent of the design load. Shoring Wall Drainage Temporary shoring walls should be provided with adequate drainage to reduce the potential for excess hydrostatic pressure build-up. During construction, drainage occurring between the timber lagging is usually sufficient to prevent the development of excessive hydrostatic pressures. Where permanent building walls will be constructed along the temporary shoring walls, a sheet drain material should be installed along the face of the shoring wall. A typical detail illustrating a sheet drain and permanent wall drainage system is provided on Plate 7 of this study. Waterproofing should be specified by the project architect, as appropriate. Shoring Monitoring Due to the close proximity of adjacent slopes and public right-of-ways, an optical monitoring program should be implemented for this site. The monitoring program should consist of a video survey prior to beginning the building excavations to document the current conditions of the surrounding features. Initial survey points should be placed at strategic locations along adjacent right-of-way alignments and slope areas that will allow for periodic measurement during and after the shoring installation. This will allow for efficient monitoring of the site to identify and remediate excessive deflections or excavation related movements, if they occur. Prior to the start of construction, the geotechnical engineer, owner, and contractor should review the project and develop a monitoring program for the site. Earth SoluUons t.r,N, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 ES-2553.03 Page 13 Following installation of the soldier piles, monitoring points are typically established on the top of the piles prior to proceeding with the excavation. An initial baseline reading should be acquired prior to proceeding with the excavation. Readings should be acquired relatively frequently during the excavation phase of the construction. The geotechnical engineer should review the data as it becomes available during the course of construction. The monitoring program should be supplemented with periodic observations by the geotechnical engineer during the excavation phase of construction. If soil nailing is utilized, a similar monitoring program should be implemented. Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed hotel facility can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soils, or two-inch crushed rock immediately underlain by competent native soils. Based on the soil conditions encountered at the test sites, competent native soils suitable for support of foundations should generally be encountered throughout the building excavation. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, overexcavation to expose competent native soils and replacement with two-inch crushed rock will be necessary. Provided foundations will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be used for design of new foundations: • Allowable soil bearing capacity • Passive earth pressure • Coefficient of friction 6,000 psf 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) 0.40 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. The above passive pressure and friction values include a factor-of- safety of 1.5. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of about one-half inch or less over the span of a typical column spacing. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Slab-On-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors for the proposed building structure should be supported on competent native soil or a compacted structural fill subgrade, as appropriate. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of five percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. Sub-slab drainage is discussed in the Drainage section of this study. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 Retaining Walls ES-2553.03 Page 14 Retaining walls should be designed to resist earth pressures and any applicable surcharge loads. The following sections of this report provide recommended earth pressure values for retaining wall designs. Garage Level Foundation Walls For design of the garage level foundation walls, the previous earth pressure values provided for cantilever and multiple tieback shoring walls should be used, as appropriate for yielding and restrained wall conditions. These earth pressure values were previously provided in the Shoring Recommendations section of this study. With respect to site retaining walls constructed independent of the building foundation walls, the following values should be used for design: Site Retaining Walls -Independent of Building Foundation Walls • Active Earth Pressure (Yielding Wall) • At-Rest Earth Pressure (Restrained Wall) • Traffic Surcharge (Passenger Vehicles) • Passive Resistance • Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity • Coefficient of Friction • Seismic "Thrust" (if applicable) 35 pct (equivalent fluid/ granular fill) 50 pcf 70 psf (rectangular distribution) 350 pcf (equivalent fluid) 5,000 psf 0.40 6H (psf)* • Apply to Garage Foundation Walls and Site Retaining Walls (as necessary) Additional surcharge loading from foundations, sloped backfill, or other loading should be included in the retaining wall design, as appropriate. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design, as appropriate. The geotechnical engineer should review retaining wall designs to verify that appropriate earth pressure values have been incorporated into the design and to provide additional recommendations, as necessary. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 ES-2553.03 Page 15 Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least eighteen inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable (surface seal) soil, if desired. In lieu of free draining backfill, use of an approved sheet drain material can also be considered, based on the observed subsurface and groundwater conditions. The geotechnical engineer should review conditions at the time of construction and provide recommendations for sheet drain, as appropriate. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an appropriate discharge location. Where foundation walls are formed against the temporary shoring walls, the shoring wall drainage illustrated on Plate 7 can be utilized. For site retaining walls receiving backfill, the retaining wall and drainage detail illustrated on Plate 8 should be considered. Excavations and Slopes The Federal and state Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA/WISHA) classifies soils in terms of minimum safe slope inclinations. In our opinion, based on the soil conditions encountered during fieldwork for this site, the upper loose to medium dense native soils and fill encountered to depths of up to approximately 5 to 10 feet would be classified by OSHA/WI SHA as Type B. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type B soils should be sloped at an inclination that is no steeper than 1 H:1V. In our opinion, the dense to very dense native soils below approximately 5 to 10 feet below existing grades would be classified by OSHA/WISHA as Type A. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type A soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 0.75H:1V. With respect to the proposed building excavations, temporary slopes inclined at 0.5H:1V (or steeper) are feasible within the very dense silt deposits. The geotechnical engineer should observe the excavations to confirm the appropriate allowable temporary slope inclination. Additionally, where groundwater conditions are exposed in the excavations, flatter slope inclinations than specified above will likely be required to maintain stability. If the above slope gradients cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be required. Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H: 1 V, or flatter, and should be planted with an appropriate species of vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. Seismic Considerations The 2012 IBC recognizes ASCE for seismic site class definitions. If the project will be permitted under the 2012 IBC, in accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Site Class C, should be used for design. In our opinion, liquefaction susceptibility at this site is low. The relative density of the site soils and the absence of a uniform, shallow groundwater table combined with loose granular soil deposits is the primary basis for this designation. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 Drainage ES-2553.03 Page 16 As previously described, localized perched zones of groundwater seepage should be expected in the site excavations, and could locally produce heavy flows. Additionally, based on the boring and test pit data, a static groundwater table and more persistent groundwater condition will likely be encountered below depths of roughly 18 to 20 feet below existing grade. Where groundwater is encountered, dewatering of excavations should be anticipated during construction. The required level of construction dewatering should be coordinated with the geotechnical engineer, owner, and contractor based on the groundwater levels at the time of the excavations. However, based on subsurface conditions identified at the boring and test pit locations, typical construction techniques consisting of sump pits and pumps should be expected for accomplishing the dewatering efforts. Modifications to the construction dewatering effort may be necessary based on the quantity of groundwater flow and the actual drawdown characteristics encountered during dewatering. The installation of a permanent sub-slab drainage system should be anticipated for this project. Permanent Sub-Slab Drainage The sub-slab drainage system would be in addition to the perimeter foundation wall drains. For preliminary design purposes, the following guidelines should be used for design of the sub-slab drainage: • Drain Pipe • Pipe Spacing • Pipe Invert • Filter Fabric Wrap • Drainage Fill • Trench Width 4-lnch Diameter, Rigid Sch. 40 Perforated Pipe 25 Feet Max. O.C. (Preliminary) 16-lnch (Min.) Below Bottom Of Slab Mirafi 140N, or equivalent 1-lnch Drain Rock 16-lnch (Min.) The permanent sub-slab drain design should be reevaluated by the geotechnical engineer and civil engineer at the time of construction. As necessary, modifications to the system should be recommended to achieve the objectives of the sub-slab drainage system. Utility Support and Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils anticipated to be exposed in utility excavations should generally be suitable for support of utilities. Existing fill, organic or highly compressible soils encountered in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. Moisture conditioning of the soils will likely be necessary prior to use as structural backfill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to 95 percent of the modified proctor, or to the applicable specifications of the responsible utility district or jurisdiction. Earth Solutions tlvll, LLC Legacy Renton November 12, 2013 Updated December 18, 2014 LIMITATIONS ES-2553.03 Page 17 The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Reference: King County, Washington Map 626 By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32nd Edition NORTH 8 NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. • olutions NWLLc ," neering, Construction Monitoring Environmental Sciences I, Vicinity Map Hampton Inn & Suites Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 12/10/2014 Proj. No. 2553.03 Checked HTW Date Dec. 2014 Plate z z 2 (J z :r; if] 1 LEGEND B-101-t-Approximate Location of ESNW Boring, Proj. No. ES-2553.03 Nov. 2014 B-1-t-Approximate Location of ESNW Boring, Proj. No. ES-2553.01, July 2013 TP-1-t-Approximate Location of ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-2553.01, Oct. 2012 ,------l I I Subject Site Cross Section Line (See Plate 3) I \ \ \ I \ I I NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and/ or proposed site features. The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. 