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 (2)
z I z W z a J oomft O l" a CL 6tA um IV CL i m E LM z H z R a. W a W J CL 4-1 42 tea V M i N M v Lw cc o a N O r 2l r V Steve McNamee 701 S 52nd Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 254-9590 party of record) Khanh Nguyen 616 S 53rd Place Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 271-3691 party of record) Darrell Offe Offe Engineers, PLLC 13932 SE 159th Place Renton, WA 98058 contact) PARTIES OF RECORD WILSON PARK 2 PUD LUA12-013, PPUD, PP, ECF Paul & Frieda Witt 617 S 53rd Place Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 227-5462 party of record) Quang Dang & Kim Duong 623 S 53rd Place Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 917-3733 party of record) Jonathan Vu 622 S 53rd Place Renton, WA 98055 tel: (808) 218-4403 party of record) Robert & Doravin Wilson 21073 60th Street E Lake Tapps, WA 98391 owner) Updated: 06/05/12 (Page 1 of 1) A C TY OP WILjDN PARK #2 I® ao RLP?Dn, wASI riDyRENTfln H O O A O 4 n MES' ROi'ER M1' LInE F-1 oMca aoae C r O F f'l Z n m 2+ly CM= rcO D D R d j e R WILSON PARK #2 OFFE ENGINEERS ROBERT WILSON s cL-colr.crvr oEslwlEo nv mMVM+cv cnEa a er 'pq"M''I` GRADING PLAN o 0 OUO 2p N- Ln' RTK C¢i Z D y11O 0 0z 0 m m U) On U) mC) 9 0 z 1 zZ Ld z 0m x'3N sommQss n 5$F !t F-1 oMca aoae C r Of'l Z A `_ ryRaw2+ly j e R WILSON PARK #2 OFFE ENGINEERS ROBERT WILSON s cL-colr.crvr oEslwlEo nv mMVM+cv cnEa a er 'pq"M''I` GRADING PLAN o 0 OUO 2p N- Ln' RTK C¢i Z D y11O 0 0z 0 m m U) On U) mC) 9 0 z 1 zZ Ld z 0m x'3N sommQss n 5$F !t NOy9NHWM 'NO1N29 - gsay laassy angp mleuultl NVIMI 2midosdW7YOnu77' o a J1 S F; l a l f088Z 3„86,RS.flON i rn3ry LL 4'> ZA FpR /w ;KPRVEMLN'------ T"pIikL r cn L7to 0 No a!rsvM ao_k3a JD AlloS NDZ N i3 t,x/olilc L, HdYd NOSi1M 1-- NV-ld NOk1N313 i 33 J1 lAK+tea: a © NOSl1M 12i390H AYI SlISNI N$ X330 Z# >1zie`d NOS 0 gp5v3'a 4V- 71 n i3 zY rt6 F___ Fb----Fn`» 1---- Ypp orb- „g„ nb_bbbb oao p a G P t- r' z mtih\a -- --- -- ryry N u wn•V-ANN c wa n i F u a K I,J Z Z Z a 3 3 M 3 3 M i- a MN n ZA FpR /w ;KPRVEMLN'------ T"pIikL r cn L7to 0 No a!rsvM ao_k3a JD AlloS NDZ N i3 t,x/olilc L, HdYd NOSi1M 1-- NVId s3wian/iOVNIVcl(I e — NOSIIM 11380219'd 9iliO'1'ml[lYa YLVIX] Z: urucsf uvs idV NOS IM a g r Ell 7. Lt, J „ wZ 2 3 xo C Q a W LU Z 1 I _- N a z w LLL 17- 71 17 lit - LU LL 71 e$sff o nN=f N n 171x ZEN N UO a. dviiv u ', tlap ¢wox yip"d 6 ioi'9 6"w"old iii xnlv0 NOUN i4SVN% NO-NJ?J zwz o,l o zN Idvd JDGlinn d0 .[,E,I 1• ^¢r's — A CTT• F AYLiON F+3.H #f RCmMN, WASHINCION o r aixi: ro. er w..t RENTON qmg c p v' Icnez ysr.xaon Zi Zi x s .ones 46 A <s O s = ' r 2' m-eo-mi - xna rrsw w cTeA'nL7neS'E27YaL.m9t c Y 71h AVENUE SOUTH . m 0 .gra` .o G-:oaa- oa-ss - ,m x m m n m 3j OS 4t9AL V 0 Z7Yd2 m p to T NW 7Z D G) m cn mb Io` Jn 5 z3 s„3.R4-_ Acp igo WILSON PARK #2 OFFE ENGINEERS,` cs rar s Yrrxv®icmvteme rrsus aano->ra r a: pr ROBERT WILSON y srrt[-eorrtewsoissner obiu;"sonAvmsraedoar PUD/PLAT LAYOUT Denis Law Mayorfm-;R. December 12, 2016 Community & Economic Development C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Robert Wilson 21730 60th Street East Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Via email: doravin@comcast.net SUBJECT: Expiration Dates for Wilson Park 1 & 2 Preliminary Plats (LUA 09-140, PP, and LUA 12-013, PP, PUD) Dear Mr. Wilson, You have requested a letter from the City indicating the period of validity for the Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat (LUA09-140) and the Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat and Planned Urban Development (PUD) (LUA12-013, PP, PUD). Wilson Park 1. Renton Municipal Code allows for a period of validity of 5 years for Preliminary Plats. However, the Washington State Legislature approved an extension to the period of validity to seven (7) years for plats approved on or after January 1, 2008 and before January 1, 2015. Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat was approved by the Hearing Examiner on August 16, 2010 and because of the extension provided by the Washington State Legislature, was valid for a total of seven (7) years, until August 16, 2017. In addition, the applicant requested a one-time one- year extension to the preliminary plat, as provided for in Renton Municipal Code. This extension for Wilson Park 1 was granted on July 26, 2015. Therefore, Wilson Park 1 Preliminary Plat is valid for a period of eight (8) years and will expire on August 16, 2018. Wilson Park 2. Renton Municipal Code allows for a period of validity of 5 years for Preliminary Plats, and allows for applications submitted with the preliminary plat to expire at the same time as the preliminary plat. In addition, the Washington State Legislature approved an extension to the period of validity to seven (7) years for plats approved on or after January 1, 2008 and before January 1, 2015. Because the Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat and PUD was approved by the Hearing Examiner on July 5, 2012, both approvals are valid for a total of seven (7) years, until July 5, 2019, The Final Plat and Final PUD must be submitted prior to the expiration of the preliminary approvals. Please also note that the Renton Municipal Code allows for the applicant to request an additional one- year extension if requested at least 30 days prior to expiration and provided the applicant demonstrates that he/she has attempted in good faith to submit the final plat within the approved time period. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7286 or hennin rentonwa. ov. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov December 12, 2016 Page 2 Sincerely, Jennifer T. Henning, AICP Planning Director cc: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Ian Illian, Plan Reviewer C:lilserslsmirantelAppDatalLocai\MicrosoftlWindows%Tcmporary Intemet FileslContent.Qutlook1L40R7PID\Wilson Park 1 v...------ --- -- _._ _._._-_... -- _....... ....– -- 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 • rentonwa.gov 0 Hearing Examiner's Decision 0 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 CIIT' OF RENTON RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Wilson Park II } FINAL DECISION Preliminary Plat and Planned Urban } Development ) LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD ) SUMMARY The Applicants propose a preliminary plat to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into ten single-family residential lots and one tract for open space. A planned urban development ("PUD") is proposed in order to modify minimum lot sizes and other development standards. The preliminary plat and PUD are approved subject to conditions. TESTIMONY Jennifer Henning, Renton Planning Manager, stated Wilson Park lI is a preliminary plat and planned urban development located to the east of Talbot Rd S and north of S 55th Street. It is an existing 2.15 acre site with split -zoning. A portion of the site is zoned R-14 which has a maximum of 14 dwelling units per acre, and another portion of the site is zoned R-1 which allows one dwelling unit per acre. The site has an Urban Separator overlay present on an eastern portion of the site in conjunction with steep slopes. The Applicants are proposing to create a subdivision of detached single family homes with 10 Iots. The lots would range in size from 5,560 to 6,778 sq ft, and the site would also include a tract set aside for open space and critical areas (Tract A) on the eastern portion of the site. Tract A would be 19,164 sq ft. which is roughly 20 percent of the site (correction to the Staff Report which gives the coverage as 50 percent). The city zoning map notes the split zoning of the site (a squiggly line marks the split area). A map of the site shows the protected slopes in bright orange and 39 or lower percent slopes in yellow. The site is shown with a dashed dark line and is PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 roughly square-shaped. South 55 Street is often called the "Snake Road" and is fairly steep. Upon questioning from the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Henning noted that a geo-tech report was done in 2004 by Mr. Carl Zing. Noting plate 2 of the 2004 geo-tech report, Ms. Henning stated that the west side of the site was analyzed in that report with a proposal for 4 lots. Exhibit 18 is a 2012 geo-tech report which supplements the 2004 report. Staff does not feel that the geo-tech reports addressing different lot proposals affect the overall conclusions. There are no streams or coal mine hazards that affect the site. There are some steep slopes on the extreme northwest corner of the site and off-site to the west. The presence of the slopes resulted in the city creating the Urban Separator overlay designation. She noted that, in most areas, an Urban Separator will follow the property lines. However, this site's separator (the Talbot Urban Separator) follows topography lines rather than parcel and zoning lines. Recently, the Talbot Urban Separator language has been clarified to say that half of the area in the Urban Separator has to be used as open space (instead of half the whole parcel as is the case for other separators). She concluded that the developable part of the site is a moderate slope. In regards to averaging the density, Ms. Hennings stated that if Staff looked at the R-14 zone on its own (with the road taken out) about 1 acre would be left. This would allow for 14 units (which could be duplexes, triplexes, etc.). In the R-1 portion of the site, there could still only be 1 dwelling unit. Thus, if the density was calculated in the original way, there could be up to 15 lots. Staff suggested using the PUD process to look at applying different standards to the entire parcel. Staff decided to average the density across the site (without exceeding the density of one part of the site vs. the other) using an administrative code interpretation. Ms. Hennings testified that Exhibit 2 shows the proposal, including the 10 lots, Tract A, and a central road (Road A). Staff recommends that a covenant be included in the approval that restricts the Applicants to only building detached single-family homes. In Exhibit 2, the R-14 zone is the light brown color while R-1 zone is the green color. Lot 5, 8, and 9 would be split -zoned parcels. Staff is recommending that the plat subscribe to the R-8 zoning standards which are a residential single family (RSF) designation. Regardless, the plat meets policies of multiple land -use possibilities being considered. The R-14 designation is in the Residential Single Family (RSF) while R-1 is in Residential Low Density (RLD) standard. R-8 is within the RSF designation. The site is served by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The certificate of water availability became available on June 12'', 2012. The site will also use facilities being built for the Wilson Park I site which has already been approved. The Wilson Park I site will provide 26 ft. of paving for road, 2-5ft. sidewalks, and a landscape strip. Parking will be allowed on the east side of the street. Exhibit 11 depicts the landscape plan with the road in the center. The landscape is shown in green and the road in brown. A walking path, which is a public benefit, will be provided around lot 6. It is a hard - surface path that will lead into the planned gazebo area_ There are street trees being proposed along with trees in the open fence area. A split -rail fence is proposed for the back of the lots. Staff is concerned that the split -rail fence will not provide enough security for future residents and will result in residents building additional fences. Staff is working with the Applicants to find a better solution PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 for the fencing problem. Staff also asks that the walking path be moved out of the boundaries of Lot 10. There is no design yet roc the gazebo, but it is contained in a 350 sq ft area. The Applicants is possibly going to expand this recreation area to the Wilson Park I recreation area to the north. Staff believes that circulation beyond the walking path is necessary for safety and convenience. The nearest bus stop is 700 ft. away. Staff recommends a condition that there be a walking path along S 55" St. for kids to safely reach the bus stop. Ms. Hennings stated that the project went through a SEPA review and has a number of conditions that must be met as a result of that review. Staff provided a table within the Staff Report that describes what the standards for the two residential zones are, and the required modifications necessary for the proposal to meet the R-8 standards. The lots meet the minimum size standards of the R-8 zone and all meet the width requirements except for Lot 1. The R-8 standard currently allows 15ft from the garage face to the back sidewalk; however, Staff is recommending 18ft from the back of the garage to the back of the sidewalk for a parking apron area. This is especially necessary because there is limited guest parking. All the setbacks for the rear -yard, design standards, and maximum building coverage work best with the R-8 standard. Staff believes the R-8 standard applied creates a superior plat because of the more uniform lots and homes, more open space and recreation areas. The plan also protects the steep slopes more because it protects a greater area than what would be required under other zone areas. Exhibit 9 shows the steep slope area with the plan and demonstrates that approximately a third more area is protected under the R-8 zone plan. Ms. Hennings explained that the City of Renton does not require recreational areas on site because it prefers applicants to pay into the City's park mitigation fund. The proposal, under R-8 zone standards, will require a footpath to the school bus -stop and the recreational walking path. The Applicants are paying the full park impact fee, traffic fee, fire fee, and school impact fee. Staff suggested additional common amenities such as barbecues or fireplaces. There are currently 82 trees on the site, and 21 of the trees will be removed because they are in the section where the public streets will be built (Exhibit 9). There are three trees in the critical areas and buffers which don't count. This leaves 58 trees to consider for zoning standards. Zoning requirements state that 10 trees on-site will have to be retained. The Applicants are proposing to retain the necessary 10 trees and will be adding at least 2 trees per lot. Additional landscape enhancements will be added along the back of the lots. Staff is also asking additional trees be planted along the south side of Lot I because of car traffic along that area. A variety of tree types and plant forms will be utilized. Ms. Hennings testified that the homes will be subject to the City's residential design standards. No floor plans or elevations are available at this time. No alley is needed because of the limited space. Staff is recommending an 8 -ft wide landscape strip be included along the south side of Lot 1. The Applicants would also be required to provide curb, gutter and sidewalks and a landscape strip along the extreme eastside of the site which has frontage on S 55h St. The Applicants are not opposed to providing these additional facilities. No lighting plan was provided as part of the proposal. The lighting plan would be needed later in the process. Ms. Hennings noted that the code does not require lighting along the walking path at night. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In regard to the emergency vehicle service, Staff is concerned that if Wilson Park I is not constructed there will be no place for the vehicles to turn -around. Staff stated that if Wilson Park I is not constructed first (or at all) an emergency turnaround will need to be provided. A stormwater vault was proposed as part of Wilson Park I (Exhibit 13, shown in blue) which would be sufficient to handle any ran -off. Additionally, the Applicants are proposing a covenant to limit the amount of pervious surface on each lot. The City provides fire and sewer service. In regard to the plat application, Ms. Hennings noted that Staff believes all of the lots are appropriately sized with suitable orientations except for Lot 1. Staff asks that Lot 1's width be changed because it is a corner lot. All access topography seemed to be fitting and no disruption to other properties was evident. Staff asks that Tract A be placed in a native -growth protection area easement. Staff is recommending that the preliminary plat and PUD be approved, subject to the 18 conditions presented in the Staff Report. Jiro Hanson, 17446 Ballard Cove's Lane, stated that the Applicants agree the R-8 standards should apply. The Applicants have no objection to the 18fI garage -sidewalk standard change. The PUD process requires the Applicants to provide the open -space and recreation areas that would not be required with the normal R-1 zone. In areas where there is no critical slope, the Applicants are clearing invasive species and enhancing the landscape rather than just leaving it as over -growth. The Applicants believe this type of development is a better transition from the R-14 zone to the R-8 zone to the north and to the R-4 zones to the east and south. Rather than having townhouses and duplexes, the Applicants feel 10 single-family homes are more appropriate. The previous proposals (from 2004) had higher density levels (but fewer lots). Upon questioning by the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Hanson noted that the Applicants had not discussed lighting the pedestrian pathway. He noted that it is a wildlife corridor, and the path is not intended for night use. Darrell Offe, Offe Engineers, stated that the 2004 geo-tech report was done for a different property owner. The previous owner only looked at the west side of the property because he believed the entire east side was sensitive areas. The current Applicants have added the east side to the site plans. The Applicants have worked with Staff to establish the 25 percent Urban Separator line as the designation between the R-1 and the R-14. Soos Creek is the purveyor of the water and Renton is the purveyor of the sewer. The 2005 drainage manual (used for Wilson Park i and 2) requires that the detention facility be sized to accommodate 85 percent pervious surface per lot. The code allows the Applicants to restrict themselves to a lower impervious level and lessen the treatment it has to provide. The stormwater facility planned for Wilson Park I will include Wilson Park 11 along with the restrictive covenants. The Applicants ask that under Condition 8 (which asks for a walking path to the nearest bus stop on 55th Street), the wording be changed to just say the nearest bus stop. This change is in hope that a new bus stop closer to the site can be created. Ms. Henning's noted that the City has no objections to this change of Condition 8. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Jim Hanson noted that the timing for the PUD expiration is different for the plat expiration. Plats are valid for 9 years while PUDs are only valid for 5 years. The Applicants ask that the expiration of the PUD be increased to 9 years. Jennifer Hennings noted, if the plat was developed under the R-8 standards, the Applicants could build up to 13 lots. Instead, the Applicants are proposing ken lots. If the R-1 and R-14 density standards were used, up to 15 lots could be built with a density of 9.16 per acre. Under the current proposal, there are 6.4 units per acre. EXHIBITS The June 12, 2012 Staff Report in addition to Exhibits 1-21 identified in pages 2-3 of the Staff Report were admitted into the record at the June 12, 2012 hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicants. Robert and Doravin Wilson. 2. Heariny,. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on June 12, 2012 at 2:00 pm in the City of Renton Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The Applicants request preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into ten lots for single-family homes at a proposed density of 6.4 dwelling units per acre. An open space tract is included in the subdivision. The preliminary application is accompanied by a PUD application requesting deviations to R-1 and R-14 zoning standards, as outlined in Table A of the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. All lots will have access to a public street, Road A. The project is divided into two zoning designations: R-14 and R-1. The R-1 Zone comprises 38,326 square feet (including the steep slope area), and the R-14 portion of the site is 55,474 square feet. Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with nine lots proposed in the R-14 area and one lot proposed within the R-1. Access would be provided from South 55` x' Street via a new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park I plat. The site contains 9,783 square feet of slopes with greater than 40% grade. A small hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site. An underground stormwater vault was previously approved for Wilson Park I to be within the roadway on the subject site. The vault is being revised to accommodate the additional stormwater generated by the proposal. A hard -surface walking path leading into a planned gazebo area will be provided as PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 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 well as will a soft surface, 3 -foot wide walking path around Lot 6-10. There are street trees being proposed along with trees in the open fence area. A split -rail fence is proposed for the back of the lots. A portion of the site is subject to the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. That portion of the site zoned R -I is considered to be within the Urban Separator. Per RMC 4-3-110(E)(2)(a)(ii), 50% of the area within the Urban Separator must be dedicated as irrevocable open space. The Applicants propose to retain 19,164 square feet, or 50% of the site as open space within Tract A. The application includes a proposal for a planned unit development in order to modify minimum lot size and development standards for both the R-1 and R-14 designations. Proposed lots would range in size from 5,560 square feet to 6,778 square feet. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate was issued by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District on June 12, 2012, according to Staff testimony. Based on the submitted Conceptual Utilities Plan (Exhibit 13), there is an existing sewer main located in 55th Avenue South. The Applicants have proposed to connect to this existing main and extend an 8 -inch sanitary sewer line to provide sewer to the development. This plan sheet also identifies an 8 -inch water line extension from 55th Avenue South through the subject plat and to the Wilson Park I plat located to the north. With receipt of the water availability certificate, the development would provide sufficient service to the lots_ B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City's storrnwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all significant drainage impacts. New impervious surfaces would result in surface water runoff increases. The Applicants submitted a Technical Information Report ("Drainage Report") and Addendum with the project application (Exhibit 21). The original stormwater system for Wilson Park 1 is located within the street that would serve both Wilson Park I and II. This system was sized to accommodate Wilson Park I lots and the new streets including the access street located within this project, Wilson Park 11. The Addendum provides calculations intended to evaluate the sizing of the storm treatment PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 facility for the two projects and demonstrates that the facility as revised for Wilson Park 11 is sufficient to accommodate both Wilson Park I and Wilson Park II. The City of Renton's 2409 Drainage Manual requires Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new developments. One BMP's is to restrict impervious areas on future lots to Delp reduce runoff, mitigate for development, and minimize the treatment system needed for the project. This is known as a "Restrictive Covenant" provision and was utilized as part of a preliminary sizing of the future system for both Wilson Park I and II. The Applicants intend to utilize the Restrictive Covenant provision and limit impervious surface on each of the new lots in both Wilson Park I and II to 3,300 square feet per lot. By limiting the impervious area for homes, patios, driveways and walkways, the proposed stormwater vault will be of an appropriate size to accommodate both developments. The Applicants have also intended to develop both plats at the same time. D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. The proposed development is located on a 2.15 acre site. The eastern portion of the site is located in a steep slope critical area. The site contains geotechnical hazards in the form of slopes greater than 40% covering 38,326 sq. ft. within the Talbot Urban Separator. Both the subject plat and Wilson Park I are required to set aside 50% of the area of the site located within the Talbot Urban Separator as a non -revocable open space tract. Additionally, the City critical areas regulations provide for protection of steep slopes. RMC 4-9-150(E) requires PUDs to provide large concentrated areas of open space, equivalent to 10% of the site's gross area. The Staff Report notes that the proposed development increases these protections by protecting the steep slope within a tract that would also serve as the common open space and recreation area. The project proposes to set aside 19,164 square feet, or 50% of the Talbot Urban Separator area in Open Space Tract A. The site is 93,801 sq. ft. and the provided open space tract is 19,164 sq.ft, comprising approximately 20% of the site, and exceeding the open space standards by 9,784 sq. ft. A 510 lineal foot (1,530 sq. ft.) looped trail provided on the flat area of Tract A would separate five of the new lots from the steep slope area. The open space tract would also connect to a comparable open space tract on Wilson Park I that was set aside to address requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations (RMC4-3-11OE, 2.a.ii). The Applicants have proposed to provide an approximately 350 sq. ft. common park that includes a concrete path, pergola/gazebo and Landscaping. The conditions of approval require the proposed development provide 500 sq. ft. of common space or recreation area to meet the 50 sq. ft. required by PUD regulations for each of the ten lots. The proposed park is located along the perimeters of proposed Lots 6-10 and connects to the walking path through the remainder of Tract A. The conditions of approval require that the section PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 on the south side of Lot 10 be revised to meander and not abut the edge of the split rail fence. As conditioned, the overall location and design of the park, open space and trail will create quality open space and recreation areas for the development. Private open space will be provided on each lot through the yard setbacks and limitations in pervious surface. Staff further recommends that a minimum setback of 18 feet be required from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk to allow an appropriate area for parking. This increased setback would also increase the yard space for each lot. The overall passive and active recreation opportunities proposed for the subject development are beyond the standard code requirements. The proposed open space and recreation on the site provide the opportunity for both passive and active recreation. The park area provides for both passive and active recreation by offering both a gazebo/pergola and hard and soft surface trails. The varieties of recreation opportunities proposed throughout the development and in conjunction with Wilson Park I create a mix of choices, appealing to a large spectrum of people. The split -rail fence or pergola/gazebo designs are not reflected on the Landscape Plan or the Plat Plan. The conditions of approval require the Applicants provide a detail of the proposed pergola/gazebo and fence design and location as a part of the final detailed landscape plan. These details shall be submitted and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. E. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposed preliminary plat provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation system. In addition to the proposed soft surface pedestrian path, discussed above, the Applicants have proposed sidewalks along both sides of Road A consistent with the residential character of the development. As discussed below, pedestrian linkage to the nearest school bus stop is also required. This network of pathways and sidewalks provides for a pedestrian network that ties the residential development to recreational areas and schools. It is unclear from the record whether there are any commercial areas or public transit stops within walking distance; nonetheless the linkage to adjoining sidewalks provides all the linkage that can reasonably be required of the Applicants. As conditioned, pedestrian safety is assured through adequate separation of pathways from motor vehicles and adequate lighting. The conditions of approval require pedestrian separation along South 55th Street with an 8 -foot planter strip. Another 8 -foot planter strip is required along the "inside" of Road A. Furthermore, the pedestrian looped trail PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 would provide another means for pedestrian movement throughout the development maintaining sufficient separation from vehicles. A lighting plan was not included in the Applicants' submittal packet; therefore, it is not clear how the proposed pedestrian pathways would be illuminated at night. Although, the soft surface trail should not be lit at night as this may cause additional impacts to open space area, the remainder of the hard surfaced pedestrian pathway and recreation areas should be lit. As a condition of approval, the Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction. The lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting in addition to building and landscaping lighting, if proposed. Comments received from surrounding property owners concern the ability of children to safely access a school bus stop (Exhibit 14). The Applicants have observed that presently school buses travel cast on South 55th Street in the morning, stopping in South 55th Street to pick-up students. The buses then travel west in the afternoon, stopping in South 55th to drop-off students. While it was originally anticipated that this practice would continue with the project, and that children would wait together for pick-up, an inquiry to the Renton School District (RSD) revealed that these are actually Kent School District buses, which do not serve the subject plat. RSD does not operate on South 55th Street, and would require that students walk approximately 700 feet to the west to be picked up at the corner of South 55th Street and Talbot Road South. In order to provide an appropriate safe route to schools, the conditions of approval request a walking path within the improved right-of-way, with a minimum 5 -foot asphalt path from the entrance to the plat to the nearest school bus stop that serves the subdivision. This should be installed at the time that street and utility improvements are being installed. F. Interior Vehicle Circulation. In addition to sidewalks and the proposed pedestrian path, the proposed preliminary plat also provides for appropriate vehicle circulation system. The road system connects with the Wilson Park I Plat located immediately to the north. The road was originally approved as part of Wilson Park I and has not yet been constructed. Wilson Park I is dependent upon the construction of this road, as is Wilson Park 11. The internal street is designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic generated by the project, provided that the street connects through Wilson Park 1. In the event that Wilson Park I is not constructed concurrent or prior to Wilson Park II, an emergency turnaround would need to be provided within the subject plat. The conditions of approval require that if Wilson Park I1 moves forward prior to Wilson Park 1, the public street be constructed with an approved emergency turnaround. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Access to the property should not adversely affect adjoining properties and there are no difficult turning patterns. The site access street intersects South 55th Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. Previously, the site distance on South 55th Street was evaluated as part of Wilson Park L It was determined then that the City of Renton intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions would be met. As shown in Ex. 2, the internal road does not traverse any steep gradients and there is no driveway access to any busy streets as there is no driveway access to South 55h Street. G. Off -Site Traffic Improvements. Frontage improvements are required along South 55th Street. The property has frontage in two locations, where the proposed internal Road A intersects South 55th Street, and where a portion of Tract A fronts on South 55th Street. In both cases, the Applicants are required to construct curb, gutter, 5 -foot wide sidewalks, and an 8 -foot wide planting strip. The Applicants' proposal indicates a 5 -foot wide sidewalk along South 55th Street on the south side of Lot 1. No planting strip is proposed within the South 55th Street right-of-way. No street improvements are proposed within the right-of-way for South 55th Street for the portion where Tract A fronts on the street Exhibit 2, 11). The conditions of approval require revision of the construction engineering plans, and final detailed landscape plan to show the required street improvements and landscaping prior to the Final PUD and Final Plat approval process. The Applicants submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Exhibit 12) prepared by TraffEx. The report indicates that the proposal would utilize the same access to South 55th Street as the approved Wilson Park I Plat. The site access street intersects South 55th Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The report also indicates that the horizon year for the study is 2014, as this is the year construction of both plats is anticipated. The study determined the Level -of -Service (LOS) with the project will be LOS B for future 2014 conditions. This LOS satisfies the City's LOS standard and there is no evidence in the record that is contrary to the conclusions of the traffic report on LOS impacts. The project design will ensure intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the cast and west directions will be met. The report has been presumably approved by staff, since it has gone through staff review and Staff have recommended all the conditions of approval they deemed necessary for adequate traffic mitigation in the environmental report. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Renton School District (RSD) does not operate on South 55th Street. The closest school bus stop is approximately 700 feet to the west at the corner of South 55th Street and Talbot Road South. In order to provide an appropriate safe route to schools, the conditions of approval require a walking path within the improved right-of-way, with a minimum 5 -foot asphalt path to the nearest school bus stop as determined safe by City staff. This should be installed concurrent with street and utility improvements. 5. Adverse Impacts. Since the project provides for adequate infrastructure and public services, the only remaining impacts to be considered are to critical areas. All impacts to critical areas have been thoroughly assessed and completely mitigated, as identified in the Environmental Review Report, Ex. 4-6, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. The mitigation measures recommended by Staff in the Environmental Report are adopted as conditions of approval via adoption of the mitigation measures of the determination of nonsignificance. Adoption of Ex. 6 encompasses both the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law of Staff. A. Trees. Loss of trees is an impact that Renton regulations require mitigated. As conditioned, the project will retain trees as required by City standards, although it must be noted that the Staff Report erroneously only requires protection of trees with of a 6 -inch caliper or greater whereas it appears that City standards require trees of a 2 -inch caliper or greater to be protected. The Staff Report notes that the site contains a total of 82 trees of 6 -inch caliper or larger, 21 are within the proposed public right-of-way, and 3 are located in critical areas and their buffers resulting in 58 protected trees on site (Exhibit 9, 10). Of these, 21 trees are within the R-1 zone, and 37 trees within the R-14 zoned portions of the property. The R-1 zone requires 30 percent tree retention of the protected trees on site, while the R-14 requires 10 percent tree retention. At a 30 percent retention rate in the R-1 zone, 6 trees of greater than 6 -inch caliper would be required to be retained. At 10 percent retention rate in the R-14 zone, 4 trees of greater than 6 -inch would need to be retained. This is a total of 10 trees of greater than 6 -inch caliper required to be retained. The Applicants have identified 10 trees that would be retained thus meeting the requirement for trees of greater than 6 -inch caliper. In addition, the Applicants propose to plant 40 new trees on site, which includes street trees within the right-of-way and ornamental trees within Tract `A', the common open space and Native Growth Protection Area Easement. As noted in the conclusions of law, Renton tree retention standards require the protection of 2 -inch caliper trees, not 6 -inch trees as suggested in the Staff' Report. The conditions of approval will require that the tree retention requirements be applied to trees that are of 2 -inch caliper or greater. B. Compatibility with Adjoining Uses. Perimeter screening will ensure compatibility and minimize aesthetic impacts. Proposed landscaping on the south boundary of Lot 10 would provide some screening of when viewed from South 55th Street. Proposed plantings of the southeast corner of Lot 1 would provide some incremental screening for Lot I when viewed from 55th Avenue South. Additional planting within the right-of-way is required as a PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 11 1 2 3 4 5 L 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 condition of approval along 55th Avenue South. This requires dedication of additional right- of-way along the south boundary of the plat, between the new Road A west to the southwest corner of the site. The PUD revision authorizing R-8 design standards also contributes to compatibility, as many adjoining uses are also zoned R-8. All other adverse impacts discernible from the record are also fully mitigated. 6. Superiority in Design. The proposed PUD design is superior to that which would be allowed under applicable subdivision regulations. This finding is based upon Staff's assessment and conclusions. Unfortunately, the record does not directly provide much information on how staff came to its conclusions on superiority in design, but given the Staff's expertise and the lack of any evidence to the contrary the staff conclusions are adopted. At page 11, the Staff Report notes several reasons why the design is superior, but does not link these reasons to any specific design features. First, the Staff Report notes that proposed plat layout provides for the protection of the steep slope area to the east. Given that the PUD proposes that 50% of the open space of the urban separator designation be set aside for open space and that the same would be required for a subdivision anyway, it is difficult to understand from the record how the PUD protection of the steep slopes is superior to that which would already be required for a subdivision. The Staff Report also notes that the PUD exceeds open space requirements by placing the steep slopes within the open space tract. While the placement of the steep slopes within the open space tract is technically not required, it is difficult to conceive of any set of circumstances for this subdivision where the developer would have any incentive to reduce his developable space by placing the open space away from the steep slopes. The PUD design does provide for a trail along the steep slope that provides separation from five lots beyond that required by the City's critical areas ordinance. Given the amount of open space required already, the trail separation does not appear to be a major improvement over what would be required of a subdivision. Second, the Staff Report notes that as conditioned the PUD would provide for recreational amenities beyond code requirements. Elsewhere, the Staff Report notes that the open space will include a pergola, landscaping, two picnic tables and a soft surface trail system. These are presumably all amenities that exceed code standards and thus support a finding of superior design. Third, the Staff Report notes that the plat layout increases the quality of the internal circulation system throughout the development. This in part appears to be accomplished by an internal pathway that connects the sidewalks of the subdivision. It is not otherwise clear from the record how the quality of internal circulation has been enhanced by the proposed PUD. Fourth, the Staff Report notes that the proposed subdivision is a significant improvement over a design that would meet both the R-1 and R-14 standards. The Staff Report notes that proposed design can provide for the aforementioned amenities because of the development standard modifications recommended by Staff in the Staff Report Table A. The Staff Report does not identify how the modifications result in superior design. A primary design enhancement from the PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 modifications appears to be conformance to the residential design standards of the R-8 zone as conditioned, which apparently provides for stricter design guidelines in some respects than that required of the R-1 or R-14 zone, promotes compatibility of design between the interior R-1 and R-14 districts (although there is only one lot in the R-1 zone) and also provides for greater compatibility in design with adjoining R-8 uses. The requested lot size and setback modifications allow for a clustered R-8 development that provides increased protection of critical areas creating an appearance of openness. The reduced density applied from the R-8 zone further contributes to this openness. In order to maintain sufficient separation between buildings, the conditions of approval require the Applicants to meet the R-8 side yard setbacks, as such all structures will maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation. This spacing allows for emergency access and sufficient fire separation. Aesthetics and parking is further enhanced by a condition requiring garage setbacks that exceed those of the R-8 district by three feet. 7. Public Benefit. The proposal provides several public benefits as detailed in Table B of the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full with the caveat that, as previously discussed, the PUD does not appear to provide for more open space than would otherwise already be required for a standard subdivision subject to the Urban Separator designation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-150(F)(8) authorizes the Examiner to conduct hearings and make final decisions on planned urban development applications. Substantive: 2. tonin Comprehensive Plan ,Desi agntions. The project is divided into two zoning designations: R-14 and R-1. The comprehensive plan map land use designation for the R-14 Zone is Residential Single Family (RSF) while the R-1 Zone is Residential Low Density (RLD). 3. Review Criteria. The Renton Municipal Code does not clearly identify the criteria the Examiner must apply in assessing a subdivision or a PUD. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review and RMC 4-9-150 governs PUD criteria. Without any more specific code guidance, the Examiner concludes that he must find that all applicable criteria in Chapter 4-7 and RMC 4-9-150 must be satisfied for preliminary plat and PUD approval. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the fbllowing principles ofacceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2_ Access: Establish access to a public road far each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics_ Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because offlood, inundation, or wetland Conditions. Construction ofprotective improvements may be required as a Condition of approval, and such improvements .shall be noted on thefinal plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 4. As modified by the PUD regulations, the lots will comply with all requirements of the Zoning Code. As noted in the project description, Finding of Fact No. 3, and as depicted in Ex. 2, all lots have access to a public street, Road A. The project is not located within a floodplain and there are no wetlands or streams impacted. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the project makes adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. RMC 4-7-080(1)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 5. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Section 6(a) of the Staff Report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Fearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 6. The internal circulation system of the subdivision connects to South 55`h Street, an existing public street. RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 7. The Staff Report and administrative record do not identify any applicable street plan or grid system that would compel the connection of the interior streets to any other roads beyond South 55"' Street. The aerial photo on page 2 of the Staff Report shows that there are no other roads in proximity to the project that could be feasibly extended to the project. Given the extreme slopes that adjoin the project it is highly unlikely that any other roads could ever connect to the project from the east. The project is separated from a cul de sac to the northwest by residential development. The project is slated to be connected to Wilson Park I's internal road to the north of the subject property. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8. The Staff Report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the vicinity. RMC 4-7-130(0): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse Conditions_ a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 56.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations, 9. As determined in the Findings of Fact, significant protective measures and safeguards are proposed and conditioned to ensure that the proposed development is adequately protected from the geologic hazards of the site. As proposed and conditioned the project area is appropriate for subdivision. As previously discussed there is no evidence in the record that there is any flooding problem. The property is encumbered by slopes in excess of 40%. As discussed in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6, no lots will be created that are unsuitable for subdivision. The entire slope area will be placed in an open space tract (Tract A). The conditions of approval will require the tract to be placed in a Native Protection Area Easement. In assessing compliance with RMC 4-4-130, the Staff Report only identifies trees on site that are of 6 - inch caliper or larger. There is nothing in RMC 4-4-130 that limits tree retention to trees that of 6 - inch caliper or higher. RMC 4-11-200 defines a tree as having a caliper of 2 inches or higher and the PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 tree retention requirements of RMC 4-4-130 do not provide for any exceptions for trees smaller than six inches. It is possible that trees between two and six inches are not present on the site, but that's not clear from the record and it would not be reasonable to make that inference. In addition to the additional information recommended by Staff as identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(D), the Conditions of approval will also require that tree retention be applied to all trees with a two inch caliper or greater. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing, fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects ofdevelopment upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 10. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(D), the proposal meets both park and open space requirements. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of' this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 11. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7, the only street that the project could connect to is South 55th Street. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 12. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 13. If South 55th Street qualifies as an arterial, the project must by necessity connect to it or it would otherwise only have one access point, through Wilson Park I. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125) are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety 11AM7 PIMA[ PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 16 1 2 3 4' 5 6 71 81 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 14. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the street alignment as noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(G). RMC 4-7-150(E); 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, .sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T -A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD -Al and Policies CD -50 and CD -60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones_ Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul -de -Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 15. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7 there are no roads other than South 55th Street and the Wilson Park I internal road with which the project could connect. No grid system is reasonably feasible because existing development and the steep slopes to the east make any additional thru streets impractical. Alley access is infeasible. Topography would make it difficult to configure the plat to allow for alley access of all lots. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights -of --way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 16. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event offuture adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width boundary street shall he required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 17. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7 there are no feasible street connections to the project other than directly to South 55'6 Street and the Wilson Park I plat as proposed. 4-7-160(A): Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two (2) tiers of lots, except where: 1. Abutting principal arterials defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The location and extent of environmental constraints prevent a standard plat land configuration, including size and shape of the parcel. 3. Prior to approval ofsingle-tier lot configuration based on exceptions 1 and 2, the proponent must demonstrate that a different layout or provisions of an alley system is not feasible. 18. The steep slopes and the shape of the parcel could not accommodate two tiers of lots. 4-7-160(B): Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6) in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. 19. As identified in Finding of Fact 4(E) sidewalks meeting the City's standards will extend along both sides of Road A. There will also be a looped interior trail system. Proposed Road A does not appear to warrant crosswalks due to its short length, but investigation of this issue by staff will be made a condition of approval. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 20. As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 21. Each lot will have access to Road A, which the Staff Report states, when completed, will be a dedicated public road. RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 22. The proposed plat results in less than allowable density in the R-14 portion of the lot and the allowable density in the R-1 portion of the lot. As noted in Table A and Table C of the Staff Report, the lot size, width and design will not meet the minimum requirements of the R-1 and R-14 districts. Staff recommends the most appropriate zoning standards for this development conform to the R-8 Zone and the deviations approved under the PUD are in line with this recommendation. Any deviations from minimum lot dimensions authorized by this decision are based upon compliance with PUD criteria of RMC 4-9-150. For purposes of RMC 4-7-170(0), deviations approved by the PUD standards should be considered to be consistent with the requirements of the applicable zoning classification. As conditioned, the project will be required to conform to the R-8 Zone development standards. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35). 23. The "required lot width" for this project has been reduced by operation of the PUD standards, RMC 4-9-150. As reduced and described in Table C of the Staff Report, the lot widths for each lot are fairly consistent and the foremost lot lines are all at least 80% of lot width. However, proposed Lot 1 has less than the required 60 foot frontage. As modified through the PUD, the criterion is satisfied. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15). 24. As Conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 19 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required far the maintenance and operation ofutilities as specified by the Department. 25. No utility easements were found necessary by the Department. RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 26. As conditioned, protected trees shall be retained or replaced as discussed in Finding of Fact No. S and Conclusion of Law No. 9. The steep slopes will be protected by the City's critical areas ordinance as well as the open space tract as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4(D), RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (S) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 27. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new .street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 28. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(C), the proposal complies with the criterion above. The Staff Report does not identify whether the project will comply with RMC 4-6-030 so compliance will be made a condition of approval. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 29. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to .serve the ,subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 20 Q 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 30. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals andlor vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 131. As Conditioned. I RMC 4 -7 -210.- A. 7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY. - All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 32. As Conditioned. RMC 4-9-150(B)(2): Code Provisions That May Be Modified: a. In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of chapter 4- 2 RMC, chapter 4-4 RMC, RMC 4-6-060 and chapter 4-7 RMC, except as listed in subsection B3 of this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 33. As shown in Table A of the Staff Report, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations identified in the regulation quoted above. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. 34. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150, are to preserve and protect the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity in development of residential uses. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 6 the natural features (the steep slope) of the site are protected by open space and an internal trail. The consolidation of the open space requirement with critical area protection, recreational use and the internal trail system involves innovation and creativity. The use of R-8 zoning design standards to promote compatibility within the two zoning designations of the project in addition to surrounding uses is also innovative and creative. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 5. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal is superior in design to what which would occur without a PUD. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5 the project will not create any significant adverse impacts and so would not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development; or b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or... PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development. A superior design may include the following:... 35. The proposal provides for public benefit as determined in Finding of Fact No. 7. These benefits clearly outweigh any adverse impacts since there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5. As previously concluded, the proposal also provides for more protection of steep slopes than otherwise required by the placement of the slopes in a significant amount of open space and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the PUD provides for a design superior to that which would otherwise be required. RMC4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if if finds that the following requirements are met.... 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design.- i. esign: i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. 36. Proposed landscaping on the south boundary of Lot 10 would provide some screening of when viewed from South 55th Street. Proposed plantings of the southeast corner of Lot 1 would provide some incremental screening for Lot 1 when viewed from 55th Avenue South. The conditions of approval require additional planting within the right-of-way along 55th Avenue South. This would require dedication of additional right-of-way along the south boundary of the plat, between the new Road A west to the southwest corner of the site. As conditioned, the scale, mass, character and architectural design along the perimeter will be of a detached single family residential development consistent with R-8 zoning This creates compatibility with both the interior split zoning and surrounding single-family development. RMC 4-9-154(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 26 ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design_ Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single family, townhouses, flats, etc. 37. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the interior site design promotes quality pedestrian circulation, increased critical area protection, and promotes safety by buffering the high landslide hazards. All homes would be required to comply with the R-8 development design standards which would result in coordinated, yet varied roof styles and materials, architectural detailing, and a variety of home styles throughout the development. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of'the following criteria b. Circulation: i. Provides .sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, .size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. 38. The criterion above is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), (F) and (G). RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria b. Circulation: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 24 I ii. Promotes safety through sufcient sight distance, separation of vehicles.from pedestrians, limited 2 driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients- 3 39. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(F), the criterion above is met. 4 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 5 following requirements are met. 6 .. 7 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria 9 b. Circulation: 10 •. 11 iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public 12 walkways, schools, and commercial activities. 13 40. The criterion is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E). 14 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only fit finds that the 15 following requirements are met 16 ... 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewedfor 17 consistency with all of the following criteria 18 19 b. Circulation.- 20 irculation: 20 •• 21 iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles_ 22 41. As conditioned and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(F), the proposal has sufficient 23 emergency vehicle access. 24 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 25 following requirements are met. 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 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 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of 'the following criteria c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. 42. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal is served by sufficient public infrastructure and services. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it ,finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also he reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open ,space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. 43. An appearance of openness is created by clustering, open space and conditions rewiring building separation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if `it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties_ Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 26 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 44. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal is adequately screened from adjoining development. Within the subdivision, unit to unit privacy would be provided by the side yard setback requirement. Street trees are required either within the required landscape strip or in the front yard of the lot. The required trees would add to the privacy for lots across Road A. As discussed in Finding of Fact Nos. 4(D) and 6, the proposed walkways and landscaping are appropriate for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property. All homes would be required to be designed to meet the residential design standards for the R-8 zone. These standards would require windows on the front of the home, increasing access to light and air for each dwelling unit. Furthermore, each lot would have private front, side and rear yards, enhancing each lot with landscaping and access to light and air. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria f Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. 45. The lots are arranged on either side of Road A. The site topography slopes down from south to north, resulting in a tiered housing effect after site grading. The relatively small amount of new housing and the large effect of the topography provide little opportunity for enhanced views from within the site. Given the site grading and required building styles, this criterion is met. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it fndv that the following requirements are met_ 3_ Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size ofparking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 46. Required parking would be provided within garages attached to each home. Additional guest parking would be provided on the driveway aprons for each lot, particularly given the condition of approval that requires an additional 3 feet of setback for garages. On -street parking would be provided along the east side of Road A. The proposed parking is designed to provide efficient use of the site and would be appropriately screen by the provided garages. RMC 4-9-150(D)(4): Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the development standards contained in subsection E of this Section, the underlying zone, and any overlay districts; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section. 47. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC 4-9-150(E). As previously mentioned, Staff has recommended that the entire site be subject to the development standards of the R-8 zone. The current zones are R-14 and R-1. Only one dwelling unit is proposed for the R -I zone portion. Nine are proposed for the R-14 zone. The total gross zoning is proposed to be 6.4, well less than the density required for R-8 zone that Staff recommends. As depicted in the plat maps, Ex. 2, the lots comply with the bulk and dimensional requirements of the underlying zone except to the extent modified by the PUD regulations. RMC 4-9-150(E)(1): Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below. a. Residential: For residential developments open space must equal at least ten percent (10%) of the development site's gross land area. i. Open space may include, but is not limited to, the following: a) A trail that allows opportunity for passive recreation within a critical area buffer (only the square footage of the trail shall be included in the open space area calculation), or b) A sidewalk and its associated landscape strip, when abutting the edge of a critical area buffer and when apart of a new public or private road, or c) A similar proposal as approved by the reviewing official. ii. Additionally, a minimum area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit of common .space or recreation area shall be provided in a concentrated space as illustrated in Figure 1, 48. In addition to private open space provided on each proposed lot, the Applicants have proposed to provide a passive recreation area primarily located on the eastern portion of the site, and wrapping around the north part of Lot 6 and the south boundary of Lot 10. This 19,164 sq. ft. (0.44 acre) open PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 28 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 space would include a pergola structure, landscaping and two picnic tables, a soft surface looped trail system through the development, and would also comprise the steep slope area beyond to the north and east. RMC 4-9-150E requires that PUD's provide large concentrated areas of open space, equivalent to 10% of the site's gross area. The site is 93,801 sq. ft. and the provided open space tract is 19,164 sq. ft, comprising approximately 20% of the site, and exceeding the open space standards by 9,784 square feet. The overall location and design of the park, open space and trail are located as to create a quality open space/recreation area for the development, specifically if all conditions of approval are met. RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet (15) in every dimension (decks on upper floors can substitute for the required private open space). For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5 J. 49. Each lot would have a private yard in both the front and the rear of the lot. The minimum side yard setback in the requested R-8 zoning development standards is five feet, which could result in a private open space yard that is less than 15 feet in every dimension. However, the lots sizes are large enough to meet this standard. As a condition of approval, compliance with this standard shall be required at the building permit stage. RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the Applicants and approved by the City; provided, that common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained,for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device_ A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two 2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on_ f le with the Development Services Division. b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070. 50. As Conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities_ a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if'deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060... 51. As Conditioned. RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners' association, or the agents) thereof.' In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. 52. As a condition of approval, the Applicants are required to establish a home owners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not limited to the soft surface trail, landscaping, and park within the PUD prior to Final PUD approval. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD home owners' association. RMC 4-9-150(B)(3)(d): The City may not modify any of the procedural provisions of RMC Title 4, including, but not limited to, fees, submittal requirements, and other similar provisions found in chapters 4-1, 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9 RMC. 53, The Applicant has requested the Examiner grant an extension of the PUD expiration period to nine years to match the plat expiration period. The Examiner is specifically prohibited from modifying the procedural provisions of RMC Title 4 including RMC 4-9-150(G)(1) Final Plat Review Procedures: Time Limits. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat and preliminary PUD are APPROVED. Requested revisions to development standards are approved to the extent recommended by Staff in Table A of the Staff Report. The proposal is subject to the following Conditions of Approval: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1, The Applicants shall comply with the seven mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 7, 2012. 2. The Applicants shall place a restrictive covenant on each of the lots indicating that only detached single family units may be constructed, and any future accessory units allowed per the R-8 Development Regulations. This covenant shall be subject to the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to the recording of the Final Plat. 3. The final PUD application shall reflect the minimum dimensional requirements for each lot in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone. Specifically, Lot 1 must be a minimum of 60 feet in width with a minimum 15 foot side yard setback along the street in order to conform to the R-8 standards for corner lots. 4. The final PUD application shall reflect the maximum building coverage and maximum impervious coverage requirements for each lot in conformance with the standards of the R- 8 Zone, except where proposed to exceed those requirements. 5. The final PUD application shall reflect a minimum setback of 18 feet from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk to allow an appropriate area for parking. Additionally, parking may be allowed on the east side of Road A. No Parking signs shall be installed on the west side, prior to final plat recording. 6. The final PUD application shall reflect the five foot setback from Tract A and the pedestrian path within an easement. 7. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential and open space requirements in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which include lot width variation of a minimum ten feet for one of each four abutting street fronting lots, or a minimum of four lot sizes (minimum 400 sq. ft. size difference), or a front yard setback variation of at least five feet for one of each four abutting street fronting lots. 8. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential and open space requirements in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which require a recess for the garage of at least 8 feet from the front of the house, or an extension of the roof of at least 5 feet, or a design that locates the entry away from a public and/or private street or access easement, or such that the width of the garage is no greater than 50% of the front facade at ground level, and that the portion wider than 26 feet wide is set back at least 2 feet. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9. The final PUD application shall reflect the scale, bulk and character standards in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which require a variety of elevations and models. 10. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential design standards in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone. 11. The Applicants must record a Native Growth Protection Area Easement over Tract A including all critical areas and their buffers. The Applicants shall establish and record a permanent and irrevocable easement on the property title for all critical areas and their buffers prior to Final Plat recording. The protective easement shall be held by current and future property owners; shall run with the land, and shall prohibit development, alteration, and disturbance within the easement except for the purposes of habitat enhancement as a part of an enhancement project, access for the trail users and maintenance, and debris flow mitigation access for landslide events. The NGPE shall be subject to the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to recording of the Final Plat. 12. The Applicants shall submit a detailed and revised final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Specifically, the final landscape plan shall include, but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed locations and design details of the pergola/gazebo, split -rail fence and interpretive signage proposed along the soft surface trail. b. Street trees shall be identified within the right-of-way in compliance with the City's street tree standards. c. The plan shall indicate either 100 percent drought tolerant plantings or the applicant shall provide a final irrigation plan with the final detailed landscape plan. d. Provide a revised Landscape Plan indicating a Common Recreation area that is a minimum of 500 square feet that includes improvements providing for recreation by the public and area residents e. Redesign the trail on the south side of Lot 10 such that the trail meanders and is not abutting the edge of the split rail fence on Lot 10. f. Tree retention shall protect all trees with a 2 -inch or more caliper. 13. The Applicants shall submit detailed and revised construction engineering plans and final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 final PUD approval. Specifically, the plans shall reflect the design and construction of curb, gutter, 5 -foot wide sidewalks and an 8 -foot wide planting strip along the proposed street intersection of Road A and South 55th Street and along the portion of Tract A that fronts South 55"' Street. Another 8 -foot planning strip is required along the inside of Road A. 14. In order to facilitate children walking to and from the school bus stop, the construction engineering plans and final detailed landscape plan must reflect the addition of an asphalt walking path from the entrance of the development to the nearest Renton School District bus stop location. These improvements must be constructed within the improved right of way, with a minimum 5 -foot asphalt path separated from the traffic lane by C -curb_ These improvements shall be shown on the final PUD application, and reviewed and approved by the Engineering Plan Review Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Installation of the improvements must be concurrent with related street and utility improvements consequent of the project. 15. The Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of the construction permit application submittal. The lighting plan shall reflect illumination of the hard surface portions of the trail and gazebo/pergola area and either minimal or no lighting of the soft surface trail at night. The lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting in addition to building and landscaping lighting if proposed. 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application for review and approval by the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 17. In the event that Wilson Park I is not constructed prior to the beginning of construction for Wilson Park II, the construction engineering plans shall be revised to reflect the construction of an approved emergency turnaround in the public street (Road A). These improvements shall be shown on the final PUD application, and reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager and the Fire Marshal prior to final PUD approval. 18. The Applicants shall establish a home owners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not limited to the soft surface trail, landscaping, and common recreational facilities within the PUD. The draft CCR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, prior to final PUD approval. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD home owners' association. The CCR's shall provide that any covenants required by the City may not be amended without City approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19. A covenant shall be placed on all tracts restricting their separate sale and giving each lot owner within the plat an undivided interest in the tracts. This covenant should be recorded on the face of the plat, and/or concurrent with the plat recording, noting the recording number on the plat. 20. The Applicants shall provide the Current Planning Project Manager, a water line installation plan, which complies with RMC 4-3-050L.8.b.i.(b) for review and approval, prior to final PUD approval. 21. The common boundary between the native growth protection tract and the abutting land must be permanently identified. This identification shall include a permanent wood split rail fence and metal signs on treated or metal posts. The permanent wood split rail fence and signs shall be installed prior to Final Plat recording. 22. The following note shall appear on the face of the Final Plat and shall also be recorded as a covenant running with the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title: MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY: All owners of lots created or benefitting from this City action abutting or including a native growth protection tract are responsible for maintenance and protection of the tract. Maintenance includes ensuring that no alterations occur within the tract and that all vegetation remains undisturbed unless the express written authorization of the City has been received." 23. All proposed street names shall be submitted to the City and approved by the City prior to final plat approval. 24. All subdivision streets shall comply with the street standards of RMC 4-6-060 as contemplated in RMC 4-7-150(D). 25. All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 26. Road A as depicted in Ex. 2 shall be dedicated to the public. 27. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have a minimum radius of fifteen feet (15') as contemplated by RMC 4-7-170(E). 28. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 34 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 29. As contemplated in RMC 4-7-200(B), cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6- 030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. 30. The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements as contemplated in RMC 4-7-200(C). 31. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 32. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 33. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department of Community and Economic Development. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 34. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 35. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the private open space standards of RMC 4-9-150(E)(2) for each lot prior to and as a requirement for building permit issuance. 36. Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 35 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 37. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the applicant or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. 38. All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the City; provided, that common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division. 39. If circumstances warrant, staff shall require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6) in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width of Road A at locations deemed necessary as required by RMC 4-7-160(B). Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. DATED this 5h day of July, 2012. Phi A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7`h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 37 Denis Law - Mayor city of: City Clerk - Bonnie I. Walton July 6, 2012 Robert & Doravin Wilson 21703 60' h Street l=ast Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Re: Decision for Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat, LUA-12-013, ECF, PP Dear Mr. & Mrs. Wilson: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated July 5, 2012, in the above - referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. r Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enc.: Hearing Examiner's Decision cc Hearing Examiner Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Neil Watts, Development Service Director Karen Kittrick, CED Stacy Tucker, Development Services Parties of Record (6) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425)430-6510/ Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE. Wilson Park II FINAL DECISION Preliminary Plat and Planned Urban Development } LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD ) SUMMARY The Applicants propose a preliminary plat to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into ten single-family residential lots and one tract for open space. A planned urban development ("PUD") is proposed in order to modify minimum lot sizes and other development standards. The preliminary plat and PUD are approved subject to conditions. TESTIMONY Jennifer Henning, Renton Planning Manager, stated Wilson Park II is a preliminary plat and planned urban development located to the east of Talbot Rd S and north of S 55th Street. It is an existing 2.15 acre site with split -zoning. A portion of the site is zoned R-14 which has a maximum of 14 dwelling units per acre, and another portion of the site is zoned R-1 which allows one dwelling unit per acre. The site has an Urban Separator overlay present on an eastern portion of the site in conjunction with steep slopes. The Applicants are proposing to create a subdivision of detached single family homes with 10 lots. The lots would range in size from 5,560 to 6,778 sq ft, and the site would also include a tract set aside for open space and critical areas (Tract A) on the eastern portion of the site. Tract A would be 19,164 sq ft. which is roughly 20 percent of the site (correction to the Staff Report which gives the coverage as 50 percent). The city zoning map notes the split zoning of the site (a squiggly line marks the split area). A map of the site shows the protected slopes in bright orange and 39 or lower percent slopes in yellow. The site is shown with a dashed dark line and is PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 roughly square-shaped. South 55 Street is often called the "Snake Road" and is fairly steep. Upon questioning from the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Henning noted that a geo-tech report was done in 2004 by Mr. Carl Zing. Noting plate 2 of the 2004 geo-tech report, Ms. Henning stated that the west side of the site was analyzed in that report with a proposal for 4 lots. Exhibit 18 is a 2012 geo-tech report which supplements the 2004 report. Staff does not feel that the geo-tech reports addressing different lot proposals affect the overall conclusions. There are no streams or coal mine hazards that affect the site. There are some steep slopes on the extreme northwest corner of the site and off-site to the west. The presence of the slopes resulted in the city creating the Urban Separator overlay designation. She noted that, in most areas, an Urban Separator will follow the property lines. However, this site's separator (the Talbot Urban Separator) follows topography lines rather than parcel and zoning lines. Recently, the Talbot Urban Separator language has been clarified to say that half of the area in the Urban Separator has to be used as open space (instead of half the whole parcel as is the case for other separators). She concluded that the developable part of the site is a moderate slope. In regards to averaging the density, Ms. Hennings stated that if Staff looked at the R-14 zone on its own (with the road taken out) about 1 acre would be left. This would allow for 14 units (which could be duplexes, triplexes, etc.). In the R-1 portion of the site, there could still only be 1 dwelling unit. Thus, if the density was calculated in the original way, there could be up to 15 lots. Staff suggested using the PUD process to look at applying different standards to the entire parcel. Staff decided to average the density across the site (without exceeding the density of one part of the site vs. the other) using an administrative code interpretation. Ms. Hennings testified that Exhibit 2 shows the proposal, including the 10 lots, Tract A, and a central road (Road A). Staff recommends that a covenant be included in the approval that restricts the Applicants to only building detached single-family homes. In Exhibit 2, the R-14 zone is the light brown color while R-1 zone is the green color. Lot 5, 8, and 9 would be split -zoned parcels. Staff is recommending that the plat subscribe to the R-8 zoning standards which are a residential single family (RSF) designation. Regardless, the plat meets policies of multiple land -use possibilities being considered. The R-14 designation is in the Residential Single Family (RSF) while R -I is in Residential Low Density (RLD) standard. R-8 is within the RSF designation. The site is served by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The certificate of water availability became available on June 12a', 2012. The site will also use facilities being built for the Wilson Park I site which has already been approved. The Wilson Park I site will provide 26 ft. of paving for road, 2-5ft. sidewalks, and a landscape strip. Parking will be allowed on the east side of the street. Exhibit I 1 depicts the landscape plan with the road in the center. The landscape is shown in green and the road in brown. A walking path, which is a public benefit, will be provided around lot 6. It is a hard - surface path that will lead into the planned gazebo area. There are street trees being proposed along with trees in the open fence area. A split -rail fence is proposed for the back of the lots. Staff is concerned that the split -rail fence will not provide enough security for future residents and will result in residents building additional fences. Staff is working with the Applicants to find a better solution PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l0i for the fencing problem. Staff also asks that the walking path be moved out of the boundaries of Lot 10. There is no design yet for the gazebo, but it is contained in a 350 sq ft area. The Applicants is possibly going to expand this recreation area to the Wilson Park I recreation area to the north. Staff believes that circulation beyond the walking path is necessary for safety and convenience. The nearest bus stop is 700 ft. away. Staff recommends a condition that there be a walking path along S 55"' St. for kids to safely reach the bus stop. Ms. Hennings stated that the project went through a SEPA review and has a number of conditions that must be met as a result of that review. Staff provided a table within the Staff Report that describes what the standards for the two residential zones are, and the required modifications necessary for the proposal to meet the R-8 standards. The lots meet the minimum size standards of the R-8 zone and all meet the width requirements except for Lot 1. The R-8 standard currently allows 1511 from the garage face to the back sidewalk; however, Staff is recommending 18ft from the back of the garage to the back of the sidewalk for a parking apron area. This is especially necessary because there is limited guest parking. All the setbacks for the rear -yard, design standards, and maximum building coverage work best with the R-8 standard. Staff believes the R-8 standard applied creates a superior plat because of the more uniform lots and homes, more open space and recreation areas. The plan also protects the steep slopes more because it protects a greater area than what would be required under other zone areas. Exhibit 9 shows the steep slope area with the plan and demonstrates that approximately a third more area is protected under the R-8 zone plan. Ms. Hennings explained that the City of Renton does not require recreational areas on site because it prefers applicants to pay into the City's park mitigation fund. The proposal, under R-8 zone standards, will require a footpath to the school bus -stop and the recreational walking path. The Applicants are paying the full park impact fee, traffic fee, fire fee, and school impact fee. Staff suggested additional common amenities such as barbecues or fireplaces. There are currently 82 trees on the site, and 21 of the trees will be removed because they are in the section where the public streets will be built (Exhibit 9). There are three trees in the critical areas and buffers which don't count. This leaves 58 trees to consider for zoning standards. Zoning requirements state that 10 trees on-site will have to be retained. The Applicants are proposing to retain the necessary 10 trees and will be adding at least 2 trees per lot. Additional landscape enhancements will be added along the back of the lots. Staff is also asking additional trees be planted along the south side of Lot 1 because of car traffic along that area. A variety of tree types and plant forms will be utilized. Ms. Hennings testified that the homes will be subject to the City's residential design standards. No floor plans or elevations are available at this time. No alley is needed because of the limited space. Staff is recommending an 8 -ft wide landscape strip be included along the south side of Lot 1. The Applicants would also be required to provide curb, gutter and sidewalks and a landscape strip along the extreme eastside of the site which has frontage on S 55th St. The Applicants are not opposed to providing these additional facilities. No lighting plan was provided as part of the proposal. The lighting plan would be needed later in the process. Ms. Hennings noted that the code does not require lighting along the walking path at night. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 3 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 In regard to the emergency vehicle service; Staff is concerned that if Wilson Park. I is not constructed there will be no place for the vehicles to turn -around. Staff stated that if Wilson Park I is not constructed first (or at all) an emergency turnaround will need to be provided. A stormwater vault was proposed as part of Wilson Park I (Exhibit 13, shown in blue) which would be sufficient to handle any run-off. Additionally, the Applicants are proposing a covenant to limit the amount of pervious surface on each lot. The City provides fire and sewer service. In regard to the plat application, Ms. Hennings noted that Staff believes all of the lots are appropriately sized with suitable orientations except for Lot 1. Staff asks that Lot 1's width be changed because it is a corner lot. All access topography seemed to be fitting and no disruption to other properties was evident. Staff asks that Tract A be placed in a native -growth protection area easement. Staff is recommending that the preliminary plat and PUD be approved, subject to the 18 conditions presented in the Staff Report. Jim Hanson, 17446 Ballard Cove's Lane, stated that the Applicants agree the R-8 standards should apply. The Applicants have no objection to the l8ft garage -sidewalk standard change. The PUD process requires the Applicants to provide the open -space and recreation areas that would not be required with the normal R-1 zone. In areas where there is no critical slope, the Applicants are clearing invasive species and enhancing the landscape rather than just leaving it as over -growth. The Applicants believe this type of development is a better transition from the R-14 zone to the R-8 zone to the north and to the R-4 zones to the east and south. Rather than having townhouses and duplexes, the Applicants feel 10 single-family homes are more appropriate. The previous proposals (from 2004) had higher density levels (but fewer lots). Upon questioning by the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Hanson noted that the Applicants had not discussed lighting the pedestrian pathway. He noted that it is a wildlife corridor, and the path is not intended for night use. Darrell Offe, Offe Engineers, stated that the 2004 geo-tech report was done for a different property owner. The previous owner only looked at the west side of the property because he believed the entire east side was sensitive areas. The current Applicants have added the east side to the site plans. The Applicants have worked with Staff to establish the 25 percent Urban Separator line as the designation between the R-1 and the R-14. Soos Creek is the purveyor of the water and Renton is the purveyor of the sewer. The 2005 drainage manual (used for Wilson Park I and 2) requires that the detention facility be sized to accommodate 85 percent pervious surface per lot. The code allows the Applicants to restrict themselves to a lower impervious level and lessen the treatment it has to provide. The stormwater facility planned for Wilson Park I will include Wilson Park I1 along with the restrictive covenants. The Applicants ask that under Condition 8 {which asks for a walking path to the nearest bus stop on 55` h Street), the wording be changed to just say the nearest bus stop. This change is in hope that a new bus stop closer to the site can be created. Ms. Henning's noted that the City has no objections to this change of Condition 8. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Jim Hanson noted that the timing for the PUD expiration is different for the plat expiration. Plats are valid for 9 years while PUDs are only valid for 5 years. The Applicants ask that the expiration of the PUD be increased to 9 years. Jennifer Hennings noted, if the plat was developed under the R-8 standards, the Applicants could build up to 13 lots. Instead, the Applicants are proposing ten lots. If the R-1 and R-14 density standards were used, up to 15 lots could be built with a density of 9.16 per acre. Under the current proposal, there are 6.4 units per acre. EXHIBITS The June 12, 2012 Staff Report in addition to Exhibits 1-21 identified in pages 2-3 of the Staff Report were admitted into the record at the June 12, 2012 hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: Applicants. Robert and Doravin Wilson. 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on June 12, 2012 at 2:00 pm in the City of Renton Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The Applicants request preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into ten lots for single-family homes at a proposed density of 6.4 dwelling units per acre. An open space tract is included in the subdivision. The preliminary application is accompanied by a PUD application requesting deviations to R-1 and R-14 zoning standards, as outlined in Table A of the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. All lots will have access to a public street, Road A. The project is divided into two zoning designations: R-14 and R-1. The R-1 Zone comprises 38,326 square feet (including the steep slope area), and the R-14 portion of the site is 55,474 square feet. Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with nine lots proposed in the R-14 area and one lot proposed within the R-1. Access would be provided from South 55h Street via a new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park I plat. The site contains 9,783 square feet of slopes with greater than 40% grade. A small hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site. An underground stormwater vault was previously approved for Wilson Park I to be within the roadway on the subject site. The vault is being revised to accommodate the additional stormwater generated by the proposal. A hard -surface walking path leading into a planned gazebo area will be provided as PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 well as will a soft surface, 3 -foot wide walking path around Lot 6-10. There are street trees being proposed along with trees in the open fence area. A split -rail fence is proposed for the back of the lots. A portion of the site is subject to the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. That portion of the site zoned R-1 is considered to be within the Urban Separator. Per RMC 4-3-110(E)(2)(a)(ii), 50% of the area within the Urban Separator must be dedicated as irrevocable open space. The Applicants propose to retain 19,164 square feet, or 50% of the site as open space within Tract A. The application includes a proposal for a planned unit development in order to modify minimum lot size and development standards for both the R-1 and R-14 designations. Proposed lots would range in size from 5,560 square feet to 6,778 square feet. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate was issued by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District on June 12, 2012, according to Staff testimony. Based on the submitted Conceptual Utilities Plan (Exhibit 13), there is an existing sewer main located in 55th Avenue South. The Applicants have proposed to connect to this existing main and extend an 8 -inch sanitary sewer line to provide sewer to the development. This plan sheet also identifies an 8 -inch water line extension from 55th Avenue South through the subject plat and to the Wilson Park I plat located to the north. With receipt of the water availability certificate, the development would provide sufficient service to the lots. B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City's stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all significant drainage impacts. New impervious surfaces would result in surface water runoff increases. The Applicants submitted a Technical Information Report ("Drainage Report") and Addendum with the project application (Exhibit 21). The original stormwater system for Wilson Park I is located within the street that would serve both Wilson Park I and 11. This system was sized to accommodate Wilson Park I lots and the new streets including the access street located within this project, Wilson Park 11. The Addendum provides calculations intended to evaluate the sizing of the storm treatment PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 facility for the two projects and demonstrates that the facility as revised for Wilson Park II is sufficient to accommodate both Wilson Park i and Wilson Park 11. The City of Renton's 2009 Drainage Manual requires Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new developments. One BMP's is to restrict impervious areas on future lots to help reduce runoff, mitigate for development, and minimize the treatment system needed for the project. This is known as a "Restrictive Covenant" provision and was utilized as part of a preliminary sizing of the future system for both Wilson Park I and II. The Applicants intend to utilize the Restrictive Covenant provision and limit impervious surface on each of the new lots in both Wilson Park I and II to 3,300 square feet per lot. By limiting the impervious area for homes, patios, driveways and walkways, the proposed stormwater vault will be of an appropriate size to accommodate both developments. The Applicants have also intended to develop both plats at the same time. D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. The proposed development is located on a 2.15 acre site. The eastern portion of the site is located in a steep slope critical area. The site contains geotechnical hazards in the form of slopes greater than 40% covering 38,326 sq. ft. within the Talbot Urban Separator. Both the subject plat and Wilson Park I are required to set aside 50% of the area of the site located within the Talbot Urban Separator as a non -revocable open space tract. Additionally, the City critical areas regulations provide for protection of steep slopes. RMC 4-9-150(E) requires PUDs to provide large concentrated areas of open space, equivalent to 10% of the site's gross area. The Staff Report notes that the proposed development increases these protections by protecting the steep slope within a tract that would also serve as the common open space and recreation area. The project proposes to set aside 19,164 square feet, or 50% of the Talbot Urban Separator area in Open Space Tract A. The site is 93,801 sq. ft. and the provided open space tract is 19,164 sq.ft, comprising approximately 20% of the site, and exceeding the open space standards by 9,784 sq. ft. A 510 lineal foot (1,530 sq. ft.) looped trail provided on the flat area of Tract A would separate five of the new lots from the steep slope area. The open space tract would also connect to a comparable open space tract on Wilson Park I that was set aside to address requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations (RMC4-3-110E, 2.a.ii). The Applicants have proposed to provide an approximately 350 sq. ft. common park that includes a concrete path, pergola/gazebo and landscaping. The conditions of approval require the proposed development provide 500 sq. ft. of common space or recreation area to meet the 50 sq. ft. required by PUD regulations for each of the ten lots. The proposed park is located along the perimeters of proposed Lots 6-10 and connects to the walking path through the remainder of Tract A. The conditions of approval require that the section PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 on the south side of Lot 10 be revised to meander and not abut the edge of the split rail fence. As conditioned, the overall location and design of the park, open space and trail will create quality open space and recreation areas for the development. Private open space will be provided on each lot through the yard setbacks and limitations in pervious surface. Staff further recommends that a minimum setback of 18 feet be required from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk to allow an appropriate area for parking. This increased setback would also increase the yard space for each lot. The overall passive and active recreation opportunities proposed for the subject development are beyond the standard code requirements. The proposed open space and recreation on the site provide the opportunity for both passive and active recreation. The park area provides for both passive and active recreation by offering both a gazebo/pergola and hard and soft surface trails. The varieties of recreation opportunities proposed throughout the development and in conjunction with Wilson Park I create a mix of choices, appealing to a large spectrum of people. The split -rail fence or pergola/gazebo designs are not reflected on the Landscape Plan or the Plat Plan. The conditions of approval require the Applicants provide a detail of the proposed pergola/gazebo and fence design and location as a part of the final detailed Iandscape plan. These details shall be submitted and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. E. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposed preliminary plat provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation system. In addition to the proposed soft surface pedestrian path, discussed above, the Applicants have proposed sidewalks along .both sides of Road A consistent with the residential character of the development. As discussed below, pedestrian linkage to the nearest school bus stop is also required. This network of pathways and sidewalks provides for a pedestrian network that ties the residential development to recreational areas and schools. It is unclear from the record whether there are any commercial areas or public transit stops within walking distance; nonetheless the linkage to adjoining sidewalks provides all the linkage that can reasonably be required of the Applicants. As conditioned, pedestrian safety is assured through adequate separation of pathways from motor vehicles and adequate lighting. The conditions of approval require pedestrian separation along South 55th Street with an 8 -foot planter strip. Another 8 -foot planter strip is required along the "inside" of Road A. Furthermore, the pedestrian looped trail PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 would provide another means for pedestrian movement throughout the development maintaining sufficient separation from vehicles. A lighting plan was not included in the Applicants' submittal packet; therefore, it is not clear how the proposed pedestrian pathways would be illuminated at night. Although, the soft surface trail should not be lit at night as this may cause additional impacts to open space area, the remainder of the hard surfaced pedestrian pathway and recreation areas should be lit. As a condition of approval, the Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction. The lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting in addition to building and landscaping lighting, if proposed. Comments received from surrounding property owners concern the ability of children to safely access a school bus stop (Exhibit 14). The Applicants have observed that presently school buses travel east on South 55th Street in the morning, stopping in South 55th Street to pick-up students. The buses then travel west in the aftemoon, stopping in South 55th to drop-off students. While it was originally anticipated that this practice would continue with the project, and that children would wait together for pick-up, an inquiry to the Renton School District (RSD) revealed that these are actually Kent School District buses, which do not serve the subject plat. RSD does not operate on South 55th Street, and would require that students walk approximately 700 feet to the west to be picked up at the corner of South 55th Street and Talbot Road South. In order to provide an appropriate safe route to schools, the conditions of approval request a walking path within the improved right-of-way, with a minimum 5 -foot asphalt path from the entrance to the plat to the nearest school bus stop that serves the subdivision. This should be installed at the time that street and utility improvements are being installed. P. Interior Vehicle Circulation. In addition to sidewalks and the proposed pedestrian path, the proposed preliminary plat also provides for appropriate vehicle circulation system. The road system connects with the Wilson Park I Plat located immediately to the north. The road was originally approved as part of Wilson Park I and has not yet been constructed. Wilson Park I is dependent upon the construction of this road, as is Wilson Park I1. The internal street is designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic generated by the project, provided that the street connects through Wilson Park 1. In the event that Wilson Park I is not constructed concurrent or prior to Wilson Park 11, an emergency turnaround would need to be provided within the subject plat. The conditions of approval require that if Wilson Park II moves forward prior to Wilson Park I, the public street be constructed with an approved emergency turnaround. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Access to the property should not adversely affect adjoining properties and there are no difficult turning patterns. The site access street intersects South 55th Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. Previously, the site distance on South 55th Street was evaluated as part of Wilson Park I. It was determined then that the City of Renton intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions would be met. As shown in Ex. 2, the internal road does not traverse any steep gradients and there is no driveway access to any busy streets as there is no driveway access to South 55th Street. G. Off -Site Traffic Improvements. Frontage improvements are required along South 55th Street. The property has frontage in two locations, where the proposed internal Road A intersects South 55th Street, and where a portion of Tract A fronts on South 55th Street. In both cases, the Applicants are required to construct curb, gutter, 5 -foot wide sidewalks, and an 8 -foot wide planting strip. The Applicants' proposal indicates a 5 -foot wide sidewalk along South 55th Street on the south side of Lot 1. No planting strip is proposed within the South 55th Street right-of-way. No street improvements are proposed within the right-of-way for South 55th Street for the portion where Tract A fronts on the street Exhibit 2, 11). The conditions of approval require revision of the construction engineering plans, and final detailed landscape plan to show the required street improvements and landscaping prior to the Final PUD and Final Plat approval process. The Applicants submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Exhibit 12) prepared by TraffEx. The report indicates that the proposal would utilize the same access to South 55th Street as the approved Wilson Park I Plat. The site access street intersects South 55th Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The report also indicates that the horizon year for the study is 2014, as this is the year construction of both plats is anticipated. The study determined the Level -of -Service (LOS) with the project will be LOS B for future 2014 conditions. This LOS satisfies the City's LOS standard and there is no evidence in the record that is contrary to the conclusions of the traffic report on LOS impacts. The project design will ensure intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions will be met. The report has been presumably approved by staff, since it has gone through staff review and Staff have recommended all the conditions of approval they deemed necessary for adequate traffic mitigation in the environmental report. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Renton School District (RSD) does not operate on South 55th Street. The closest school bus stop is approximately 700 feet to the west at the corner of South 55th Street and Talbot Road South. In order to provide an appropriate safe route to schools, the conditions of approval require a walking path within the improved right-of-way, with a minimum 5 -foot asphalt path to the nearest school bus stop as determined safe by City staff. This should be installed concurrent with street and utility improvements. 5. Adverse Impacts. Since the project provides for adequate infrastructure and public services, the only remaining impacts to be considered are to critical areas. All impacts to critical areas have been thoroughly assessed and completely mitigated, as identified in the Environmental Review Report, Ex. 4-6, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. The mitigation measures recommended by Staff in the Environmental Report are adopted as conditions of approval via adoption of the mitigation measures of the determination of nonsignificance. Adoption of Ex. 6 encompasses both the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law of Staff. A. Trees. Loss of trees is an impact that Renton regulations require mitigated. As conditioned, the project will retain trees as required by City standards, although it must be noted that the Staff Report erroneously only requires protection of trees with of a 6 -inch caliper or greater whereas it appears that City standards require trees of a 2 -inch caliper or greater to be protected. The Staff Report notes that the site contains a total of 82 trees of 6 -inch caliper or larger, 21 are within the proposed public right-of-way, and 3 are located in critical areas and their buffers resulting in 58 protected trees on site (Exhibit 9, 10). Of these, 21 trees are within the R-1 zone, and 37 trees within the R-14 zoned portions of the property. The R-1 zone requires 30 percent tree retention of the protected trees on site, while the R-14 requires 10 percent tree retention. At a 30 percent retention rate in the R-1 zone, 6 trees of greater than 6 -inch caliper would be required to be retained. At 10 percent retention rate in the R-14 zone, 4 trees of greater than 6 -inch would need to be retained. This is a total of 10 trees of greater than 6 -inch caliper required to be retained. The Applicants have identified 10 trees that would be retained thus meeting the requirement for trees of greater than 6 -inch caliper. In addition, the Applicants propose to plant 40 new trees on site, which includes street trees within the right-of-way and ornamental trees within Tract `A', the common open space and Native Growth Protection Area Easement. As noted in the conclusions of law, Renton tree retention standards require the protection of 2 -inch caliper trees, not 6 -inch trees as suggested in the Staff Report. The conditions of approval will require that the tree retention requirements be applied to trees that are of 2 -inch caliper or greater. B. Compatibility with Adjoining Use Perimeter screening will ensure compatibility and minimize aesthetic impacts. Proposed landscaping on the south boundary of Lot 10 would provide some screening of when viewed from South 55th Street. Proposed plantings of the southeast corner of Lot 1 would provide some incremental screening for Lot 1 when viewed from 55th Avenue South. Additional planting within the right-of-way is required as a PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 condition of approval along 55th Avenue South. This requires dedication of additional right- of-way along the south boundary of the plat, between the new Road A west to the southwest corner of the site. The PUD revision authorizing R-8 design standards also contributes to compatibility, as many adjoining uses are also zoned R-8. All other adverse impacts discernible from the record are also fully mitigated. 6. Superiority in Design. The proposed PUD design is superior to that which would be allowed under applicable subdivision regulations. This finding is based upon Staff's assessment and conclusions. Unfortunately, the record does not directly provide much information on how staff came to its conclusions on superiority in design, but given the Staff's expertise and the lack of any evidence to the contrary the staff conclusions are adopted. At page 11, the Staff Report notes several reasons why the design is superior, but does not link these reasons to any specific design features. First, the Staff Report notes that proposed plat layout provides for the protection of the steep slope area to the east. Given that the PUD proposes that 50% of the open space of the urban separator designation be set aside for open space and that the same would be required for a subdivision anyway, it is difficult to understand from the record how the PUD protection of the steep slopes is superior to that which would already be required for a subdivision. The Staff Report also notes that the PUD exceeds open space requirements by placing the steep slopes within the open space tract. While the placement of the steep slopes within the open space tract is technically not required, it is difficult to conceive of any set of circumstances for this subdivision where the developer would have any incentive to reduce his developable space by placing the open space away from the steep slopes. The PUD design does provide for a trail along the steep slope that provides separation from five lots beyond that required by the City's critical areas ordinance. Given the amount of open space required already, the trail separation does not appear to be a major improvement over what would be required of a subdivision. Second, the Staff Report notes that as conditioned the PUD would provide for recreational amenities beyond code requirements. Elsewhere, the Staff Report notes that the open space will include a pergola, landscaping, two picnic tables and a soft surface trail system. These are presumably all amenities that exceed code standards and thus support a finding of superior design. Third, the Staff Report notes that the plat layout increases the quality of the internal circulation system throughout the development. This in part appears to be accomplished by an internal pathway that connects the sidewalks of the subdivision. It is not otherwise clear from the record how the quality of internal circulation has been enhanced by the proposed PUD. Fourth, the Staff Report notes that the proposed subdivision is a significant improvement over a design that would meet both the R- I and R-14 standards. The Staff Report notes that proposed design can provide for the aforementioned amenities because of the development standard modifications recommended by Staff in the Staff Report Table A. The Staff Report does not identify how the modifications result in superior design. A primary design enhancement from the PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wei modifications appears to be conformance to the residential design standards of the R-8 zone as conditioned, which apparently provides for stricter design guidelines in some respects than that required of the R-1 or R-14 zone, promotes compatibility of design between the interior R-1 and R-14 districts (although there is only one lot in the R-1 zone) and also provides for greater compatibility in design with adjoining R-8 uses. The requested Iot size and setback modifications allow for a clustered R-8 development that provides increased protection of critical areas creating an appearance of openness. The reduced density applied from the R-8 zone further contributes to this openness. In order to maintain sufficient separation between buildings, the conditions of approval require the Applicants to meet the R-8 side yard setbacks, as such all structures will maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation. This spacing allows for emergency access and sufficient fire separation. Aesthetics and parking is further enhanced by a condition requiring garage setbacks that exceed those of the R-8 district by three feet. 7. Public Benefit. The proposal provides several public benefits as detailed in Table B of the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full with the caveat that, as previously discussed, the PUD does not appear to provide for more open space than would otherwise already be required for a standard subdivision subject to the Urban Separator designation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-150(F)(8) authorizes the Examiner to conduct hearings and make final decisions on planned urban development applications. Substantive: 2. tonin r Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project is divided into two zoning designations: R-14 and R-1. The comprehensive plan map land use designation for the R-14 Zone is Residential Single Family (RSF) while the R-1 Zone is Residential Low Density (RLD). 3. Review Criteria. The Renton Municipal Code does not clearly identify the criteria the Examiner must apply in assessing a subdivision or a PUD. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review and RMC 4-9-150 governs PUD criteria. Without any more specific code guidance, the Examiner concludes that he must find that all applicable criteria in Chapter 4-7 and RMC 4-9-150 must be satisfied for preliminary plat and PUD approval. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots_ Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because offlood, inundation, or welland Conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a Condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 4. As modified by the PUD regulations, the lots will comply with all requirements of the Zoning Code. As noted in the project description, Finding of Fact No. 3, and as depicted in Ex. 2, all lots have access to a public street, Road A. The project is not located within a floodplain and there are no wetlands or streams impacted. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the project makes adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 5. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Section 6(a) of the Staff Report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 6. The internal circulation system of the subdivision connects to South 55`x' Street, an existing public street. RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 7. The Staff Report and administrative record do not identify any applicable street plan or grid system that would compel the connection of the interior streets to any other roads beyond South 55"' Street. The aerial photo on page 2 of the Staff Report shows that there are no other roads in proximity to the project that could be feasibly extended to the project. Given the extreme slopes that adjoin the project it is highly unlikely that any other roads could ever connect to the project from the east. The project is separated from a cul de sac to the northwest by residential development. The project is slated to be connected to Wilson Park I's internal road to the north of the subject property. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0XII 8. The Staff Report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the vicinity. RMC 4-7-130(0): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable.for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse Conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or Inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RHC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 9. As determined in the Findings of Fact, significant protective measures and safeguards are proposed and conditioned to ensure that the proposed development is adequately protected from the geologic hazards of the site. As proposed and conditioned the project area is appropriate for subdivision. As previously discussed there is no evidence in the record that there is any flooding problem. The property is encumbered by slopes in excess of 40%. As discussed in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6, no lots will be created that are unsuitable for subdivision. The entire slope area will be placed in an open space tract (Tract A). The conditions of approval will require the tract to be placed in a Native Protection Area Easement. In assessing compliance with RMC 4-4-130, the Staff Report only identifies trees on site that are of 6 - inch caliper or larger. There is nothing in RMC 4-4-130 that limits tree retention to trees that of 6 - inch caliper or higher. RMC 4-11-200 defines a tree as having a caliper of 2 inches or higher and the PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 tree retention requirements of RMC 4-4-130 do not provide for any exceptions for trees smaller than six inches. It is possible that trees between two and six inches are not present on the site, but that's not clear from the record and it would not be reasonable to make that inference. In addition to the additional information recommended by Staff as identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(1)), the Conditions of approval will also require that tree retention be applied to all trees with a two inch caliper or greater. RMC 4-7-1.40: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 10. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(D), the proposal meets both park and open space requirements. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department_ Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall ,find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 11. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7, the only street that the project could connect to is South 55th Street. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 12. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(0): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 13. If South 55`h Street qualifies as an arterial, the project must by necessity connect to it or it would otherwise only have one access point, through Wilson Park 1. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department_ The .street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125) are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of 'all necessary safety measures. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 16 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 14. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the street alignment as noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(G). RMC 4-7-150(E): 1 _ Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways_ Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T -A and Policies T-9 through T-1 6 and Community Design Element, Objective CD -Mand Policies CD -50 and CD -60. 3. Exceptions: a_ The grid pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site.- i. ite: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints,- andlor ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity_ 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the ReviewingOfficial shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible... b_ Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul -de -Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Oficial where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 15. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7 there are no roads other than South 55h Street and the Wilson Park I internal road with which the project could connect. No grid system is reasonably feasible because existing development and the steep slopes to the east make any additional thru streets impractical. Alley access is infeasible. Topography would make it difficult to configure the plat to allow for alley access of all lots. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks .shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 16. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of,future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width boundary street shall be required In certain instances to facilitate future development. 17. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7 there are no feasible street connections to the project other than directly to South 55`h Street and the Wilson Park I plat as proposed. 4-7-160(A): Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two (2) tiers of lots, except where: 1. Abutting principal arterials defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The location and extent of environmental constraints prevent a standard plat land configuration, including size and shape of the parcel. 3. Prior to approval of single -tier lot configuration based on exceptions I and 2, the proponent must demonstrate that a different layout or provisions of an alley system is not.feasible. 18. The steep slopes and the shape of the parcel could not accommodate two tiers of lots. 4-7-160(B): Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6) in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width oj'the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. 19. As identified in Finding of Fact 4(E) sidewalks meeting the City's standards will extend along both sides of Road A. There will also be a looped interior trail system. Proposed Road A does not appear to warrant crosswalks due to its short length, but investigation of this issue by staff will be made a condition of approval. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 20. As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public .street or road Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 21. Each lot will have access to Road A, which the Staff Report states, when completed, will be a dedicated public road. RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated Further subdivision of ' lots within a plat approved through the provisions ofthis Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 22. The proposed plat results in less than allowable density in the R-14 portion of the lot and the allowable density in the R-1 portion of the lot. As noted in Table A and Table C of the Staff Report, the lot size, width and design will not meet the minimum requirements of the R-1 and R-14 districts. Staff recommends the most appropriate zoning standards for this development conform to the R-8 Zone and the deviations approved under the PUD are in line with this recommendation. Any deviations from minimum lot dimensions authorized by this decision are based upon compliance with PUD criteria of RMC 4-9-150. For purposes of RMC 4-7-170(C), deviations approved by the PUD standards should be considered to be consistent with the requirements of the applicable zoning classification. As conditioned, the project will be required to conform to the R-8 Zone development standards. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighry percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul -de -.sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five. feet (35 ). 23. The "required lot width" for this project has been reduced by operation of the PUD standards, RMC 4-9-150. As reduced and described in Table C of the Staff Report, the lot widths for each lot are fairly consistent and the foremost lot lines are all at least 80% of lot width_ However, proposed Lot 1 has less than the required 60 foot frontage. As modified through the PUD, the criterion is satisfied. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius offifteen feet (15). 24. As Conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 25. No utility easements were found necessary by the Department. RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural.features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should he preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 26. As conditioned, protected trees shall be retained or replaced as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5 and Conclusion of Law No. 9. The steep slopes will be protected by the City's critical areas ordinance as well as the open space tract as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4(D). RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards_ Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development_ 27. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of ' all surface water. Cross drains .shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity,for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity, for the new street paving for the plat. 28. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(C), the proposal complies with the criterion above. The Staff Report does not identify whether the project will comply with RMC 4-6-030 so compliance will be made a condition of approval. RMC 4-7-200(0): The water distribution system including the locations offire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 29. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 30. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit.for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 31. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY - All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 32. As Conditioned. RMC 4-9-150(B)(2): Code Provisions That May Be Modified a. In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of chapter 4- 2 RMC, chapter 4-4 RMC, RMC 4-6-060 and chapter 4-7 RMC, except as listed in subsection B3 of this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 33. As shown in Table A of the Staff Report, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations identified in the regulation quoted above. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. 34. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150, are to preserve and protect the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity in development of residential uses. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 6 the natural features (the steep slope) of the site are protected by open space and an internal trail. The consolidation of the open space requirement with critical area protection, recreational use and the internal trail system involves innovation and creativity. The use of R-8 zoning design standards to promote compatibility within the two zoning designations of the project in addition to surrounding uses is also innovative and creative. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 5. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal is superior in design to what which would occur without a PUD. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5 the project will not create any significant adverse impacts and so would not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development; or b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or... PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 22 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development. A superior design may include the following:... 35. The proposal provides for public benefit as determined in Finding of Fact No. 7. These benefits clearly outweigh any adverse impacts since there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5. As previously concluded, the proposal also provides for more protection of steep slopes than otherwise required by the placement of the slopes in a significant amount of open space and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the PUD provides for a design superior to that which would otherwise be required. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met.... 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design.- i. esign: i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. 36. Proposed landscaping on the south boundary of Lot 10 would provide some screening of when viewed from South 55th Street. Proposed plantings of the southeast corner of Lot 1 would provide some incremental screening for Lot 1 when viewed from 55th Avenue South. The conditions of approval require additional planting within the right-of-way along 55th Avenue South. This would require dedication of additional right-of-way along the south boundary of the plat, between the new Road A west to the southwest corner of the site. As conditioned, the scale, mass, character and architectural design along the perimeter will be of a detached single family residential development consistent with R-8 zoning This creates compatibility with both the interior split zoning and surrounding single-family development. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed far consistency with all of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 23 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single family, townhouses, flats, etc. 37. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the interior site design promotes quality pedestrian circulation, increased critical area protection, and promotes safety by buffering the high landslide hazards. All homes would be required to comply with the R-8 development design standards which would result in coordinated, yet varied roof styles and materials, architectural detailing, and a variety of home styles throughout the development. RMC4-9-150(D).- The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria b. Circulation.- i. irculation: i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. 38. The criterion above is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), (F) and (G). RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of'the following criteria b. Circulation: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of di,ficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. 39. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(F), the criterion above is met. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the fallowing requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria, A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria b. Circulation: iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. 40. The criterion is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E). RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria b. Circulation: iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. 41. As conditioned and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(F), the proposal has sufficient emergency vehicle access. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. 42. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal is served by sufficient public infrastructure and services. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of'impervious surfaces not otherwise required. 43. An appearance of openness is created by clustering, open space and conditions requiring building separation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy,for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and far screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at .such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 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 44. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal is adequately screened from adjoining development. Within the subdivision, unit to unit privacy would be provided by the side yard setback requirement. Street trees are required either within the required landscape strip or in the front yard of the lot. The required trees would add to the privacy for lots across Road A. As discussed in Finding of Fact Nos. 4(D) and 6, the proposed walkways and landscaping are appropriate for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property. All homes would be required to be designed to meet the residential design standards for the R-8 zone. These standards would require windows on the front of the home, increasing access to light and air for each dwelling unit. Furthermore, each lot would have private front, side and rear yards, enhancing each lot with landscaping and access to light and air. RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met_ 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria f Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views,from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. 45. The lots are arranged on either side of Road A. The site topography slopes down from south to north, resulting in a tiered housing effect after site grading. The relatively small amount of new housing and the large effect of the topography provide little opportunity for enhanced views from within the site. Given the site grading and required building styles, this criterion is met. RMC 4-9-154(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it f nds that the following requirements are met. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also he reviewed f r consistency with all of the following criteria g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows_ The size o fparking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use ofparking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 46. Required parking would be provided within garages attached to each home. Additional guest parking would be provided on the driveway aprons for each lot, particularly given the condition of approval that requires an additional 3 feet of setback for garages. On -street parking would be provided along the east side of Road A. The proposed parking is designed to provide efficient use of the site and would be appropriately screen by the provided garages. RMC 4-9-150(D)(4): Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the development standards contained in subsection E of this Section, the underlying zone, and any overlay districts; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section. 47. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC 4-9-150(E)_ As previously mentioned, Staff has recommended that the entire site be subject to the development standards of the R-8 zone. The current zones are R-14 and R-1. Only one dwelling unit is proposed for the R-1 zone portion. Nine are proposed for the R-14 zone. The total gross zoning is proposed to be 6.4. well less than the density required for R-8 zone that Staff recommends. As depicted in the plat maps, Ex. 2, the lots comply with the bulk and dimensional requirements of the underlying zone except to the extent modified by the PUD regulations. RMC 4-9-150(E)(1): Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below. a. Residential: For residential developments open space must equal at least ten percent (10%) of the development site's gross land area. i. Open space may include, but is not limited to, the following: a) A trail that allows opportunity for passive recreation within a critical area buffer (only the square footage of the trail shall be included in the open space area calculation), or b) A sidewalk and its associated landscape strip, when abutting the edge of a critical area buffer and when a part of a new public or private road, or c) A similar proposal as approved by the reviewing official. ii. Additionally, a minimum area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit of common apace or recreation area shall be provided in a concentrated space as illustrated in Figure 1. 48. In addition to private open space provided on each proposed lot, the Applicants have proposed to provide a passive recreation area primarily located on the eastern portion of the site, and wrapping around the north part of Lot 6 and the south boundary of Lot 10. This 19,164 sq. ft. (0.44 acre) open. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 space would include a pergola structure, landscaping and two picnic tables, a soft surface looped trail system through the development, and would also comprise the steep slope area beyond to the north and east. RMC 4-9-150E requires that PUD's provide large concentrated areas of open space, equivalent to 10% of the site's gross area. The site is 93,801 sq. ft. and the provided open space tract is 19,164 sq. ft, comprising approximately 20% of the site, and exceeding the open space standards by 9,784 square feet. The overall location and design of the park, open space and trail are located as to create a quality open space/recreation area for the development, specifically if all conditions of approval are met. RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet (15) in every dimension (decks on upper floors can substitute for the requiredprivate open space). For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5). 49. Each lot would have a private yard in both the front and the rear of the lot. The minimum side yard setback in the requested R-8 zoning development standards is five feet, which could result in a private open space yard that is less than 15 feet in every dimension. However, the lots sizes are large enough to meet this standard. As a condition of approval, compliance with this standard shall be required at the building permit stage. RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the Applicants and approved by the City; provided, that common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall he planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping farm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active,for a two 2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division. b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070. 50. As Conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities; a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060... 51. As Conditioned. RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities_ b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners' association, or the agent(v) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City .shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. 52. As a condition of approval, the Applicants are required to establish a home owners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not limited to the soft surface trail, landscaping, and park within the PUD prior to Final PUD approval. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD home owners' association. RMC 4-9-150(B)(3)(d): The City may not modify any of the procedural provisions of RMC Title 4, including, but not limited to, fees, submittal requirements, and other similar provisions found in chapters 4-1, 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9 RMC. 53. The Applicant has requested the Examiner grant an extension of the PUD expiration period to nine years to match the plat expiration period. The Examiner is specifically prohibited from modifying the procedural provisions of RMC Title 4 including RMC 4-9-150(G)(1) Final Plat Review Procedures: Time Limits. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat and preliminary PUD are APPROVED. Requested revisions to development standards are approved to the extent recommended by Staff in Table A of the Staff Report. The proposal is subject to the following Conditions of Approval: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1, The Applicants shall comply with the seven mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 7, 20I2. 2. The Applicants shall place a restrictive covenant on each of the lots indicating that only detached single family units may be constructed, and any future accessory units allowed per the R-8 Development Regulations. This covenant shall be subject to the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to the recording of the Final Plat. 3. The final PUD application shall reflect the minimum dimensional requirements for each lot in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone. Specifically, Lot 1 must be a minimum of 60 feet in width with a minimum 15 foot side yard setback along the street in order to conform to the R-8 standards for corner lots. 4. The final PUD application shall reflect the maximum building coverage and maximum impervious coverage requirements for each lot in conformance with the standards of the R- 8 Zone, except where proposed to exceed those requirements. 5. The final PUD application shall reflect a minimum setback of 18 feet from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk to allow an appropriate area for parking. Additionally, parking may be allowed on the east side of Road A. No Parking signs shall be installed on the west side, prior to final plat recording. 6. The final PUD application shall reflect the five foot setback from Tract A and the pedestrian path within an easement. 7. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential and open space requirements in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which include lot width variation of a minimum ten feet for one of each four abutting street fronting lots, or a minimum of four lot sizes (minimum 400 sq. ft. size difference), or a front yard setback variation of at least five feet for one of each four abutting street fronting lots. 8. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential and open space requirements in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which require a recess for the garage of at least 8 feet from the front of the house, or an extension of the roof of at least 5 feet, or a design that locates the entry away from a public and/or private street or access easement, or such that the width of the garage is no greater than 50% of the front facade at ground level, and that the portion wider than 26 feet wide is set back at least 2 feet. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. The final PUD application shall reflect the scale, bulk and character standards in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which require a variety of elevations and models. 10_ The final PUD application shall reflect the residential design standards in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone_ 11. The Applicants must record a Native Growth Protection Area Easement over Tract A including all critical areas and their buffers. The Applicants shall establish and record a permanent and irrevocable easement on the property title for all critical areas and their buffers prior to Final Plat recording. The protective easement shall be held by current and future property owners; shall run with the land; and shall prohibit development, alteration, and disturbance within the easement except for the purposes of habitat enhancement as a part of an enhancement project, access for the trail users and maintenance, and debris flow mitigation access for landslide events. The NGPE shall be subject to the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to recording of the Final PIat. 12_ The Applicants shall submit a detailed and revised final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Specifically, the final landscape plan shall include, but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed locations and design details of the pergola/gazebo, split -rail fence and interpretive signage proposed along the soft surface trail. b. Street trees shall be identified within the right-of-way in compliance with the City's street tree standards. c. The plan shall indicate either 100 percent drought tolerant plantings or the applicant shall provide a final irrigation plan with the final detailed landscape plan. d. Provide a revised Landscape Plan indicating a Common Recreation area that is a minimum of 500 square feet that includes improvements providing for recreation by the public and area residents e. Redesign the trail on the south side of Lot 10 such that the trail meanders and is not abutting the edge of the split rail fence on Lot 10. f. Tree retention shall protect all trees with a 2 -inch or more caliper. 