1 "=80' \ \ \ Boring and Test Pit Location Plan Hampton Inn & Suites Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 12/1012014 Proj. No. 2553 03 Checked HTW Date Dec. 2014 Plate 2 A '"" Proposed Hotel Facility ., .. ,;i- " 25 50 Vertic~l.:c;~ ~ Horuon!al Scale j-,11,--IW•c.'.'j'••••'° 1·~25· L...J L...J Scalu1nhet E,isting Grade (&,,"'"'°""''"'') '' '""'".,_,=--,·", MediUmDenseto : ----••·;'--/ Den~ SILT ~ ., -___ ~ _!nd Silly SAND """'" ___ .,,,,. .... --,. Dense SAND -----~ --?----;-:..::..-.;-__ 7;=--~----:::--~ :;.::. :..:---Very Dense SILT and Sifty SAND -1.---.:::-.::: -=-=-1 ~ ~ =--_;:-.=!l= ":L --~ ~ ":'" Very Dense SAND f!OTE Th~ piolomayc,;,ri,m ...... ol "'lor ESNWcS'lnol~ r••?OO•iblefcr•rry>llb,eqi;,nl"'SinlerµrelillK>noflhernl«""'IIOr, , .. ui:.ii mm b&:k & IOhte repr:xlutl1m, ol ltr.; plo!e NOTE Th• Slrailialt>on ir,e"h""" o, lh<scro,;> ,..,;oonrepr<WOI tMll)pro,imolel)(IOJn<la'>O$belwterJ,.,..:YP,,,TheocruaiVtml""' m.,ybe,lher=e\Jod.elcr""'1!se.oreThey,,.eb-ooour ri\erprelot~,o(thesub,u~oce ooodMosOJ1c<1on!e<O<latlheind~Kluol tesl i<>:8IIOll5 ,odour ~O'jemenl ,nJ e,,,erion<e ESNl'j ca,not be re>p0n:si,leforthe1nterpn,-0Jtliodalab)oU\Of> NOTE· The (Jll!'h~• ,t,o,.., on tt,,. plol:e ore nol ritendod fordes~n purpose;01prec,seSC11lemeo,.,..,,..,'11$.b<1ton~toil\lSlrffllh• ~pm,mat,i.,s,_,.......,,tolhe~~"'"""""°""'°' e,~tingond/or~sl,JeeaJres.Therif<:<rMl:~n,lu- ~ lergefyboso,d on di!t!prowledbylhedlent!tlhebmeolocr o1'Jdy Estmoe,,nMb< re,;,oosble fors~sequontde51gn '°'*!P"' «i>~reteMn,:,flhedetebyottie<s ,00 ' Checked By H>W Date 1211012014 Proj. No 2553.03 Plate ' H (Wall Height) Neglect Upper 2 feet of Passive Pressure Excavation Level 'f Passive Earth Pressure D = Pile Embedment (per Structural Eng.) • . 0 Traffic Surcharge or Slope (Where Applicable) Active Earth NOTE: See text for recommended Slope Backfill and At-Rest Pressures. Surcharge (Where Applicable) 0 1 EFP=450pcf ,_______."-.n-" SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NOTES: Diagram for pressure distribution illustration only, not a design drawing. Passive Pressure includes a factor of safety of 1.5. For adjacent building or traffic surcharge see text. CANTILEVER & SINGLE TIEBACK WALL Hampton Inn & Suites Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 12/17/2014 Proj. No. 2553.03 Checked HTW Date Dec. 2014 Plate 4 Tieback H (Wall Height) Tieback Neglect Upper 2' of Passive Pressure Excavation Level Passive Earth D = Pile Embedment Pressure 2' (per Structural Eng.) ~---•L 1 L---'E=-'F_,_P_=_4_.c5eoO=sf'--------I~ SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING . 0 Traffic Surcharge or Slope Where Applicable, See Text Apparent Earth Pressure 19H (psf) 0 NOTE: See text for slope and surcharge pressures . • - , _h Solutions NWuc Jintcal Engineering, Construction Monito1 mg :!'. and Env1ronment~I Sciences ' -' Drwn. GLS '- MULTIPLE TIEBACK WALL Hampton Inn & Suites Renton, Washington Date 1211712014 Proj. No. 2553 03 Checked HTW Date Dec. 2014 Plate 5 Tieback H (Wall Height) Excavation Level D = Pile Embedment (per Structural Eng.) 1 SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOTTO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING • • Traffic Surcharge or Building Surcharge (Where Applicable) Ill Ill Ill No Load Zone I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I )---~ 0.67H H/4 1 -~--:J/~o·-------~-. . • Drwn. GLS NO LOAD ZONE Hampton Inn & Suites Renton, Washington Date 12117/2014 Proj. No. 2553.03 Checked HTW Date Dec. 2014 Plate 6 ,,---Waterproofing and Insulation per Architectural Plan Continuous Sheet Drain ,,------(Placed with Filter Fabric Facing Shoring) ~ Concrete Facing Foundation (per Plan) Slab-On-Grade Floor (per Plan) Structural Fill Ill 111 111 111 NOTE: Drain through wall should be installed at middle of lagging. SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Drwn. GLS SHORING WALL DRAINAGE Hampton Inn & Suites Renton, Washington Date12/17/2014 Proj. No. 2553.03 Checked HTW Date Dec. 2014 Plate 7 .. 18" Min. ~1 111 111 111 000000000 oo O d:, 0 : .I) 0 p o ~ 0 C)o ;0 fo Q 00€)0 g0 0 0 0 o o O o o O 0 • • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 .... 0 00 oo 0 .... .... 0 0 o o 0 0 Qo o A 0 O o oc() 0 0 a e U o oo O O O 0 0 l} o 0 o oOo o O O o O o oc:> 0 0 0 0 ° oo O oo .. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oo oQ "' o Q o 0 O .. o .. ooq.og 00 oOO O OQ O 00 0 O 0 ,.0 0 0 0 0 o V 0 0 oQ o Oc, o 0 0 Cl O O O 00 00 oo o., 0 oO o o O CJ 0 O O .... 0 0 C,: Oo o SI. -o O O O O O O O O Cl u 0 0 0 0 C\:, .. 0 O gc,QC o0 Q .... 00000 'g 0 O o 0 o o Q 0000 0 0 0 Q .. 0o.,o 00 0 oQ o o O O.. 0 ° o 0 00""! 00 0 0 o Oo O o Q 6' 'bo e o O OoC\:i 0o 0 0 0 0 NOTES: • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. Structural Fill • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: Free Draining Structural Backfill 1 inch Drain Rock RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Hampton Inn & Suites Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 12/10/2014 Proj. No. 2553.03 Checked HTW Date Dec. 2014 Plate 8 Slope ,ie;·:ifl.ii~\ . . ~ . '.J, ...... ... 2" (Min.) Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of ,l'•,l'•,l'•rl'•CJ' ............. ,l'•,l'•,l'•,l'•,I' ............. ,l'•,l'•,l'•,l'•,I' ............. 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. 1" Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOTTO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Drwn. GLS FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Hampton Inn & Suites Renton, Washington Date 12/10/2014 Proj. No. 2553.03 Checked HTW Date Dec. 2014 Plate 9 Appendix A Subsurface Exploration ES-2553.03 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by advancing two borings and excavating five test pits across accessible and representative portions of the property. The subsurface explorations were completed in October 2012, July 2013, and November 2014. The approximate boring and test pit locations are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. Logs of the borings and test pits are provided in this Appendix. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Earth Solutions NWLLc SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO, 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS CLEAN GRAVELS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH MORE THAN 50% FINES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS AMOUNT OF FINES) LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GW WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL· SAND MIXTURES, LITILE OR NO FINES POORL Y.-GRADEO GRAVELS, GP GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- Sil T MIXTURES GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SANO- CLAY MIXTURES SW WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS. LITTl.E OR NO FINES SP POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANO, LITTLE OR NO FINES SM SILTY SANOS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS ANO VERY FINE ML SANOS, ROCKfLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SIL TS ANO ORGANIC SIL TY CLA 'VS OF LOW PLASTICITY MH INORGANIC SIL TS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOW.CEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLA VS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANlC SILTS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. • Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER 8-101 1805-136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 2 - Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Legac:i Renton PROJECT NAME Hamgton Inn & Suites PROJECT NUMBER 2553.03 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington DATE STARTED 11/26114 COMPLETED 11126114 GROUND ELEVATION 54 ft HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD HSA 'iZAT TIME OF DRILLING 23.0 ft I Elev 31.0 ft LOGGED BY HTW CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF DRILLING _,, __ NOTES Grass and Gravel AFTER DRILLING w 'if. I ~ ffi ~ (J)UJ <Ji 0 s: I-:::, :i:0 ~g w<D w 0Z-' ci o.o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ...J :a: > .J:::>~ <Ji ~...J 0 [L:::, 0 a,O =i ::.z 0 Ue 0 <( w "' 0:: 0 Tan to gray SILT with fine sand, loose to medium dense, wet f- ML f- " -3.0 51.0 -X 12-18-24 Gray SILT with fine SAND, medium dense to dense, wet ss 100 (42) " ,_ -----mottled coloring 5 ss 100 t!-9-12 --(21) f--ML f-- f-- f-_!Q_ 11.0 43.0 f-Gray poorly graded SAND with silt, very dense, wet ss 100 12-39---50/5" --·-SP- SM --heavy seepage 14.0 40.D -Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist 15 ~ ss 100 -5012" . . - --SM . - 20 20.0 34.' (Continued Next Pago) ic C) i ~ ~ iii l ; - f- f- f- - • Earth Solutions NW 1805-136th Place N.E., Suite201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 BORING NUMBER B-101 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Legacy Renton PROJECT NUMBER 2553.03 w "'-0. en w :,:: ~ffi & ~!z::, fug w<C w O:::,~ _,::. ei 0.::, ~o> 0 ::.z l.) l.)~ <i1i w a'. 20 [X] ss 100 37-50/4" - - - . 25 .'X 27-42-44 ss 100 (86) l.) u; :i: "' ti o.o u; ~_, ,,; "' SP V PROJECT NAME Hampton Inn & Suites PROJECT LOCATION Renton! Washington MA TE RIAL DESCRIPTION Gray poor1y graded SANO, very dense, damp to moist • -ground water -becomes gray-brown, wet to saturated PAGE 2 OF 2 -- -~-Xl ss 100 32-5015" 31.0 -Boring terminated at 31.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 13.0 feet and groundwater table encountered at 23 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with Bentonite. Bottom of hole at 31.0 feet 23.0 ~-~-~~~---~-~~---------------------------------' • Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER B-1 1805-136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 2 - Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449--4704 Fax: 425--449--4711 CLIENT Legacy-Renton PROJECT NAME Hamg:ton 1 nn & Suites PROJECT NUMBER 2553.01 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington -- OATE STARTEO 7/2/13 COMPLETED 7/2/13 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING LOGGED BY HlW CHECKED BY HlW AT END OF DRILLING NOTES Brambles AFTER DRILLING - w .. 0.. I /: ffi 1;; "'[u ui <.) li:2 wm IIJ s: 1--=i (J :i: Cl > 0Z---' TESTS o..o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w-...J ::. ...J::, ~ ui ~...J Cl o..=i 0 a,O :; ::. z <.) <.)~ Cl i'./j w "' 0 Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist SM - 5 s.o Gray poorly graded SAND with silt, very dense, damp _x ss 100 9-23-29 MC=6.50% -(52) - a . -. 10 -becomes dense, moist -IX ss 100 12-16-18 MC= 16.40% -(34) -SP- SM I-. 15 1X ss 100 12-24-24 MC= 10.40% -(48) -. -- -- 20 ao.o /Continued Next Page) • Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER 8-1 1805-136tll Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 2 OF 2 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT J&g~gy Renton PROJECT NAME Ham12:ton Inn & Suites ------ PROJECT NUrJIBER 2.553.0L PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington w #-a. :,: ~ffi ~ Cl) w vi 0 ,: t-::, :i" Cl Ii:~ w"' w 0Z--' ci > TESTS a. 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w---':; ....,~~ vi ~--' 0 0. ::, 0 a,O :; :i!Z 0 0~ Cl w "' "' 20 X] ss 100 45-5014" MC= 6.50% 0 :'. Gray silty GRAVEL with sand, very dense, moist " ~ l o' )( ' " :l ·,) ' ,S , -) -· ' ) 0 )C " .,,-. --, 25 ,. l \ GM 0 ' XI ss 100 50 MC= 7.70% -becomes wet ' )~ . -" • ~ ) . -' :( ''-- b·g I) . r.- ' ' .. e . ~g p_ 30 ~'--30.0 XI ss 100 24-50/4" MC= 3.60% Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, dry to damp SM e . 31.5 Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade, Groundwater seepage encountered at 25.0 feet during drilling. Bottom of hole at 31.5 feet. • Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER 8-2 1B05-136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 2- Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 42-9-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Legac~ Renton PROJECT NAME HamRton Inn & Suites PROJECT NUMBER 2553.01 PROJECT LOCATION Re:nton, Washington OATE STARTED 7/2/13 COMPLETED 7/2/13 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR Boretec GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING ---------- LOGGED BY HlW CHECKED BY HlW AT END OF DRILLING NOTES Brambles AFTER DRILLING - w ;f< 11. i'.: ffi ~ "'w en 0 :,: ;;: ,_ ::, Ici fug W ID w 0Z-' TESTS t.i o..o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ..., ::, 6 ...J ::J ~ en ~..., 0 0..::, mo ::i ::;;z 0 06. C) cli w "' 0 Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist " . " - " - . 5 -becomes medium dense to dense, damp -X ss 100 11-14-17 MC= 9.00% -(31) - ' 10 SM -becomes moist X ss 100 13-16-13 MC= 8.20% (29) -------. ------. ·-·----·- -. c . c - 15 .) -becomes very dense ss 100 17-26-29 MC= 11.20% -(55) ·- -- - -- ,,,, (Continued Next Page) • Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER B-2 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 2 OF 2 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Lega~ Renton PROJECT NAME Hameton Inn & Suites PROJECT NUMBER 2553.01 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington w ;f. 0.. <nw u J: ~ ffi >-u; a:: ~>-::> :i: <!> >--WID w 0 Z--' t.i fuS TESTS o..o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION --' ::. ti ...J::,;; u; cl: --' Cl 0..:, wo :::i ::. z u '-'6 (!) < w "' a:: 20 X Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist (continued) ss 100 21-29-MC= 7.90% .. 50/5" -------.. SM -trace gravel .. .. 25 25.0 Gray SILT, dense, wet ss 100 11-13-21 MC= 30.00% .. . (34) .. . ML '" . .. - 30 30.0 XI SS 100 50 MC= 10.40% Gray poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, very dense, wet • . I-- SP- SM f-- I-- 35 35.0 ~, ss 100 5014" MC-11.80% Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, wet -. - SM 40 XI ss 100 50/5" MC =7.20% -becomes damp 41.5 Boring terminated at 41.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 25.0 feet during drilling. Bottom of hole at 41.5 feet. • Earth Solutions NW 1805-136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT ~~J3"e'"n,..to'"n ______________ _ PROJECT NUMBER 2553.01 DATE STARTED ~1~0/~1~91~1~2 __ _ COMPLETED 10119112 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR -'N-"W"-'E"x"ca"'v"'a"'lin,,,9,___ ______ _ EXCAVATION METHOD --------------- LOGGEDBY-'RA,,:::,,C,.__ ____ _ CHECKED BY _,H~TW=---- NOTES Blackberry Bushes w :,: ~ ffi <n 0 ti: .,-wlXI ti :i:" Cl.a w--':. <n il!-' 0 Cl. ::J ::i :.z " ;Ji n . '' TPSL ,-:;,,, Duff I TOPSOIL to 12" TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1. PROJECT NAME Hampton Inn & Suites PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington __ PAGE 1 OF 1 GROUND ELEVATION ----- GROUND WATER LEVELS: TEST PIT SIZE ------- '\Z AT TIME OF EXCAVATION _,9c,.Occft~----------- AT END OF EXCAVATION -='------------- AFTER EXCAVATION - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION f. . .:.:: -1.0 Light brown to gray fine sandy SILT to silty fine SAND, medium dense, moist -. a . ML a - _§_ 5.5 Grades to poorly graded medium SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -- -trace gravel - - -SP V · -groundwater at 9', water bearing -1Q_ 12.0 -. Brown SILT, medium dense (stiff), wet M -. ,: g ML I; " . " !'l ....1L Iii " 2 " ;;; ~ 15.0 Grades to poorly graded SANO, medium dense, wet to water bearing SPX ~ N :I ~ 17.0 Test pit tenninated at 17.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 9.0 feet during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 17.0 feet. .. !:: I " ~ '" ffi " • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 96005 Telephone: 425--449-4704 Fax: 425--449-4711 CLIENT Legacy Renton PROJECT NAME Hampton Inn & Suites --··--·· ----- PROJECT NUMBER 2553.01 PROJECT LOCATION Renton1 Washington DATE STARTED 10119112 COMPLETED 10/19/12 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD 'v_ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION 12.0 ft ----- LOGGED BY RAC CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Grass / Blackbern,: Bushes AFTER EXCAVATION w CL 0 :,: ~ffi ui fug wa> <.i :i: Cl CLO MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ..J:. ui ~..J Cl CL::, ::i ::; z Cl "' "' 0 ' ' Duff I TOPSOIL to 12" TPSL,, ,11, ---1.0 " . Light brown SILT, medium dense. moist " ' -mottled I-. ML __L 5.5 -Grades to grBy I blue SILT; medium dense, low plasticity, moist ML - _1.Q__ 10.0 Gray poorly graded medium SAND, medium dense, wet \ SP . I \ ',/. -groundwater at 12', water bearing 13.0 . Grades to brown silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, dense, some cementing, moist to wet . - SM --1L 16.0 . Test pit terminated at 16.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 12.0 feet during excavation. Bottom oftest pit at 16.0 feet. . • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-44~711 CLIENT Legag Renton PROJECT NAME Ham~ton Inn & Suites PROJECT NUMBER 2553.01 PROJECT LOCATION Renton. Washington DATE STARTED 10/19/12 COMPLETED 10/19/12 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE -------- EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGEOBY RAC CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES De~th ofToesoil & Sod 12": grass AFTER EXCAVATION UJ I ~ ffi <Ji t) ti:~ UJ a, 0 :i:"' "-o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION UJ-..J::;; <Ji ~..J 0 11.:::, :i ::.z (!) .. "' 0 , ' Sod and TOPSOIL to 12" TPSL ,, ,,,, -1.0 ---·-Light brown SILT, medium dense, moist --mottled _L -grades to sandy fine silt . -. ML -. -continued silt/ sandy silt, medium dense -. ....1Q___ . -increase in sand, iron oxide staining -cobbles 14.0 Grades to gray/bfU-e silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet - -1L SM -. -cemented, no groundwater 17.0 . . Test pit terminated at 17.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 17. O feet. M " /Ci ~ 5 " "' ::> ~ z 5 ~ " M ~ N ~ l¥ I= X ~ ~ w z w " • Earth Solutions NW 1805-136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Legacy Renton PROJECT NUMBER 2553.01 DATESTARTED 10/19112 COMPLETED 10/19112 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR ~N'-"W'--'--'E=x,,,ca,,v,,at,,-i,_,ng._ _______ _ EXCAVATION METHOD--------------- LOGGED BY ~RA=C~----- NOTES Blackbeny Bushes L1J 0. t) I i: ffi vi ~¢? UJ en 0 :i: (!) "-o u,-...J:, vi .::...J 0 "-:, ::i :.z (!) .. u, 0 CHECKED BY ..,H,_TW'-"-'----- ' ' TPSL ,-:,,1 ,, Duff /TOPSOIL 12" .!. -1.0 . TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 PAGE 1 OF 2 PROJECT NAME Hampton Inn & Suites PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington ·--- GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE _____ _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -------------- AT END OF EXCAVATION ---------------- AFTER EXCAVATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown to light brown S1LT and fine sandy SILT, medium dense, moist . -massive -- ML -- ___L -. ,_ ·-· Grades to fractured blocky SILT and fine sandy SILT, medium dense, moist -. -. -. ML _1Q_ -- 12.0 . Grades to poorly graded medium SAND, loose to medium dense, moist -compact ---1L SP -. - - 20 20.0 (GonMued Next Page) ::: ~ ~ iii i • Earth Solutions NW 1805-136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425--449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Legacy Renton -----·--------------- PRO.JECT NUMBER 2553.01 w ll. I: ~ ffi en (,) ~g w"' (.) :i: Cl "-o --':; en r2--' C ll.:, ;j !z Cl TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4. PAGE 2 OF 2 PROJECTNAME Hamp~to~n~l=nn~&~S=u=ite=•~----------- PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Test pit terminated at 20.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 20.0 feel .__.._ _ ___,.__._ _ ___,_ ____________________________________ __. • Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 1805-1361h Place N.E .. Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Legac:r Renton PROJECT NAME Ham~ton Inn & Suites PROJECT NUMBER 2553.01 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington .. ---·-- DATE STARTED 10/19/12 COMPLETEO .. -10119112 GROUND ELEV A TION TEST PIT SIZE - EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY RAC CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Del!:th ofT01;1:soil & Sod 12": forest duff AFTER EXCAVATION w ~g ~ffi rJi 0 j" CJ w"' ti a.o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION .J::. rJi ~-' 0 a.::, ::i ::. z CJ <( u, 0 !:.!:' ~ Duff/ TOPSOIL to 12" TPSL,, ,11, --~-1.0 f. . Light brown SILT, medium dense, moist (Fill) • -ML • ,., -plastic debris ----- Gray medium SAND, medium dense, moist • - _L -- -- -contiriued sand, uniform -- -- SP e-1.Q_ ~ . -- ....1L 15.0 Test pit terminated at 15.0-feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 15.0 feet. Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-2553.03 Earth Sorutions NW, LLC • ti:~ti~ Earth Solutions NW GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 1805-136th Place N.E., Suite 201 fi:-,. __ Bellevue. WA 98005 }'i':prr'J! Telephone: 425-284-3300 1--~ CLIENT Kassam Construction PROJECT NAME 1.26 Acre Develoi:2ment ---- PROJECT NUMBER ES-2553.01 PROJECT LOCATION Renton U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 . 1 !I 1/2 3 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 100 I '\ I \ I +--+ ~ I I 95 -~- 'I( \ 90 85 \ \ II \ " ~ BO \ 75 '\ 70 " IC 65 >-~ :,: '-' 60 ~ ' fii 55 \ a'. w 50 \ \ z ;;: ' >-45 '\ - z t\ w (.) 40 a'. " \ w Cl. 35 \ ~~ \1 30 I\ 25 \ 1'fi 20 ~\ 15 '\ ,-\ 10 "" 5 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES I GRAVEL I SAND I SILT OR CLAY I coarse fine I coarse medium fine I Specimen Identification Classification LL PL Pl Cc Cu 0 B-1 15.0ft. Gray Poorly Graded SAND with Silt, SP-SM 1.17 3.68 l!!l 8-1 20.0ft. Gray Silty SAND with Gravel, SM . !::, 8-1 30.0ft. Gray Silty SAND with Gravel, SM * 8-2 20.0ft. Gray Silty SAND with Gravel, SM 0 8-2 30.0ft. Gray Poorly Graded SAND with Slit & Gravel, SP-SM 0.86 18.98 Specimen Identification 0100 060 030 010 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay 0 8-1 15.0ft. 4.75 0.362 0.204 0.099 0.0 92.6 7.4 0 8-1 20.0ft. 37.5 5.696 0.446 44.9 42.0 13.1 !::, 8-1 30.0ft. 37.5 1.276 0.219 23.5 59.4 17.0 * 8-2 20.0ft. 9.5 0.31 0.17 0.8 83.7 15.5 0 8-2 30.0ft. 19 4.301 0.918 0.227 38.0 56.8 5.2 • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: 421>-284-3300 CLIENT Kassam Construction PROJECT NUMBER ES-2553.01 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 H 1123/B 3 4 6 100 I I~ I 95 90 85 \ 80 75 \ 70 I-65 :,: (') 60 ~ ~ 55 0:: w 50 z .: I-45 z w () 40 0:: w a. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 10 GRAVEL I GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION • PROJECT NAME 1.26 Acre Development PROJECT LOCATION Renton U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER a10 1416 20 30 40 so eo 100140200 I II I I \ \ \ \ \ 1 0.1 0.01 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAND 0.001 COBBLES coarse fine J coarse medium J fine SILT OR CLAY ~i-:;S~p::.ec::i:.:.m:.:e:.:.:nc:l::.de::n:.:.:ti:.:.'fi:.:c::.at:::io:.:.n.:.+ _________ C::.l=a=ss::i:.:.fica=li:.:·o:.:.:nc._ _______ -+..:L:;L~~P.cL:...+-----'-P-'-1-+_Cc:..:..+.cCc:u'-l ~ 0 B-2 40.0ft. Gray Silty SAND with Gravel, SM §1-1---------+-----------------------l---l---l--+--,---l ~l--+------1----------------1---+--1--1---l---l '!!1-1---------+-----------------------1--+--1--+--,f----l !z "l-'----------+----~---~----~---~----~'-----'-~-'-----'-~----''-------1 ~ Specimen Identification %Sand %Silt %Clay D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel ~ o B-2 40.0ft. 19 1.509 0.227 20.1 62.7 17.2 ijl-+----------,f----1----1----l----f--------,f------l------l :i ~H--------+----+----1-----1-----+----+---+---------I IL..l.-----~-----1---J..._ __ _,_ __ ...J_ __ ...J_ __ _L,. _____ ~ l • EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY Report Distribution ES-2553.03 Legacy Renton 8809 Scarlet Knight Northeast Albuquerque, New Mexico 87122 Attention: Mr. Faizel Kassam Clark Design Group, PLLC 169 Western Avenue West Seattle, Washington 98119 Attention: Ms. Lauren Nestrud Earth Solutions NW, LLC PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON PROJECT 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). FORMIF1-053 82-001-B 092801 KLL 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: LEGACY RENTON 2. Name of applicant: LEGACY RENTON, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: APPLICANT: Faizel Kassam 10700 NE 4rH ST, Suite 3006 Bellevue, WA 98004 CONTACT: Insight Engineering Company PO Box 1478 Everett, WA 98206 (425) 303-9363 4. Date checklist prepared: December 17, 2014 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction would start in the Spring of 2015 and be completed by 2016, subjectto receipt of all necessary development and building permits 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Drainage Report; Geotechnical Report, Traffic Impact Analysis and Peer Review Report 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes explain. No FORMIF1-053 82-001-B 092801 KLL TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Site plan approval; steep slope modification; design review approval; clearing & grading permits; utility plan approvals; construction stormwater permit; building permits. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposal is for a 105-room hotel building and surface parking lot, on approximately 1.26 acres. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If 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 site address is located in Renton at 1300 Lake Washington BLVD N in King County. (Tax Account No. 334450-0007) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: ____ _ b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 50%. 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. Alderwood and Kitsap soils, according to the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Snohomish County. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. FORMIF1-053 82-001-B 092801 KLL None known. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The site would be cleared, graded and compacted as necessary to achieve proper grading transition for development. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material will be cut, and approximately 5,000 cubic yards will be used for fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. The potential for on-site erosion will increase in the short-term where soils are exposed during site preparation & construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 44% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: A temporary erosion sedimentation control plan (TESCP) will be approved by the county prior to any grading activities. Erosion control BMPs typically include silt fences, hay bales, catch basin filters, and rock armoring. 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. Temporary emissions and odors would result from site preparation & construction activities, including dust generated by grading activities and combustion emissions from heavy equipment. It is anticipated that these impacts would be minimal. Long-term impacts would result from increased traffic to the site and a slight increase in carbon monoxide levels. Domestically produced pollutants would be generated after the residential structures are occupied. These impacts are not expected to be significant. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Emissions from vehicles traveling on roads adjacent to the site may affect the development. FORM\F1-053 82-001-8 092801 KLL c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The Washington State Clean Air Act requires the use of all known, available, and reasonable means of controlling air pollution, including dust. Construction impacts would not be significant and the potential for soils to be carried off the site by exiting trucks could be controlled with the construction of a gravel entrance. Additionally, equipment used for site preparation will be serviced and maintained in good operating condition to lessen impacts from this source, and water will also be used for dust control when necessary. Long-term air quality impacts are not expected to exceed regulated amounts. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No 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. N/A 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. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No FORM\F1-053 82-001-B 092801 KLL 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. Waste materials would not be discharged to surface waters as a result of the project Discharges of petroleum products and other substances related to automobiles from the roads could result from the surface flow of storm water. Implementation of the drainage plan would minimize this occurrence by including water quality treatment with the storm water drainage facilities. b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. The deeper ground water condition observed at depths of 23 to 25 feet below existing grades likely represent the local ground water table. The shallow groundwater observed at depths of approximately 9 to 13 feet below existing grades likely represents a locally perched condition. 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. Surface water run off from impervious surfaces shall be directed to storm drainage conveyance water quality systems. An upgraded conveyance system is planned as part of this proposal as described in the drainage report. Detailed drainage plans will be approved by the City of Renton, according to the drainage code. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Oil, grease, and other pollutants from the additional paved areas could potentially enter the ground or downstream surface waters through surface water runoff. Construction of the detention system, FORMIF1-053 82-001-8 092801 KLL control structures, and water quality features of the detailed drainage plan would provide adequate downstream protection. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Surface runoff during construction and after development will be controlled by the drainage system according to approved drainage and temporary erosion control plans. Drainage treatment in the form of filtration will settle sediments. The location and design of permanent storm drainage facilities would match existing drainage patterns. 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, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, soft rush, velvet grass water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Existing native vegetation consisting of trees, shrubs, groundcover, and grass will be cleared at time of development. 8 trees will be removed. 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: All areas, exclusive of buildings and parking, will be landscaped. Hydro-seeding may possibly occur on barren areas, per county requirements. FORM\F1-053 82-001-B 092801 KLL 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: crow, robin, sparrow mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rodents and squirrels fish: salmon, 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. All of Western Washington is located in the Pacific Flyway, however, this site is not a significant factor in the flyway. 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 be used for lighting and heating, and natural gas would 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: The requirements of the international building code would be satisfied in the construction of the residential buildings. Energy conserving materials would be utilized where ever possible throughout the construction process. FORM\F1-053 82-001-B 092801 KLL 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, which could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None Anticipated 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The project site would adhere to the contractor's safety plan and program during construction. b. Noise 1) What type of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, aircraft, other)? Traffic from existing roads near the site would be audible on the site. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term noise impacts would result from the use of construction equipment during daylight hours, including heavy equipment, hand tools and transporting of construction equipment. At 200 feet from the area of construction, LEQ would range from approximately 59 Db to 77 Db for clearing, excavation, and building construction. Long- term impacts would be those associated with the increase in site users and additional traffic, the noise levels would be typical of a commercial development. 3) Proposed measure to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activities are subject to Washington State and City of Renton noise ordinances. Use by customers is expected to generate typical commercial noises, also subject to noise ordinances. FORM\F1-053 82-001-8 092801 KLL 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The west 1/3 of the site is currently cleared. The east 2/Jrd of the site is native growth with fill material from 1-405 construction. The property to the north is commercial and the property to the south is undeveloped. To the east is 1-405 and to the west is a park. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so describe. Not to current knowledge. c. Describe any structures on the site. There is one small mobile coffee shack on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The coffee shack will be moved offsite. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? UC-N2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Urban Center North g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The steep slopes on the eastern portion of the property are environmentally sensitive. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? A maximum of approximately 250 guests could stay at the hotel, and approximately 25 employees could work there. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None FORM\F1-053 82-001-B 092801 KLL k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NIA I. Proposed measure to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Compliance with all applicable City of Renton land use codes and regulations. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NIA 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: NIA 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? Structures would comply with the height requirements of Renton code. Exteriors would be principally siding, EIFS and masonry. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No surrounding views would be obstructed, however, development of the site will alter the view of the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Retention of existing vegetation, re-vegetation with landscaping of site, and compliance with the zoning code and city design guidelines will reduce impacts. FORM\F1-053 82-001-B 092801 KLL 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare would be produced by exterior and interior during evening hours. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light from the finished project would not interfere with views or cause hazards. Exterior lighting would be typical of a commercial facility. Windows will be of non-reflective glazing material to reduce glare along Lake Washington Blvd N. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The primary off-site source of light and glare would be from the existing commercial area lighting, and vehicles traveling along the area roadways. Existing off-site sources of light and glare should not affect the proposal. 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? Public parks, playgrounds at school facilities, boating and water related activities, and a walking/ biking trail are available in the area. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None FORMIF1-053 82-001-B 092801 KLL 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, archeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site fronts Lake Washington Blvd. Access for the proposal will be by a driveway from Lake Washington Blvd. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, the nearest stop is located 0.24 miles away at stop ID 46541. Bus route #s: 240, 342, 560, 566. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 105 parking spaces will be provided, and no existing stalls 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). The project will require frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. FORM\F1-053 82--001-B 092801 KLL 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 858 ADT will be generated by the entire project, peak volumes will occur during the PM commuting hours with 56 AM peak hour trips and 63 PM peak hour trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Payment to the City of Renton of $64,338.75 for traffic impact fees. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, however, the level is not expected to be significant. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The proposal will generate new tax & use revenue to contribute toward public services. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: cable television b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity -Puget Sound Energy Gas -Puget Sound Energy Water-City of Renton Refuse -Waste Management NW Sanitary Sewer -City of Renton Communications -Comcast FORMIF1-053 82-001-B 092801 KLL C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. understand that the lead agen_SX is relying ~: the~)o#ke its decision. ,'/ ~ 7->/W~ /. Signature: Briin Kalab, PE / Insight Engineering Date: 12/17/14 FORM\F1-053 82-001-B 092801 KLL City of Renton TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. 42 ___ trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 Trees in proposed public streets Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 2. 3. trees ----- trees ----- ____ trees trees ----- ___ O trees 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. 2.1 ___ trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain 4 : 5. 34 ___ trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. o ____ 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. inches ----- 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum T caliper trees required) 8. 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees 6 : (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 1 Measured at chest height. 9. ------ ------ inches per tree trees 2· Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3-Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Sectiori 4-j~oSo ~~f -~ _) 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 4-4-130H7a 6 · 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. P:\sc\Renton Hotel\Documents\City of Renton\Land lJ se Submittal\ Tree Retention Work.sheet.doc 12/08 First American Owner's Policy I Owner's Policy of ISSUED BY ! Insurance I First American Title Insurance Company I POLICY NUMBER I 5011453-NCS-616064-WAl -----------------' Any notice of claim and any other notice or statement in writing required to be given to the Company under this policy must be given to the Company at the address shown in Section 18 of the Conditions. COVERED RISKS SUBJECT TO IBE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B, AND THE CONDffiONS, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a califomia corporation (the "Company") insures, as of Date of Policy and, to the extent stated in Covered Risks 9 and 10, after Date of Policy, against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance, sustained or incurred by the Insured by reason of: 1. Title being vested other than as stated in Schedule A. 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the T1tle. This Covered Risk includes but is not limited to insurance against loss from (a) A defect in the Title caused by (i) forgery, fraud, undue influence, duress, incompetency, incapacity, or impersonation; (ii) failure of any person or Entity to have authorized a transfer or conveyance; (iii) a document affecting Title not properly created, executed, witnessed, sealed, acknowledged, notarized, or delivered; (iv) failure to perform those acts necessary to create a document by electronic means authorized by law; (v) a document executed under a falsified, expired, or otherwise invalid power of attorney; (vi) a document not properly filed, recorded, or indexed in the Public Records including failure to perform those acts by electronic means authorized by law; or (vii) a defective judicial or administrative proceeding. (b) The lien of real estate taxes or assessments imposed on the Title by a government.al authority due or payable, but unpaid. {c) Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land. The term "encroachment" includes encroachments of existing improvements located on the Land onto adjoining land, and encroachments onto the Land of existing improvements located on adjoining land. 3. Unmarketable Title. 4. No right of access to and from the Land. (Covered Risks Continued on Page 2) In Witness Whereof, First American Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name to be hereunto affixed by its authorized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. First American Title Insurance Company Dennis J. Gilmore President Timothy Kemp Secretary (This Policy is valid only when Schedules A and B are attached) This Jacket was created electronically and constitutes an original document Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Tille Association. All rights reserved. The use of this form is restricted to AL TA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. AH other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association iform 5011453 (8-1-12) rage 1 of8 AL TA Owner's Policy of Title Insurance (6-17-06) Washington COVEREO RISKS (Continued) S. The•violation br enforcement of any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to {a) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (b) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (c) the subdivision of land; or (d) environmental protection if a notice, describing any part of the Land, is recorded in the Public Records setting forth the violation or intention to enforce, but only to the extent of the violation or enforcement referred to in that notice. 6. An enforcement action based on the exercise of a governmental police power not covered by Covered Risk 5 if a notice of the enforcement action, describing any part of the Land, is recorded in the Public Recordsr but only to the extent of the enforcement referred to in that notice. 7. The exercise of the rights of eminent domain if a notice of the exercise, describing any part of the Land, is recorded in the Publrc Records. 8. Any taking by a governmental body that has occurred and is binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without Knowledge. 9. Title being vested other than as stated in Schedule A or being defective (a) as a result of the avoidance in whole or in part, or from a court order providing an alternative remedy, of a transfer of all or any part of the title to or any interest in the Land occurring prior to the transaction vesting Title as shown in Schedule A because that prior transfer constituted a fraudulent or preferential transfer under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws; or (b) because the instrument of transfer vesting Title as shown in Schedule A constitutes a preferential transfer under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws by reason of the failure of its recording in the Public Records (i) to be timely, or (ii) to impart notice of its existence to a purchaser for value or to a judgment or lien creditor. 10. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the Title or other matter included in Covered Risks 1 through 9 that has been created or attached or has been filed or recorded in the Public Records subsequent to Date of Policy and prior to the recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A. The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred in defense of any matter insured against by this Policy, but only to the extent provided in the Conditions. EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land~ (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or (iv) environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion l(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Form 5011453 (8-1-12) Page 2 of8 Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or (e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Trt:le. 4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcyr state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy. 5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A. ALTA Owner's Policy of Title Insurance (6-17-06) Washingtonj CONDITTONS 1. DEFINITTON OF TERMS The following terms when used in this policy mean: (a) "Amount of Insurance": The amount stated in Schedule A, as may be increased or decreased by endorsement to this policy, increased by Section B(b), or decreased by Sections 10 and 11 of these Conditions. (b) "Date of Policy": The date designated as "Date of Policy" in Schedule A. (c) "Entity": A corporation, partnership, trust, limited liability company, or other similar legal entity. (d) "Insured": The Insured named in Schedule A. (i) The tenm "Insured" also includes (A) successors to the Title of the Insured by operation of law as distinguished from purchase, including heirs, devisees, survivors, personal representatives, or next of kin; (B) successors to an Insured by dissolution, merger, consolidation, distribution, or reorganization; (C) successors to an Insured by its conversion to another kind of Entity; (D) a grantee of an Insured under a deed delivered without payment of actual valuable consideration conveying the Title (1) if the stock, shares, memberships, or