13. The Applicants shall submit detailed and revised construction engineering plans and final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 final PUD approval. Specifically, the plans shall reflect the design and construction of curb, gutter, 5 -foot wide sidewalks and an 8 -foot wide planting strip along the proposed street intersection of Road A and South 55`x' Street and along the portion of Tract A that fronts South 55t` Street. Another 8 -foot planning strip is required along the inside of Road A. 14. In order to facilitate children walking to and from the school bus stop, the construction engineering plans and final detailed landscape plan must reflect the addition of an asphalt walking path from the entrance of the development to the nearest Renton School District bus stop location. These improvements must be constructed within the improved right of way, with a minimum 5 -foot asphalt path separated from the traffic lane by C -curb. These improvements shall be shown on the final PUD application, and reviewed and approved by the Engineering Plan Review Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Installation of the improvements must be concurrent with related street and utility improvements consequent of the project. 15. The Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of the construction permit application submittal. The lighting plan shall reflect illumination of the hard surface portions of the trail and gazebo/pergola area and either minimal or no lighting of the soft surface trail at night. The lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting in addition to building and landscaping lighting if proposed. 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application for review and approval by the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 17. In the event that Wilson Park I is not constructed prior to the beginning of construction for Wilson Park Il, the construction engineering plans shall be revised to reflect the construction of an approved emergency turnaround in the public street (Road A). These improvements shall be shown on the final PUD application, and reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager and the Fire Marshal prior to final PUD approval. 18. The Applicants shall establish a home owners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not limited to the soft surface trail, landscaping, and common recreational facilities within the PUD. The draft CCR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, prior to final PUD approval. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD home owners' association. The CCR's shall provide that any covenants required by the City may not be amended without City approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 19. A covenant shall be placed on all tracts restricting their separate sale and giving each lot owner within the plat an undivided interest in the tracts. This covenant should be recorded on the face of the plat, and/or concurrent with the plat recording, noting the recording number on the plat. 20. The Applicants shall provide the Current Planning Project Manager, a water line installation plan, which complies with RMC 4-3-050L.8.b.i.(b) for review and approval, prior to final PUD approval. 21. The common boundary between the native growth protection tract and the abutting land must be permanently identified. This identification shall include a permanent wood split rail fence and metal signs on treated or metal posts. The permanent wood split rail fence and signs shall be installed prior to Final Plat recording. 22. The following note shall appear on the face of the Final Plat and shall also be recorded as a covenant running with the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title: MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY: All owners of lots created or benefitting from this City action abutting or including a native growth protection tract are responsible for maintenance and protection of the tract. Maintenance includes ensuring that no alterations occur within the tract and that all vegetation remains undisturbed unless the express written authorization of the City has been received." 23. All proposed street names shall be submitted to the City and approved by the City prior to final plat approval. 24. All subdivision streets shall comply with the street standards of RMC 4-6-060 as contemplated in RMC 4-7-150(D). 25. All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 26. Road A as depicted in Ex. 2 shall be dedicated to the public. 27. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have a minimum radius of fifteen feet (15') as contemplated by RMC 4-7-170(E). 28. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 34 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 29. As contemplated in RMC 4-7-200(B), cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6- 030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. 30. The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements as contemplated in RMC 4-7-200(C). 31. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 32. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 33. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department of Community and Economic Development. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 34. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 35. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the private open space standards of RMC 4-9-150(E)(2) for each lot prior to and as a requirement for building permit issuance. 36. Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 37. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, stone drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the applicant or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. 38. All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the City; provided, that common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on tile with the Development Services Division. 39. If circumstances warrant, staff shall require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6) in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width of Road A at locations deemed necessary as required by RMC 4-7-160(B). Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. DATED this 5h day of July, 2012. Lal Phil 01brechts (Signed original in official file) Phil A. Olbrechts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7' floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 37 HR o H:c nom`; yrro f cr c co f rC"oC°o CL E5, CL C G \ ::,. . CIG p ' I --I ] CDnQs46SO- s Co (% , s `dqQnClic .bUCQ O O`erNi 77 CL Z p-' ' O rF - r CD Hca ~o '"'U=r n OH 0- k. n o p. cP rD CD G rz rLCLrenb . n `G G • ti cin 'L7 C '' r cr 17: C: b haqGO ~ CD CD cr n R. S CD CL rO trq O O O O" 7 Z oil rD cr Fr qQ . 7, s't } O n 45 r w G v 1D O lD n 0 G `` CLC cz fJ Snrc •d rZ 61 O ^5 eG 7.n c—, CL ri cr w`; "'c ° f "• d c to c pro ^' m x '7.. LZ7 i7A7; RL zr Frrc n lb v t o'er"- Ew , 1.-0 ±X CZT I --Z •sF y -, vpz r 3 0 r v y,. a w : e Z OR LIZ 2n .— ya. CC J>.y c: G .ac+i `••- " Y a. ' c L ^A i,. ^p,(= vz J °- cs C ;^o 7- op r+ c an v E y yvQ v= c 3 ti vb^ 7 D r-.._.`3 a^.a G- c3':a 70 Loc.wNn•^.iv F,yQ.n 't'L L A nQ E Q LLW cv cCJ Qs Y of - c MAN g;`''R+Srq+IrNOCj c -i o yN O ry CS, 0 Y y V o a s a 3 7 b c onfi' 4 cn U .S C SOQS CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT 14616 S.E. 192nd St_ • P.O. Box 58039 • Rentan, WA 98058-1039 • Phone (253) 630-9900 • Fax (253) 630-5289 November 7, 2008 Robert Wilson 720 S. 55`h Street Renton, WA 98055 RE: Parcel No. 312305 9125 Dear Mr. Wilson, Enclosed is the CertVicate of Water Availability you requested on the above referenced parcel. When you are ready for our office to request a full engineering availability, please submit $1000 per utility and a set of your most current civil and site plans. Please allow 8 — 10 weeks to receive the engineering availability back. If you have any questions please call (253) 630-9900 extension 107. Sincerely, Darci Mattioda Development Coordinator Soos Greek Water and Sewer District Enclosure www.sooscreek.coni This certificate provides information necessary to evaluate development proposals. Certificate : 4357 SOOS CREEK WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY Type: Preliminary Plat or PUD Applicant's Name: Robert Wilson Proposed Use: Preliminary Plat of Single Family Residences Location: Lot: Block: Development: Parcel: 312305 9125 Address: 720 S 55TH ST, RENTON Information: WATER PURVEYOR INFORMATION a Water will be provided by service connection only to an existing Null inch water main, Null feet from the site. Acrd! Other Water service will require an improvement to the water system of: Water service for the proposed plat will require the installation of water main. Upon receiving a site plan from the developer an engineering review will need to be done to determine more details. Final water requirements and layout will be based on the final site development plan, road, storm, and grading plans. Although this parcel is served by both Soos Creek and the City of Renton for water, the City has agreed to allow Sous Creek to serve the entire parcel. All plans must be appmved by and meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2, a lr? The water system is in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan. b The water system improvernent will require a water comprehensive plan amendment. 3, a 1J] The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the district or city, or is within the County approved service area of a private water purveyor. b Annexation or Boundary Review Board approval will be necessary to provide service. 4, a r_ i Water Wcr will be available at the rate of flow and duration irtdicated below at no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant feet from the building/property (or as marked on the attached map): Rate of Flow: Duration: Cross Connection Control devices must he in conformance with state laws. Service is subject to the applicants agreement to comply and perform to make such installation and/or connections to the standards, regulations, requirements and conditions of this District and such other agency or agencies having jurisdiction. This District is not representing that its facilities will be extended or othenvise modified to stake such service available to the applicant. It is the responsibility of the applicant to make any required extension of facilities to serve their property. I hereby certify that the above water purveyor information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. SOOS CREEK WATER & SEWER DISTRICT Darci Mattioda 1117/2008 Agency Name Signatory Name Date Development Coordinator Title -- - - --- --- "Signa[ re _ Sao e Mala & Sewer Dimuo "iprAMSlr&k?--1AddWmd' ilbi% CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: June 5, 2012 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M Tucker Subiect: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD LUA (file) Number: LUA-12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD Cross -References: LUA07-061; LUA09-140 AKA's: Project Manager: Jennifer Henning Acceptance Date: April 3, 2012 Applicant: Robert & Doravin Wilson Owner: Same as applicant Contact: Darrell Offe, Offe Engineers, PLLC PID Number: 3123059119 ERC Approval Date: May 7, 2012 ERC Appeal Date: May 25, 2012 Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: June 12, 2012 Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential -14 du/ac (R-14) & Residential - 1 du/ac (R-1). Location: 698S55 1h Street Comments: CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 5th day of June, 2012, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Darrell Offe Contact Robert & Doravin Wilson Owners Paul & Frieda Witt POR Steve McNamee POR Quang Dang & Kim Duong POR Khanh Nguyen PDR Jonathan Vu POR Signature of Sender): l w STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ,. SS COUNTY OF KING 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Jennifer Henning signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): _ .d_ 6r" -,.,6w My appointment expires: A ,--g"5+ 0?- oft a 0 6 traject NamA, F Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat &PUD Project Number: ` LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPU D DEPARTMENT OF COrfl'14UNITY City of AND ECONOMIC DEV--PMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA June 12, 2012 COMMENCING AT 1:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD PROJECT LOCATION: 698 S 551h Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential -14 du/ac (R-14) Residential -1 du/ac (R-1). PROJECT NAME: Sons of Haiti Conditional Use Permit PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-033, CU -H PROJECT LOCATION: 301 S 3rd Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Sons of Haiti, is requesting approval of a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a fraternal and social organization in the Center Downtown (CD) zone. HEX Agenda 06-12-12.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMh _ _ _ JITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: REPORT DATE: June 12, 2012 Project Name: Wilson Park II Owner/Applicant: Robert & Doravin Wilson, 21703 60t Street East, Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Contact: Darrell Offe, P.E.; Offe Engineers, PLLC, 13932 SE 159" Place, Renton, WA 98058 File Number: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD Project Manager: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential -14 du/ac (R-14) & Residential - 1 du/ac (R-1). The site contains 9,783 s.f. of protected slopes (>40%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 8 lots proposed in the R- 14 area, & 2 lots proposed within the R-1 zone. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots size and development standards for the R-1 and R-14 Zones. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park I plat. A small hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site. The site contains 82 trees, of which 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street serving Wilson Park #1. Ten (10) trees would be retained, and new trees would be planted including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. Project Location: 698 South 55th Street City of Renton Community acid Econonuc. L. ament Department Report to the Hearing Examiner k111 SON PARI: 11 PLATA, PUD LUA12-013. ECF. PP. PPUD PCiBLIC HEARING DA 7E: Jane 12, 2012 Page 2 of 31 B. HEARING EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Neighborhood Map Exhibit 2: PUD/Plat Map (Sheet 1 of 1) Exhibit 3: Aerial Photo with Zoning Exhibit 4: Environmental Review Committee (SEPA) Report Exhibit 5: SEPA Determination Exhibit 6: SEPA Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Exhibit 7: Density Work Sheet Exhibit 8: C-30 Administrative Policy/Code Interpretation Exhibit 9: Tree Retention Plan Exhibit 10: Tree Retention Work Sheet Exhibit 11: Landscape Plan (Sheet L 1.1) Exhibit 12: Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Northwest Traffic Experts, 6/23/2009 & 1/25/2012) Exhibit 13: Drainage Utilities Plan Exhibit 14: Public Comment Letter: Witt/Vu/Nguyen/Dang/Duong (April 16, 2012) Exhibit 15: Topography Map Exhibit 16: Aerial Photo with City of Renton Slopes Exhibit 17: Road Profile/Grading Plan Cay of Renton C'ommunio- and Economic IJ xmenl Department Rentn to the Hearing Exanrrner WILSON PARK 11 PLAT & P UD L UA12-413. ECF. PP. PP UD I111;13LIC HEARING DATE June 12, 2012 Page 3 of 31 Exhibit IS: Geotechnical Engineering Study Exhibit 19: Proof of Mailing and Posting Exhibit 20: Wetland Verification for Wilson Park 2 (Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC (3/11/2011) Exhibit 21: Addendum to Technical Information Report Prepared for Wilson Park (LUA09-140) by Baima & Holmberg, Inc, dated May 5, 2009 (Darrell Offe, P.E., February 28, 2012) C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Robert & Doravin Wilson 2170360 th Street East Lake Tapps, WA 98391 2. Zoning Designation: Residential 1 dwelling units per net acre(R-1) and Residential 14 dwelling units per acre (R-14) 3. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential Single Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density (RLD) 4. Existing Site Use: Vacant 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Wilson Park I (undeveloped), R -14/R -1/R-8 zoning; portion of Geneva Park, detached single family homes zoned R-14 East: Single Family Residential, zoned R-8 South: South 55th Street and vacant property zoned R -14/R -1/R-8 West: Single Family Residential, zoned R-14 6. Proposed Orientation: Lots would orient east west along a new street, Road "A" 7. Site Area: 2.15 acres 8. Project Data: Existing Building Area: Not Applicable D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Annexation N/A Comprehensive Plan LUA08-145 5501 11/25/2009 Zoning LUA08-145 5191 11/25/2009 Wilson Park I Prelim Plat LUA09-140 N/A 8/16/2010 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities: Water: Provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Sewer: Provided by City of Renton Surface Water/Storm Water: Provided by City of Renton Cir, of Renton Communav and Economic D men? Departmertl Reporl to the Hearing Examiner 4711SON PARK 11 PL,4T& PUD LUA12-013, ECF. PP. PPUD P UBLIC 11LA NU DATE: June 11. 2012 Page 4 of 31 2. Streets: South 55`" Street is a Residential Access Street. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110. Residential Development Standards Section 4-2-115: Residential Design and Open Space Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations Section 4-3-100: Urban Separator Overlay Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-130: Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards S. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations Section 4-7-050: General Outline of Subdivision, Short Plat and Lot Line Adjustment Procedures Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivision 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-150: Planned Urban Development Regulations Section 4-9-250: Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternates 6. Chapter 11 Definitions C Ii IJ.7-1;1417.01rL-119/ [i1E 1. Land Use Element — Residential Single Family 2. Community Design Element 3. Environment Element H. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Project Description/Background The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract (Tract A) for open space. The site is zoned Residential -14 du/ac (R-14) & Residential - 1 du/ac (R-1). The existing underlying parcel is 93,801 square feet in size (2.15 acres) and contains 9,783 square feet of protected slopes (>40%). The R-1 City of Remun Community and Fconumic A meet Departmew _ Report to the ITeQritig F_x miner 1471SON PARK 1.I PLO'& PUD LUA12-013, ECF. PP, PP(,,D PURI.IC HF:ARIN(; DATA. June 12, 2012 Page J of 31 Zone comprises 38,326 square feet (including the steep slope area), and the R-14 portion of the site is 55,474 square feet. Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed in the R-14 area, & 1 lot proposed within the R-1. Site soils consist of glacial till. Grading is proposed for the project such that 820 cubic yards would be cut and 11,200 cubic yards of imported material would be used to fill the site. An underground stormwater vault was previously approved for Wilson Park I to be within the roadway on the subject site. The vault is being revised to accommodate the additional stormwater generated by the proposal. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify development regulations including minimum lots size within the R-1 Zone to create consistently sized lots for detached single family residential homes. Proposed lots would range in size from 5,560 square feet to 6,778 square feet. A portion of the site is subject to the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. That portion of the site zoned R-1 is considered to be within the Urban Separator. Per RMC 4-3-110E2.a.ii, 50% of the area within the Urban Separator must be dedicated as irrevocable open space. The applicant proposes to retain 19,164 square feet, or 50% of the site as open space within Tract A. This tract would also provide for open space and recreation opportunities to serve the public and the residents of both Wilson Park developments. An approximate 350 square foot area would be provided with ornamental landscaping, a pergola or gazebo, and hard surface path. A soft -surface, 3 -foot wide walking path would be provided along the north and east boundaries of Lot 6, and along the east boundary of Lots 7 through 10. The path would wrap around the south boundary of Lot 10 and intersect with the sidewalk on the East side of Road A. Ornamental and native landscape plants are proposed within the tract. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via new street (Road A) constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park I plat. The street was identified as being within an easement across the subject site. With the project, the street would be dedicated and the easement would not be necessary. Street improvements including curb, gutter, 5 -foot sidewalks, an 8 -foot planting strip would be provided along both sides of Road A. This is considered to be a Residential Access street, and parking would be allowed on one side of the street. A small hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site Exhibit XX). The site contains 82 trees, of which 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street serving Wilson Park #1. An additional 51 trees would be removed for the project. Ten (10) trees would be retained, and new ornamental and native trees would be planted including two new trees per lot. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on May 7, 2012, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M) for the Wilson Park II Plat and Planned Urban Development (Exhibits 4, 5). The DNS -M included 7 mitigation measures (Exhibit 6). A 14 -day appeal period commenced on May 11, 2012 and ended on May 25, 2012. No appeals of the threshold determination have been filed. City of Renton Communin, rind Economic D ment Department Report to the Hearing Examiner WILSON PARK 11 PLAT & PUD L UA 12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD PUBLIC NEARING DATE: June 12, 2012 Page b of 31 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012, for the duration of project construction. 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume 11 of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 4. Because of moisture -sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Therefore, the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. 5. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. 4. Staff Review Comments 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 the report. City of Henron Cammunrr , and Economic D +menr Departmeru Report to the Henrrn er WILSON PARK 11 PLAT & PUD 1-bAl2-013. ECF. PP, PPUD PUBLIC 11F.ARIN'G DATE: June 12, 2012 Pulte 7 gf37 5. Consistency with the Planned Urban Development Regulations a) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation (Code provisions restricted from modification through the PUD process): The subject site is designated R-1 and R-14 on the City of Renton Zoning Map (Exhibit 2). The proposed development would allow for a 10 -lot, 1 -tract subdivision of an 2.15 acre site (Exhibit 3)- i. Use: A planned urban development may not authorize uses that are inconsistent with those allowed by the underlying zone. The applicant is proposing the development of single family homes. Both the R-1 and R-14 Zones permit detached dwellings. ii. Density: The number of dwellings units shall not exceed the density allowances of the applicable base zone. The R-1 Zone allows a density of 1.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The R-14 Zone allows a maximum density of 14 dwelling units per net acre. According to the density worksheet (Exhibit 7) submitted with the application, the proposed project would have a net density of 6.4 dwelling units per net acre and, therefore, complies with the density requirement. Code Interpretation CI -30 (Exhibit 8) allows for properties with more than one zoning classification to be allowed to average residential density across the site provided this is accomplished through the Planned Urban Development process. This Code Interpretation has been posted on the City's webpage for a 14 -day comment period, and the appeal period for the interpretation ends at 5:00 pm on June 14, 2012. In order to ensure that only one dwelling unit is constructed on each lot within the R-14 Zone, staff recommends that the applicant be required to place a restrictive covenant on each of the lots indicating that only detached single family units could be constructed. h) Code Provisions That May Be Modified: In approving a Planned Urban Development, the City may modify any of the standards of chapters 4-2 Zoning Districts - Uses & Standards, 4-4 City -Wide Property Development Standards, and 4-7 Subdivision Regulations and RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards, except as listed above in subsection "a)". If all conditions of approval are complied with the proposed Wilson Park lI Plat complies with all the City of Renton's development regulations including; chapters 4-2 Zoning Districts - Uses & Standards, 4-4 City -Wide Property Development Standards, and RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards, with the exception of the requested modifications identified in Table A below. Table A REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS F90" ON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMI[? j RMC # Required per RMC Requested Modification RMC 4-2-11OA: Minimum Lot Size R-1: 1 Acre, Except 10,000 sq. ft. R-1: Lots 5,560 to 6,778 sq. ft. for cluster development. R-14: Plat would include lots R-14: No minimum lot size; from 5,560 sq. ft. to 5,909 sq. ft.; however developments over 9 all lots would be for detached lots shall incorporate a variety of single family homes. home sizes, lot sizes, and unit Cita of Renton Community and Economic D ?mens Department Report to the Hearing !:;rammer WILSON PARK 11 PLAT & PUD LUA12-013, Eff, PP. PPUD PUBLIC. HEARING DATE: June 12, 2012 Page 8 of 31 RMC 4-2-11OA: Minimum Lot Width RMC 4-2-11OA: Minimum Front Yard Setback clusters. R-1: 75 feet for interior lots; 85 feet for corner lots R-14: No minimum lot width Staff Comment: The applicant has not requested a modification from this standard. However, due to the small lot sizes requested above, staff believes a modification from this standard would be required to maintain a buildable lot. R-1: 30 feet R-14: Varies; however for lots with garage access from a street, require a minimum of 18 feet from the face of the garage to the back of the curb or sidewalk/path. RMC 4-2-11OA: Minimum Side Yard f R-1: 15 feet R-14: 4 feet for detached units Staff Comment: Staff recommends that the applicant be subject to the standards of the R-8 Zone with regard to minimum tot width. R-1: Lots are proposed to be from 55 ft. to 66 ft. wide. R-14: Lots would be 55 ft. to 57 ft. wide. Staff Comment: Staff recommends requiring that the plat conform to the R-8 Development Regulations for minimum lot width. Minimum lot width would be 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots. Therefore, Lot 1, shown at 57.74 feet in width would need to be a minimum of 60 feet in width in order to conform to the R-8 standards for corner lots. None Proposed. Staff Comment: Staff recommends that the applicant be subject to the minimum front yard standards of the R-8 Zone, which requires a 15 foot front yard setback. Staff further recommends that a minimum setback of 18 feet be required from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk to allow an aroorooriate area for oarkina. None Proposed. Staff Comment: Staff recommends that the applicant be subject to the standards of the R-8 Zone for minimum side Yard Setbacks, which is 5 feet. C'rt OfRenlozz C.ommunhy and Economic D Iment Department Reporl to the Hearing Examiner WILSON- PARK 11 PLAT & PUP LU.412-013. I:CF. PP. PPUD PUBLIC I1FARING DATE: lune 12. 2012 Page 9 of 31 RMC4-2-110: Minimum Side Yard R-1: 20 feet Along a Street R-14: n/a RMC 4-2-11OA: Minimum Rear YardI R-1: 25 feet setback R-14: 12 feet RMC 4-2-11OA: Maximum Building Coverage RMC4-2-110A: Maximum Impervious Coverage R-1: 20% R-14: n/a Staff Comment: The applicant has not requested a modification from this standard. However, due to the small lot size requested above, staff believes a modification from this standard would be required to maintain a buildable lot. R-1: 30% R-14: 85% Staff Comment: The applicant has not requested a modification from this standard. However, due to the small lot size requested above, staff believes a modification from this standard would be required to maintain a buildable lot. None Proposed. Staff Comment: Staff recommends that the applicant be subject to the standards of the R-8 Zone for Minimum Side Yard Setback along a street, which is 15 feet (Lot 1). Further, staff recommends that the appropriate setback from Tract A and the pedestrian path within an easement be 5 feet. None Proposed. Staff Comment: Staff recommends that the applicant be subject to the standards of the R-8 Zone for the Rear Yard Setback, which is 20 feet. None Proposed. Staff Comment: Staff recommends that the applicant be subject to the standards of the R-8 Zone for Maximum Building Coverage. For lots larger than 5,000 s.f. this is 35% or 2,500 s.f. whichever is greater. None Proposed. Staff Comment: Staff recommends that the applicant be subject to the standards of the R-8 Zone for Maximum Impervious Coverage, which is 75%. Cil}' of Renton Commumn and L'conomw 1) ,menu Department Repun to fhe Hearing—IIP7nE7 WILSOA' PARK 11 PLAT & PUD LU.912-013. ECF. PP. M.0 PUBLIC IIG 4Rf'G DA TL: June 12, 2012 Page 10 of 31 RMC 4-2-115F. 1. Site Design, Lot R-1: N/A Stoff Comment: Staff Configuration recommends approval of the R-14: Developments of more requested deviation and than nine (9) detached dwellings recommends that the shall incorporate a variety of requirements of the R-8 home sizes, lot sizes, and unit Residential and Open Space clusters. Standards be followed. This standard requires that: 1. Lot width variation of 10 feet minimum of one per 4 abutting street fronting lots, or 2. Minimum of 4 lots sizes minimum of 400 gross square feet size difference, or 3. A front yard setback variation of at least 5 feet minimum for at least every 4 abutting street fronting lots. RMC 4-2-115F.1. Site Design, R-1: N/A Staff Comment: Staff Garages recommends approval of the R-14: Recessed 8 feet from the requested deviation provided that front, or detached; garage similar the requirements of the R-8 to home; minimum 18 -foot Residential and Open Space driveway length from the face of Standards be followed. garage to the back of the sidewalk (unless accessed by This standard requires that the alley) garage be recessed at least 8 feet from the front of the house, or located so that the roof extends at least 5 feet; or located so that the entry does not face a public and/or private street or access easement, or sized so that it is no greater than 50% of the width of the front fogade at ground level, and that the portion wider than 26 feet wide is set back at least 2 feet. In addition; staff recommends 00i of tewori Commumiy and Economic D 3ment Department Report to the hearing Examiner WILSON PARK CI PLAT & PUD LU:912-013. ECF. PP, PPUD PUBLIC HF.,IRNCr DATE: June 12, 2012 Page 11 (?f31 RMC 4-2-115F.3. Residential Design, Scale, Bulk, and Character b) PUD Decision Criterion: R-1: N/A R-14: Primary building form shall be dominating; primary porch plate heights shall be one story; different colors shall be used to differentiate the same models and elevations; and no more than 2 of the same model and elevation shall be built on the same block frontage and shall not be abutting. . that there be a minimum of 18 feet of driveway length from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk. Staff Comment: Staff recommends approval of the requested deviation and recommends that the requirements of the R -S Scale, Bulk, and Character Standards be followed. This standard requires that: A variety of elevations and models that demonstrate a variety of floor plans, home sizes, and character shall be used. Additionally, both of the following are required: 1. A minimum of three (3) differing home models for each ten (10) contiguous abutting homes, and 2. Abutting houses must have differing architectural elevations. i. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of the PUD regulations and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development shall be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. Comment: If the conditions of approval are met, the applicant will have demonstrated compliance with the PUD regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant will have demonstrated that the development is superior to that which would result without a PUD and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The development of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than would result by the strict application of the Development Standards for many reasons. First, the proposed plat layout provides for a the protection of the steep slope area to the east. Second, the plat would provide for recreational amenities beyond code requirements. Third, the plat layout increases the quality of the internal circulation system throughout the development. Fourth, the 0h of Renton Community and Economic D >meni Deportment Reporl la the Hearing Examiner WILSON' PARK 11 PLAT & PUD I t-.412-013, f:'Ch. P . PPUD PUBLIC 11EARIR-G DATE: June 12, 2012 Page 12 of 31 proposed subdivision is a significant improvement over a design that would meet both the R-1 and R-14 standards. This proposed design can provide for the aforementioned amenities because of the modifications requested in Table A above. ii. Public Benefit: The applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development; or Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a planned urban development, or Use of Sustainable Development Techniques: Design which results in a sustainable development; such as LEED certification, energy efficiency, use of alternative energy resources, low impact development techniques, etc.; or Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development. A superior design may include the following: OOoen Space/Recreation: a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082; and b) Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways, or Circulation/Screening: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities, or Lands0gPingIScreening: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or around the proposed planned urban development; or Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design, placement, relationship or orientation of structures, or use of solar energy; or Alleys: Provides alleys for proposed detached or attached units with individual, private ground related entries. City of Renton Conununity and F.conornic 1) WILSON PARK I1 PLAT & PUD Pb'B1JC Hk-ARINGDA TF: June 12. 7012 Table B Ment Deparfinew Report to the Nearing F.zammer Li.;,412-013, FCF, PP, PPCD Page 13 of 31 PUBLIC BENEFIT PROVIDED: CRITICAL AREAS, NATURAL FEATURES & OVERALL DESIGN CRITICAL AREAS: The site contains steep slopes greater than 40% which is termed to be a geotechnical hazard. The City critical areas regulations provide for protections to these features, however the proposed development increases these protections by protecting the steep slope within a tract that would also serve as the common open space and recreation area. A trail provided on the flat area of the tract would separate five of the new lots from the steep slope area. The open space tract would also connect to a comparable open space tract on Wilson Park I that was set aside to address requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations (RMC4-3-110E, 2.a.ii). Both the subject plat and Wilson Park I are required to set aside 50% of the area of the site located within the Talbot Urban Separator as a non -revocable open space tract. For Wilson Park II, the Urban Separator is assigned to 38,326 square feet. The project proposes to set aside 19,164 square feet, or 50% of this area. Staff recommends that the applicant record a Native Growth Protection Area Easement over the tract such that it is not disturbed. NATURAL FEATURES: The site is currently undeveloped. The site contains a total of 82 trees of 6 -inch caliper or larger, 21 are within the proposed public right-of-way, and 3 are located in critical areas and their buffers resulting in 58 protected trees on site (Exhibit 9, 10). Of these, 21 trees are within the R-1 zone, and 37 trees within the R-14 zoned portions of the property. The R-1 zone requires 30 percent tree retention of the protected trees on site, while the R-14 requires 10 percent tree retention. At a 30 percent retention rate in the R-1 zone, 6 trees would be required to be retained. At 10 percent retention rate in the R-14 zone, 4 trees would need to be retained. This is a total of 10 trees required to be retained. The applicant has identified 10 trees that would be retained thus meeting the requirement. In addition, the applicant proposes to plant 40 new trees on site, which includes street trees within the right-of-way and ornamental trees within Tract "A" the common open space and Native Growth Protection Area Easement. The applicant's provided conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 11) indicates proposed ornamental trees, shrubs, and groundcover includes the proposed locations for the plantings. For the street trees, the applicant proposes Parrotia persica (Persian Ironwood trees), 1-1/2" caliper; with two planted for each of Lots 1 through 9. Cercis Canadensis (Forest Pansy Redbud trees), 1-1/2" caliper are proposed at the entrance to the plat along the south side of Lot 1 and within the right-of-way for Lot 10. Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar trees), 6 -foot high, are proposed along the south boundary of Tract A/Lot 10, along the proposed walking path. Tsuga heterophylla (Western hemlock), 6 -foot high, are proposed between the common boundary between Lots 6, 7, 8 and the common open space tract, where the walking path is provided. The proposed plant palette also contains Mahonia aquifolium (Tall Oregon Grape), Ribes sanguineum (Red Flowering Currant) as shrubs and Arcostaphylos uva-ursi (Kinnikinnick), Gaultheria shallon (Salal) and Polystichum munitum (Sword fern) as ground cover. The conceptual landscape plan is acceptable provided that additional trees are proposed on the south side of Lot 1 within the right-of-way, and within the right-of-way for the street improvements along South 55th Street. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant provide a City of Renton Communew and Economic D ament Deportment Report to the hearing Examiner WILSON PARK 11 PLAT & PUD LU.912-013, ECF PP. PPUD PUBLIC IILARING DATE: .lune 12. 2012 Page 14 of 3l detailed final landscape pian that shall be submitted and approved by the Current Planning Project Manaizer prior to final PUD approval. OVERALL DESIGN: 1. Open Space/Recreation: In addition to private open space provided on each proposed lot, the applicant has proposed to provide a passive recreation area primarily located on the eastern portion of the site, and wrapping around the north part of Lot 6 and the south boundary of Lot 10. This 19,154 square foot (0.44 acre) open space would include a pergola structure, landscaping and two picnic tables, a soft surface looped trail system through the development, and would also comprise the steep slope area beyond to the north and east. RMC 4-9-150E requires that PUD's provide large concentrated areas of open space, equivalent to 10% of the site's gross area. The site is 93,801 sq. ft. and the provided open space tract is 19,154 sq. ft, comprising approximately 20% of the site, and exceeding the open space standards by 9,784 square feet. The overall passive and active recreation opportunities proposed for the subject development are beyond the standard code requirements. The proposed open space and recreation on the site provide the opportunity for passive recreation. The looped trail system is approximately 510 lineal feet long, offering the opportunity for walking. However, it should be noted that the split -rail fence or pergola/gazebo designs are not reflected on the Landscape Plan or the Plat Plan, as such staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide a detail of the proposed pergola/gazebo and fence design and location as a part of the final detailed landscape plan. These details shall be submitted and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. 2. Circulation: The proposed preliminary plat provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation system. In addition to the proposed soft surface pedestrian path, discussed above, the applicants have proposed sidewalks along Road A consistent with the residential character of the development. Comments received from surrounding property owners concern the ability of school buses to safely serve the Wilson Park Il plat. The applicant has observed that presently school buses travel east on 55th Avenue South in the morning, stopping in 55th Avenue South to pick-up students. The buses then travel west in the afternoon, stopping in 55th Avenue South to drop-off students. However, upon inquiry with the Renton School District, it was determined that these are actually Kent School District (KSD) buses that serve students attending schools in the Kent School District, for properties on the south side of South 55th Street. The subject site is actually within the Renton School District (RSD). RSD busses do not travel on South 55th Street, and the closest school bus stop is located at the intersection of South 55th Street and Talbot Road South, approximately 700 feet to the west. Staff recommends that the project provide for an asphalt walking path from the entrance of the development (on the north side of South 55th Street) to the intersection of Talbot/S. 551h, in order to facilitate walking to and from the bus stop. In addition to sidewalks and the proposed pedestrian path, the proposed preliminary plat also provides for appropriate vehicle circulation system. The road system connects with the Wilson Park Plat located immediately to the north. The road was originally approved as part of Wilson Park and has'not yet been constructed. Wilson Park I is dependent upon the construction of this road, as is Wilson Park 11. Staff recommends that if Wilson Park II moves forward prior to Wilson Park I, that the public street be constructed with an approved emergency turnaround. Cih, o f Renton Community and Economic L anent Department Reporl to the hearing Examiner fVILSON PARK 11 PLAT & PUD LUA12-013. ECF, PP. PPCI) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 12. 2012 Page l5 of 31 I Landscaping/Screening: The proposed landscape plan for the entire site, and in particular the open space tract is superior to what would be required by Renton's Municipal Code, as discussed above under "Natural Features". 4. Site and Building Design: The qualities of the proposed site design has been addressed above under, "Critical Areas", "Natural Features", and the subsections of "Overall Design". The above comments address such things as road design and pedestrian circulation, critical areas protection and enhancement, as well as increased landscaping and recreational opportunities. All these amenities contribute to the overall superior site design. The 10 proposed lots are accessed off a public street, and would be representative of a typical plat for detached single family homes. Homes would be subject to the Residential Design Standards, and as such no building design is required at this time. The proposal would protect the environmentally critical areas, and passive recreational opportunities are proposed. 5. The orientation of the lots allows for access to solar energy, as all of the lots are east/west. All homes will be subject to the residential design standards. Since the plat is most representative of plats designed to meet R-8 zone, staff recommends that the homes within the plat meet the R-8 residential design standards with minor modifications. For example, staff suggests that garages be setback a minimum of 18 feet from the back of the sidewalk to allow appropriate area for apron parking. Compliance with these standards will be reviewed at the time of building permit application. Due to the level of detail needed to identify compliance with the residential design standards this review is best left for building permit stage. b. Alleys: The proposal is for a single two single tiers of lots front on an existing road easement approved as part of the Wilson Park I Plat. An alley configuration is not possible given the existing road location. iii. Building and Site Design: Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. Comment: Proposed landscaping on the south boundary of Lot 10 would provide some screening of when viewed from South 55th Street. Proposed plantings of the southeast corner of Lot 1 would provide some incremental screening for Lot 1 when viewed from 55th Avenue South. Additional planting within the right-of-way should be provided along 55th Avenue South. This would require dedication of additional right-of-way along the south boundary of the plat, between the new Road A west to the southwest corner of the site. The scale, mass, character and architectural design would be of a detached single family residential development. Due to the existing split zoning of the parcel (both R-1 and R- 14 Zone) staff recommends as a condition of approval that the project not conform to either the R-1 or the R-14 Residential Design standards; rather that the project be required to comply with the Residential Design Standards applied to the R-8 Zone resulting in a compatible size, scale, mass, character and architectural design for the ON of Rentan Communifi and Economic D invent Deparlment _ Report to the HeurrnK L•xuvniner 4WILSON PARK If PLAT & PUD LUA12-013. ECF: PP.PPUD PUBLIC HEARIAG DATE: June 12. 2012 Page 16 Qf 31 overall development. The proposed lot sizes are comparable with the R-8 Zone, and the development would be most like R-8 development. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type. Comment: As mentioned above in Table B, the interior site design promotes quality pedestrian and vehicular circulation, increased critical area protection, promotes safety and by buffering the steep slopes area. All homes would be required to comply with the R-8 development design standards which would result in coordinated, yet varied roof styles and materials, architectural detailing, and a variety of home styles throughout the development. iv. Circulation: Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities: The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. Comment: The subdivision would gain access from 55th Avenue South. A new street constructed for Wilson Park I bisects the two single tiers of lots and connects to the Wilson Park I site immediately abutting and north of Wilson Park H. All of the proposed lots and the open space tract would have access to the public street. Proposed pavement width is 25 feet, which allows parking on one side of the street. Staff recommends that the parking be allowed on the east side of the street in order to address concerns expressed during SEPA review regarding the direction that vehicles would be parked based on travel patterns. Five-foot wide sidewalks and 8 -foot wide landscape strips are proposed on both sides of the street. In addition, a 3 -foot wide walking path is proposed across the north, east and south portions of the eastern tier of lots. Most of this path is within Tract A, with the exception of a section along the south boundary of Lot 10. The walking path would be concrete near the proposed gazebo on the north portion of the site and soft surface for the remainder of the pathway within the open space tract. Staff recommends that the section on the south side of Lot 10 be revised to meander within the landscaped area in the side yard of Lot 10. The PUD would have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access based on the location, size and density of the development, if all conditions of approval are met. See Table B, Public Benefit, subsection: Overall Design 2. Circulation above for additional discussion on pedestrian and vehicle circulation. Frontage improvements are required along South 55th Street. The property has frontage in two locations, where the proposed street intersects South 55th Street, and where a portion of Tract A fronts on South 55th Street. In both cases, the applicant is required to construct curb, gutter, 5 -foot wide sidewalks, and an 8 -foot wide planting strip. The City of Rennin Communay and Economic D me nt Deparimeni Report to the Hearing F,xmnrner WILSOON PARK If PIAT & PUD Lf"412-013. ECF, PP. MID PUBLIC HEARING DATE - June 12. 