other equity interests of the grantee are wholly- owned by the named Insured, (2) if the grantee wholly owns the named Insured, (3) if the grantee is wholly-owned by an affiliated Entity of the named Insured, provided the affiliated Entity and the named Insured are both wholly-owned by the same person or Entity, or ( 4) if the grantee is a trustee or beneficiary of a trust created by a written instrument established by the Insured named in Schedule A for estate planning purposes. (ii) With regard to (A), (B), (C), and (D) reserving, however, all rights and defenses as to any successor that the Company would have had against any predecessor Insured. (e) "Insured Claimant": An Insured claiming loss or damage. (f) "Knowledge" or "Known": Actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge or notice that may be imputed to an Insured by reason of the Public Records or any other records that impart constructive notice of matters affecting the Trtle. (g) "Land": The land described in Schedule A, and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The tenm "Land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is insured by this policy. (h) "Mortgage": Mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law. (i) "Public Records": Records established under state statutes at Date of Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive Form 5011453 (8-1-12) Page 3 of 8 I notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. With respect to Covered Risk S(d), "Public Records" shall also include environmental protection liens filed in the records of the clerk of the United States District court for the district where the Land is located. (j) "Title": The estate or interest described in Schedule A. (k) "Unmarketable Title": Title affected by an alleged or apparent matter that would permit a prospective purchaser or lessee of the Title or lender on the Title to be released from the obligation to purchase, lease, or lend if there is a contractual condition requiring the delivery of marketable title. 2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in favor of an Insured, but only so long as the Insured retains an estate or interest in the Land, or holds an obligation secured by a purchase money Mortgage given by a purchaser from the Insured, or only so long as the Insured shall have liability by reason of warranties in any transfer or conveyance of the Title. This policy shall not continue in force in favor of any purchaser from the Insured of either (i) an estate or interest in the Land, or (ii) an obligation secured by a purchase money Mortgage given to the Insured. 3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY INSURED CLAIMANT The Insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing (i) in case of any litigation as set forth in Section S(a) of these Conditions, (ii) in case Knowledge shall come to an Insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest that is adverse to the Title, as insured, and that might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable by virtue of this policy, or (iii) if the Title, as insured, is rejected as Unmarketable Title. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Insured Claimant to provide prompt notice, the company's liability to the Insured Claimant under the policy shall be reduced to the extent of the prejudice. 4. PROOF OF LOSS In the event the Company is unable to determine the amount of loss or damage, the Company may, at its option, require as a condition of payment that the Insured Claimant furnish a signed proof of loss. The proof of loss must describe the defect, lien, encumbrance, or other matter insured against by this policy that constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage. 5. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS (a) Upon written request by the Insured, and subject to the options contained in Section 7 of these Conditions, the Company, at its own cost and without unreasonable delay, shall provide for the defense of an Insured in litigation in which any third party asserts a claim covered by this policy adverse to the Insured. This obligation is limited to only those stated causes of action alleging matters insured against by this policy. The Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the right of the Insured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the Insured as to those stated causes of action. It shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel. The Company will not pay any fees, costs, or expenses incurred by the Insured in the defense of those causes of action that allege matters not insured against by this policy. ALTA owner's Policy of Title Insurance (6-17-06)1 Washington CONDITIONS (Continued) (b) The Compar\y shall have the right, in addition to the options contained in Section 7 of these Conditions, at its own cost, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act that in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the Title, as insured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Insured. The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this policy, whether or not it shall be liable to the Insured. The exercise of these rights shall not be an admission of liability or waiver of any provision of this policy. If the Company exercises its rights under this subsection, it must do so diligently. (c) Whenever the Company brings an action or asserts a defense as required or permitted by this policy, the Company may pursue the litigation to a final detennination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and it expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to appeal any adverse judgment or order. 6. DUTY OF INSURED CLAIMANT TO COOPERATE (a) In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding and any appeals, the Insured shall secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide defense in the action or proceeding, induding the right to use, at its option, the name of the Insured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the Insured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid {i) in securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or proceeding, or effecting settlement, and (ii) in any other lawful act that in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable to establish the Title or any other matter as insured. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the Insured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the Insured under the policy shall tem1inate1 including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the matter or matters requiring such cooperation. {b) The Company may reasonably require the Insured Claimant to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and to produce for examination, inspection, and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by the authorized representative of the Company, all records, in whatever medium maintained, including books, ledgers, checks, memoranda, correspondence, reports, e-mails, disks, tapes, and videos whether bearing a date before or after Date of Policy, that reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, if requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the Insured Claimant shall grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized represenrative of the Company to examine, inspect, and copy all of these records in the custody or control of a third party that reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information designated as confidential by the Insured Oaimant provided to the Company pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the Insured Claimant to submit for examination under oath, produce any reasonably requested infonnation, or grant permission to secure reasonably necessary information from third parties as required in this subsection, unless prohibited by law or governmental regulation, shall terminate any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim. IForm 5011453 (8-1-12) I Page 4 of8 ' 7. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS; TERMINATION OF UABILITY In case of a claim under this policy, the Company shall have the following additional options: (a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Insurance. To pay or tender payment of the Amount of Insurance under this policy together with any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred by the Insured Claimant that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment or tender of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of this option, all liability and obligations of the Company to the Insured under this policy, other than to make the payment required in this subsection, shall tenninate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation. (b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other Than the Insured or With the Insured Claimant. {i) To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an Insured Claimant any claim insured against under this policy. In addition, the Company will pay any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred by the Insured Claimant that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay; or {ii) To pay or otherwise settle with the Insured Claimant the loss or damage provided for under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred by the Insured Claimant that were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and that the Company is obligated to pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the options provided for in subsections (b)(i) or (ii), the Company's obligations to the Insured under this policy for the claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required to be made, shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation. 8. DETERMINATION AND EXTENT OF LIABILITY This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the Insured Claimant who has suffered loss or damage by reason of matters insured against by this policy. (a) The extent of liability of the Company for loss or damage under this policy shall not exceed the lesser of {i) the Amount of Insurance; or {ii) the difference between the value of the Title as insured and the value of the Title subject to the risk insured against by this policy. (b) If the Company pursues its rights under Section 5 of these Conditions and is unsuccessful in establishing the Title, as insured, {i) the Amount of Insurance shall be increased by 10%, and {ii) the Insured Claimant shall have the right to have the loss or damage determined either as of the date the claim was made by the Insured Claimant or as of the date it is settled and paid. (c) In addition to the extent of liability under (a) and (b), the Company will also pay those costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses incurred in accordance with Sections 5 and 7 of these Conditions. ALTA Owner's Policy ofTi~e Insurance (6-17-06) Washington CONDmONS (Continued) 9. UMITATION Of LIABILITY (a) If the Company establishes the Title, or removes the alleged defect, lien, or encumbrance, or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the Land, or cures the claim of Unmarketable Title, all as insured, in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals, it shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused to the Insured. (b) In the event of any litigation, including litigation by the Company or with the Company's consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals, adverse to the Title, as insured. (c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to the Insured for liability voluntarily assumed by the Insured in settling any claim or suit without the prior written consent of the Company. 10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR TERMINATION OF UABILITY All payments under this policy, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses, shall reduce the Amount of Insurance by the amount of the payment. 11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE The Amount of Insurance shall be reduced by any amount the Company pays under any policy insuring a Mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the Insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is executed by an Insured after Date of Policy and which is a charge or lien on the Title, and the amount so paid shall be deemed a payment to the Insured under this policy. 12. PAYMENT OF LOSS When liability and the extent of loss or damage have been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions, the payment shall be made within 30 days. 13. RIGHTS OF RECOVERY UPON PAYMENT OR SETILEMENT (a) Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this policy, it shall be subrogated and entitled to the rights of the Insured Oaimant in the Title and all other rights and remedies in respect to the claim that the Insured Claimant has against any person or property, to the extent of the amount of any loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses paid by the Company. If requested by the Company, the Insured Claimant shall execute documents to evidence the transfer to the Company of these rights and remedies. The Insured Oaimant shall permit the Company to sue, compromise, or settle in the name of the Insured Oaimant and to use the name of the Insured Claimant in any transaction or litigation involving these rights and remedies. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the Insured Claimant, the Company shall defer the exercise of its right to recover until after the Insured Claimant shall have recovered its loss. (b) The Company's right of subrogation includes the rights of the Insured to indemnities, guaranties, other policies of insurance, or bonds, notwithstanding any terms or conditions contained in those instruments that address subrogation rights. 14. ARBITRATION Either the Company or the Insured may demand that the claim or controversy shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Land Title )Form 5011453 (8-1-12) rge 5 of8 Association ('Rules"). Except as provided in the Rules, there shall be no joinder or consolidation with claims or controversies of other persons. Arbltrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the Insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision, or to any other controversy or claim arising out of the transaction giving rise to this policy. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is in excess of $2,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the Insured. Arbitration pursuant to this policy and under the Rules shall be binding upon the parties. Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction. 15. UABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POUCY; POUCY ENTIRE CONTRACT (a) This policy together with all endorsements, if any, attached to it by the Company is the entire policy and contract between the Insured and the Company. In interpreting any provision of this policy, this policy shall be construed as a whole. (b) Any claim of loss or damage that arises out of the status of the Title or by any action asserting such claim shall be restricted to this policy. (c) Any amendment of or endorsement to this policy must be in writing and authenticated by an authorized person, or expressly incorporated by Schedule A of this policy. ( d) Each endorsement to this policy issued at any time is made a part of this policy and is subject to all of its terms and provisions. Except as the endorsement expressly states, it does not (i) modify any of the terms and provisions of the policy, (ii) modify any prior endorsement, (iii) extend the Date of Policy, or (iv) increase the Amount of Insurance. 16. SEVERABILITY In the event any provision of this policy, in whole or in part, is held invalid or unenforceable under applicable Jaw, the policy shall be deemed not to include that provision or such part held to be invalid, but all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 17. CHOICE OF LAW; FORUM (a) Choice of Law: The Insured acknowledges the Company has underwritten the risks covered by this policy and determined the premium charged therefor in reliance upon the law affecting interests in real property and applicable to the interpretation, rights, remedies, or enforcement of policies of title insurance of the jurisdiction where the Land is located. Therefore, the court or an arbitrator shall apply the law of the jurisdiction where the Land is located to determine the validity of claims against the Title that are adverse to the Insured and to interpret and enforce the terms of this policy. In neither case shall the court or arbitrator apply its conflicts of law principles to determine the applicable law. (b) Choice of Forum: Any litigation or other proceeding brought by the Insured against the Company must be filed only in a state or federal court within the United States of America or its territories having appropriate jurisdiction. 18. NOTICES, WHERE SENT Any notice of claim and any other notice or statement in writing required to be given to the Company under this policy must be given to the Company at First American Title Insurance Company, Attn: Claims National Intake Center, 1 First American Way; Santa Ana, CA 92707. Phone: 888-632- 1642. ALTA Owner's Policy of Title Insurance (6-17-06) Washington ' ~"' $ "' ~ ~ FirstAmi ~ .. -~ ' I Owner's Policy ofTitlefnsurance ----~-- 1 I ISSUED BY can Schedule A I First American Title Insurance Company I POLICY NUMBER ----~N_C_S_-_6_1_6_064-WAl _ _ --~------_____ ___; Name and Address of Title Insurance Company: First American Title Insurance Company, 1 First American Way, Santa Ana, CA 92707. File No.: NCS-616064-WAl Address Reference: 1300 Lake Washington Boulevard, Renton, WA Amount of Insurance: $750,000.00 Premium:$ Date of Policy: July 19, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. 1. Name of Insured: Legacy Renton, LLC 2. The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy is: Fee Simple 3. Title is vested in: Legacy Renton, LLC, a Washington limited liability company 4. The Land referred to in this policy is described as follows: THE SOUTHERLY 160 FEET OF THE NORTHERLY 235 FEET OF LOTS 312,313, 314 AND 315, AS MEASURED ALONG PARALLEL LINES TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTHEAST 110TH STREET (ALSO KNOWN AS MORGAN AVENUE), C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN, DIVISION NO. 5, ACCORDING TO THE PlAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 83, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THE WESTERLY 60 FEET OF SAID LOT 312 CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 29, 1915 AS RECORDING NO. 1035005. AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOTS 314 AND 315 CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 18, 1956 AS RECORDING NO. 4655599. APN: 334450-0007-01 !Form 5011453 (8-H2) Page 6 of8 AL TA Owner's Policy of Title Insurance (6-17-06~ Washingto ----------------, -~·i~ FirstAmerican ---------------------- Owner's Policy of Tit nsurance I i ISSUED BY -·- Schedule B First American Title Insurance Company ,I POLICY NUMBER NCS-6160_6_4-_W_A_l ________________ j EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE File No.: NCS-616064-WAl This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: Part One: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. 5. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or materials or medical assistance heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 6. (A) Unpatented mining claims; (B) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (C) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (A), (B) or (C) are shown by the public records; (D) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. 7. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. Part Two: 1. General Taxes for the year 2013, plus interest and penalties. Tax Account No.: 334450-0007-01 Amount Billed: $ 12,547.87 Amount Paid: $ 6,273.94 Amount Due: $ 6,273.93 Assessed Land Value: $ 880,000.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 1,000.00 JForm 5011453 (8-1-12) Page 7 of B ALTA Owner's Policy of Ti~e Insurance (6-17-06) Washington 2. Right of the publi nake necessary slopes for cuts or fills LIi ;aid premises in the reasonable original grading of streets, avenues, alleys and roads, as dedicated in the plat. 3. Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon said premises for Lake Washington Boulevard as granted by deed recorded December 29, 1915 under recording no. 1035005. 4. Reservation of all existing and future rights to light, view and air, together with the rights of access to and from the State Highway constructed on lands conveyed in Deed from the State of Washington: Recorded: Recording No.: January 18, 1956 4655599 5. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: March 26, 1984 as Recording No. 8403260623 In Favor of: For: Puget Sound Power & Light Company, a Washington corporation Electric transmission and/or distribution lines 6. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any, rights of vendors and security agreement on personal property and rights of tenants, and secured parties to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. 7. Any facts, rights, interests or claims that may exist or arise by reason of the following matters disclosed by an ALTA/ACSM survey made by Harley C. Pawley, PLS on June 27, 2013, designated Job Number 38014: (A) Subject property is shown with access across the south adjoining land without easement; (B) Building noted on west side of subject property is within the 15' Puget Power easement per Rec. No. 8403260623. form 5011453 (8-1-12) !Page 8 of 8 I ALTA Owner's Policy of Title Insurance (6-17-06) Washington First American Title -.. .l ; •• ORIGINAL • 'Gl'Vltor ll•rt·1n, Mrll!Dy 1r-,il!. C:{'ll•f')!. am ..... rranu; tel "tGt:T SOl.SO POW£11 &, LIGHT C:>MPANY. ~ WuhUIIIQfl eorponoor, f'C.rerw.· hffein1. lor lht: pu~ llert:ll'lltler ffl ro,11'1. 1 perpftllal t11Mmlffll °""· atr~s Isl under Ille follo"i• 4ffc'rl)ecl rtal pr~ l Ult' Prapl'rt) · h~til'II in King Ca.ir.cy. Wuh-.or., .11 i- EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO. I°' EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED lllllj..Co. Records 0,- By tv; 1,{ . l)epalJ ~ u cny be UCMrwlM -. for1h herein Cin~tee's ri&tJt9 . 411 ~ ft.el'f:isfld 1410n lha.1 pon1e111 ~ !ht Pl"l:Qef1)' ,I "Ret,,Cll·Way·· llvtin! deterbed as follows r t ...... d ..... --==·-(ffl ~-.--------sn = •• ri eect:.,.,, 9Q ,ail ..... J t full! l. n-WeK•rly 1S feet of the ~e descru.d property, ill& 11ea8\lred perpei-.- dicular to the westerly U.ne of sa.t.4 pr:perty. 2. legiruang at the Northwest con.er of the above deacrtl'Jed property1 thllnce Buterly along the ~h hoe of said property JO feet1 thence southerly at right angles to s&1d Worth line 10 feet.: thence westerly parallel to said North line to the Westerly line of said property: thence Northerly alang-Hid. We :!:erly lille to the tne point of begi.nfting; EXCEPT the itesterly 15 fNt •• aeaso.red perpendic."lllar to the Wuterly line t-~~2£ RE.CD F CAS~SL ~.GO i .......... Cruul all haft ... to c:mmw!t. ~-. --·· ........ ,... ... ....,.. ........ INWioa : tao..vor-..a....uw,,....udlorUIIINl'dN a,_..., .• .,.....,.., au wr, • ..,...._ ~,__ -..0. wlidl -., isludt INn are 111111. Hmhal to lbe f~ •· ~ ......_ PdN lllllor toWePl wiltl cruuarm. Hmal . ..,. ..a llldlon: lilet:U'k II lttlM ..: ... .._,.._ trm..:...ai.-;u t ws. b. C .................... ~ coaldtli. cala. ••· ................ • u-,anaau, ............ • .,...__,taclltilaatdlupadl.a -5-~. ,.._.. ._ lldull ~ ~ -r.cw.., g,.... ...., fNllll 11me r . .-. CIIIIAl'\lel _. ..._. ,._ u:d -.,.r.cuaa. 11 tt mar~. 2. •-.en......u baYe 1btl rilbt G( ~ to lbe Rllbl-d·W.,, "'"""al acn1a 1k ~ 1Q. ..-le C...... IO ..Cllt Ila ~ ........ , pr,:,,,ldN, lhM Gralll4e 1M1J. ClllllflllMl9 0..0.-for lllt' .... ID la Pfllll")' ...: "' .. Mll'C ... ot aid .......... . a . ._ 111 .., a..._ .. DH 111 1 ar-. ..u M\llt me rftllll to• 111&1 ,-.. or oe.wtN-.... al ... 1111 Ill .,,.. ..a U-.. ~ ...... llp:lll .... ....,. .... 0..... mall 11N 111N h rfrFI: JO ciamrol. Oil a ............... .,. -pruclla. ........... _ ... ...w~ ....... cC ""'· Mllall .............. Ullll 111C111 .. l11M-0Hl117 __.. ...W. ill !be aplmor, cl ~ lala'f_. WiOli .. tllaNI .. GI' GtmMt"'s rill* lllnill or cnale • lla&rd illO Onlut's faclllU.. iii, ...... .,...__ CJ1dN, .... ~ .. 1"f91t to CUI n, .-.r110V9 OI' ollKwfAe "lapaN d -~ kalal oa .. P~ Oll:Udlt ... 111111 GI Way Mtldl Ill talUa& cauld, Ill ar...·, reuQllllll:lle ,luillp)llil. be I balar4 IO an..·, 11ca ..... ,,.,...., 111,iNver. a1 c.r.e.. pnar 111 am't!'blll _. tlllJII, au ~ ... ....-tr111S aa11 ane prw ...... _.._.._ aoGw ....... 1111kt' ..,_ IO Gr9IGr ror the IIIU'Mll \llllue 1111! .., WWW I I I WINI' "*'*"' • ....._ lltllab Iii c.t aml rllllllMII or ....... cl a, Graue. GIMIN'• falltln IO ....,. wtll .. ~ ••• ~ prior IO ...-tiNII Ila .... ....,.....-, Cllllllsdla lilllU .. bl ..._. • wliolltkto d dll& .,........, ...._ c;;.,.._., .a..11 llill ti. ~ ro nffl ,_. IINllt tnia NI an cwi: Uld MIIIMd or GCblnrlN diapaMll af by or... I ........ UN" ............ c;r....,. ,...,._ .. rillll• UN .. I~--kll'".., P9IPC* mN _..._. • • tlJlbU 11!,a ....... ,ro,IIW • ._ c;,.... MIii .. ~ or JlliltMlp'I q bulNilfW or...,.......,. N • a~w.,. _. anst. an • no blullaJ ._In 300 •-. of Gr.-aa'• taell.._ W'**t en-·, prlol" WTilla ---•. ......,_BJ~ ..a~ ai, ......... G...,...~ &a......,, Uld ldd 1lannNu Gr....air rrom -... Ill .... lor .......... IJiJ' _,. ,.,_ wbkfl 1111J N calNd b)' GraaN"5 '1mft'M ti 0. ............. , • ..-.. ~-h (';~ .al• bt r..-llh &a Onaklr for aay-.._.. NMtUII rram. ~ to ..,. ~ ..... ..,. acn ar OIIIIDIOlls er c:;ru.or. 2305•019 ---- First American Title First American Title .& I I 1J.: .·~1 ,1:, ... ~ ! ~ ....... TM-fllhi.to n.ert1r, &r&.:,lt.:l ~.a;, ~a~\l:'l,Ec ,,.Mti ~ II:"'.@' .t' (,re,;utt l ~!""!i Ii;; ¥~t :J'.i!' Ri,! -,J )I,"•) ,w ,1 per;od -J t;v1: ;! sv.:,~~l'P ~Hi,~ ;r, "1:"r. .,.,tm t.~:.5 ~smi,,nr w,&1; :trm,t1a1f •nd 111 r,J!'1s t\er .... Ml"r 5NJI reo.er1 !ti Grar.tor PM•IOkl :11&1 ;i.. ac_;,aor~'Tlent W'..all Ma ·,:':':ti(J ::::. :'la•t-'X"C"~rr~ ti\ rf'A!,,(j~ ~ , "lf'llff <. U!hort to lr'll:lally illsl&ll l,1 l~1llt1H QI'! the Rl&M·ol·\li,ty 11,ut11:i Ml.), ~ri'ld d tm~ fror., i;III!' Utt f'.l-rN'.11 8. !llc!r9a!M't, .... .vllpl. Th.-rlj,1\1$. &1111 ~i,pll(),."'I!, ot 11'\f' par: -U.u :fl>rt ID L"le ~j· ~ e!ld be IJlndilW, .. CN:1r r~1~-. s.icteuon •na usisns STATE OF lo'ASH~ OlONTY OF ..;.:,'..,,,:c~'cc' .. • --- .. ),0 .-· _,. GRANTOSI ~~l~!Ay om ••-~.-..be!.-~• DON SCRUMS&' and H.IBGB SCBTNSIY IO 1M _...lobe ... laltVldUI a...._ de:,._. 111 Md_,. ........ w1llll lfllf r-... ....,__, ................ Nc---t.bax.lfpld ......... their rraUd.......,,. .... dlllt lor • .. • ... .,... ..,. ~- If ..AL ffATB a, WA.9fJN01QIII } QJUIIT1.,, _____ •. °"*"·--=-=·~-================= la: ........... ,..,-;;;;;_~ ...................... ...... ,.. ___ ........ _. c .... _ ___,._.,.., .. .__ ............. ......... GIVIH_... .-..... _,111111!-lal..,, a. ___ ..,_. ______ . 19 -· ...., hlllc ............. d, ______ _ ....... ·------~-------- Sl'ATBOI~ } CIOIINTYc. _____ •· °" ... -----------· ·-· .............. ,..,., ........u,.,.... ___ _ ---------------... --------------------··. -......... ______ ... _______ . _____________ _ ..................................... 1w 7 t .................... , .. ..,.....,,. .. .., ... " .............. fw .. -... ,..,... lleNlr ....... ----.::.:-:.;:------........... _ .......................... arnir. ... co,poru. ... d ...... ...... NOTARY PUIUC .. _. f• ..... "'------........ a-------------~ ·-- First American Title I First American Title I I I 1 ! ' I I EXHIBIT "'A" The southerly 160 feet of the llortherly 235 feet of Lota 312, 3U, 314 and 315, aa maaaured along parallel lin•• to tlle southerly ut911> of S,E, 110th Street (alao Jmo,m as 11,1r9an Avenue>, C.D, BILUWl'S 1-\IQl IIASBIIIGTON GARDEN OP EDEii, DIVISION HO. 5, accor4ii,g to the plat thereof recorded 111 Volume ll of Plats, paqe 83, record, of ling county, W.ahington, EXCPT the 11 ... terly 60 feet of so.id LOt l,l conveyed to King County by Dee4 recorded und.er Rec,or41.tlg No. 1035005: Allll UCllPT that portion of Lot• 314 an4 315 conveyed to the State of Washington by Deed recorded under Rocordinq IIO, 4655S99. Situate in the City of Renton, County of :ling, State of Waahingtcr •• Located in the soutlnoelt 9U&rter of section S, To""ship 23 IIOrtb, llange S l!aet, 11.11. ............ ......, __ . ,._ -~.....-L-·-'-~-. ;;... . · .. --~- First American Title ' l l l I , -~- \ . ··-~ t8f A~( Jl't~i······ AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: ,', •,. / Le!Jacr,Renton, LLC 1111111111111111 20130719001666 FIRST MERICAN ID 73,H \-\. '"·· "r' ' ~· / 2518 West Halladay Street / Seat:tle;}NA 98144 _,.····· PAGE-eel OF ee:z 97/19/2813 15:53 KING COUNTY, 11A PAGE-HI OF 9e1 <-.STATIJTO'RY·WARRANTY DEa> File No: NCS-616064-WAl <v!.c) .i Date: July 17, 2013 Grantor(s): Don Schumsky and Marga~ Si::hu.risky Grantee( s j :. . Legacy Renton, LLC · · · · . . .• . . . . . . . Abbreviat!!dl~I: ptn Lots 312-315, C.D. HjUma'l'i{SL,ak\!·wailiihilJ'-to!'! Ga~en of,E~, DivlslorfNo. 5;--Vol. 11, Pg. 83 \·, .. ,. . /,· / .·· ... ·•,,,, \ \ _/ / Addlt1o11a1 Legal or'i:page: ,,.,.... ·· ... ,, ......... • Asses~s Tai<.Parci!J No(s): 334450-0007•01 ; .• .• - T:ftE GAANT()R(S) D911.~umsky and Margaret Schumsky, h~s~nd'ancl wife for and in consid¢ratl(lli of ,Ten . Dolla·n; and other Good and Valuable ConsideraJion/ in hand paid, .:t;Onveystand wan:ants t!t!,.egi!cy Renton, LLC, a Washington limited lial>Rfty' company, the foitawing des(;ribed rei!t'estate,:situated in the County of King, State of Washington. ; ., ., ' . ,. ,. LEGAL DESCIUPTYQN/Rl!ll/:prriperty In ·tile County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: i ·· ··· /' / .,....,····\ ,: ·· .. THE souTHERL~ h;o·F~Et ori~HE ~<>ll'ntERi v 23$ FEET oF LOTS 312, 313, 314 AND 315, AS MEASURED ALON(; PARALLEL 1,;INI;$ TC)'TH~ SC>UTHERL Y MARGIN OF SOUTHEAST 110TH STREEl; (ALSO)(NOW1'iASJ40RG~'AVENUE), C.D, HILLMAN'$ LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN,.QfEDEN, DMSl:ON:NO. 5,.~CCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11/0F PLATS, !'AGE 83;''1N Kil'!IG COUNTY, WASHINGTON. . -:' . ' >··-. ~~~~":E~ER:~::t:M6:E~E:, ~:~:~t~i~~::~tE1t!~,~ ~gll~:f BY · .... •' . .: . . .. .. AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOTS 314 AND 315 CC)~V,l!YEJ TO 1ffE ST~~ OF : ..... WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 18, 1956 'AS Rl.:CORDIN~'N(/; 4615.$99,i .. : •' ,· ·-·.-.. ,, -· ·· .. •: •; . ' -::• :~·· .. Subject To: This conveyance Is subject to covenants, conditions, restrfd:[9ns and··e;iseinen~; if any, affecting title, which may appear in the public record, indudlng those sh()wn on.,any re¢rd~ plat or survey, · ' ·· · ·· Page 1 of2 ,,, ···~· .. , ... ,·· Al'tl: ».MS0-0007-D1 STATE OF COUNTY OF King Statutory Waminty Deed • contiooed File No.: NCS-616064-WAl (vie) l certify that I know or have satiifaq(i;.y.;:-evl~nce ·,that ~n .:Sc111,msky and Margaret Schumsky, ls/are the person(s) who api)eare;t befl)~ me, and said pet'siin(s}~nowledg~ that he/She/tt,ey Signed this Instrument and acknowledged Itta tle his/herft;lleir.Jree·and vol!intl!fY act for the 11$es ancfpurposes mentioned in this instrument. ,.,.. / :.· ·•,.,, ... \ ': .'' / Dated:.,· 1(t<il I ~ ~:· yt·~Ji~,' ·. -~ """' ~£ .. ,.,.,~ .. ,"""1_ Residing at: '~ ~ 1:4 ~ ·· I , j My appointment expires(• · ?( J-a, \ ~ ·:: .. ~ Page 2 of 2 RECEIPT EG00032159 BILLING CONTACT Clark Design Group 169 WESTERN AVE W, 263 SEATILE, WA 98119 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME "'4'~'"'""''""""-''"~ ... ,., "'"'""'''°"'''"'"'" <0--~-~="' LUA14-000061 PLAN -Modification Technology Fee Printed On: 1/6/2015 Prepared By: Rocale Timmons TRANSACTION TYPE ---·, Fee Payment Fee Payment of Transaction Date: December 31 1 2014 PAYMENT METHOD '' ""'~"""" k;heck #2024 7 Check #2024 7 "' SUBTOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID --· *"'""" ,, $200,00 $6,00 $206.00 $6,695.00 Page 3 of3 RECEIPT EG00018653 BILLING CONTACT TORJAN RONHOVDE 14900 INTERURBAN AVES, 138 TUKWILA, WA 98168 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME ----·- LUA 14-000061 PLAN -Site Plan Review Master Technology Fee Printed On: 1/6/2015 Prepared Bv: Rocale Timmons ·--.s= TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment - Transaction Date: January 27, 2014 PAYMENT METHOD AMOUNT PAJD ---· ''~'"''','"'-'Vi'-,=m ~""' Check #1371 $2,000.00 Check #1371 $60.00 SUB TOTAL $2,060.00 TOTAL $6,489.00 Paga 2 of 3 RECEIPT EG00018147 BILLING CONTACT Faizel Kassam Legacy Renton 10700 NE 4TH ST , 3006 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME "'"'"" ·-~-~~ '""""'~ ""'''"''-·' LUA 14-000061 PLAN -Environmental Review PLAN -Modification PLAN -Site Plan Review -HEX PLAN -Variance Technology Fee Printed On: 1/6/2015 Prepared By: RocaleTimmons ---- TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment "'~"""' Transaction Date: January 17, 2014 PAYMENT METHOD AMOUNT PAID _,, """"'''~""'~''"""w""""""''" =""""=" Credit Card $1,000.00 :::redit Card $100.00 Credit Card $2,000.00 :,edit Card $1,200.00 Credit Card $129.00 SUBTOTAL $4,429.00 TOTAL $4,429.00 Page 1 of 3 -- / 01 A0.1 \ [ \ ' \ ' \ ' \ \ [ \ ' \ ' \ ' \ ' \ ' \ \ ' \ \ \ [ I [ \__ -. ------ ' '-- \ \ (E)FIRE HYDRANT-\-----! rr-'-1 -~=aa--\11'T M~; SEE LANDSCAPE P(#IS FOR ' SCREENING INFQRMATION \ \ • I AS, METER \ 50' -o· 50' -o· 50· o· -,t-----"''-"'-----+----="'------1<------,D"'EE"'O-,R""EC~. ~0.'1°'03"'5°'00"'5r~,.-, SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" 20' o" I ' I I I I ' I ' I I i ' I I ! I I [ I [ I ' I [ I [ I ' I I ' I ' I DATED 12 29/1915 z 0, ~ ·, ', \ ca z 0 I- (9 z - MONUMENT SIGN IRRIGATION METER 4' -6" R.O.W. DEDICATION ·--·..J..5'-o" PUGET' E EASEMENT REC. NO. 8403260623 WATER METER-J.__..---1 WATER FEATURE PER LANDSCAPE ,,...--.-__ ,.,. ,--·7 ! I V .\ ·, • I • I ' I -• -l I \. ,', \ I I ' ) / ( ~ . ' ~l. .'! ~ i j l I : i ' ' ! ' ' ! ! ~ \ \ \ \ \ 18" KEYSTONE BLOCK WALL PE DETAIL 11/A9.4 18" -24" KEYSTONE BLOCK WALL PER DETAIL 11/A9.4 1 . . . ~-::-.------~,...:...._ ... __ - i i ~ \ \ ' N / " ' ' • ;,;!! I ,, ' \ \ \ ' I I I I I \ ' 2 ,b ! \ 3 L [ ' i ' ' i ! I I I ) \ \ •, I 52 0 z .....J 0 w~ r-w (0 Osg I~°' z~ Z O . 0 I-z (9 0 z I-r :i: z z ~ ~ ws c:: ~ ::5 0 0 C") .... NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 6611 17 REGISTERED ARCHITECT l.0.'kor' ~ W. SCOTT CLARI< STATE Of WASHINGTON DATE: OWN BY: JOB NO. BP NO. LUA NO. REVISIONS: 04/01/15 LN AG, ZZ 14 24 14-000061 I:\ BP REV 1 ~ 07/14/2015 ISSUE: SUBMITIAL 04/01/15 SITE PLAN SHEET NO, A0.1