2012 Page 17 of 3l applicant's proposal indicates a 5 -foot wide sidewalk along South 55th Street on the south side of Lot 1. No planting strip is proposed within the South 55th Street right-of- way. No street improvements are proposed within the right-of-way for South 55th Street for the portion where Tract A fronts on the street (Exhibit 2, 11). Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide the required street improvements and landscaping, and that these be shown on the construction engineering plans, and final detailed landscape plan, during the Final PUD and Final Plat process. The internal street is designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic generated by the project, provided that the street connects through Wilson Park I. In the event that Wilson Park I is not constructed concurrent or prior to Wilson Park II, then the applicant should be required to provide an emergency turnaround within the plat. Promotes safety: Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. Comment: The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Exhibit 12) prepared by TraffEx (Northwest Traffic Experts, dated June 23, 2009 and supplemented January 25, 2012). The report indicates that the proposal would utilize the same access to South 55th Street s the approved Wilson Park I Plat. The site access street intersects South 55th Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The report also indicates that the horizon year for the study is considered to be 2014, as that is the year construction of both plats is anticipated. The study indicated the increase in traffic with the proposal and determined that the traffic would operate at acceptable levels at the intersection of South 55th Street and the new street within the plat. The Level -of -Service (LOS) with the project was determined to be LOS B for future 2014 conditions. Previously, the site distance on South 55th Street was evaluated as part of Wilson Park I. It was determined then that the City of Renton intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions would be met. Comments received from surrounding property owners concern the ability of school buses to safely serve the plat (Exhibit 14). The applicant has observed that presently school buses travel east on South 55th Street in the morning, stopping in South 55th Street to pick-up students. The buses then travel west in the afternoon, stopping in South 55th to drop-off students. While it was originally anticipated that this practice would continue with the project, and that children would wait together for pick-up, an inquiry to the Renton School District (RSD) revealed that these are actually Kent School District buses, which do not serve the subject plat. RSD does not operate on South 55th Street, and would require that students walk approximately 700 feet to the west to be picked up at the corner of South 55th Street and Talbot Road South. In order to provide an appropriate safe route to schools, staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide a walking path within the improved right-of-way, with a minimum 5 -foot asphalt path, on the north side of South 55th Street, from the entrance to the plat to the intersection of South 55th Street and Talbot Road South separated from the traffic lane City of Renton Comrnunaty and Economic D Ment Department Report to the Hearing Examiner WILSON PARK 11 PLAT & PbD UJA12-013, ECF, PP. PPUD PUBLIC HEARING DA 11i. June 1 Z. 2012 Page 18 of 31 by C -curb. This should be installed at the time that street and utility improvements are being installed. A lighting plan was not included in the applicant's submittal packet; therefore, it is not clear how the proposed pedestrian pathways would be illuminated at night. Although, staff recommends that the area near the concrete path and pergola be illuminated at night, staff further recommends that the soft surface trail be unlit or minimally lit at night. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction. The lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting in addition to building and landscaping lighting if proposed. The proposed development would result in one driveway for each new lot. In addition, one access point is proposed from South 55th Street to the development, Road A. An additional emergency access is provided within Wilson Park I to South 55th Street. Based on the road width, parking would be permitted on one side of the new street. Staff recommends that parking be allowed on the east side, in order to acknowledge customary use and anticipated circulation. These design considerations/requirements would result in a circulation system that would avoid difficult turning patterns, minimizes steep gradients and minimize driveways on busy streets. Once the applicant has fulfilled the conditions of approval (noted above); the promotion of safety could be accomplished. Provision of a system of walkways: Walkways that tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. Comment: See Table B "Public Benefit, Subsection: Overall Design 1 and 2" above. The site is somewhat isolated and is constrained by topography. Street frontage improvements along 55th Avenue South would not tie into other existing sidewalk or walkway systems. The internal pathway would provide internal circulation and would connect to the sidewalks within the plat. There is no school bus stop for the Renton School District in close proximity. According to the Renton School District, the closest bus stop is located at the corner of Talbot Road and 55th Ave South, approximately 700 feet to the west of the entrance road. The site is constrained by natural topographical features and connections to surrounding areas are difficult due to the topography and the 55th Ave South. The subject site is located on periphery of the City boundary, and is relatively isolated from commercial zoned property. There is no existing access to commercial development in or near the subject site and no new access proposed for pedestrians. Provides safe efficient access for emergency vehicles: Comment: If the roadways are designed per recommended standards (Exhibit 2), the development would provide safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. However, if the subject plat is constructed without Wilson Park I or prior to Wilson Park I, there would not be a sufficient turning radius for emergency vehicles and a temporary emergency vehicle turnaround would need to be provided on site. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that in the event that Wilson Park I is not constructed and recorded first or at all, Wilson Park 11 shall be required to provide City of Renton Communi1y and Econumic LX Ment 1)eparhnent Report to the Hearing Examiner 47LSONPARi: 11 MAY'& N!1) LU,412-OJ3. ECF, PP, PPUD PUBLIC HEARING DA 7E: Aw 12, 2012 Page 19 of 31 appropriate emergency access, per the review and approval of the Development Service Project Manager and the Fire Marshal. This shall be accomplished by providing an acceptable emergency vehicle turnaround, prior to the recording of the plat. V. infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. Comment: Water service for the development would be provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. Water availability certificates will be required from the Soos Creek Water & Sewer District prior to Construction Permit. Based on the provided Conceptual Utilities Plan (Exhibit 13), there is an existing sewer main located in 55th Avenue South. The applicant has proposed to connect to this existing main and extend an 8 -inch sanitary sewer line to provide sewer to the development. This plan sheet also identifies an 8 -inch water line extension from 55th Avenue South through the subject plat and to the Wilson Park I plat located to the north. With receipt of the water availability certificate, the development could provide sufficient service to the lots. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. New impervious surfaces would result in surface water runoff increases. A Technical Information Report (dated May 5, 2009) was prepared by Baima and Holmberg Inc, for the previous Wilson Park I Plat. An addendum to this report was prepared by Offe Engineers, PLLC on February 28, 2012 to consider the current proposal. The May 2009 report includes an analysis of upstream tributary drainage which states that the parcel to the east drains onto the site, with no problems related to runoff. The Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis in the report states that runoff from the site flows west into lots in the adjacent Geneva Court development. The majority of the existing runoff from Wilson Park It collects along the west property line via sheet flow and continues downstream over the vacant property to the west. This flow collects in a stormwater pond/bioswale facility located at the intersection of Talbot Road South and South 53rd Place approximately 750 feet downstream from the site. This facility outfalls through an 18 -inch pipe to the west side of Talbot Road South into a poorly defined channel flowing into the woods. The flows then pass through a 12 -inch culvert under a walking path and continue to flow west to a wooded wetland area more than a quarter mile downstream from the site. Flows into the ditch along South 55th Street continue west in a rock lined channel along the north side of the street to the intersection of Talbot Road South and South 55th Street. The channel is eroded and shows signs of flowing into the street. Flows from the ditch along Talbot Road South collect in the storm system about 850 feet downstream from the site eventually flowing into Springbrook Creek at about 1,800 feet downstream from the site. The Creek continues flowing west to about one-half mile downstream of the site where it enters a box culvert crossing SR 157. The Technical Information Report indicates that there are no apparent drainage problems. The amended February 28, 2012 report evaluates the addition of the subject 10 -lot plat. The original stormwater system for Wilson Park I and located within the street that would serve both Wilson Park I and II was sized to accommodate Wilson Park I lots and the new streets including the access street located within Wilson Park II. The addendum provides calculations intended to evaluate the sizing of the storm treatment facility for the two projects. The report notes that City of Renton's 2009 Drainage Manual requires City of Renlon Commune)- and Economic T 7menl Department Report to the ,hearing Examiner WILSON PARK 11 PLAT & PLI) LLA12-013, F_CF, PP, PPUD PUBLICHEARING DATE. June 12. 2012 Page 20 of 31 Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new developments. One BMP's is to restrict impervious areas on future lots to help reduce runoff, mitigate for development, and minimize the treatment system needed for the project. This is known as a "Restrictive Covenant" provision and was utilized as part of a preliminary sizing of the future system for both Wilson Park 1 and II. The applicant intends to utilize the Restrictive Covenant provision and limit impervious surface on each of the new lots in both Wilson Park I and II to 3,300 square feet per lot. By limiting the impervious area for homes, patios, driveways and walkways, the proposed stormwater vault will be of an appropriate size to accommodate both developments. The applicant has also intended to develop both plats at the same time. Comments received from surrounding property owners (Exhibit 14) expressed concern as to whether the vault was sized appropriately to accommodate both projects. The applicant has stated that the vault is sized to the 2009 drainage manual and will provide the necessary volume and capacity for both projects. vi. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. Comment: The uniqueness of the zoning of the site, in addition to the area affected by steep slopes, results in a necessity to cluster development. The slope results in the preservation of open space in the form of a Native Growth Protection Area Easement as well as recreation space. The requested lot size and setback modification allow for a clustered R-8 development that provides increased protection of critical areas creating an appearance of openness. This also allows for a more cohesive design rather than attempting to design for two different residential density designations on one site. (See additional discussion above in Table B "Public Benefit, Subsections: Critical Areas and Natural Features".) As noted in the previous sections, the proposed development would have usable passive recreation, including open space and landscaping. In order to maintain sufficient separation between buildings, staff recommends that the applicant be required to meet the R-8 side yard setbacks, as such all structures will maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation. This spacing allows for emergency access and sufficient fire separation. vii. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. Comment: The context of the subdivision, it's location in relation to existing development, and the topography of the site provide for privacy. Within the subdivision, unit to unit privacy would be provided by the side yard setback requirement. Exhibit XX shows that applicant has indicated that a split -rail fence would be used to define the area Cal- of Renton Communew and Economic I iment Department Report to the Hearen,K Examiner 3"".SON PARK H PLAT d, Pt,'D LUAJ2-OI3. ECF . PP, PPUD PUBLIC HE4RING DATE; June I2. 1012 Pane 21 of 3I between the back and side yard area of the lots and the soft surface pathway within Tract A. No specific fence detail has been provided, and there could be a tendency for future residents to construct privacy fences abutting the split -rail fence. Therefore staff recommends that the applicant provide a fence detail with the final landscape plan that is subject to the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. Street trees are required either within the required landscape strip or in the front yard of the lot. As discussed above under Table B "Public Benefit, Subsections: Critical Areas and Natural Features'; the proposed walkways and landscaping are appropriate for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property. All homes would be required to be designed to meet the residential design standards for the R-8 zone. These standards would require windows on the front of the home, increasing access to light and air for each dwelling unit. Furthermore, each lot would have private front, side and rear yards, enhancing each lot with landscaping and access to light and air. viii. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. Comment: The lots are arranged in into two tiers of single lots. The ten lots would be oriented east/west. The site topography slopes down from east to west, resulting in a terraced effect after site grading. The proposed layout maximizes the use of topography is appropriate. Views would be territorial and to lower elevations to the west. ix. Parking Area Design: Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shored parking facilities where appropriate. Comment: Required parking would be provided within garages attached to each home. Additional guest parking would be provided on the driveway aprons for each lot. Staff has previously recommended that the applicant provide minimum 18 -foot garage aprons from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk to provide for parking that does not result in vehicles overhanging the sidewalk. On -street parking would be provided along the new internal road on one side. Staff further recommends that this parking be allowed on the east side of Road A. The proposed parking is designed to provide efficient use of the site and would be appropriately screen by the provided garages. Adequacy: Provides sufficient on-site vehicular parking areas consistent with the parking demand created by the development as documented in a parking analysis approved by the City. Comment: Parking regulations require a minimum of two off-street parking spaces for detached dwellings. As proposed each lot would have adequate area to provide two off- street parking spaces. Additional parking would be available on the internal road or in the driveways of each lot. Sufficient on-site vehicular parking would be provided consistent with the demand created by the development provided that conditions of approval are complied with. City° of Renton Community and Economic D rment Department Report to the hearing F.xarrrinrr WILSON PARK II PLAT & PUD LUA12-0I3. ECT PP. PPUD PUBLIC HEARIA"G DATE: June 12. 2012 Page 22 of 31 X. Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so that each phase, together with previous phases, can stand alone. Comment: The applicant has not proposed to phase the subject development. As such, this criteria does not apply. xi. Development Standards Common O apen_S-Pace Standard: open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential developments are described below. Residential: For residential developments open space must equal at least ten percent 10%) of the development site's gross land area. L Open space may include, but is not limited to, the following: a) A trail that allows opportunity for passive recreation within a critical area buffer (only the square footage of the trail shall be included in the open space area calculation), or b) A sidewalk and its associated landscape strip, when abutting the edge of a critical area buffer and when a part of a new public or private road, or c) A similar proposal as approved by the reviewing official. ii. Additionally, a minimum area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit of common space or recreation area shall be provided in a concentrated space. Comment: The proposed development is located on an 2.15 acre site, of which a portion on the east is located in a critical area. The applicant has dedicated an Open Space Tract A which totals 19,164 square feet within which is a soft surface trail that equals approximately 1,530 square feet. The proposed development would have 10 lots; 50 square feet of common space or recreation areas is required per unit, resulting in a requirement of an additional 500 square feet. To partially fulfill the common space requirement the applicant has proposed to provide an approximate 350 square foot common park that includes a concrete path, pergola/gazebo and landscaping. Staff recommends that the applicant enlarge this area to be at least 500 square feet in order to meet the minimum requirement. Suggestions for added recreation opportunities may include a community garden or fire circle or barbeque area. The park is located north of proposed Lot 6 and connects to the walking path through the remainder of Tract A. The overall location and design of the park, open space and trail are located as to create a quality open space/recreation area for the development, specifically if all conditions of approval are met. Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet (15') in every City ofkenton Community and Economic D nnent Department Report to the Hearing Fxammer WILSOA PARK H PLAT & PUD L tT.Q 12-013, FCF, PP, PPUD 11L'81JC HE,4RM,G DATE.: June 12, 2012 Page 23 of 31 dimension (decks on upper floors can substitute for the required private open space). For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5'). Comment: Each lot would have a private yard in both the front and the rear of the lot. The recommended setbacks would provide for a minimum 15 -foot front yard and a 20 - foot rear yard, which could result in a private open space yard meeting or exceeding the 15 foot in every dimension. Compliance with this standard shall be reviewed at building permit stage. Installation_ and Maintenance of Common Open Space: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the City. Comment: Prior to the recording of the plat, common landscaped areas and the open space landscaping, and street trees must be installed. The applicant would need to provide for the maintenance of the common areas through the establishment of a HomeOwner's Association. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner by the property owners' association or the agents) thereof. Comment: Staff recommends, as condition of approval, the applicant be required to establish a home owners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not limited to the soft surface trail, landscaping, and park within the PUD prior to Final PUD approval. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD home owners' association. 6. Consistengy with Preliminary Plat Criteria Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been established to assist decision -makers in the review of the plat: a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Designation The site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) and Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Land designated Residential Single Family is intended to be used for quality detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. it is intended that larger subdivisions, infill development, and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single-family living. Land designated Residential Low Density is intended for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger -lot housing stock at urban densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory: Cite of Renton Commmily and Economic D meet Deparunet Report to the Hc, rE Examiner WILSON PARK 11 PIAT R PUD LUA12-013. E(:F. PP, PPUD PUBLIC HEARIA'G DATE: June 12, 2012 Page 24 of 31 RSF Policy LU -158. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre in Residential Single Family Neighborhoods. Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy LU -159. Maximum height of structures should not exceed two (2) stories in single- family residential neighborhoods. Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy EN -19. Allow land alteration only for approved development proposal or approved mitigation efforts that will not create unnecessary erosion, undermine the support of nearby land, or unnecessarily scar the landscape I areas subject to geologic hazards. Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy EN -28. Require trees and other vegetation along newly constructed or reconstructed streets to reduce impacts from development. Policy Objective Met [] Not Met Policy EN -36. Where appropriate combine environmentally sensitive areas with to provide public access and educational opportunities. Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy CD -1. Integrate development into natural areas by clustering development and/or adjusting site plans to preserve wetlands, steep slopes, and notable stands of trees or other vegetation. Natural features should function as site amenities. Use incentives such as flexible lot size and configuration to encourage preservation and add amenity value. Policy Objective Met Not Met b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation See Consistency with the Planned Urban Development Regulations and Table A. The proposed development would allow for the future construction of 10 new single-family dwelling units. Density: The site is zoned both R-1 and R-14, and the zone line See Consistency with the Planned Urban Development Regulations, subsection a). Lot Dimensions: See Consistency with the Planned Urban Development Regulations, Table A for requested modifications. As demonstrated in Table C below, all lots except Lot 1, meet the requirements for the requested minimum lot size, depth, and width as requested through the PUD. Lot 1 is a corner lot and would require that its minimum width be increased to 60 feet for meet the standard. There is sufficient room on the site to achieve this and keep the proposed lot count. City o/'Renlun Communih, and Economic D mment Deparanem WII SON PARK If PLAT rY PUD PUBLIC HFARIA(; DATE: June 12, 2012 Table C Report to the hearing F,xavnmer LUA12-013. ECF. PP. PPUD Page 25 of 31 As Proposed Lot Size Width Depth Lot 1 5,775 SF 57.74 feet 102.51 feet Lot 2 5,905 SF 57.60 feet 102.51 feet Lot 3 5,905 SF 57.60 feet 102.51 feet Lot 4 5,905 5F 57.60 feet 102.51 feet Lot 5 5,587 SF 57.47 feet 102.51 feet Lot 6 5,587 SF 55 feet 101 feet Lot 7 5,560 SF 55 feet 101 feet Lot 8 5,560 SF 55 feet 101 feet Lot 9 5,559 SF 55 feet 101 feet Lot 10 6,775 SF 66.41 feet 101feet In addition to the 10 proposed developable lots, the applicant has proposed 1 tract for, critical areas, recreation/open space, and access. For maintenance of the open space Tract A staff recommends as a condition of approval that all critical areas and their buffers be placed in a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). However, such easement shall be written to provide access for the trail users. Furthermore, these areas shall be fenced with split rail fencing to separate the trail from the steep slope and to provide designated access points along the trail. Also, as a condition of approval staff recommends that a covenant shall be placed on all tracts restricting their separate sale and giving each lot owner within the plat an undivided interest in the tracts. This covenant should be recorded on the face of the plat, and/or concurrent with the plat recording, noting the recording number on the plat. Setbacks: See Consistency with the Planned Urban Development Regulations, Table A for requested modifications. Building Standards: See Consistency with the Planned Urban Development Regulations, Table A for requested modifications. ON of Renton Community and Economic 1) i'ILSDN PARK H PLAT & PUD PUBLIC HARING DATF' June 12, 2012 c) Community Assets ment Department Report to the Ifeartng F.xamrner LU.Q12-013, i(F, PP, PP11D Page 26 of 3I The site is sloped from the east to west and vegetated primarily with cottonwood, alder, maple, and fir trees. See Table B Public Benefit, subsection Natural Features and for discussion of tree retention, landscaping and plantings. The conceptual landscape plan submitted with the application includes the installation of street trees along the street frontage within the plat; however it does not show landscaping or street improvements for the street frontage on South 55th Street, as required by code. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the street trees are shown on the final detailed landscape plan in compliance with the street tree standards. If the conditions of approval are complied with the development would demonstrate compliance with the landscaping regulations of the code. The applicant is required to submit and have approved a detailed landscape plan prior to final PUD and Final Plat recording. d) Compliance with Subdivision Regulations Streets: See Consistency with the Planned Urban Development Regulations, Table A for requested modifications and staff's recommendation for street development. In addition to the comments in the above Table A, street lighting meeting pedestrian lighting levels, in conformance with the residential street lighting interpretation, will be required for both the internal street sections. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval, that a lighting plan be submitted with the construction permit application for review and approval by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Development Services project manager prior to building permit approval. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton UnderGrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. Construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to recording of the plat. Blocks: No new blocks will be created as part of the proposed plat. Lots: The shape, orientation, and arrangement of the proposed lots comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations for the R-8 zone, subject to the requested modifications found in Table A above. In addition the proposal allows for reasonable redevelopment of land. All 10 lots are rectangular in shape and would provide sufficient building area. e) Reasonableness of Proposed Boundaries Access: The subdivision would gain access from South 551h Street at one access point, identified as "Road A". Road A would also provide access to Wilson Park I to the north. All of the proposed lots would be directly accessed off of Road A. Topography: The site is bounded by steep slopes east. The site contains areas of protected slopes (greater than 40%) in the northeastern portion of the property. This area City of Renton Community and Economic D )menf Department Report to the llearing Examiner WILSON PARI: II PLAT & PL -D LU412-013, ECF, PP, PPUD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 12. 2012 Page 27 of 31 of protected slopes would be contained within Tract A. There is also a cut slope on the west portion of the property that slopes up to about 6 to 12 feet. This slope likely resulted from the original land grading. Both geotechnical reports submitted conclude that the subject site is stable and can support the development provided the recommendations of the November 22, 2004 report are fully implemented and observed during construction. Relationship to Existing Uses: See PUD criterion iii Building and Site Design. f) Availability and Impact on Public Services (Timeliness) Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and potential impact fees, if applicable at the time of development/recording. Schools: According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton Land Use Element (January 16, 1992), the City of Renton has a student generation factor of 0.44 students per single-family residential dwelling. Based on the student generation factor, the proposed plat would result in 4 students (0.44 X 10 new lots = 4.4). It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate the students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Benson Hill Elementary, Nelsen Middle School and Lindbergh High School. Renton Municipal Code provides for the collection of a school impact fee on behalf of the Renton School District, which is currently $6,392 per each new home, due at the time of building permit. Storm Water: New impervious surfaces would result in surface water runoff increases. A Technical Information Report (dated May 5, 2009) was prepared by Baima and Holmberg Inc, for the previous Wilson Park I Plat. An addendum to this report was prepared by Offe Engineers, PLLC on February 28, 2012 to consider the current proposal. The May 2009 report includes an analysis of upstream tributary drainage which states that the parcel to the east drains onto the site, with no problems related to runoff. The Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis in the report states that runoff from the site flows west into lots in the adjacent Geneva Court development. The majority of the existing runoff from Wilson Park 2 collects along the west property line via sheet flow and continues downstream over the vacant property to the west. This flow collects in a stormwater pond/bioswale facility located at the intersection of Talbot Road S and South 53rd Place approximately 750 -feet downstream from the site. This facility outfalls through an 18 -inch pipe to the west side of Talbot Road S into a poorly defined channel flowing into the woods. The flows then pass through a 12 -inch culvert under a walking path and continue to flow west to a wooded wetland area more than a quarter mile downstream from the site. Flows into the ditch along South 55th Street continue west in a rock lined channel along the north side of the street to the intersection of Talbot Road S and South 55th Street. The channel is eroded and shows signs of flowing into the street. Flows from the ditch along Talbot Road S collect in the storm system about 850 -feet downstream from the site eventually flowing into Springbrook Creek at about 1,800 -feet downstream from the site. The Creek continues flowing west to about one-half mile downstream of the site where it enters a box culvert Cas• ofRenlon Communify and Economic L rment Deparlment Report to 1he ffearing F_xanrmer WILSON PARK 11 PIAT & PUD LUM2-01.3. ECF, PP, PPUD PUBLIC IIEAPJ,,VG DATE: June Il, 1012 Page 28 of 31 r. crossing SR 167. The Technical Information Report indicates that there are no apparent drainage problems. The amended February 28, 2012 report evaluates the addition of the subject 10 -lot plat. The original stormwater system for Wilson Park I and located within the street that would serve both Wilson Park I and II was sized to accommodate Wilson Park I lots and the new streets including the access street located within Wilson Park II. The addendum provides calculations intended to evaluate the sizing of the storm treatment facility for the two projects. Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities: See PUD criterion v. Infrastructure and Services. gj Compliance With Critical Area Regulations The project site includes areas with greater than 40% slope that are classified as critical areas. In addition, the site contains a small, isolated, unregulated wetland in the west portion of the site (Exhibit XX). The slopes are within the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay, and would be protected within Tract A, which would also include passive recreation in the form of a soft surface trail, pergola/gazebo, along with ornamental landscaping. In order to protect the critical area, the following conditions of approval are recommended by staff: 1. The common boundary between the native growth protection tract and the abutting land must be permanently identified. This identification shall include a permanent wood split rail fence and metal signs on treated or metal posts. The permanent wood split rail fence and signs shall be installed prior to Final Plat recording. 2. The following note shall appear on the face of the Final Plat and shall also be recorded as a covenant running with the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title: "MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY: All owners of lots created or benefitting from this City action abutting or including a native growth protection tract are responsible for maintenance and protection of the tract. Maintenance includes ensuring that no alterations occur within the tract and that all vegetation remains undisturbed unless the express written authorization of the City has been received." RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Wilson Park Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD, Project File No. LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the 7 mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 7, 2012. 2. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on each of the lots indicating that only detached single family units may be constructed, and any future accessory units allowed per the R-8 Development Regulations. This covenant shall be subject to the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to the recording of the Final Plat. City of Renton Community and Economic D ment Department Report to the Hearing Examiner WILSON II PLAT & PUD LUA12-013, ECF. PP. PPUU PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 12, 2012 Page 29 of 31 3. The project shall be subject to the Development Standards of the R-8 residential zone with respect to minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum side yard and side yard along a street setbacks, minimum rear yard setbacks, maximum building coverage, maximum impervious coverage. 4. The project shall be subject to the Development Standards of the R-8 zone with respect to the front yard setback, except that there shall be a minimum of 18 feet between the face of the garage and the back of the sidewalk. 5. The project shall be subject to the Residential and Open Space Standards of the R-8 Zone, provided that there shall be a minimum of 18 feet of driveway length from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk. 6. The applicant shall establish and record a permanent and irrevocable Native Growth Protection Area Easement (NGPE) on the property title for all critical areas and their buffers prior to Final Plat recording. The protective easement shall be held by current and future property owners; shall run with the land; and shall prohibit development, alteration, and disturbance within the easement except for the purposes of habitat enhancement as a part of an enhancement project, access for the trail users and maintenance of the common recreation area. Furthermore, this area shall be fenced with split rail fencing. The NGPE shall be subject to the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to recording of the Final Plat. 7. The applicant shall submit a detailed final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. The detailed final landscape plan shall include, but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed locations and design details of the pergola/gazebo, split -rail fence and interpretive signage proposed along the soft surface trail. b. Street trees shall be identified within the right-of-way in compliance with the City's street tree standards. c. The plan shall indicate either 100 percent drought tolerant plantings or the applicant shall provide a final irrigation plan with the final detailed landscape plan. d. Provide a revised Landscape Plan indicating a Common Recreation area that is a minimum of 500 square feet that includes improvements providing for recreation by the public and area residents e. Redesign the trail on the south side of Lot 10 such that the trail meanders and is not abutting the edge of the split rail fence on Lot 10. 8. The applicant shall provide a walking path within the right-of-way of South 55th Street that provides for a safe route to the nearest Renton School District bus stop. The path shall be asphalt with a minimum width of 5 feet and separated from the road travel lane by C -curbing as determined by the City's Development Services Division Project Manager. This improvement is required prior to the recording of the plat. City of Renton Community and Economic D menl Department Report to the Hearing Examiner li7LS0.,V PAP 11 PLAT & PUD LVA12-013. ECT. PP. PPLD PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 12, 2012 Page 30 of 31 9. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. The lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting in addition to building and landscaping lighting if proposed. 10. In the event that Wilson Park I is not constructed and recorded first or not at all, Wilson Park II shall be required to provide appropriate emergency access, per the review and approval of the Development Service Project Manager and the Fire Marshal. This shall be accomplished by providing an acceptable emergency vehicle turnaround, prior to the recording of the plat. 11. The applicant shall establish a home owners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not limited to the soft surface trail, landscaping, and park within the PUD. The draft Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, prior to final PUD approval. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD home owners' association. 12. The applicant shall revise the lot width for Lot 1 in order to provide the minimum corner lot width of 60 feet. This shall be shown on the final plat plan. 13. A covenant shall be placed on all tracts restricting their separate sale and giving each lot owner within the plat an undivided interest in the tracts. This covenant should be recorded on the face of the plat, and/or concurrent with the plat recording, noting the recording number on the plat. 14. A street lighting plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application for review and approval by the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 15. The applicant shall provide the Current Planning Project Manager, a water line installation plan, which complies with RMC 4-3-050L.8.b.i.(b) for review and approval, prior to final PUD approval. 16. The common boundary between the native growth protection tract and the abutting land must be permanently identified. This identification shall include a permanent wood split rail fence and metal signs on treated or metal posts. The permanent wood split rail fence and signs shall be installed prior to Final Plat recording. 17. The following note shall appear on the face of the Final Plat and shall also be recorded as a covenant running with the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title: "MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY: All owners of lots created or benefitting from this City action abutting or including a native growth protection tract are responsible for maintenance and protection of the tract. Maintenance includes ensuring that no alterations occur within the tract and that all vegetation remains undisturbed unless the express written authorization of the City has been received." is. On -street parking shall be restricted to one side of Road A, on the east side of the road. No Parking signs shall be installed on the west side, prior to final plat recording. City of Renton C'nnvnundy aril h'conornre .1: WILSON PARK 11 PLAT & P I,'D PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 12, 20! 2 EXPIRATION PERIODS: Preliminary PUD: Ment Department report to the Hearing Exammer Lf::412-013, F_CF, PP, PPIT) Page 31 of 31 The developer shall, within two (2) years of the effective date of action by the Hearing Examiner to approve the preliminary plan, submit to the Department of Community and Economic Development a final development plan showing the ultimate design and specific details of the proposed planned urban development or the final phase or phases thereof; provided, however, that for a preliminary plan approved concurrent with a preliminary subdivision, the developer shall submit the final development plan within five (5) years of the effective date of action by the Hearing Examiner to approve the preliminary plan. Upon application by the developer, the Hearing Examiner may grant an extension of the approved preliminary plan for a maximum of twelve (12) months. Application for such extension shall be made at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of preliminary plan approval. Only one such extension may be granted for a planned urban development. If a final development plan is not filed within the identified time limits or within the extended time period, if any, the planned urban development preliminary plan shall be deemed to have expired or been abandoned. To activate an expired or abandoned planned urban development, a new application is required. Preliminary Plat: Preliminary plat approval shall lapse unless a final plat based on the preliminary plat, or any phase thereof, is submitted within five (5) years from the date of preliminary plat approval. One one-year extension shall be granted to an applicant who files a written request with the Administrator at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of this five (5) year period, provided the applicant demonstrates that he/she has attempted in good faith to submit the final plat within the five (5) year period. Aaonnau3 .c wnwlo ia x r 3-1IN112i390'8 _ Yy"w r,' it uvaw osmett E ' Z# NHVd NOS1IM ,[ rs_ S2'3 II Irt$ 8330 I a m o qY '' IX] a z s EFl o 0 I i i zeRs a s g w s§ _Lt EXHIBIT 2 N019NINSMM 'fgiN3y hI0.Lt1 21 zf Amrd NOFU 3a lulD arae.- ri j 51I CC iRACi..A. 18.1041/ Q. FEET a 1 uµ' ssar am' e,tssm• Al zeRs a s g w s§ _Lt EXHIBIT 2 N019NINSMM 'fgiN3y hI0.Lt1 21 zf Amrd NOFU 3a lulD arae.- ri AD zeRs a s g w s§ _Lt EXHIBIT 2 N019NINSMM 'fgiN3y hI0.Lt1 21 zf Amrd NOFU 3a lulD arae.- ri OM--% yLL V W AL/ CL M CL r G N r a J a 0 cry EXHIBIT 3 CD - C E o U 2 C a p c EEENa>> a a Z p m d v. In U tt U U 7 V U U u c c n '-a m p_ c ac C m o o EL N 65 2 65 rq TJCi OM--% yLL V W AL/ CL M CL r G N r a J a 0 cry EXHIBIT 3 CD - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUP C` ° AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE. May 7, 2012 Project Name: Wilson Park 11 Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Owner: Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson 21VM60' h Street East Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Applicant: Sarre as owner Contact. Darrell Offee, P.E. Offee Engineers, PLLC 13932 SE 159th Place Renton, WA 98058 File Number: LUA122-013, ECF, PP, PPUD Project Manager: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Project Summary: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential -14 du/ac (R-14) & Residential -1 du/ac (R-1). The site contains 9,783 s.f. of protected slopes (>40%). Proposed density averages 6A dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed in the R-14 area, & 1 lot proposed within the R-1. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots size within the R-1 Zone and provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 plat. A small hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site. The site contains 82 trees, of which 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street serving Wilson Park #1. Ten (10) trees would be retained, and new trees would be planted including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. Project Location: 698 South 55`x` Street Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A Site Area: 2.15 acres Total Building Area GSF. 93,801 s.f. STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). EXHIBIT 4 City of Renton Deportment of Communit 'conomic Development Ei )mental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRELIMINARY PLAT & Pn,.LIMINARY PUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential -14 dwelling units per acre (R-14) and Residential —1 dwelling unit per acre (R-1). The R-1 portion of the site is considered to be Urban Separator, and as such 50% of the Urban Separator area is required to be dedicated as open space. New residential lots would range in size from 5,559 square feet to 6,778 square feet. The open space tract would be 19,164 s.f. in size. Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed for the portion within the R-14 zone, and 1 residential lot proposed within the R-1 Zone. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots sizes within the R-1 zone and to provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street that would be constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park I subdivision (LUA09-140, PP, ECF). The topography of the site slopes upward from the west to the east; an area of steep protected slopes occurs on the eastern portion of the site. Site soils are comprised of Kame Terrace and Ground Moraine which are glacial till soils. Approximately 820 cubic yards of material would be excavated and 11,200 cubic yards of fill would be required to accomplish the project. A small wetland is located on the western portion of the site. This wetland is not regulated per Renton Municipal Code. Of the 82 trees onsite, 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street, 10 would be retained, and new trees would be planted, including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012, for the duration of project construction, 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume ll ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Communit "conomic Development E lmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRELIMINARY PLAT & Pn,JMINARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 3 of 11 of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 4. Because of moisture -sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Therefore, the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. 5. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Zoning Map Exhibit 2 PUD/Plat Map Exhibit 3 Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage/Utilities Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Retention Plan Exhibit 6 Landscape Plan Exhibit 7 Comment Letter (dated April 15, 2012) Exhibit 8 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 and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The subject site is located on a broad moderate to steep westerly -sloping hillside. This downward slope is at grades of 13 to 39 percent. Steeper slopes greater than 40% are located on the eastern portion of the site. The higher gradient portions of the site generally lie within the eastern 100 to 200 feet and the western 150 to 200 feet of the site. Approximately 820 cubic yards ERC Report. doe City of Renton Deportment of Communi :conomic Development E, nmentol Review Committee Report WILSON PARK1 PRELIMINARY PLAT & P,,4LIMINARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 4 of 11 of earth material would be cut and approximately 11,200 cubic yards off il I would be imported for the proposal. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012. The report identifies the soils on the site as Kame Terrace deposits underlain by Ground Moraine. Kame Terrace deposits consist mostly of silty sand and gravel to cobble. Locally, they may also contain lenses and pods of till and beds of sand, . silt and clay. According to the Geotechnical Report, these isolated lenses were not encountered on the subject site. Kame Terrace deposits are of moderately -high to high permeability and can provide good foundation support to structure in their native undisturbed state. Ground Moraine deposits are mostly thin ablation till over lodgment till, and were deposited during the retreat of glaciers during the last Ice Age, more than 14,000 years ago. Lodgment till is generally a compact mixture of unsorted clay, silt, sand, gravel and cobble, commonly referred to as "hard pan". Ablation Till is similar to lodgment till, but is much less compact and coherent. Lodgment Till is practically impervious, except local lenses of sand and gravel. It has the character of low-grade concrete and can stand in a steep natural or cut slope for long periods. This soil provides excellent foundation support with little settlement expected. Overlying ablation till is generally looser and is more compressible and permeable. The site contains areas of protected slopes (greater than 40%) in the northeastern portion of the property. This area of protected slopes would be contained within Tract A. There is also a cut slope on the west portion of the property that slopes up to about 6 to 12 feet. This slope likely resulted from the original land grading. Subsurface conditions on the site were explored in November 2004 via six (6) test pits on the western half of the site. The test pits sampled soil at depths ranging from 5.0 to 8.0 feet. The test pits identified a layer of loose, organic topsoil from 1.0 to 2.5 feet thick. The topsoil is generally underlain by a layer of brown Ablation Till soils of loose to medium -dense, silty fine sand, with a trace of gravel and occasional cobble and boulder, about 1.0 to 3.2 feet thick. Underlying the Ablation Till to the depths explored is a Lodgment Till deposit of light -brown to light -gray, dense to - very -dense, weakly -cement, silty fine sand with a trace of gravel. Additional test pits were explored for the eastern half of the site in February 2012. These recent test pits included a layer of loose, organic topsoil, from 8 to 10 inches thick, on the surface. The topsoil is underlain by a layer of brown to light -brown ablation till (weathered till) of medium - dense, silty fine sand, with a trace of to some gravel and occasional cobble and boulder, about 3.5 to 4.0 feet thick. Underlying the Ablation Till to the depths explored is a Lodgment Till (fresh till) deposit of light -brown to light -gray, very -dense, weakly -cement, silty fine sand with some gravel. The soil conditions of added land are generally similar to that of the original land. Both report conclude that the subject site is stable and can support the development provided the recommendations of the November 22, 2004 report are fully implemented and observed during construction. The topsoil and loose to medium -dense weathered soils on-site are of low resistance to erosion. Erosion may occur in the weaker surficial soils over the higher gradient areas if they are devoid of vegetation. Progressive erosion can lead to shallow, skin -type mudflows. The geotechnical report recommends preservation and maintenance of vegetation outside of construction limits to mitigate this potential hazard. The study also recommends that concentrated stormwater should not be discharged uncontrolled onto the ground. Stormwater from impervious surfaces should be ERC Report. doc City of Renton Department of Commun' Economic Development F nmentol Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRELIMINARY PLAT & , _LIMIIVARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page S of 11 captured by underground drain line systems connected to roof downspouts or by catch basins installed in roadways and driveways. Temporary erosion control measures are also recommended and these include: a thin layer of quarry spalls placed over excavated areas to protect the subgrade soils from disturbance by construction traffic; silt fences installed along the downhill sides of construction areas to prevent sediment from being transported onto adjacent properties or streets; and ditches or interceptor trench drains installed on the uphill sides of construction areas to intercept and drain away storm runoff and near -surface groundwater seepage. In order to mitigate for potential geotechnical impacts such as erosion, staff recommends a mitigation measure which requires compliance with the recommendations. contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012. Staff also recommends'that the applicant provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. Staff further recommends that weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. Because of moisture -sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Staff recommends that as a mitigation measure that the applicant adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012, for the duration of project construction. 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 4. Because of moisture -sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Therefore, the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Communi =conomic Development E nmento] Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRFLIMINARYPLAT &, ..-LIMINARY PUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 6 of 11 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Storm Water Impacts: A Technical Information Deport (dated May 5, 2009) was prepared by Baima and Holmberg Inc, for the previous Wilson Park I Plat. An addendum to this report was prepared by 4*K, g on February 28, 2012 to consider the current proposal. The May 2009 report includes an analysis of upstream tributary drainage which states that the parcel to the east drains onto the site, with no problems related to runoff. The Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis in the report states that runoff from the site flows west into lots in the adjacent Geneva Court development. The majority of these flows collect in a drain constructed along the back yards of the westernmost lots of the Geneva Court development and then flow into the storm system in South 53rd Place. This flow collects in a stormwater pond/bioswale facility located at the intersection of Talbot Road S and South 53rd Place approximately 750 -feet downstream from the site. This facility outfalls through an 18 -inch pipe to the west side of Talbot Road S into a poorly defined channel flowing into the woods. The flows then pass through a 12 -inch culvert under a walking path and continue to flow west to a wooded wetland area more than a quarter mile downstream from the site. Flows into the ditch along S 55th Street continue west in a rock lined channel along the north side of the street to the intersection of Talbot Road S and S 55th Street. The channel is eroded and shows signs of flowing into the street. Flows from the ditch along Talbot Road S collect in the storm system about 850 -feet downstream from the site eventually flowing into Springbrook Creek at about 1,800 -feet downstream from the site. The Creek continues flowing west to about one-half mile downstream of the site where it enters a box culvert crossing SR 167. The Technical Information Report indicates that there are no apparent drainage problems. The amended February 28, 2012 report evaluates the addition of the subject 10 -lot plat. The original stormwater system for Wilson Park I and located within the street that would serve both Wilson Park I and II was sized to accommodate Wilson Park I lots and the new streets including the access street located within Wilson Park 11. The addendum provides calculations intended to evaluate the sizing of the storm treatment facility for the two projects. The report notes that City of Renton's 2009 Drainage Manual requires Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new developments. One BMP's is to restrict impervious areas on future lots to help reduce runoff, mitigate for development, and minimize the treatment system needed for the project. This is known as a "Restrictive Covenant" provision and was utilized as part of a preliminary sizing of the future system for both Wilson Park I and 11. The applicant intends to utilize the Restrictive Covenant provision and limit impervious surface on each of the new lots in both Wilson Park I and 11 to 3,300 square feet per lot. By limiting the impervious area for homes, patios, driveways and walkways, the proposed stormwater vault will be of an appropriate size to accommodate both developments. The applicant has also intended to develop both plats at the same time. Comments received from surrounding property owners expressed concern as to whether the vault was sized appropriately to accommodate both projects. The applicant has stated that the vault is sized to the 2009 drainage manual and will provide the necessary volume and capacity for both projects. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation necessary. Nexus: Not applicable. FRC Report. doc City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development E nmentol Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRELIMINARY PLAT & r —LIMINARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 T Page 7 of 11 3. Water (Wetlands) Impacts: The applicant submitted a letter from Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC, dated March 11, 2011, that documents the wetland reconnaissance conducted on the subject property March 1, 2011. The primary focus of the reconnaissance was to verify the results of a wetland determination report prepared by Alder NW (dated October 19, 2004), which indicated the presence of a small less than 800 s.f.) hydrologically isolated wet area in the western portion of the site, immediately adjacent to a remnant foundation of an old loafing shed. The Alder NW report previously indicated that this small wetland area was unregulated as it was significantly disturbed. Altmann Oliver's reconnaissance concurred with the previous findings, describing the wetland as a small Category 3 wetland. Altmann also confirmed that the drainage course flowing from east to west through the southern portion of the site is from an outfall of a storm drain line that collects surface water runoff from South 192nd Street. Therefore, the drainage course is not considered to be stream and is not regulated by City of Renton. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: Not applicable. 4. Vegetation Impacts: The applicant submitted a Tree Inventory and Retention Plan and a Tree Retention with the project application. There are 82 total trees on the project site, of which 21 would be removed for construction of the roadway, and 3 trees are within the protected slope area. There are 21 trees within the R-1 zoned area of the site, and 37 trees within the R-14 zoned area. City Code requires that 30% of the trees in the R-1 (or 6.3 trees) and 10% of the trees in the R-14 (3.7 trees) be retained. The applicant is proposing to retain 10 trees and plant street trees and provide enhanced landscaping in the open space tract. The portion of the site zoned R-1 is within the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay. The purpose of the Urban Separator Overlay includes providing a continuous open space and wildlife corridor. The applicant proposes to retain trees within the critical area and buffer, to plant two trees per each new lot, and to enhance Tract A with native and ornamental trees, shrubs and groundcover. The enhancement area will be located proximate to the comparable area within Wilson Park I to provide for the continuous open space corridor. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation necessary. Nexus: Not Applicable. 5. Parks and Recreation Impacts; It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents who would use City park and recreation facilities and programs. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot to be payable prior to recording the final plat. The fee is estimated at $5,307.60 (10 new lots x $530.76 5,307.60). Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. ERC Report. doc City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development F )nmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRELIMINARYPLA T"& LIMINARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 8 of 11 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance No. 4527 4. Transportation Impacts; Access to the site would be from S 55th Street via a 50 -foot wide right-of-way that was identified on an access easement through the subject site for the Wilson Park 1 Plat. The roadway would be constructed to serve both plats (Wilson Park 1 and II) and would be dedicated as a public right-of-way. The roadway will have two 13 -foot wide travel lanes, 8 -foot planter strips on each side, and 5 -foot wide sidewalks. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by TraffEx (Northwest Traffic Experts, dated June 23, 2009 and supplemented January 25, 2012). The report indicates that the proposal would utilize the same access to South 55th Street s the approved Wilson Park I Plat. The site access street intersects South 55th Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The report also indicates that the horizon year for the study is considered to be 2014, as that is the year construction of both plats is anticipated. The study indicated the increase in traffic with the proposal and determined that the traffic would operate at acceptable levels at the intersection of South 55th Street and the new street within the plat. The Level -of -Service (LOS) with the project was determined to be LOS B for future 2014 conditions. Previously, the site distance on South 55th was evaluated as part of Wilson Park I. It was determined then that the City of Renton intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions would be met. Comments received from surrounding property owners concern the ability of school buses to safely serve the plat. The applicant has observed that presently the Renton School District buses travel east on South 55th in the morning, stopping in South 55th to pick-up students. The buses then travel west in the afternoon, stopping in South 55th to drop-off students. It is anticipated that this practice would continue with the project, and that children would wait together for pick-up. While this is not necessarily a concern for SEPA environmental review; staff will study the issue further and make recommendations to the Hearing Examiner during the Plat and Planned Urban Development Hearing. The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips to the City's street system. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $75.00 per additional average daily vehicle trip. Each new residence is expected to generate 9.57 trips; credit is given for the existing residence on the subject property. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated to be $7,177.50 (10 new lots x 9.57 trips x $75.00 = $7,177.50) and would be payable prior to recording the final plat. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100, Ordinance 4527 ERC Report.doc City of Renton Deportment of Communi =conomie Development E 7mentol Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRELIMINARYPLAT & ...__1MINARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 9 of 11 5. Fire & Police Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the condition that the applicant provides the required improvements and fees. As the proposal could potentially add 10 new residences, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee in the amount of $488.00 per each new single family lot. The total fee is estimated to be $4,880.00 (10 new lots X $488.00 4,880.00). Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. Nexus: <add Nexus info here> 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." 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, May 25, 2012. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY (VOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7,00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT & I MINARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety 90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 6. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING — Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. Fire Prevention: 1. The Fire Mitigation Fees are applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to the recording of the plat. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feeet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5 -inch storz fittings. 3. Fire Department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within150-feet of all points on the buildings. Maximum grade of 15% is allowed. Dead end streets that exceed 150 -feet in length require an approved turnaround. Plan Review: Water 1. Water service will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City with the site plan application. Plan Review: Sanitary Sewer 1. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadway is required. Sewer stubs are required to be provided to each lot. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic waters to serve the new homes on the new lots. Sewer fee for a 3/- inch water meter is $1,591.00. Sewer ERC Report.doc Page 10 of 11 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development WILSON PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT & LIMINARY PUD Report of May 7, 2012 Environmental review Committee Report LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF_ Page 11 of 11 fee for a 1 -inch water meter is $3,977.00. An"approved" water plan from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District will be required to be submitted to the City. Property Services: 1. See attached memo for comments from Property Services. ERC Report.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D City of aANDECONOMICDEVELOPMENT tn ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATED (DNS -M) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 698S55 th Street 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 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 25, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.13. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: May 11, 2012 DATE OF DECISION- May 7, 2012 SIGNATURES; G-regg-Zimmer, nIministrator-- - - - - Mark Pet rsona Admi strator Public Works D partment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date Terry Higashiyama, Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Interim Community Services Department Date Administrator/Planning Director Date Department of Community & Economic Development EXHIBIT 5 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI1 1 City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT] DETERMINATION OF NDN -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 698S55 th Street The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012, for the duration of project construction. 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 4. Because of moisture -sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October.3l.unles5.otherwise_approved _. by the Development Services Division. Therefore, the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. 5. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. EXHIBIT 6 ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUi...: City of A„ . AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ;r DETERMINATION OF NDN -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-013, EGF, PP, PPUD APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 698 S 55”' Street LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.0.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock 9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m, No work shall be permitted on Sundays, 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety(90) days. Alternafive measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 2 6. The applicant shall erect and ,ntain six foot (6') high chain link tem iry construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING — Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. Fire Prevention: 1. The Fire Mitigation Fees are applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to the recording of the plat. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feeet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5 -inch storz fittings. 3. Fire Department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within150- feet of all points on the buildings. Maximum grade of 151 is allowed. Dead end streets that exceed 150 -feet in length require an approved turnaround. Plan Review: Water Water service will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City with the site plan application. Plan Review: Sanitary Sewer 1. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadway is required. Sewer stubs are required to be provided to each lot. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic waters to serve the new homes on the new lots. Sewer fee for a %- inch water meter is $1,591.00. Sewer fee for a 1 -inch water meter is $3,977.00. An"approved" water plan from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District will be required to be submitted to the City. Property Services: 1. See attached memo for comments from Property Services. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2 1. Gross area of property: 1. square feet 2- Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets" Private access easements** Critical Areas* Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from lime I for net area 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage 5- Number of dwelling units or lots planned 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: Wq " square feet square feet square feet 2. square feet 3. square feet 4. acres 5. unitsllots 7] 6. = dwelling units/acre Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deductedlexcluded. Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. http:IlrentDntiVU.gavluploadedFilesIBusinessfPBPWIDEVSCRViFORMS_PLANNING/density.doc - l - 03108 EXHIBIT 7 DENSITY ia, WORKSHEET City of Renton Planning Division' 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. square feet 2- Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets" Private access easements** Critical Areas* Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from lime I for net area 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage 5- Number of dwelling units or lots planned 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: Wq " square feet square feet square feet 2. square feet 3. square feet 4. acres 5. unitsllots 7] 6. = dwelling units/acre Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deductedlexcluded. Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. http:IlrentDntiVU.gavluploadedFilesIBusinessfPBPWIDEVSCRViFORMS_PLANNING/density.doc - l - 03108 EXHIBIT 7 City. of f- Department of Community and Economic Development Planning Division ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4-9-150.3.b Planned Urban Development Regulations REFERENCE: Determination regarding calculation of residential density for projects with multiple zoning classifications when proposed as part of a Planned Urban Development. SUBJECT: Wilson Park 2 Planned Urban Development and Preliminary Plat (LUA12- 013, PP, PPUD) BACKGROUND: The City is evaluating an application for the second phase of a proposed plat and Planned Urban Development on a site that is zoned both R-14 and R-1. The site includes a portion of the Talbot Urban Separator, an overlay intended to protect resources and environmentally sensitive areas, to create contiguous open space corridors within and between urban communities, which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. Individual properties within the Urban Separator often have multiple zoning classifications, where zoning boundaries do not necessarily coincide with property lines as is usually the case with zoning. Rather, the zoning district boundaries are based on the City's understanding of the location of environmentally critical areas on the site, at the time the zoning was assigned to the site. In the Talbot Urban Separator area, properties have multiple zoning classifications: R-1, R-8, and R-14. The R-1 zone allows for density to be determined density based on gross site area. All other residential zoning classifications require that density be determined based on net density where critical areas, access easements and dedicated roadways are deducted. Applying density based on zoning boundary lines for a property with multiple zones, could result in a project that does not recognize the developable area of the site, and concentrates density inappropriately, or restricts density inappropriately on the site. Applicants have the ability to pursue a Planned Urban Development in order to depart from certain development standards such as lot size; however the PUD does not allow the number of dwelling units to exceed the density allowances of the base zone. The proposed determination would not result in density of the base or overlay zone to be exceeded. H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\Administrative Policy Code Interpretation\0-30\Code Interpretation -do( EXHIBIT 8 Rather, it would clarify that the density can be averaged across the site, provided this is accomplished as part of a PUD. JUSTIFICATION: Sites with multiple zoning designations should be allowed to average the density across the site, through the Planned Unit Development process. Maximum density could not be exceeded. This determination is to clarify process. DECISION: Properties with more than one zoning classification will be allowed to average residential density across the site provided this is accomplished through the Planned Urban Development process. INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR/ PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVAL: C. E. "Chip" Vincent DATE: May 30, 2012 APPEAL PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a written appeal --accompanied by the required filing fee --must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process. CODE AMENDMENTS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT DETERMINATIONS: RMC 4-9-150.3.b should be amended to read as shown on Attachment A. CI -30 Page 2 of 2 Attachment A 4-9-150 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: 3. Code Provisions Restricted from Modification: a. Permitted Uses: A planned urban development may not authorize uses that are inconsistent with those uses allowed by the underlying zone, or overlay district, or other location restriction in RMC Title 4, including, but not limited to: RMC 4-2-010 to 4-2-080;4-3-010 to 4-3-040, 4-3-090, 4-3-095, and 4-4-010. b. Density/Permitted Number of Dwelling Units: The number of dwellings units shall not exceed the density allowances of the applicable base or overlay`zone or bonus aria in chapter 44=2 or 449 RMC; however, averaging of density across a'sife with multiple zoning classifications may be proposed: - c. Planned Urban Development Regulations: The City may -not modify any of the provisions of this Section, Planned Urban Developriten. t-RegE lations; d. Procedures: The City may not mod°fy sny of-1-hik*ocedural 'provisions of RMC Title 4, including, but not limited to, fees, submittal requirements, and btherstmilar provisions found in chapters 44=1, 4=7, 4-8 and 4 9 RMC, and ' ., a e_ Specific Limitations The City_.ynay not modify any provision of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulatioft, 4,3-090, Shoreluidii, Ma. s,Program Regulations, 4-4-130, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing, 4 4 ;:Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations, chapter 44=5 RMC, or RMC 4-6-010 fo 4-6-050 and 44-610 fihrougli." i 110 related to utilities and concurrency, except that provisions may be altered for these:eodes byalfernates, modification, conditional use, or variance as specificaNyallowed in the `referenced Chapter or Section. Such alternates, modification, conditional use, or variance applications may be merged with the consideration of a planned urban development peT C 4-9-150-L (Ord. 4351, 5-41992; Amd. Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) aw u7 w Z C7CV a_ 2ua 0H M Z 0 U LU0 LL0 LU w wiF O Z a a 9'd9dd0'tl m S2O3lr ONO IMO h n ryID mY_hNNN i=- aNaN ww w 60 444 4 C(r Pi Piukuc4i c4i b''ii It --------- w — - - m• . wrywryR n I JOLLWII 21181 NOSIIM 1213908 1 a t Z#)NVd NOSTAA R Q Na _ 0- 4 m - iF Z 1n _`meg ED J Lo h \ t} = X14 ti a r_ Y - ' TREES -IQ-BF- FOR R/v IMPRVq EHEN------------ - TYPICAL) - _\ i o Lnz EXHIBIT 9 ytic/ yrp ig No sv3tl 'ON WDM o N3a niosr x — awolno if mvd rvosuM 0 A113 LUclo" P, City a,Renton TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter' on project site: 1. ??- trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerousz -r' trees Trees in proposed public streets _7A trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers trees Total number of excluded trees: 2. Z trees 3. Subtract line 2 from line 'i: 3. j -V trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained¢, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8 9,-1 Z t " ?f D - -22 0.1 in all other residential zones 9.14 !err VVW J 0 , I z 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 1 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing to retain: 5. 10 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. 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. C/ inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. LZ inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6: if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 9. trees 1 Measured at chest height 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, s_ Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. s. The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMG 44-130117a 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 replae----- http://rcntonwa.gov/uplaadedFilesBusinessfPHPWIDEVS£RVIFORMS_PLANNiNGrrr=Ret EXHIBIT 10 NOlSRVIHSW 'NOIN2W Y ` so3a ossb JZegQ une 6 N'dld cd ld'1 — .? l! P i ie n•a •.n.wa a i gE 411 Im 1 I r I! rr E r H+ i0'88Z 3„gfi,8S.00N EXHIBIT 11 WILSON PARK PLAT "(°tRento, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS nrrr9 Division CITY OF RENTON 200,c ftce#veo Prepared for Mr. Robert Wilson 21703601h St. E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Prepared by IV OR THWES T TPAFFlc EXPERTS 11410 NE 124"! St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 June 23, 2009 TIS o ' e 5 e,-6 tA d p avl C V EXHIBIT 12,; rraffZ&( iYDRTh FT TRAFFIC EXPERTS 1141011' 1eyth SI., #590 KirWa.gd, VA 95034 Phom. 425.522.41 18 Fax 425.522.4811 June 23, 2009 Mr. Robert Wilson 21703 60" St_ E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Re: Wilson Park Short Plat - City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Wilson: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 14 lot Wilson Park Residential short plat located at the 720 S. 55"' St. in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan, the Ci of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, and conversations with City Renton staff. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page seven of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 9 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 is a close in area map showing the site location and surrounding street network. Figure 3 shows the preliminary site plan. The primary access street runs from the southwest corner of the site to S 55th St. through a 50 ft. wide easement on the parcel adjacent to the south side of the site. The primary access from S. 55"' St. to the site is 28 ft. wide with a sidewalk on the west side of the street. A secondary gated emergency vehicle access connects to S 551' St. though a 30 ft. easement. Streets within the site will be 32 ft. wide with a sidewalk on one side. The primary site access street is located on the outside of a horizontal curve on S 55t" St. to optimize sight distance in both east and west directions for vehicles exiting the site. Page i Wilson Park ?raffmy Development of the Wilson Park plat is expected to occur by the year 2011. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2011 is used as the horizon year for this study. An existing single family home within the project site will be removed with this development. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 14 single-family units in the proposed Wilson Park Plat are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips TotalTripsperunitEnteringExiting 67 157 Average Weekday 9.57 134 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 8 1125% 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 5 14639370 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 4 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site -generated traffic volumes_ The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. Page 2 Tra EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities Figure 5 shows existing traffic control, number of street lanes and other pertinent information. The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Pian as follows: Talbot Rd. S Collector Arterial S 55th St. Local Access 98th Ave S Local access 98th Pi. S Local access 102nd Ave S Local access S 55th St. consists of two 11 ft. lanes and a shoulder that varies in width from approximately two to four feet in the vicinity of the project site. A section of S 55th St. east of the project site consists of several sharp curves and is posted with a 15 mph advisory speed sign and with chevron arrows at each curve within the section. There is a left turn pocket on S 55th St. at 98th Ave. S, approximately 125 ft. west of the Wilson Park site access street. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 6 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the proposed site access street/S 55t' St. intersection. The proposal generates less than 30 PM peak Dour trips and no other intersection or street segment in the City of Renton will experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes due to this development. Therefore, only the site access street/S 55ffi St. intersection requires a level of service (LOS) analysis per the Ci of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on Tuesday, .lune 16, 2509 and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Page 3 Wilson Park Tra Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS) for future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual 2000. The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows; TYPE OF INTERSECTION A B C D E F Signalized 9 0. X10.0 and X20.0 and 35.0 and 55.0 and 80. 0 20.0 35.0 55.0 80.0 0 Stop Sign Control 1 0 . 10 and <15 15 and 525 f 25 and <35 35 and X50 50 Accident History Historical accident data for the section of S. 55"' St. between the intersections 98t" Ave. S and 99t" PI S was obtained from the City of Renton. A total of 4 accidents occurred from January 1, 2004 through December 31st 2008. Three accidents occurred on the street section between the intersections, one accident occurred at 99"' PI S and no accidents occurred at 98tf' Ave. South. Two of the accidents were injury type accidents with one being a fatality, The fatality was a single vehicle travelling in the westbound direction approximately 319 ft west of 99"' Pl. South. None of the accidents occurred at the curve on S. 55"' St. where the site access street is proposed to be located. Based on the field review and historical accident data there are no readily apparent safety issues that should result from the proposed development. The historical accident data is included in the technical appendix. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 6 shows projected 2011 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project_ These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period from the 2009 traffic count to the 2011 horizon year of the Page 4 Wilson Park rraffmy proposal. Cit of Renton historical traffic count data supports the 3% per year growth rate on S. 55 Street. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 6 shows the projected future 2011 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site -generated PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 4 were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the Wilson Park site access street/S. 55th St. intersection. The study intersection operates at an excellent LOS A for future 2011 conditions including project -generated traffic. SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION Sight distance on S 55th St. is excellent looking to the west from the proposed site access street and extends approximately 785 ft. to Talbot Rd. South. Sight distance to the east is limited by a horizontal curve on S 55u' Street. This curve has a posted advisory speed of 15 mph. In evaluating sight distance, the generally accepted rule is to add 5 mph to the posted speed to determine the design speed of the street. Sight distance requirements looking to the east from the Wilson Park site access street are therefore based on a 20 mph design speed for the horizontal curve on S 55th Street. Intersection sight distances and stopping sight distances were measured and compared to City requirements at the Wilson Park site access street/ S 55th St. intersection. City of Renton is requirements are based on current AASHTO "Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" standards. Intersection Sight Distance AASHTO standards for a 20 mph design speed require an intersection sight distance of 145 ft. looking to the left (east) from the site access street (using an eye height of 3.5 ft. and a vehicle height of 4.25 ft.). Attached in the technical appendix are Exhibits 9-55 and 9.58 showing the current AASHTO standards for intersection sight distance. A right tuming vehicle exiting from the side street is required to enter the westbound lane and accelerate to 85% of the design speed so as not to interfere with the traffic flow. The field measured intersection sight distance looking to left (east) from the site access street is 215 ft. thus exceeding the AASHTO required 145 feet. Intersection sight distance looking to the right from the site access street is excellent and extends all the way to Talbot Rd. S at approximately 785 ft. Page 5 Wilson Park lrrafmf Stopping Sight Distance Stopping sight distance is the distance traveled while the vehicle driver perceives a situation requiring a stop, realizes that stopping is necessary, applies the brake, and comes to a stop. A stopping sight distance of 115 ft. is required for a 20 mph design speed (using an eye height of 3.5 ft. and an object height of 2 ft.). Attached in the technical appendix is Exhibit 3-1 showing the current AASHTO standards for stopping sight distance. There is an approximate 10% downgrade in the westbound direction on S 55h Street_ The required stopping sight distance is therefore increased an additional 40 ft. to account for a 10% downgrade with a 20 mph design speed. The required westbound stopping sight distance therefore is 115 + 40 = 155 feet. The field measured westbound stopping sight distance is 197 ft. thus exceeding the required 155 feet. Stopping sight distance for eastbound vehicles on S. 55th St. is excellent and extends from Talbot Rd. S. approximately 785 feet to the site access street. The City of Renton AASHTO based intersection and stopping sight distance requirements are met at the Wilson Park site access street/ S 55th St. intersection in both the east and west directions. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family home on site will be removed. with this development resulting in a net increase of 13 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 124 trips (13units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $9,300 (124 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). Page 6 M1 rk SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Wilson Park Plat be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for site access street and intemal site streets as shown on the site pian. Contribute the approximately $9,300 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us Via e-mail at vinoe nwtraffex_eom or IarNCab_nwtrafFex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 7 C AL. j-1 ate. 3-a Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WILSON PARK PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION EXISTING 2009I VW THOTUT PROJECT Site Access St/S 55h St. I NA I NA I SB (A 9.9) Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual 2000 XX) LOS and average control delay for the worst approach or movement at an unsignalized intersection SB) southbound approach Page 8 S1 t9i I I L rraffe-Z vZ7jqrHWE*S7- TRA FFIC EXF"ERT.5 C. a -.. .. .+_ x_11i= ST PL it LO PIL k LJ fop M-11 Pra*et Sfite__ _ , Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Vicinity Map Figure 1 f T 1 II 1 {e /VOLT NW—S7- 1 , i Y•xY ^ r . .r if7A FF1G EXPE"f2TS• a. 557 i:T• : " qtr---5 i83Tr..T'^" f., ri Y=f' Nwtl Of mn s • _. - + T i NOV 17 6Gr W, If Ar . Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Area Map Figure Z s 4 y 1 Ar . Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Area Map Figure Z 9I ixay 5,'6" ?£cam. t :wF III ii7i `"All-n I 1 1 ! f KY LIIp M1 s01CIQ,W [is J.SS• Al 9Is S Ait4 NOT Maw 71 I: ! Ir 1 j --- -} r- v 11164---1 k t2 M1 yf•tsl Z_ as _l " rl - - Y _ J 4. a _ _ L _:" J I '' ^. 9 , :• i I i ,ry a -ax is;#/ i - - a ! ]ra]os=nl3 >: 4: !' \\ I _ r I1r51' fin -o° -- - - - - - - ,> or'. ' - , 5 I a(55' t : ar., I. IJ t 1• a(F ur toKF 4•]R l lYH S} p ' i C . r- _ _ _ _ _ _ ` Lin ' r - drySAva6. lA I «SI IrII r 3 I' 1063 rlL S Iae..Y N7', S u}' I Y U lR ftf :1 p a I 14Nrtrf 9F 1 re]-ef 1 X • r+.mar* ' / tarl[T tette m xaeaerftauau I r I o' 1 L ' ., _ uxzsc 1aRt]!}_WS-9119 ws x : fit f if II I ' -j I 1 ,` r%'F '' r wAm" Sa f am -QS o i I `Y. F.T;f 1 . 12W I y I ] Yr a SIB Ajoy 11 316 +3 lFdJ a2 ~ T a IBJ mar .b"E onfew COM" mmulwar am m rur rnr s elnr-ul ` I. ,, If ' E77 aFC nu'E7ffa+Kareu9 \ Li Wfi (177f aY L91rLl MM 0 1n tom o SE S Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Figure Site Plan 1 3 i 65% t 79% 3 yT S;STy ;T 4 t 14% T S 14 f,1 ST 7.s `k- 2 0-0- 0 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Enter 9 Exit 5 Total 14 Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution rra`. 7'f2AFFIG EXPERTS sz 19C{ f V SE t97-1 ST 7% 14% 3 S-.- i92,e1- ST 4 Legend 15% Percentage of Project Traffic 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure 4 Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Figure Existing Conditions - 5 Legend 2 Lanes Number of travel lanes 25 mph Speed Limit Stop Sign Control r-- NpR r,YwE3T TRAFFIC' EXPERTS n a'r 197T.i 5T d SE TWDO ST S Spar_ S V S 6 E C J 3r3 N N l!7 N 2 Lanes 2 Lanes 2 Cartes 4 sr s ssT., s -r 15 mph T 25 mph 25 mph ECL EJ lf N N N co a T F Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Figure Existing Conditions - 5 Legend 2 Lanes Number of travel lanes 25 mph Speed Limit Stop Sign Control Advisory Speed Sign Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Figure Existing Conditions - 5 I ta"na ST s SSTH sT S?T•. "sl i Future Future Without With Existing Project Project CD 0 p - 0J ti d 466-0`121 e Accessi S 55th St CD C) 6 JJ 1%- 4 494-0-128 I Site Access! S 55th S! JVORrt>'WEST TATA FFlC EXPEP TS l93T•i ! T r 7 2 494-0`128 e Access! S 55th S t SZ: 1907• i —r S; t'V-e2 ;r Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Volumes for Existing and Future Conditions 6 Preps C. Nr' Tex Traf -c Count Consultants, Inc. Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX: (425) 861.8877 F -Mail: TMincigaol.com WBEfDBE Intersection: 9Bth Ave S @ S 55th St Date of Count: Tues 6116!09 Location: Renton Checked By: LBP T me From North on (SB) From South on (NI3) From Easton (WB) From West on (EB) Interval Interval 98th Ave S 96th Ave S S 5th St S 5th St Total Ending at T L S R T L S R T L S R T L I5 R 4:15 P 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 29 0 0 0 66 1 1 122 4:30 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 24 0 1 0 771 103 4745 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 32 0 0 0 109 0 144 5:00 P 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 0 0 124 1 160 5:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 116 3 138 5:30 P 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 36 0 0 0 112 0 151 5:45 P 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 23 0 0 0 106 1 135 6:00 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 60 1 110 6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SM IF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00P Otto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Survey0 0 0 0 0 2 0 01. 0 0 4 D 5 1 6 224 1 0FToTsir, HV r0a rda B 1063 0.0% Peak Hour. 4:30 PM to 5.30 PM Total0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 2 119 0 0 463 1 4 593 Iproach 0 5 121 467 593 HV r0a rda Ma NO 0.0% PHF nia 0.63 0.82 0.93 0.93 K •tram: INT 91 INT 02 INT D3 INT D4 INT 05 INT 06 INT 07 INT 08 INT 09 NT i0 MT 11 INT 12 S 5th St 121 I Peds 0 Bike! J . ssa a67 N S E w No Peds 01 0 01 0 i a_: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM 4 ......... Ped' +_ 4 _ [ 0 Bikef _p __1 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98th Ave S 0 Bleyciss From: N S E 0 INT 01 0 fNT 02 0 INT 03 0 INT D4 0 INT 05 0 INT 06 INT 07 INT 06 2 0 Special Notes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 s 5th St 119 121 2 1 587 I 0 IBike Ped 3 fi4D 1.0 PHFPeuk Hour Volume PHF %HV EB 093 nla Check WB 0.82 n/a In. 593 NB 0.63 nla Got: 593 SB n1s nla Intersection 0.93 0.0% 0 Special Notes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 f b '1;r10 J9 L3-55 PAX 424 3:10 7376 W t- 0 fl RENTON TRANS- SYS T 0 a f; m u i.J rV S c J n L:. 4V v u r 0 a f; m u i.J rV S c L 0 a f; C-1 C o CJ r v v f, U3 rr 4 7 L' w CW C C'- i e v 3 1 G Z. 0 a f; Imz2onB „:5§ F. Jn ;376 RE\ TRANS. Sys. T s u ^ r * ml j Q § p e V3 Q S a c 9 j E d $ b a r 3 4 k m 0o; TWO WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY jeneral information ite Informati, Analyst Intersection Agency/Co. urisdiction Renton Date Performed 6119/2009 Analysis Year 2011 Future with Project Analysis Time Period M eak 1ro'ect Description astlWest Street: S 55th St North/South Street: Site Access St ct' n Orientation• East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25terse10 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 B L T R L T R Volume 7 494 0 0 128 2 eak-Hour Factor, PHF iourly Flow Rate, HFR 0.93 1 7 0.93 531 0.93 0 0.93 0 0.93 137 0.93 2 ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Vledian Type Undivided ZT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LT TR J stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 L 8 T 9 R. 10 L 11 T 12 R Joiume 0 0 0 1 0 4 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 iourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 Dercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dercent Grade (%) 0 0 cared Approach N N Storage 1 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfiguration LR 3ela , Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration LT LR vph) 7 5 m) (vph) 1457 738 0.00 0.01 15% queue length 0.01 0.02 ontrol Delay 7.5 0.9 OS A A 4pproach Delay 9.9 4pproach LOS A rcS2000'1im Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 AASHTD--Geometric Dej!A ighways and Streets Time gap (a) at design spud of Desi n vehicle ma r read Passenger car 6.5 Single -unit truck 8.5 Commination truck 1015 Note: Time gaps are for a stopped vehicle- to turn right onto or cross a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. The table values require adjustment as follows: For multilane highways: For crossing a major road with more than two lanes, anti 0.5 seconds for passenger cars and 0.7 seconds for trucks for each additional lane to be crossed and for narrow medians that cannot store the design vehicle. For minor road approach grades: If the approach grade is an upgrade that exceeds 3 percent, add 0.1 seconds for each percent grade. ExWbit 9-57. Time Gap for Case B2, -Right Turn from Stop and Case B3 -,-Crossing Maneuver Note: iratarsection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to tum right onto or crass a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less.' For other conditions, the time gap must be adjusted and required sight distance recalouiatsd. ambit 9-58. Design Intersection Sight once ---Case gam --Right Turn from Stop and Case W-Ccossing Maneuver M Metric- lus Custal1l) Y Intersection sight Intersection sight Stopp€ng distance for Stopping distance for Design sight_ passenger cars Design sight Essen er cars speed distance Calculated Design speed distance Calculated Design tmlh m rn rn h it ft t 20 20 36.1 40 15 80 143.3 145 30 35 54.2 55 20 115 191.1 195 40 5o 72.3 7S 25 15.5 _ 236,9 240 50 65 90.4 95 30:. .. 204 286.7 290 60 85 1 fi8.4 110 250 334.4 335 70 105 126.5 130 35 40 . 305 362.2- 385 80 130 144.6 145 45 360 430.0 434 S0 160 162.6 165 50 4:25 477.8 480 100 185 180.7 185 55 495 525.5 530 110 220 198.8 200 60 570... 573.3 575 120- 259 216.6 220 65 645 621.1 625 130 285 234.9 2- 5 70 730 668.9 670 75 820' 716.6 720 80.. 910 764.4 765. Note: iratarsection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to tum right onto or crass a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less.' For other conditions, the time gap must be adjusted and required sight distance recalouiatsd. ambit 9-58. Design Intersection Sight once ---Case gam --Right Turn from Stop and Case W-Ccossing Maneuver M Irttersecrfons Note. Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to tram left onto a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. For other conditions, the time gap rntW be adjusted and required sight distance recalculated. Exhibit 9-55. Design Intersection Sight Dist nce-_4 me BI—Left Tura From Stop Sight distance design for left turns. at divided -highway intersections ghould consider multiple design vdhicles and median width. If the design vehicle used to determine sight distance for a divided -highway intersection is larger than a passenger car, then sight distance for left turns will need to be checked for that selected design vehicle and for smaller design vehicles as well. If the divided -highway median is wide enough to stare the design vehicle with a clew%nce to the through lanes of approximately I m (3 ft] at both ends of the vehicle, no separate analysis for the departure sight triangle for Ieft turns is needed on the minor -road approach'for the near roadway to the left. In most cases, the depart= -sight triangle for right turns (Case 132) will provide sufficient sight distance for a passenger car to cross the .near roadway to reach the median. Possible exceptions are addressed in the discussion of Case B3. If the design vehicle can be std in the median with adequate clearance to the through lanes, a departure sight triangle to the right for. left turns should be provided for that design vehicle taming left from the median roadway. Where the, ax:dian is not wide enough to store the design vehicle, a departure sight triangle should be.proyided for that design vehicle to turn left from the minor -mad approach. The median width should be considered in determining the number of lanes to be crossed. The median width should be converted to equivalent lanes. For example, a 7-2-m 124 -ft] median should be considered as two additional lanes to be crossed in applying the multilane highway adjustment for time gaps in Exhibit 9-54. Furthermore, a departure sight triangle for left turns from the mtr dian roadway should be provided for the largest design vehicle that can be stared on r1 Metric US custalna fntersectiorn sight Intersedlon sight Stopping distance for . Stopping distance for Design sight ssen er cars Design sight p2astNer cars speed distance Calculated Design speed distance Calculated Design krnlh to m m Meh) ft ft ft 20 20 41.7 45 15 80 185.4 170 30 35 62.6 65 20 115 2211.5 225 40 50 85,4 8s 25 155 275.6 50 65 104.3 105 30 200 330.6 335 84 85 12511 130 35 250 385.9 390 70 105 146.0 150 40 305 441.0 445 80 130 166.8 170 45 360 496.1 5D0 90 160 187.7 190 50 425 551.3 555 100 185 208.5 210 55 495 606.4 610 110 220 229.4 230 60 570 661.5 665 120 250 250.2 255 65 M 716.6 720 130 28,5 271.1 275 70 730 771.8 775 75 820 826.9 830 80 910 882.0 885 Note. Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to tram left onto a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. For other conditions, the time gap rntW be adjusted and required sight distance recalculated. Exhibit 9-55. Design Intersection Sight Dist nce-_4 me BI—Left Tura From Stop Sight distance design for left turns. at divided -highway intersections ghould consider multiple design vdhicles and median width. If the design vehicle used to determine sight distance for a divided -highway intersection is larger than a passenger car, then sight distance for left turns will need to be checked for that selected design vehicle and for smaller design vehicles as well. If the divided -highway median is wide enough to stare the design vehicle with a clew%nce to the through lanes of approximately I m (3 ft] at both ends of the vehicle, no separate analysis for the departure sight triangle for Ieft turns is needed on the minor -road approach'for the near roadway to the left. In most cases, the depart= -sight triangle for right turns (Case 132) will provide sufficient sight distance for a passenger car to cross the .near roadway to reach the median. Possible exceptions are addressed in the discussion of Case B3. If the design vehicle can be std in the median with adequate clearance to the through lanes, a departure sight triangle to the right for. left turns should be provided for that design vehicle taming left from the median roadway. Where the, ax:dian is not wide enough to store the design vehicle, a departure sight triangle should be.proyided for that design vehicle to turn left from the minor -mad approach. The median width should be considered in determining the number of lanes to be crossed. The median width should be converted to equivalent lanes. For example, a 7-2-m 124 -ft] median should be considered as two additional lanes to be crossed in applying the multilane highway adjustment for time gaps in Exhibit 9-54. Furthermore, a departure sight triangle for left turns from the mtr dian roadway should be provided for the largest design vehicle that can be stared on r1 AASHTO--Gcvmctric Desig .ighways and Streets v c th h 0 IOU) d t3 8 g m wsua o o o cvt irri c rth ay m L E t o v r cv co a av v *v tow cq ea ECIDa?gaerepcnttCeh+[fnc aiC mCx -0 o cv0wca.-i ivmvvt c a.- N cv c*a v to as cq cn M r- O U rU'>M ' 00 'gr C3 cm– lii L7tD 7f gs i lvt4caC{Q( Cd? j fi v C11NLitRcpq yt' O 0Ctoa0Q nInoIrlQltiQ p a cc fn coWN Nc 1TiO © j Y cd tOrC*1 F s7opvoC Nu70?t- r- r- N N 04 F tp m etT`t*tvvmtiapcVepiC, W CO .- to m ai v Cd tri CiV) e< +- .- cv v un P- 0) M tD rn W03770r -r V RF sic ° u o m cc <0r- t (D n Lo Lo Nk"t o +- t jCT4- v3v4 cdc0-N. 0) QTS ala t va)N u? [O t ts] O cvmJE 112 WILSON PARK DIVISION 2 PLAT SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Robert Wilson 21703 60t" St. E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Prepared by r0qffEX 7-14.4 FFl c EXPERT -s 11410 NE 124" St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 January 25, 2012 city Of r-'ento-, DVi5,C11 h,. 2 qp+wV7 Fay Com - EXHIBIT 12 6 rraff,my January25, 2012 Mr. Robert Wilson 21703 60th St. E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Re: Wilson Park Division 2 Plat - City of Renton Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Wilson: NCRTHWEST TRAFF/C eXPERTS 11410 NE 124th St. #590 KWr 1, 0 98034 Phone. 425.522,4118 Fax: 425,522.4311 We are pleased to present this supplemental traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed 10 lot Wilson Park Division 2 Plat located on the north side of S.55 1h St. in the City of Renton. This TIA supplements the information and analysis presented in the original Wilson Park Plat TIA, dated June 23, 2009, prepared by Traffex. The Wilson Park Division 2 site is adjacent to the southwest corner of the approved Wilson Park Plat. The proposed project site contains the access road to S. 55 h St. for Wilson Park Plat. The 10 lots of the proposed Wilson Park Division 2 will have direct driveway connections to the access road connecting the Wilson Park to S. 55th Street. The access road and the location of its intersection to S. 55th St remains the same as when approved for the original Wilson Park Plat. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan, the Cityof Renton Policy_ Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New _Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 shows the Wilson Park Division 2 site plan. The site lies between the southwest corner of the Wilson Park plat and S. 55th Street. The proposed project utilizes the same access to S. 55th St. as the approved 12 lot Wilson Park plat. The site access street intersects S. 55th St. on the outside of a horizontal curve on S. 55th St. to optimize sight distance in both east and west directions for vehicles entering and exiting the site. Page 1 Wilson Park Trafff wC Development of the Wilson Park Division 2 plat is expected to occur by the year 2014. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2014 is used as the horizon year for this study. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 10 single-family units in the proposed Wilson Park Division 2 Plat are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown. below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Total Trips per unit Entering Exiting 48 Average Weekday 9.57 96 500 % 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 2% 68 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 410 63% 37% A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Eighth Edition, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 2 shows the site generated traffic volumes and distribution at the study intersection. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: Talbot Rd. S S55 1h St. Page 2 Collector Arterial Local Access Wilson Park rraffmy 98th Ave S Local access 98th PI. S Local access 102nd Ave S Local access S 551h St. consists of two 11 ft. lanes and a shoulder that varies in width from approximately two to four feet in the vicinity of the project site. A section of S 55th St, east of the project site consists of several sharp curves and is posted with a 15 mph advisory speed sign and with chevron arrows at each curve within the section. There is a left tum pocket on S 55th St. at 981h Ave. S, approximately 125 ft. west of the Wilson Park site access street. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 2 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the proposed site access street/S 55th St. intersection. The proposal generates less than 30 PM peak hour trips and no other intersection or street segment in the City of Renton will experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes due to this development. Therefore, only the site access street/S 55th St. intersection requires a level of service (LOS) analysis per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, A PM peak hour traffic count taken for the Wilson Park Plat TIA was used for this supplemental analysis since traffic growth in the area has been generally flat over the past several years. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS) for future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual 2000. The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle at signalized intersections or the average delay for the worst minor approach at two way stop sign controlled intersections. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 Wilson Park rraffay TYPE OF INTERSECTION A B C D E F Signalized 10 10.0 and 20.0 and 35.0 and 55.0 and 80. 20.0 35.0 55.0 80.0 0 Stop Sign Control 1 10 and X15 15 and X25 25 and <35 35 and X50 50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 2 shows projected 2014 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts, plus background traffic growth, plus 12 PM peak hour pipeline project trips generated by the Wilson Park plat. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the five year time period from the 2009 traffic count to the 2014 horizon year (for a total of 15%). This will result in a very conservative analysis since traffic volumes in the area have been generally flat for the past several years and are anticipated to continue this trend. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 2 shows the projected future 2014 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site -generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the Wilson Park Division 2 site access street/S. 55th St. intersection. The study intersection operates at a high LOS B for future 2014 conditions, including project -generated traffic, and meets the City of Renton LOS requirements for intersections. SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION Sight distance on S 55th St. at the proposed site access street was extensively evaluated in the Wilson Park TIA and meets the City of Renton intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions. Page 4 Wilson Park Traffmy TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. The net new daily trips due to this development are 96 trips (10units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $7,200 (96 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Wilson Park Division 2 Plat be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for site access street as shown on the site plan. Contribute the approximately $7,200 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-5224118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(L-tnwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 5 as: "02 Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WILSON PARK PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION EXISTING 2014WITHOUTI PROJECT 2011 WITHIPROJECT Site Access SVS 55th St. I - NA- B 10.4 SB B 10.5 SB XX Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the minor approach for unsignalized intersections, which determines the LOS for intersections per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual 2000 B Indicates calculated level of service SB (Southbound) Indicates direction of the minor approach for unsignalized intersections Page 6 w LE 5,905+/-S0. ff, 5,5604/ -Sy FT, s ' IN LOT 2 tG`. I 5,905+f -S}. R. LOT LITT 1 » 5,77ZE.s I243i 5 5 MOA, LOT 10 n 6,779+f-50. SSiH AVE. SOUTH ror.w Wilson Park Division 2 Plat - City of Renton Site Plan Figure 1 i 1 rlM ES AN-.wv .71707'_ _--"- I - 1 L -PO ' l a-zz x RACY A y 5,9094/-99,i1. i 7 fol.ft' rY LOT 6 5585+/ -SA FS. \ 1 4 taxsr bio i w LE 5,905+/-S0. ff, 5,5604/ -Sy FT, s ' IN LOT 2 tG`. I 5,905+f -S}. R. LOT LITT 1 » 5,77ZE.s I243i 5 5 MOA, LOT 10 n 6,779+f-50. SSiH AVE. SOUTH ror.w Wilson Park Division 2 Plat - City of Renton Site Plan Figure 1 NL7R7-H1YE5'T TRA rric Ex,-,rp ns i SE MTO ST F SE MN ST ss a r MM it i NTH ST M j sO.Ow sr t Future Project Future Without Generated With Existing Project Trips Project 0-,J k 0 468-121 6 JJ - 2 140 5 J ` 1 0'0`0 11-1 ` 3 544-0-340540 Wilson Park Division 2 Plat - City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Volumes for Existing and Future Conditions 2 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nal s1 enc /Co. Date Performed 6/19/2009 Analysis Time Period IPMpeak East/West Street: S 55th St 7 5 intersection Orientation: East-West Volume Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street 0.93 Eastbound Movement 1 2 Percent Grade (%) L T olume 6 540 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 580 Percent HeavyVehicles 0 Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 onfi uration LT stream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 5 L Volume 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Percent Grade (%) RT Channelized Lanes Configuration Dela. Queue L ration km) tvpn) c 5% queue leng Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 1-- and Level of EB 1 LT 6 1441 0.00 0.01 7.5 A WB 4 Intersection 5 Jurisdiction T Renton Analysis Year 2 2014 Future Without Project 0.93 150 2 North/_South Street: Site Access St 5tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Illllllllii Northbound 7 8 9 Istbound 5 6 T R 140 2 0.93 0.93 150 Northbound 7 8 9 Istbound 5 6 T R 140 2 0.93 0.93 150 2 0 a HCS2000 Copyright C, 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c r 0 Southbound 0 0 0 0 II II HCS2000 Copyright C, 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Co. Performed Analysis Time Period Project Description 6/1912009 PM peak Intersection urisdiction Analysis Year Renton 2014 Future with Project East/West Street: S 55th St North/South Street: Site Access St Intersection Orientation: Fast -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 11 540 0 0 140 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.930.93 Hour! Flow Rate, HFR 11 580 0 0 150 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 2 0 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 00 0 1 0 2 i 0 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (°1°) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 nfiguration LR Queue Len th, and Level of ServiceDpenay, proach EB WB Northbound Southbound vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR vph) 11 8 C (m) (vph) 1440 668 Ic 0.01 0.01 5% queue length 0.02 Q.04 ontrol Delay 7.5 10,5 LOS A g 4 Approach Delay 10.5 pproach LOS g HCS2000T M Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.l c Nb -id S311nun/aEWN"Cl Slim 183902i td Yd'fIDOLYa iLWIN°] p 3y 7a,v, avu,wmw,oc,aea o g r a9aMDN$ 33.p Z# 2 tld IVOS1IM a d W r U M V) d J o e j Z EXHIBIT 13 adar uw ra xasN,u .o„ N01WHSHM 'No1N 38 e ovo/m aN xaed NOMIM pw a=Q 000 Nb -id S311nun/aEWN"Cl Slim 183902i td Yd'fIDOLYa iLWIN°] p 3y 7a,v, avu,wmw,oc,aea o g r a9aMDN$ 33.p Z# 2 tld IVOS1IM a d W r U M V) d J o e j Z EXHIBIT 13 adar uw ra xasN,u .o„ N01WHSHM 'No1N 38 e ovo/m aN xaed NOMIM April 15, 2012 CITY OF REN T ON RECEIVED APR 16 2012 Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager BUILDING DIVISION CED — Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD (Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat) Ms. Henning: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the above application. As the owners of property adjacent to the subject site (located directly northwest of the site), we have an interest in insuring negative impacts are avoided and appropriate measures are taken in the possible development of this site. We also commented on Wilson Plat 1. In as much as the development of this site is directly related to and is proposed to be done concurrently with Wilson Park 1(approved by the City in 2010), some of these comments will be related to this development in its entirety. Comments/Concerns: 1. DRAINAGE Development of proposed Wilson Park 2, as well as Wilson Park 1, will certainly change the current site drainage due to increased impervious surfaces. significant changes to the existing slopes and changes in the current vegetation/tree coverage will mean a change in the current natural drainage of the sites. The Wilson 2 Plat proposal indicates it would be using the detention vault proposed for the Wilson 1 Plat. We are concerned that the vault be engineered to accept this significantly increased additional use. We are further concerned that the outflow be properly managed. Should the open drainage ditches along S. 55th Street be used for this increased outflow due to development, measures should be in place to insure these ditches to not overflow. Under new City practices, it is assumed that the City will be the owner of the detention vault and responsible for its maintenance and repair. Due to the unusual location (beneath a public street), design/engineering should insure that the vault can accept the gross vehicle weights of large trucks (garbage trucks, large fire engines, etc.). EXHIBIT 14 2. ROADS The roads serving the proposed plat are outlined in the Wilson Park 1 plat and indicate that parking will be allowed on one side of the street. As this is the case, we recommend the City identify ahead of time which side of the road vehicles will be allowed to park. Our neighborhood is also on a hill and based on our HOA experiences, we suggest for Wilson Plat 2 that parking be on the east side of the road entering the plat and the south side of the road in the Wilson 1 plat. We suggest the sidewalks mirror parking and be "only" on the side of the road where parking is allowed. The suggestions for east/south side parking are: This may aid in minimizing a risk issue identified in the Plat 1 application, that being road conditions (the down slope of the east -west roadway) during winter weather. Parking "only" on the east/south side may give a Wilson Plat 1 homeowner more "road" to maneuver in "icy road conditions" especially at the bottom on the curve area. If people are parked there, there is no place to maneuver one's vehicle without hitting another vehicle. Prohibiting vehicles being parked on the west and north sides of the road at the curve area of the two new roads may avoid parked vehicles being struck by vehicles sliding downhill during poor weather road conditions. Keeping people parking on the east and south side of the roadway may also minimize vehicles parking illegally on City streets by parking in the "wrong direction" (RCW 46.61.575). This RCW mentions vehicles parking with tires against the "right side of the curb". Parking on the east and south sides encourages this as drivers tend to enter and park to the right curb as opposed to turning their vehicles around (facing downhill) prior to parking on the opposite side of the street. The proposed road entering from S. 55th Street is indicated as being 26 feet wide with parking allowed on one side of the road. RMC 4-6-060 (2009) requires that 6' parking lanes be allowed for on one side of a residential street. This same RMC requires an 8' parking lane on arterial streets. It is confusing that the RMC seems to indicate that vehicles parked on residential streets needs less width to park than vehicles parked on arterial streets. On paper, for calculation purposes, the required 6' parking lane subtracted from the 26' road width leaves 20' for vehicles access (particularly emergency vehicles). In reality, the parking width needed for a legally parked vehicle is 8', subtracted from 26', leaves an 18' width for emergency vehicles (below recognized nation standards). While the submitted roads within the plat meet the current RMC, the City made consider revisiting the long-term impacts of allowing substandard street widths on residential streets. Plat 2 indicates sidewalks on both sides of the street and Plat 1 indicates sidewalks only on one side of the street. We suggest that if sidewalks are only required on one side that they be placed only on the 'parking only' of the street. Moving the sidewalk to the south side of the street in Plat 1 would allow a connected flow between the plats and tie them together with the walking path in Plat 2. Elimination of the west side sidewalk in Plat 2 would allow for a wider roadway (creating better parking space on the east side of the street). There remain significant concerns over the protection of the four (4) Geneva Court subdivision properties located west of the new roads serving Plat 1 and 2. These new roads run directly ABOVE the adjacent homeowners lots. Headlights from vehicles driving in a westerly direction on the street in Plat 1 at night will be aimed directly at the rear of the houses in the adjoining Geneva Court neighborhood. We are also concerned if vehicles on the new road lose control at the bottom of their hill, they will breach our wooden 5 foot current fences and end up in our backyard. Lastly, we are concerned with noise and visual impacts that minimize our enjoyment of our properties. We feel the impact could be minimized by installation of a safe, sturdy, tali retaining/barrier wall across the back of all 4 current homes (along the entire western section of Plat 1). Currently there is only a 5 foot wooden fence on a slope. We suggest a retaining wall which is at least 6 foot tall and concrete. The concrete wall would be to the east of our current wooden fence. To the east of the new concrete barrier wall, we ask that Evergreen trees (such as fast growing Leland Cypress trees) be planted as they will also help with noise and visual impacts. 3. ACCESS The issue of access to the Wilson Plats from and to S. 55th Street was identified and addressed in the Plat 1 process. Concern remains that this access point will become problematic, due to the serpentine nature of the road, the narrow width of the existing S. 55th Street and the significant slope of the roadway on S. 55th. Concerns exist over how school buses will safely (for students and other drivers) serve these new homes as weft as delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc. While sidewalks are being required for the new plats, there are currently NO sidewalks on S. 55th Street. So the Wilson Plat sidewalks do not lead to "anywhere". Due to the narrow existing shoulder and narrow road width, pedestrian foot traffic on S. 55th (outside of and serving the Wilson Plat) is either not possible or done at a risk that is beyond acceptable — especially to children. During the Wilson Plat 1 process, the establishment of a homeowners association HOA) was identified as a requirement. It is recommended that with Wilson 1 and 2 being developed concurrently that only one homeowners association be established serving both Wilson 1 and 2 (as opposed to two separate associations). During the Wilson Plat 1 process, concerns from adjacent homeowners as well as from the Hearing Examiner were made about impacts (visual and safety issues) along the adjoining boundary with the existing Geneva Court subdivision (located to the west of the site). These concerns remain and it is requested that part of the concurrent Wilson 1 & 2 development address these (safety & visual). A safe and adequate separating retaining wall (prefer a minimal height of 6 feet and concrete) along the entire western section of Plat 1 is requested. Currently there is only a 5 foot wooden fence on a slope. The maintenance of this retaining wail shall be the responsibility of the Wilson HDA. Candidly, it has been difficult to determine what has been approved for the final Wilson Plat 1. Our understanding is that no final plat site map exists indicating final outcomes of the Hearing Examiner (4/1/10), the appealed changes, or the Council's actions (8/16/10). Absent drawings that reflect the written changes, if it difficult to make informed comments on development impacts. Respectfully submitted, Paul & Frieda Witt 617 S. 53" Place Renton, WA 98055 425) 227-5462 Jonathan Vu 622S53 rd Place Renton, WA 98055 808) 218-4403 Khanh Nguyen 616553 rd Place Renton, WA 98055 425) 271-3691 Quang Dang and Kim Duong 623 5 53rd Place Renton, WA 98055 425) 917-9733 yPr"i j W F y 4 •fid i9.`7 .Eii'i z. VIE ryt e ". art iR• i7r '/ yy lk y kt G Aptk { t z e; IM o u A N o 0 o O N s m m U N Q O C N tU6 m z l Z N y N N C L N N d NQ n n n n 67U C O Q7 t 41 lC U1 P] C] Y Y i Z Vl Vl F C7 m OpD, C O d O L a5 i O CV V' C7 T y EXHIBIT 16 1 kt Aptk { t e; IM o EXHIBIT 16 1 4 W Cp SA OHO P , LeoD[,aN01u 1Jk 9 iGd6 N1L'MIDS'M'Fi6111 81 Ndld 9NIQV89 SLIM 12i3902i Z#>I'dVd NOS]IM > Jxoaa a w FF L gg m i aw J! J J{ F d Q a zof 09 w aoav rswl m x lo .al L,J f} W N Ndld 9NIQV89 SLIM 12i3902i Z#>I'dVd NOS]IM > Jxoaa 11] a w FF i aw J! J FBF J{ F d a a w t W n o N t 11] w FF i J! J FBF J{ F d w ILr1LL .. F; 1 Z LUto LU!`_'/ O Z Y Er0 EL r wo •..,., ane/nyv:e/awwa „ lura NOiCNIHEYM 'NOIN. d No lmam 3QZ# HdYd NOSIIM T~ f F J ,81 F FF J 30 0 EXHIBIT 17 FF i J! J FBF J{ F wo •..,., ane/nyv:e/awwa „ lura NOiCNIHEYM 'NOIN. d No lmam 3QZ# HdYd NOSIIM T~ f F J ,81 F FF J 30 0 EXHIBIT 17 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnpca? Engineering -- Eng,r eering Geobgy February 15, 2012 Mr. Robert Wilson 72() South 551h Street Lake 'l'apps. WA 98391 Dcar Mr. Wilson: Subject: Addendum No. 1 to 111'22!2004 0cotechnical Report Creotechnical Enginecrins; Study Proposed Residential Development South 55th Street and Morris Avenue South Renton, Washington L&A Job No. 41134 INTRODUCTION Earth sconce t. fig-i(11,;` f1c; 7r1 We previously completed a geotechnical engineering study for the site of a proposed 4 -lot short plat. located at the above address in Renton. AXashington. with our findings. conclusions and recommendations presented in our 1112212004 report titled Geotechnical Engineering Studv. Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat, 98xx South 192" Street., Renton. Washington.- We understand that expansion of the subject project to include more land to the east of the original site is being contemplated. This added land generally rises moderately to the cast. The purpose of this addendum is to explore subsurface condition of this added land and evaluatc its stability to assure the geotechnical recommendations for grading_ surlace and ground water control. erosion abatement. site stabilization. and foundation design and construction presented in our 11,221,21004 geotechnical report are also applicable to the development of the added land. Presented in this addendum are our findings and conclusions. 19213 Kenlake Place NE - Kenmore, Washington QRn,2p Phone (425) 483-9134 - Fax (425) 486-2746 EXHIBIT 18 Pref o 2 5. Fcbruary I5. 201 Addendum No. i - Proposed Residential Development L&A Job No. 4A1 4 Page PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is to be accessed from its south side by a roadway off South 55" Street going northward into the site. The original land will be lying on the west side of this read and the added land lying east of the road. The original land is generally flat. while the added ]and slopes upward easterly moderately. The added land is flanked b}Y a steep slope up to about 6 to 1' feet high on its west side which appears to be a tut slope made years ago to allow the origin land being graded flat. The added land is dotting by tall mature. deciduous and evergreen trees and covered by dense brush and vine. The trees are all straight voth no bents in the trunks or do,.N•nbill leaning. No signs of' erosion or sail movement have been noted within the added land. SURFACE CONIIITTONS Subsurface condition of the: added land was explored with three test pits excavated on FebruaiN''F. 3011. to depths front 6.01 to 6.5 feet. The approximate locations of the test pits are shoN n on Plate I - Site and Exploration Location Plan. The test pits -, -ere located with either a tape measure or by visual reference to existing topographic features in the field and on the topo Taphic surrey- map. and their locations should be considered oniv accurate to the measuring method used. A geotechnical engineer from our office was present during subsurface exploration, who examined the soil and geologic conditions encountered and completed logs of test pits. Soil samples obtained from each soil unit in the test pits were visually classified in general accordance -with l?nited Soil Classification Stistem. a copy of which is presented LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Fehruan 15. 2112 Addendum No. l - Proposed Residential Development LSA Job No. 4A 131 PaL,e 3 on Plate 2. Detailed deicriptions of soil units encountered during site exploration are presented in the test pit Ings on Plates 3 through 4. The test pits encountered a layer of loose, organic topsoil, k`rom 8 to 10 inches thick-. on the surface. The topsoil is underlain by a laver of brntiN-n tel light-bro-wri.. ablation rill weathered till) of medium -dense. silty fine sand, with a trace of to some gravel and occasional cobble and boulder. about 3-5 to 4.2 feet thick. Underling the ablation till to the depths explored is a iodgmont till (fresh till) deposit of light -brown to light -gray. ver\ -dense, -% eakly-cement, silty line sand with same gravel. The soil condition of added land is generally similar tea that of the original land. GROUNDWATER CONDITION Grounds+ater seepage was not encountered in any of the test pigs excavated on the added land. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Bascd on the subsurface (sail and ground«atcr) condition encountered in the test pits excavated on the added land_ the geotechnical recommendations in our 11,22 1-004 geotechnical report should also be applicable to the development of the added land. it is our opinion that added land should be quite stable and geologic hazards Over the added land should be minimal if the recommendations ui our 11/221`2004 report are full implemented and observed during. construction. L1U & ASSOCIATES, INC. l= ebruan. 15. 201 Addendum No. 1 - Proposed Residential Development L&A Job No. 4A 134 Pavc 4 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT A drainage course of surface «eater cc as obscn-ed corning den+'n the hillside on the eastem half ref the south side of the site, then flo tiing through a culvert into a ditch along the north side of South 54`'' Street. The " ater in this drainage course appears to be storm%rAter released #Tom the development east of the project site and dumped onto the subject site. It is our opinion that this storn c ater should be collected and re routed in a pipe off the project site. CLOSURE We are pleased to be of service to you on this project. Pleasc feel free to contact us if you have any que itions regarding this report or need further consultation. Four plates attached G S. Yours -very truiv. LMi &,70CIATES INC. he4 J. S. (Julian'.) Liu, Ph.D., Y.T. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Wilsons 253-862-7285 p.2 Fc OF - r fit 18 . 2 Aln r j LI 1 t}n y+ U I` 3 d ROAD A J2 L},1L rii iI I lzv x F[ i 5_•.75- wr.. Ai L q 7r7S7 1 s 1 l t FF rte 11 c 15 B5"5L h L LFL X : sz Fc OF - r fit 18 . 2 Aln r j LI 1 t}n y+ U I` 3 d ROAD A 1 . L},1L rii iI I lzv I 8,'ri 5_•.75- O 1 _ t P— 3; i aID a y+ c c_... L 8,'ri 5_•.75- t FF rte 11 c 15 B5"5L h L LFL X : sz Ffiw i r; 5 : Ac- r CuIESS l f 1 V' y t`•Ct f I 1 .'4c : SOCI TES, INC . I UiE•:^.'. _ :f-'f1'} - lQ,'I?tif'f _ w"I _4' E?C1 v-s9CE r S:`•_'wS.T+._C: ^ate f ... 7 SITE AND LOCATION PLAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP VIENT S. 55TH, STREET AND MORRIS AVENUE S- ? RENTON, WASHINGTON UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL GRAVEL CLEAN GVV w.E -Dh6:c ,P"VEL F. Tc; s_ ,.. c G CitF E CORSE- M ;FC T NAt„ $D%• 0F GRAVEL GP RLQ- DE GRAVEL GRAVEL 11>,'ITH GM SILTY GRAVELGRAINED4OARSEFR6:.'710N SOILS FETAINED Qf: fi;D 4 SIEVE FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW IIVELL-GRADED SAND FirlE TC COARSE SA Z MZ)RE THAT, 5091 rV,vPE T 41-.' 5G, OF SAND SP PCORR,Y-GRADER SAN-E) SAND NINTH SM LT'Y SANDRETAINEDOPJTHECOARSE=RACTIQN SL aLt- S1EVE PASSING N: 4 &EVE FINES SC CLAYEY SAND FINE- SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC PJ'L 5"-T CL eL YGRAINEDLIQUIDU% T ORGANIC CL ORG6-NIC SSLT- ORGAN , CLAYSOILSLESSTHAN504.k QOR= THAN SC`r. LTY AND CLAY i INORGANIC Mei SILT OF i;fGlt PLA STICiT'x EJiSTIC SS; E CLAY OF H,'GH PLASTICITY FAT CLAYPASSINGON, THECH LfOti'3 L}nq' ORGANIC OH ORGANIC SILT. ORGAWh SILTNOn'? SIEVE rzl* OR MORE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS P7 PEAT Anc nTHFR HIGHLY dGAf.' C s:LS NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODII=IERS: i FlcLLi CLASS'F!CATI A's i5 BASED ON DRY -ABS-ENKE d MOISTURE DUSTY DRY -10 OF SO!L IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH AST%l D2'A:a-E s THE TOUCH SOIL CLASSIFICATr?, ;;SING LA50Ra E ORY TESTS IS SASED SLIGHTLY V.O ST - TRA;vE VwA$TURE N'C* DUS7" 0N ASTf,, D74ii?z?3 MOiS'r _ DAMP. B'JT f 'V§S fBLE WATER 3 D`SCRIP! PANS Or SOIL DENS.T` dR CONSISTPNOY f RE wERV MCIST - VERY DAr%?,F, MOISTURE Fc L7 TO 1—HE TJ'.rC- 8645'=D ON 'NTERPRE'A T ION OF BLOtN-DOJ."'.': DA.Tk. V.SUAL WET - VISIBi-E FREE WATER OR SA`URATED APPEAP.A,tiC;E O SO:LS AND DR -EST CA-:A USUALLY SOIL IS CETA,'NED FRDM SELO'v V^ ATER TABLE LLL, & ASSOCIATES, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Gent¢--hhvCni Fng-neerinO FhQlneeNrlC GtOtclg) Ea-,,) Svto F. PLATE 2 TEST PIT NO. 1 Logged By. JSL date 2!28,'2011 Ground E! t Uep:h f RSCS CLASS So;! Description Samp>c ND w Ker - fest OL Brush and duff on surface f Dark -brown, loose. omanic, silty fine SAND, r+th fine roots. SiJ• rr gist j(7TOPSOtLj 2 Brown to light -brown, medium --dense, silty fine SAND, time gravel, 3 occasional roots, moist (weathered VASHON TILL) 3 4 5 S1 Light -gray. very -dense, silty fine SAND, some gravel, weakly - SM Light -gray, very -dense, silty fine SAND, some gravel. weakly - 5 moist (fresh VASHON TILL) 7 Test pit terminated at 6.0 ft; groundwater not encountered E Test pit terminated at 6.5 ft; groundwater rhot encountered. 8 c 16 11 Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO. Date: 212 8120 1 1 2 Ground EI. t Depth i. USCS CLASS_ Sc.+ Description Sample N0. w Cher Tey: OL Vint: and duff on surface t Dark -brown, loose, organic. silty fine SAND, with fine roots. SPJI molstLTOPSOIL)-__________ ________J' 2 Light -broken, medium -dense, silty fine SAND, trace to some gravel, 3 occasional cobble and boulder, moist (weathered VASHON TILL) 4 5 S1 Light -gray. very -dense, silty fine SAND, some gravel, weakly - 6 cemented, moist fresh VASHON TILL' 7 Test pit terminated at 6.0 ft; groundwater not encountered E 10 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Geology Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT S. 55TH STREET & MORRIS AVENUE S. RENTON, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 4A134 I DATE 3/612011 1 PLATE 3 Logged By. JSL TEST PIT NO. Date, 2t28r2011 11 Ground EI. ± DepiF ft USCS CLASS Soil Description Sample No. W Other Test OL Brush and duff on surface 1 Dark -brown loose. organic- silty fine SAND, with roots. , SAS moistOEgOTl_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' 2 Ught-brown to yellowish -brown, medwrn-dense: silty fine SAID trace gravel and occasional cobble and boulder, moist 3 weathered VASHON TILL) 4 Sf 4 RLight-gray, very -dense. silty fine SAND, same gravel -weakly g moist fresh VASHON TILL 7 Test pit terminated at S 5 ft. groundwater not encountered. 8 9 11 TEST PIT NO. Logged By- JSL Date: Ground El, ± LTTT & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Eng,nae-inc Engineenmo GeoS.-gy Ea-th Science TEST PIT LOGS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT S. 55TH STREET & MORRIS AVENUE S. RENTON, WASHINGTON JOB NO 4A134 IDATr= 316/2011 1 PLATE 4 J GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY 4 -LOT SHORT PLAT 98XX SOUTH 192ND STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON L&A Job No. 4A134 Date: November 22, 2404 - Prepared for: Mr. Karl Singh c/o Cramer Northwest, Inc. , 945 North Central Avenue, Suite 104 { Kent, WA 98432 vk Prepared By_ Liu & Associates, Inc. 19213 Kenlake Place NE Kenmore, Washington 98028 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geateehnical Engineering Engineering Geology Earth Science November 22, 2064 Mr. Karl Singh c/o Ms. Aiearma Kondelis Cramer Northwest, Inc_ 945 North Centra] Avenue, Suite 104 Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mr. Singh: Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat 98xx South 192nd Street Renton, Washington L&A Job No. 4AI34 INTRODUCTION We have completed a geotechnical engineering study for the site of a proposed 4 -lot short plat, located at the above address in Renton, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on Plate 1 -- Vicinity Map. We understand that the proposed development for the site is to plat its western portion into four single-family residential building lots, on each of which a single-family residence will be constructed. The purpose of this study is to characterize the subsurface conditions of the site and provide geotechnical recommendations for grading, surface and ground water control, erosion abatement, site stabili-Zation, and foundation design and construction for the proposed development:. Presented in this report are our findings of the site conditions and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. PROJECT DESCRIPTION For our use in this study, you provided us with a topographic survey plan of the site, prepared by Cramer Northwest, Inc. As shown on Plate 2 - Site Plan and Exploration Location Plan, the 99213 Kenlake P12ce NE - Kenmore, Washington 98028 Phone (425) 483-9134 - Fax (425) 486-2746 November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A 7ob No. 4A134 Page 2 subject site is an irregularly-shaped tract of land, partially fronted by the right-of-way of the winding South 1920d Street to the south. The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. We understand that the proposed development for the site is to platted its gently to moderately sloped western 95 feet into four single-family residential building lots. Site grading may require cut and fill to some degree for the northern two lots. SCOPE OF SERVICES Our scope of services for this study comprises specifically the following: 1 Review the geologic and soil conditions at the site based on a published geologic map. 2. Explore the subsurface conditions of the site with backhoe test pits. 3_ Perform necessary geotechnical analyses and provide geotechnical recommendations for site grading, site stability enhancement, erosion abatement, surface and ground water control, and foundation design and construction, based on subsurface conditions eacountemed in the test pits and results of our geotechnical analyses. 4. Prepare a written report to present our findings, eoncIusions, and recornmendati ons. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site is partially bounded by South 192nd Street to the south, and is 4oined by single- family residences to north and west and by a wooded land to the east. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. It is situated on a moderate to steep, westerly -declining hillside. The terrain within the site mostly .slopes moderately to steeply down to the west, except that the ground within the western 95 feet of the site, which is to be developed into four building lots, is mostly gently to moderately sloped down to the west at grades from less than 5 percent to 32 percent. EIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A 134 Page 3 The middle of the proposed 4 --lot plat area has been cleared previously, with a remnant concrete driveway off South 192 l Street to about the mid -depth of the proposed 4 -lot plat area. The unpaved area is now overgrown with brush and berry bushes. Matured deciduous trees scatter throughout the interior (northern two lots) and the perimeter of the southern two lots of the proposed 4 -lot plat area, with occasionai mature evergreen trees mixed in between. GEOLOGIC SETTING The Geologic. Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washin tgton, by D_ R. Multineaux, published by U. S. Geological Survey in 1965, was referenced for the geologic and soil conditions at the site_ According to this publication, the. surficial soil units at and in the vicinity of the subject site are mapped as Kame Terrace (Qit) underlain by Ground Moraine (Qe. The geology of the Puget Sound Lowland has been modified by the advance and retreat of several glaciers in the past and subsequent deposits and erosion. The latest glacier advanced to the Puget Sound Lowland is referred to as the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, which has occurred during the later stages of the Pleistocene Epoch and retreated from the region some 14,500 years ago. The kame terrace deposits were laid down by ice -marginal streams flowing between higher ground on one side and an ice margin on the other side during the last glaciation. They consist mostly of silty sand and gravel to cobble. Locally, they also contain lenses and pods of till and beds of sand, silt and clay. The kame terrace deposits were, however, not encountered by the test pits_ Instead ground moraine deposits were found underlying the site. The ground moraine deposits are mostly thin ablation till over lodgmont till, deposited by Puget glacial lobe of the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation. The lodgmont till is generally a LIU & ASSOCIA'T'ES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A lob No. 4A 134 Page 4 compact mixture of unsorted clay, silt, sand, gravel and cobble, commonly referred to as -hard pan". The ablation till is similar to lodgmont till, but is much less compact and coherent. The thickness generally varies from 2 to 4 feet for ablation till, and 5 to 30 feel for lodgmont till_ The lodgmont till is practically impervious, except local lenses of sand and gravel. It has the strength of a low-grade concrete and can stand in a steep natural or cut slope for a long period. The lodgmoat till can provide excellent foundation support with little settlement expected. The overlying ablation till is generally in a looser state, and is more compressible and permeable. SOIL CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions of the subject site were explored on November 14, 2004, with six test pits. The test pits were excavated with a fire -mounted -backhoe. to depths from 5.0 to 8.0 feet. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Plate 2 -.Site and Exploration Location Pian. The test pits were located with either a tape measure - r or by visual reference to existing topographic features in the field and on the topographic survey map, and their locations should be considered only accurate to the measuring method used. A geotechnical engineer from our office was present during subsurface exploration, wha examined the soil and geologic conditions encountered and completed logs of test pits. soil samples obtained from each soil unit in the test pits were visually classified in general accordance with United Soil Classification System, a copy of which is presented on Plate 3. Detailed descriptions of soil units encountered during site exploration are presented in the fast pit logs on Plates 4 through b. The test pits revealed that the site is mantled by a layer of loose, organic topsoil, from. 1.0 to 2.5 feet thick. The topsoil is generally underlain by a layer of brown ablation till soils of loose to medium -dense, silty fine sand, with a trace of gravel and occasional cobble and boulder, about LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. e P. b November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat I.&A Job No. 4A 134 Page 5 1.0 to 3.2 feet thick. The ablation till was, however, not encountered by Test Pit 3 located jus above the toe of the steep hili at about the mid -length of the eastern boundary of the proposed 4. lot plat. Underlying the ablation till to the depths explored is a lodgmont till deposit of light - brown to light -gray, dense to very -dense, weakly -cement, silty fine sand with a trace of gravel, except in Test Pit 2 where the ablation till was found underlain by weakly -cemented, fine -to - medium -grain sandstone bedrock. Fragments of this sandstone bedrock was also found mixed in the lodgmont till deposit in Test Pit 3. CONDMONIROUNDWATER roundwater seepage was not encountered in any of the test pits. The lodgmont till deposit and to a lesser extent the sandstone bedrock underlying the site at shallow depth is practically impervious and would perch stormwater infiltrating into the more permeable surficial topsoil and ablation till soils. This near -surface perched groundwater may dry up completely in summer months and may accumulate and rise during the wet winter months. The depth to and the amount of perched groundwater may fluctuate seasonally, depending on precipitation, surface runoff ground vegetation cover, site utilization, and other factors. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDAT1lONS Cl103V- Based on the soil conditions encountered in our subsurface explorations, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development from the geotechnical engineering viewpoint, provided that the recommendations in this report are fully implemented and observed during construction. The loose topsoil and unsuitable weak soils in the root zone should be completely stripped within the driveways, the building footprints and where the subgrade soils are to support structural or traffic load. The dense to very -dense lodgmont till at shallow depth are of high LIU & ASSOCIA'T'ES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Flat L&A Job No, 4A 134 Page 6 shear strength and can provide excellent foundation support to driveways and buildings with little settlement. Conventional footing foundations placed on or into the underlying dense to very -dense lodgmont till soils may be used for supporting the houses to be constructed on the platted lots. Structural fill, if required for site grading, should be constructed over the underlying dense to very -dense lodgmout till soils following the stripping of surf cial unsuitable soils. The on-site topsoil and ablation till soils contain a high percentage of fines, and is sensitive to moisture. It can also be saturated quickly and result in heavy runoff with potential soil erosion over the steeper portion of the site during extended periods of heavy rainstorms. One or multiple Imes of _c_ 1nUi dramm hould be installed along the upslope side of the construction areas, as required, to intercept and drain surface runoff and near -surface perched groundwater to minimize soil erosion and facilitate site grading during construction. Perrnanent fill to be placed over slopes steeper than 15 percent grade should be retained structurally. Structural fill, if required for site grading, should be placed on compacted and proof -rolled, unyielding, undisturbed, firm, native soils, following the stripping of the surfcial unsuitable soils. The exposed ground exceeding 15 percent grade should be benched with vertical steps not exceeding 5 feet tall prior to placing structural fill. Storm runoff over impervious surfaces, such as roofs and paved driveway, should be collected and discharged into a storm sewer. Concentrated stormwater should not be discharged onto the ground anywhere within the site. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. v-4oa u r 0C_ p. c November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -lit Short Plat L&A .lob No. 4A 134 Page 7 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Landslide Razards The subject site is underlain at shallow depth by dense to very -dense, weakly -cemented, lodgrnont till soils of high shear strength and to a lesser extent by weakly -cemented sandstone. It is, therefore, unlikely for deep-seated landslides to occur on the site. The surficial topsoil and ablation till soils are loose to medium -dense. There is a remote chance that shallow, skin -type inudflows may occur in these surficial weak soils on steep slopes if they are overly saturated. To mitigate such potential, the vegetation cover over the site beyond construction limits should be maintained, concentrated storinwater should not be discharged onto the ground within the site or its adjoining properties, and spoil soils and yardwaste should not be disposed of onto the slopes within the site. Erosions Hazard The surficial topsoil and ablation till soils over the steeper portion of the site can be easily eroded when stripped of vegetation cover on steep slopes, while the underlying weakly-cernented lodgmont till soils are of moderately high resistance against erosion. To abate the erosion potential in the surficial weak soils, the vegetation cover outside of construction limits should not be disturbed. Concentrated stormwater should not be discharged onto the ground within the site. Spoil soils and yardwaste should not be disposed of within the site. Storm rtmoff over impervious surfaces, such as roofs and pavement, should be captured with underground drain line systems tied to roof downspouts and by catch basins installed in pavement, and tightlined to discharge into a stornn sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility. Unpaved, disturbed ground within the site should be re -vegetated to provide erosion protection. Once the drainage control measures for the roadways and houses are in place after the completion of the proposed development, the amount of surface runoff and near -surface groundwater now will be reduced which would further mitigate soil erosion and entrance site stability. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC, November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A.134 Page 8 Seismic Hazard The site is underlain at shallow depth by dense to very -dense lodgmont till soils of very high shear strength. These competent soils and the general lack of static groundwater table at shallow depth under the site should make it rather unlikely for such seismic hazard as liquefaction or sail i/ lateral spreading to occur on the site. The proposed houses, however, should be designed for seismic forces induced by strong earthquakes. Based on the soil conditions encountered by the test pits, the site should be classified as Seismic Use Group I in the design of the proposed warehouse in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code (IBC). SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL;. GRADING Site preparation for the construction of the residences should include clearing and grubbing within construction limits. Loose topsoil and weak soils in the root zone should be completely stripped within the driveways, the building footprints of the proposed Douses and in areas subject to traffic and structural loads. The exposed soils should be compacted to a non -yielding state with a vibratory compactor and proof -rolled with a piece of heavy earthwork equipment operated on the site. The on-site soils contain a high percentage of `fines and are sensitive to moisture. A layer of clean quarry spalls should be placed over excavated areas and areas of frequent traffic, as required, to protect the subgrade soils from disturbance by construction traffic. Silt fences should be erected along the downslope boundaries of the site to prevent sediments being transported by storm runoff onto adjoining properties or the street. The bottom edge of the silt fence should be embedded in a trench and ballasted with crushed rock or gravel. MLT & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A134 Page 9 EXCAVATION AND FILL SLOPES Under no circurnstance should excavation slopes be steeper than the limits specified by local, state and federal safety regulations if workers have to perform construction work in excavated areas. Unsupported temporary cuts greater than 4 feet in height should be no steeper than 1H:IV' in the surficial topsoil and ablation till soils of loose to medium -dense silty fine sand, and may be vertical in the light -brown to light -gray lodgmont till soils of dense to very -dense, weakly cemented, silty fine sand with a trace of gravel, or in sandstone bedrock, provided that the overall depth of cut does, not exceed 10 feet. Permanent cut backs should be no steeper than 2H:1 V in the surficial topsoil and ablation till soils, no steeper than 1-1/2H:1 V in the underlying lodgmont till soils. and no steeper than 1H -1V in the sandstone bedrock if encountered. The soil units and the stability of cut slopes should be observed and verified by a geotechnical engineer during excavation. Permanent fill embankments required to support structural or traffic loads should be constructed with compacted structural fill placed over proof -rolled, undisturbed, firm native, lodgmont till soils after the unsuitable surficial soils are stripped. Permanent fill to be placed on slopes raeper than 15 percent grade should be retained structurally. Sloping ground exceeding IS percent grade over which fill is to be placed should be benched with vertical steps no more than 5 feet high after stripping of unsuitable surfieW soils_ The slope of permanent fill embankments should be no steeper than 2H:1 V. Upon completion, the sloping face of permanent fill embankments should be thoroughly compacted to a non -yielding state with a hoe pack. The above recommended cut and fill slopes are under the assumption that groundwater seepage will not be encountered during construction. if encountered, the construction work should be immediately halted and the slope stability re-evaluated. The slopes may have to be flattened and other measures taken to stabilize the slopes. Storm runoff should not be allowed to flow EIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A I 34 Page 10 uncontrolled over the top of cut or fill slopes. One or multiple lines of interceptor trench drains should be installed, as required, on the uphill side of the areas to be graded to intercept and safely drain away surface nmoff and near -surface groundwater flow. Permanent curt slopes or fill embankments should be seeded and vegetated as soon as possible for erosion protection and long -tern stability, and should be covered with clear plastic sheets, as required, to protect them from erosion by stormwater until the vegetation is fully established_ STRUCTURAL FILL f' Structural fill is the fill that supports structural or traffic load. Structural fill should consist of r clean soils free of organic and other deleterious substances and with particles not larger than four inches. Structural fill should have a moisture content within one percent of its optimum moisture content at the time of placement. The optimum moisture content is the water content in the soils that enable the soils to be compacted to the highest dry density for a given compaction effort. The on-site till soils contain a high percentage of fees, and may be used as structural fill only under fair weather condition when its moisture content can be controlled to close to its optimum moisture content. Imported material for structural fill should be clean, free -draining, granular soils containing no more than 5% by weight finer than the No. 200 sieve based on the fraction of the material passing No. 4 sieve, and should have individual particles not larger than four inches. Imported structural fill should be stockpiled and covered separately from the on-site soils. Structural fill should be placed in lifts no more than 10 inches thick in loose state, with each lift compacted to a minimum percentage of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 Modified Praetor Method) as follows: EIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A 134 Page 12 A one-third increase in the above recommended allowable soil bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term, transitory, wind or seismic loads_ For footing foundations designed and constructed per recommendations above, we estimate that the maximum total post - construction settlement of the buildbxgs should be 112 inch or less and the differential settlement across building width should be 3l8 inch or less. Lateral loads on buildings can be resisted by the friction force between the foundations and the subgrade soils or the passive earth pressure acting on the below -grade portion of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against undisturbed soils or backfilled with a clean, free -draining, compacted structural fill. We recommend. that an equivalent fluid density EFD) of 350 pcf (pounds per cubic foot) for the passive earth pressure be used for lateral resistance. The above passive pressure assumes that the backfill is level or inclines upward away from the foundations for a horizontal distance at least twice the depth of the foundations below the final grade. A coefficient of friction of 0.60 between the foundations and the subgrade soils may be used. The above soil parameters are unfactored values, and a proper factor of safety should be used in calculating the: resisting forces against lateral loads on the buildings_ BASEMENT AND RETAINING WALLS Basement walls restrained horizontally at the top are considered unyielding and should be designed for a lateral soil pressure under the at -rest condition; while retaining walls free to move at the top should be designed for active lateral soil pressure. We recommend that a lateral soil pressure of 45 and 65 pcf EFD be used for the design of foundation walls with level/descending backslope and rising backslope, respectively; and 35 and 50 pcf EFD for retaining walls with level/descending backslope and rising backslope, respectively_ To counter the active soil or at - rest pressure, a passive lateral soil pressure of 400 pcf EFD may be used, except that the passive pressure within the top 12 inches of the finish subgrade should be ignored. The above passive LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A 13 4 Page 13 pressure assumes that the backfill is level or inclines upward away from the walls_ The above lateral soil pressures are tinder the assumption that groundwater behind the walls is fully drained_ To resist against sliding, the friction force between the footings and the subgrade soils may be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.60. The above soil parameters are ultimate values, and proper factors of safety should be used in the design of the basement and retaining wails against sliding and overturning failures. Basement walls or retaining wails may be supported on footiaog foundations seated on or into tate underlying very -dense fresh till or very - hard transitional beds soils, with an allowable soil bearing pressure not to exceed 3,400 psf The is a remote possibility that shallow, stein -type mudflow may occur on the slope above the proposed houses. We recommend that the uphill -side basement walls of the house be extended at least 3 feet above the finish grade to act as debris catchment walls. A vertical drainage blanket consisting of at least 12 -inch -thick free -draining pea gravel or washed gravel should be placed against foundation and retaining walls to prevent accumulation of groundwater behind and buildup of hydrostatic pressure against the walls. The remaining backfill should consist of structural fill constructed per recommendations in the STRUCTURAL FILL section of this report. The top 12 inches of backfili should consist of compacted, clean, on- site soils. The backfill material for the foundation and retaining walls should be compacted with a hand -operated compactor. Heavy compaction equipment should not be allowed closer to the walls than a horizontal_ distance equal to the wall heights. A footing drain, as recommended in the SITE DRAINAGE section of this report, should also be provided for foundation and retaining walls. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 21144 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat LAA Job No. 4A.134 Page 17 variations appear then; we should be retained to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report, and to verify or modify thein in writing prior to proceeding further with the construction. CLOSURE We are pleased to be of service to you on this project. please, feel free to cal] us if you have any questions regarding this report or need further consultation. Yours very truly, LrU & ASSOCIATES, INC. J. S. (Julian) Liu, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer Exnrpzs 71171 p Six plates attached LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. s St o,: w 1] ST \' iT rn f n x LnrTlMr Q Lof _ ,(t' R ST 4 lits 3`3`141H -PL ` 2lflli Puirtsrx - SE 218mSr pL$ I r .t \ / . P1 cc VICINITY MAP , WILT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4 -LOT SHORT PLAT 98M Sl:- 192ND STREET Gmte;hnical Engfneering - EngtneeNng Geology - F-arth Science RENTON, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 4AI34 DATE 11/2012004 PLATE 1 Wilsons 25362-7285 p.2 cn 4 L 11 rn 9 4 A32x$ a27 s;a 208 — 3Q •J i - u` v I cy i., N - _ t220Ta2z ax1.9F F_ #vcro -se as -E aes_a1 • t CR y 4 t k / a - w h w m-8 • I.1 7y J'J? ' z .., k'n Ry " T? g' ~ y a_y-.Jo--' 'v- ZI 72.60' zz-oW _ e; y ZIti r m 2 -SE o Y J 245 w L CY Y pp4tLfrW -6l, µ '' . —T77 c o-, p j• lE 2b 7 26 v , 277T27 T x # q/- 4 X00 M8 4H'M 209- 93 - Jr— r b ® A/ Z PXtCT .. rMTPF71 &GZx Nk1 I 29Z m mow' S6Z 111 t 9L Q SITE AND EXPL-ORAT10N LOCATION PLNN LIII & ASSOCIATE'S, LNC. .' sI 192ND PLAT 98XXS 5: NQ STREP Gootechniosl Englneeing - Engineering ecology- - Eartli science RENTON, WASHINGTON JOB NO- 4A134 1 -DATE 1 ji20121J44 I- PLAN UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUPISYMBOL GROUP NAME GRAVEL CLEAN GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- MORE THAN 50% OF GRAVEL GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED COARSE FRACTION GRAVEL WITH GM SILTY GRAVEL SOILS RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW WELL-GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND MORE THAN 50% MORE THAN 50% OF SAND SP POORLY-GRADED SAND RETAINED ON THE= COARSE FRACTION SAND WITH SM SILTY SAND NO. 200 SIEVE PASSING NO, 4 SIEVE FINES Sc CLAYEY SAND FINE- SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT CL CLAY SOILS LESS 7E-lAN 50% ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAX MORE THAN 50% SILTY AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT PASSING ON THE LIQUID LIMIT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY NO. 2I]0 SIEVE 50% OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS NOTES: SOfL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. FIELD CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON VISUAL EXAMINATION DRY - A13SENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TOOFSOILINGENERALACCORDANCEWITHASTMD2468-83, THE TOUCH 2. SOIL CLASSIFICATION USING LABORATORY TESTS IS BASED SLIGHTLY MOIST- TRACE MOISTURE, NOT DUSTY ON ASTM D24$7-83. MOIST - DAMP, BUT NO VISIBLE WATER 3_ DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY ARE VERY MOIST -VERY DAMP, MOISTURE FELT TO THE TOUCH BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF BLOW-COUNT DATA, VISUAL APPEARANCE OF SOILS, ANDIOR TEST DATA WET- VISIBLE FREE WATER OR SATURATED, USUALLY SOIL IS OBTAINED FROM BELOW WATER TABLE LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GPdechnical Engineering • Engineering Ge0b9y Earth Science PLATE 3 TEST PIT NO. 1 TEST PIT NO. 2 Logged By: JSL Date: 1 111 412 00 4 Ground t=i. 240.0,:j Depth USCS Sample W Other R. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL I Berry bushes and duff on surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, occasional cobble and boulder, fine roots, moist (TOPSOIL) z 3 SM Brown, loose, silty fine SANDt few roots,";T 4 5M Light -brown, medium -dense, slJty fine SAND, trace gravel snot 5 occasional cobble and boulder, slightly mois! (ABLATION TILL) 6 Light -brawn, fine -to -medium -grained SANDSTONE, moist 7 (BEDROCK) B 9 Test pit terminated at 8-0 ft, groundwater not encountered. 10 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. GeatechNcai Engineering Engineering Geology - Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS 4 -LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 98XX SOUTH 192ND STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON JOB NO, 4A134 fDATE 11/15104 IPLATE 4 Logged By: JSL Date: 11/14/2004 Ground EI, 220.0't Depth USC5 Sampre W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL Berry bushes, iresh and duff on surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, organic, silly fine SAND, with roots to '1 -inch diameter moistOPSQJL? 2 SMISP Brown, loose to mediurn-dense, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, with roots to 6 -inch diameter, moist (ABLATION TILL) s SM Light -brown to light -gray, dense to very -dense, silty fine SAND, 4 trace to some gravel, weakly -cemented, slightly moist LODGMONT TILL) 5 r 7 Test pit terminated at 6.0 ti, groundwater not encountered, 9 u TEST PIT NO. 2 Logged By: JSL Date: 1 111 412 00 4 Ground t=i. 240.0,:j Depth USCS Sample W Other R. CLASS. Soil Description No. % Test OL I Berry bushes and duff on surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, occasional cobble and boulder, fine roots, moist (TOPSOIL) z 3 SM Brown, loose, silty fine SANDt few roots,";T 4 5M Light -brown, medium -dense, slJty fine SAND, trace gravel snot 5 occasional cobble and boulder, slightly mois! (ABLATION TILL) 6 Light -brawn, fine -to -medium -grained SANDSTONE, moist 7 (BEDROCK) B 9 Test pit terminated at 8-0 ft, groundwater not encountered. 10 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. GeatechNcai Engineering Engineering Geology - Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS 4 -LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 98XX SOUTH 192ND STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON JOB NO, 4A134 fDATE 11/15104 IPLATE 4 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Gentechnical Engineering . Engineering Geology - Earth Scienm TEST PIT LOGS 4 -LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 98XX SOUTH 192ND STREET PENTON, WASHINGTON JOB NO- 4A134 TDATE 111151(}4 IPLATE TEST PIT NO. 3 Logged By: JSL Date: 11/1412004 Ground El. 237.0' Depth VSCS Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil DeScri tips No. % Test OL Berry and fern bushes and duff on surfaoe t Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, occasional cobble, with fine roots, mast OPSDI 2 SM Brown -gray, dense to very -dense, silty fine SAND, with chunks of sandstone fragments mixed in, weakly cemented, moist 3 LODGMONT TILL) 4 5 fi 7 Test pit terminated at 6.5 ft, groundwater not encountered. 9 74 TEST PIT NO. 4 Logged By: JSL Date: 1111412004 Ground EI. 226.5' t Depth I uses Sample w Other ft. CLASS. Soil Description No_ % Test OL I Berry bushes, trash and duff on Surface 1 Dark -brown, loose, vrganle. silty fine SAND, abundant roots to 6 -Inch diameter, moist (TOPSOIL.) 2 W Brown, medium -dense, silty fine sand, trace gravel, slightly moist ABLATION TILL) 3 4 5 SM Light -brown, dense to Very -dense, silly fine SAND, trace fine gravel, weakly -cemented, slightly moist (LODGMONT TILL) s r t Test pit terminated at 6.0 ft,.grpundwater not encountered. h LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Gentechnical Engineering . Engineering Geology - Earth Scienm TEST PIT LOGS 4 -LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 98XX SOUTH 192ND STREET PENTON, WASHINGTON JOB NO- 4A134 TDATE 111151(}4 IPLATE TEST PIT NO. 5 Logged By. JSL Date: 11/14/2004 Ground El. 224.0' ± Depth ft. uSGS Sample GLASS. Soil Desai 110;7 tvo. USCS CLASS. Soil De5O tion Sampre w No. % other Test OL Berry bushes on surface 1 moist (TOPSOIL) Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, vrith fine roots, 2 2 SM oisf {ZOPSOIL) Light -brown to tan, medium -dense, silty fine SAND, trace gravel, 8 cobble and boulder, moist (ABLATION TILL) dahily mit ABLATION TILL) 4 3 SM Light -brown to light -gray, very -dense, silty fine SAND, trace gravel, SM Light -brown to light -gray, very -dense, silty fine SAND, trace gravel, cemented, slightly moist (LODGIUONT TILL) s cemented, moist (LODGMONT TILL) 4 7 6 a 9 Test pit terminated at 7.0 fl, groundwater not encountered. to s 7 Test pit terminated at 5.0 ft, groundwater not encountered. 8 9 0 Logged By: JSL TEST PIT NO. 6 Date: 11114/2004 Ground EI. 230.8' t DWh ft. uSGS Sample GLASS. Soil Desai 110;7 tvo. W Other Test OL Berry bushes on surface i Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty Tine SAND, With tine roots, moist (TOPSOIL) 2 SM Light -brown, medium -dense to dense, silty fine SAND, occasional 8 cobble and boulder, moist (ABLATION TILL) 4 5 SM Light -brown to light -gray, very -dense, silty fine SAND, trace gravel, s cemented, moist (LODGMONT TILL) 7 a 9 Test pit terminated at 7.0 fl, groundwater not encountered. to LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering - Engineering Geology Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS 4 -LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 98XX SOUTH 992ND STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 4A134 JDATE 11115104 IPLATE all City of NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OFA DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (UN5-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTALACTION PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Prebnninsry Plat PROJECT NUMBER: 1L 4XL2, E6, PP, PPUD LDCAnQ*: 698 S 5S* Street D{SCIUMON: The applicant prapoe. to eubdi"de an aehtlnd 2,25 ane panel IMo to i= for the eventual development of detached single Family homes, ansa 2 trad for open sPaca. The she 4 zoned Resldendal -14 d.l. IR -14) S RnW.ndd - 1 do/ec IA -1)- The site sontalm 9,763 0. of protested alnpes f>40%). Proposed derelty averaAea 6A dwellingaunnaperse across the she, with 4 Ion proposed In the R-14 area, & 1 lot Propoeed within the R -L A Planned Urban Development Is proposed In order to rnodfly minimum Ion sue within the R-1 zone and Provide larger lots within the R-14 — Asreu would be provided from South 5514 Street els new street mrntrur d as Part of the aper -rd wfbm Park 01 plat A small hydrologically holated, unaMreaulneed wetland Is latad the western Portion of the site. The Site Wreeire 62 tree,, of wNch 21 WouW K nomad for the amtrectson of the new St et oaring Wilson Park RL Ten (10}trees would be retained, and new trees would be Planted IWJWing 2 new trees par IoL The project requires Em4re,m Mal ISE" Aavlew, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Rvhi , and Preliminary Plat Wr THE CIT' OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the en tnerental determinatlon mutt be filed In writing on or before SOD p.m. on May 25, 20M Logmher whh She required fee with: Heatng Examiner, City of Renton, 1955 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057- APP"Is to the Emminer art governed by City of RMC 44-110. Addltlonal Information regardingth. appeal process mey be obtained from the Renton Clty Berl; s ONloa, 1425) 4366510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING ID(AM14ER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL L34AMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JUNE i1, 2012 AT UWO AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATVN 15 APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACTTHE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPM ENT AT (4251430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER wheel calling for proper ftle Identification. CERTIFICATION hereby certify that.. —copies of the above document were posted inconspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: i f l ' 1 v Signed: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING } r certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that. , signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their freeland voluntary act for the 1 l uses and purposes mentioned,1// 1 ilrr iik ent. Dated: i t Y t ~ Public in PU C 0,tary Ont}: M'g i 16 Aires: r t/Jl/1i the State of Washington EXHIBIT 19 CITY OF RFNTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 9th day of May, 2012, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Darrell Offe Contact Robert & Doravin Wilson Owners Steve McNamee Party of Record Paul & Freida Witt Party of Record Jonathan Vu Party of Record Khanh Nguyen Party of Record Quang Dang & Kim Duong Party of Record Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING ' certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary actic{r: 4es acrd pur oscs mentioned in the instrument. a Dated: 1 otary Pubic in and forl4e State of Chas}r;t„ f' Notary (Print): My appointment expires: Project Name: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD Project Number: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD template -affidavit of service by mailing Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC AOA March 11, 2011 Bob Wilson 21703 — 60"' St. E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 fHli 12.i,.3.,-t...i# on Dvision s'# h:rnisilcslI 11 N,llllill7' & lrcflitc r[tis'c AOA -3796 SUBJECT: Wetland Verification for Wilson Park 2 (Parcel 312308-9119) City of Renton, WA (File # PRE11-004) Dear Bob: On March 1, 2011 1 conducted a wetland reconnaissance on the subject property utilizing the methodology outlined in the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. The primary focus of the reconnaissance was to verify the results of the wetland determination report prepared by Alder NW (dated October 19, 2004). The Alder NW report indicated a small (less than 800 s.f.) hydrologically isolated wet area in the western portion of the site, immediately adjacent to the remnant foundation of a large old loafing shed. Since the soils within this portion of the site have been significantly disturbed, and the small marginal area appears to have been created during historic site grading adjacent to the old shed, the Alder NW report determined the feature to be unregulated. Based on my wetland reconnaissance, I concur with the findings of the Alder NW report that the area consists of a small (well under 2,200 s.f.) hydrologically isolated Category 3 wetland. Small hydrologically isolated Category 3 wetlands are exempt from the City's critical area regulations if they meet the following provisions of RMC IV-3-050.C.5.f. 1) Standing water is not present in sufficient amounts, i.e., approximately twelve inches (12' to eighteen inches (18") in depth from approximately December through May, to support breeding amphibians; EXHIBIT 20 Bob Wilson March 11, 2011 Page 2 At the time of the March 1, 2011 field investigation, soils within the wetland were generally saturated near the surface and ponding was limited to depths of about 2 inches within scattered disturbed pockets. Since ponding is restricted to small very shallow isolated pockets, this provision has been met. 2) Species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species, are not present; The wetland does not contain any species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, nor does it contain essential habitat for those species. 3) Some font of mitigation is provided for hydrologic and water quality functions, for example, stormwater treatment or landscaping or other mitigation; and It is my understanding that as part of the proposed project, all runoff from impervious surfaces on the site will be treated and retained prior to downstream discharge. 4) A wetland assessment is prepared by a qualified professional demonstrating the criteria of the exemption are met. The wetland assessment shall be subject to independent secondary review at the expense of the applicant consistent with subsection F7 of this Section. I have conducted a secondary review of the Alder NW report and have verified that all of the criteria of RMC IV -3-050.C.51 have been met. In addition to the wet area, the Alder NW report also describes a drainage course that flows from east to west through the southern portion of the site. As identified in the report, this drainage originates at the top of the slope from an outfall of a storm drain line which collects surface water runoff from S. 192nd Street. Since this artificially collected runoff is conveyed within a channel where no channel previously existed, it also should not be subject to critical area regulation. Conclusion Pursuant to an on-site reconnaissance, the findings of the Alder NW report were confirmed and no regulated wetlands or streams were identified on the property. Bob Wilson March 11, 2811 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding the reconnaissance or verification of the Alder NW conclusions, please give me a call. Sincerely, ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC LDjrt__ John Altmann Ecologist CC: Steve Beck N- LI!T October 19, 2004 Project No. 42204 Mr. Karl Singh 5218 Talbot Road ,South Renton, Wa0ington 98055 Subject: Site Evaluation Singh -Property South 192nd Stmt at 98th Avenue South Reran, Washington Parcel # 3123059119 Dear W. Singh As requested we have' a site zvah ation for tha gropcq low on the north side of South 192nd Stma at 98th Anemic South in the City of Renton. -1t is identified as King County Parcel #3123059119. The location of the propeaty is shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The purpose of this work was to conduct a site evaluation to detam ire if wetlands or ofl r surface water futures are preseut on the property, In conducting cur site evaimatoa to identify possi-ble wetland areas we fllowcd the general procedures for the rotrtine on - she -methodology as outlined in the March 1997 Washington Mate Wedands Identfication and Deltneatlon Mwwl, prepared by the Wasbingtrm Stale Department of Ecology. This procedure iavolves anatysis of vegetation patterns, soil conditions, and near -surface hydrology in making a determination of wetland conditions. This meffieWagy is similar to the procedures outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetkmd Dehneatdon Manual TechM crd Report Y-871(1987). Our scope of work included a site visit on September 73, 2004, at which time we completed our site evaluation- The appro33mate location of the wetbna.d is iilusftWad on the Site Map (F re 2)_ PROCEDURES For the purpose ofthis study, we used the wetland definition adopwd by the Environm=W FroUcdon Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of EaSineers (COE) for adtiistezing Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Aocarciing to this definition, wetlands are: Those areas that are inundated or satuwod by surface water or groum1wacr at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal arcs mstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturatod soil coaditiom. Wetlan& gcaraally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and ftilaC areas. (33 CFR 3231 In Washington State, the Shoreline Management Act and Growth Mang-== Act live amended tip definition to esdude some wetland dblati by adding ttu following sentences to the wetland defiaitiow 518 North 59m Street. seaTde, Washlmjton 98103• Phone (206)783-1036 entrap alderrrw0comca5t.net Mr_ rayl sin& October 19, 2044 Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands interbonally created frown non -wetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, demon facilities, wastewater tient facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after illy 4 1990, that were intentionally.created as a res A of the conatruction of a road, street or Highway. Wetlands may is tude those ardfcial wetlands imtunonally created from non- wedand areas to rugate the conversion of was. In a.ocordauce with this definition, a given area is dcs4psawd as jurisdictional wetland if the hydrology results in im ndated or saturated soils during -the growing season, hydric soils are prescr, and tho dominad vegetation is hydrophytic. Delineation procedures are based on diagnostic enviromuenW indicators of wetland vegetadeA, wetland sods, and wetUnd hydrology. By deimition, an area is designated as wetland octan there ora positive indicators for aIL throc Parameters. A listing of plant species has been developed for use in the methodology for delineating wetland areas." 'Phis listing assigns phut species to one of five indicator status ratcgorics rouging from Obligate wetland species, which almost always occur in. wetlands. to Upload species, which rarely aeca in wetlands. Under normal conditicros, hydrophytic vegetation is dstermincd to be press d if more thaw 50 percent of the dominant species arc in the Obligate (URL), Facultative Wetland (FACW), or Facultative (FAC) mdicater categories. Diagnostic indicators of hydric soils are related to soil sat m tim which leads to mmeivbie coaditim in the soil. Under these condi ions, decomposition of organic material is inhibited and sod minerals are reduced, creating clzmwWristic soil colors that can be grant ficd by comparisau with Mmseli Sod Color Charts. A ch m a of nae or less in umnoWed soils or a chroma. of two or less in motdod soils generally indicates a hydric soil. In additioir, sons that are saturated during the growing seasoti satisfy -a criterion for hydric soils. We used a hand auger to collect soil samples from a depth of 8 to 15 inches. Wetland hydrology is defined as wed or saturated soil conditions for at least 14 consectithe days during the growing season. If no water is present at the tone of evaluation, other indicators my incinde topographic low points or c mmels, flood debris, complete absence of vegetation, or pm=cc of hydric soils. Standardized data forms are available to record observations on each parameter. For ilriss project, we completed data farms for the Routime On -Site Deterrninadon Method at 3 locations on the site. Copus of these data Ennis are included with this report. SITE CONDMONS The subject property is an irregularly shaped property with an area. of.appradmately 2.1.5 acres. Al present the site is undeveloped and is occupied by a mdced forest and. The property to the north is cantly undeveloped and is shnilarly occupied by mixed forest stand Adjacent properties to the east, west and off the northwest corner of the property are occapled by existing =Fft family homes. TopograpbicaW. the property generally slopes steeply down from the east property line at about elev. 298 to a slightly' sloping bench whiob slopes down £turn about elev. 240 to about elev. 220.at the west property line 71 is somewhat flatter area occupies approximately the western third of the site, Vegetation on the more steeply sloping eastera two thirds of the property is cbarxcriaed as mixed mann mixed forest: Predan ra a trees present are Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga nwndesti), and big leaf maple (Acer mucrophyllum), with scattered black cottorm-ood (Populus balsamiftra)'and red alder (Alnus rubra) trees prewnt closer W the We of the steep slope. The predwainant undetstoay shrub species is Oso plum (Oemleria cera sifonnisl with sword £eta (Pc&sdch= munitum) as the predominant herbaceous species. Himalayas blackberry (Rubes dircolor) is present at the margins of the forested area where there had been some clearing. ' Project No. 9=4 Page No. 2 Mr. Kass single 4ctobcr 19, 2044 There has appw= ly been some grading and clear on the Cower bench area. Vegetation here is dominated by Hbnalayaa blwlcbcrry gr m1h. There are scattered tall buck Cottonwood big Imf maple and Douglas fir with dmst-- small red alder and black cottonwood along the toe of the slope whemtbere appears to have been more recent clearing We identified a small isolated area where there appears to have been sballow surface water earlier in the year. Vegetation can this small isolated area includes creeping buttmuup (Ramowulus repo=), a small patch of soagh sedge " (Aex obnuPWX willows (Salix spp.). Conditions within this small area are described on Data Foran 3. `ibis small depression has a width of less than 15 feet and length of approximately SO $. As such it has a tatal area of less than 800sq$ It is mvcgukited under City of Rentan segpWons. _ We also =m=d the drainage course mmnmg across the south side ofthe property. 'ibis drainage cnWrtates at the top of the steep slope as the outfall from a stazm drain Iron which colleen sum water runoff from South 192nd Strcct Directly below the storm brain outfaR at the top of the slope ire is a deeply eroded, stew sided channel, At the upper end the eroded channel is 3$ to Oft in,depth Further down the slope the olsannel depth decreases and the channel becomcs Less well deed. Vegetation over the channel is dominated by Dayan bla cicbmy. There is a catch basin at the base of the slope within the South 192nd Street rcad shoulder. This catch basin collects surfzrce water from the road side ditch along the north side of South 192nd Street as weft as sar&oc water reaching the . bottom of the slope in the drainage channel. . There is no evidence of a naturally occunimg topographic suale.which aught have carried a naturally 0==g se sozial streaEtr, eitherp slope fr filegmgerty ar t ie`sl"raenage-crosses the subject propezty. T is am i erpn atioa that ins drainage is an artificially generated drainage channel resulting from construction of South 192nd street and the dis_cbwge of road may storm runoff onto the top of the slope. As as artificially generated drainage channel it sh not be subject to regulation. We trust the infonration presented is sufficient far your current needs_ If you have any questions or soquire additional infosrnaticr please ca.H. Sincerely yours, ALDERNW C'raret P. Munger Project Scientist Enc€-- Data Forms (3) Vicinity Map — Figure .I Site Mala — Figure 2 Project No. 922Q4 Page Na 3 DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE WETLAND DETERMINATION D feral Site Site is generally foresteA on steep slope Data Poing DP -1 Candions: Site Disturbance? West and of site cleared with some grading in the Locatim See site MaP vast VEGETATION 1-4 o Eg Dominant Pert Species Dmrivant Plain Species 1 polus trichocarpa Fuc T S Z Satix sp. Fac S 9 3 Rub usdiscoior rlpl S in 4 ph Facw H 11 5 12 6 13 7 14 0 - Percent of dominam species that are OBI, IFACW, anchor FAC: 75 Is the hrhophytic vegetation criterion rpt? Yes Rabon2le: Mare titer SO%species hydrophyttc SOIL Soil Type: Aidu ood Hydric Sails List No Ifistic Epigedon? Na Moines? Slight Gieyod? No Matrix Color: 1.5Y5/3 Iliotile Calcis: Dom: 12" ether byddo sod indicators: iVo Is riot hydric, s criterion met? No Rationale: [ 'hroma greater than 2 HYDROLOGY Is the around surface irmmdated? No Surface water dwft Is the soil saxuratod? No Depth to free-standing w dw i a probe hole: Not in upper I8" Other field evidence b:yc mlW Na Is Phe wWaud hydrology critcri(M mst? No Rafiama e: No Evidence ofsoft saturation WETLAND DETERMWATION Are wetly criteria met? No R.adunale for wetland deeisim Nati hydrk soil no evidence of long term sofa saturations Pmje ct Name: SMA Renton Property AlderNW Field lnyesdgatar(5): G. murnger 518 North 591h Street Project Na: - 92204 Date: 9123/04 Sebe, WasWngtm 98103 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE AVETLAND DETERMINATION Denri-be Gmral Site Conditions: Site is generally forested on steep slope Data Point No.: DP -2 Site Disturbance? Evidence ofpart clearing and some grading. Location_ see site map VEGE'T'ATION Fervent of domm= species ftt are OBL, FACW, andlos FAC, Is the hYdr hyac vcgd=oa criterion met? Yes Soil Tl pe: Alderwaod I btk Epipedon? X0 5 Rationale: More than 50% species hydrophytic SOIL Hydric .Soils Gist: Modes? AS Matrix {:Dior. 2.5Y5I2 Motdc Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Pomible seasonal siandirg water Is the hydric sog Criterion met? Yes Rationale: _ No Gleyed? No Depth 12„ rAronra 2 with motiles H"ROLOGY Is the graamd suufa.oc b undatod? No Surface water depth: Is the sod saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in probe We: Not in upper 18" Otbj= field evidence h)*oloW Ewdence ofpoadble stard}ng mater Is the wetland hydrology m4crionait? ? Rationale Presumed on basis of and and sugges6an of Seasonal surface water: WETLAND DETERMINATION Are inland Criteria met? Yes Rationale for weF]and decision: P=bvff indicators for each pw=etcr Prtect Name: Singh RAnton Property Alderl+lW Field InvestigmmAs): G. Maireger 518 North 591h Street Project No.: 92204 Date: 4/23104 SeatEle; Washington 98103 Dominan Phmt Species Daunt Plant Species 1 Carer obmpta ON H 8 Z RommCwhis repena F=W H 9 3 Rubus discolor UPI S 10 4 Populus trrchocarpa Fac T 11 5 12 6 13 7 I4 Fervent of domm= species ftt are OBL, FACW, andlos FAC, Is the hYdr hyac vcgd=oa criterion met? Yes Soil Tl pe: Alderwaod I btk Epipedon? X0 5 Rationale: More than 50% species hydrophytic SOIL Hydric .Soils Gist: Modes? AS Matrix {:Dior. 2.5Y5I2 Motdc Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Pomible seasonal siandirg water Is the hydric sog Criterion met? Yes Rationale: _ No Gleyed? No Depth 12„ rAronra 2 with motiles H"ROLOGY Is the graamd suufa.oc b undatod? No Surface water depth: Is the sod saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in probe We: Not in upper 18" Otbj= field evidence h)*oloW Ewdence ofpoadble stard}ng mater Is the wetland hydrology m4crionait? ? Rationale Presumed on basis of and and sugges6an of Seasonal surface water: WETLAND DETERMINATION Are inland Criteria met? Yes Rationale for weF]and decision: P=bvff indicators for each pw=etcr Prtect Name: Singh RAnton Property Alderl+lW Field InvestigmmAs): G. Maireger 518 North 591h Street Project No.: 92204 Date: 4/23104 SeatEle; Washington 98103 371UV DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE WETLAND DETERMINATION Describe General Site con&tions: Data Point No.: DP -3 Site Disturbawe? Evh*nce ofpast clewing and some grading Location: See site map VEGETATION Dommurt Plant Species Domit Plant Species I Pop dus mckocarpa Fac T 8 2 Ruims rttswtor UPI H 9 3 to 4 ll 12 6 13 7 14 Peroent of dominwt species t]zat are OBIS FACW, andlor FAC: SQ Is the hydrophytic vegetatam criterion met? yes Monale: 1 50% species hy&0PkdC No herbaceous cover below dense hlac* e= Soli Type: Alderwood Hist u Epipedw? No Matrix Color. IOYR413 Other hydric sail fixU rocs: No Ls the hydl soil criteaon met? No Is the ground Sur&ze incada ? Ivo Hydric Soils List: No Mottles? Yes Gleyed? No Mottle Colors: - Depth: IZ ,. l smale: Chroma 3, HYDROLOGY Surface water depth: Is the soil satwated7f MO Depth to free-standing v ater in probe hole: Qthor field evidence hSdrology No Is the wWand bydmlW ==On met? No Rat=ale No evidence of owdaiion or sal saturation WETLAND DETERARNATION Ase wetland criteria met? Na R wiorcak .for wetland decisk= Non hydric 5014 no evidence of long term soil satTudan or mandatlon Project Nam- Singh Rerr In Property AidcrNW Field Investigator(s):nger 518 Nodh 59th StreetCr.G Iii Project No- 92204 Date: SlZ3l[l4 Seale, WasbiDgm 98103 VACINrfY MAP ALDERKad Singh Property I Renton, Washington No.92204 I Date Oct., 2004 1 Figure 1 0 DP -1 Approximate Data pclnt Coco-tior FENCE COR j5 (751 W. 3 t N. JF PRO'. W 2O APPROXIMATE SCALE 50 0 1% 100 feet o59 -as SITE MAP Karl Singh Property Kent, Washington Proj. No. 30102 February 28, 2012 Of l3rI op"t ADDENDUM TO "TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT" Prepared for Wilson Park (LUA09-140) By Baima & Holmberg, Inc. dated May 5, 2009 Prepared By: Darrell Offe, P.E. EXHIBIT 21 eoh`a l , ro l6 - I. OVERVIEW The proposed Wilson Park #2 is a 10 lot single family residential subdivision situated on 1 existing lot with a total area of 2.15 acres. It is located on the north side of South 55"' Street at Ph Avenue South, when extended. The project was part of an earlier submittal called Wilson Park (LUA09-140). The property was evaluated for development of a road and utilities to access Wilson Park. The Technical Information Report prepared by Baima & Holmberg dated May 5, 2003, discusses the onsite areas, off site drainage systems, and evaluates the downstream drainage system. This report is provides the necessary preliminary review of the drainage system for Wilson Park #2. As part of the report, a stormwater treatment system was proposed within the roadway at the entry of the new road and South 55''. This system was only sized, at that time, for Wilson Park and the road improvements on Wilson Park #2. Additional impervious areas will be added to this treatment system with the addition of 10 lots within Wilson Park #2. Attached within this addendum are calculations that are intended to be a starting point for sizing the storm treatment facility for the two projects. Under the 2009 City of Renton Drainage Manual, Best Management Practices (BMP's) are required to be used for new developments. One of these BMP's is restricting the impervious areas on the future lots to help reduce runoff, mitigate for development, and minimize the treatment system needed for the project. This Restrictive Covenant provision was utilized as part of a preliminary sizing of the future system for both projects. It is anticipated that the two projects will occur (be developed) simultaneously. A review of the two developments utilizing a 3,300 square feet of impervious area per lot created the proposed stormwater vault shown on the Drainage/Utilities Plan. Based upon experience developing building footprints and impervious areas on building permits of similar size lots, 3,300 square feet gives the future builder plenty of impervious coverage for the home, patio, driveways, and walkways. Once the final engineering plans are developed and cost evaluations are reviewed for this facility, restricting the lots further is an option to minimize the facility needed. This is a preliminary review of a possible scenario that a future developer can use. PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS BREAKDOWN OF BASINS Total rill rill Area Grass I Forest Notes SITE 4.60 ac 0.00 ac 1 4.60 ac KCRTS Input Parameters 4.60 ac SITE Total .' Area Max ' Imperviousl Design' Impervious Till y Grass Till r' Forest Notes Public RNV 40,684 sf 32,547 sf 8,137 sf Open Space 31,093 sf 31,093 sf Lot 1 (WP) 4,594 sf 3,446 sf 3,400 sf 1,194 sf Lott 4,500 sf 3,375 sf 3,400 sf 1,100 sf Lot 3 5,896 sf 4,422 sf 3,400 sf 2,496 sf Lot 4 5,993 sf 4,495 sf 3,400 sf 2,593 sf Lot 5 5,979 sf 4,484 sf 3,400 sf 2,579 sf Lot 6 5,964 sf 4,473 sf 3,400 sf 2,564 sf Lot 7 6,782 sf 5,087 sf 3,400 sf 3,382 sf Lot 6,269 sf 4,702 sf 3,400 sf 2,869 sf Lot 9 5,400 sf 4,050 sf 3,400 sf 2,000 sf Lot 10 5,400 sf 4,050 sf 3,400 sf 2,000 sf Lot 11 5,404 sf 4,053 sf 3,400 sf 2,004 sf Lot 12 8,122 sf 6,092 sf 3,400 sf 4,722 sf Lot 1 (WP2) 5,775 sf 4,331 sf 3,400 sf 2,375 sf Lot 2 5,905 sf 4,429 sf 3,400 sf 2,505 sf Lot 3 5,905 sf 4,429 sf 3,400 sf 2,505 sf Lot 4 5,905 sf 4,429 sf 3,400 sf 2,505 sf Lot 5 5,909 sf 4,432 sf 3,400 sf 2,509 s Lot 6 5,586 sf 4,190 sf 3,400 sf 2,186 sf Lot 7 5,560 sf 4,170 sf 3,400 sf 2,160 sf Lot 8 5,560 sf 4,170 sf 3,400 sf 2,160 sf Lot 9 5,559 sf 4,169 sf 3,400 sf 2,159 sf Lot 10 6,778 sf 5,084 sf 3,400 sf 3,378 sf Totals {Sq. Feet} 200,522 sf 107,347 sf 62,082 sf 31,093 sf Totals (Acres) 4.60 ac 2.46 ac 4.43 ac 0.71 ac KCRTS Input Parameters 1) Wdrn urn Im pervious calculation - R-8 (75%) 2) Design Impervious - Restricted impervious area by Restrictive Covenant Existing Site Conditions Land Use Time Series: PreDev.tsf ]7 Compute Time Series Modify User Input File for computed Time Series I.TSF] Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:predev.tsf Project Location:Sea-'Fac Annual Peak Till Forest Flow 4.60 acres; Till Pasture Rank 0.00 acres Till Grassj Peaks 0.00 acres Outwash Forest Proh 0.00 acres! Outwash Pasture; 0.00 acres Outwash Grassi 0.00 acres' Wetlandl 0.00 acres, Impervious; 0.00 acresl Total — 1 f3fI 4.60 acres Scale Factor : 1.00 Hourly Reduced Time Series: PreDev.tsf ]7 Compute Time Series Modify User Input File for computed Time Series I.TSF] Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:predev.tsf Project Location:Sea-'Fac Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak Peaks Rank Return Proh CFS) CES} Period 0.290 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.371 1 100.00 0.990 0.079 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.290 2 25.00 0.960 0.215 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.223 3 10.00 0.900 0.008 6 3/24/04 20:00 0.215 4 5.00 0.800 0.128 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.188 5 3.00 0.667 0.223 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.128 6 2-00 0.500 0.188 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.079 7 1.30 0.231 0.371 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.008 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks D.344 50-00 0.980 Developed Site Conditions Land Use Area Till Forest 0.71 acres! Till Pasture# 0.00 acres' Till Grassi 1.43 acres Outwash Forest 0.00 acres} k Outwash Pasture{ 0.00 acres# Outwash Grass, F 0.00 acres! Wetland' O.DO acres Impervious 2.46 acres( 4.60 acres! Scale Factor: 1.00 Hourly Reduced Time Series: C]ev.ts4 I ?l Campute Time Series Modify User Input File for computed Time Series [.TSF] Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsf Project bocation:Sea-Tac Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Frequency Analysis ------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak Peaks Rank Return Prob CFS) CFS) Period 0.752 6 2/09/01 2:00 1.52 1 100.00 0.990 0.602 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.930 2 25.00 0.960 0.899 3 2/27/03 7:00 0.899 3 10.00 0.900 0.640 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.800 4 5.00 0.800 0.770 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.770 5 3,00 0.667 0.800 4 1/18/06 26:00 0.752 6 2.00 0.500 0.930 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.640 7 1.30 0.231 1.52 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.602 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.32 50.00 0.980 Detention Facility Design Detention Facility Definition Type of Facility Facility Length: Facility Width: Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention Vault 110.00 ft 22.00 ft 2420. sq. ft 20.75 ft 100.00 ft 50215. cu. ft 20.75 ft 12.00 inches 3 Full Head Pipe Orifice 4 Height Diameter Discharge Diameter ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 0.75 0.069 2 12.75 1.50 0.173 4.0 3 18.00 I.00 0.045 4.0 Tap Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage/Storage/Discharge Performance Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 100.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 100.01 24. 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.02 100.02 48. 0.001 0.002 0.00 0.03 100.03 73. 0.002 0.003 0.00 0.04 100.04 97. 0.002 0.003 0.00 0.05 100.05 121. 0.003 0.004 0.00 0.06 100.06 145. 0.003 0.004 0.00 0.47 100.47 1137. 0.026 0.010 0.00 0.88 100.88 2130, 0.049 0.014 0.00 1.28 101.28 3098. 0.071 0.017 0.00 1.69 101.69 4090. 0.094 0.020 0.00 2.10 102.10 5082. 0.117 0.022 0.00 2.50 102.50 6050. 0.139 0.024 0.00 2.91 102.91 7042. 0.162 0.026 0.00 3.32 103.32 8034. 0.184 0.028 0.00 3.72 103.72 9002. 0.207 0.029 0.00 4.13 104.13 9995. 0.229 0.031 0.00 4.54 104.54 10987. 0.252 0.033 0.00 4.94 104.94 11955. 0.274 0.034 0.00 5.35 105.35 12947. 0.297 0.035 0.00 5.76 105.76 13939. 0.320 0.037 0.00 6.17 106.17 14931. 0.343 0.038 0.00 6.57 106.57 15899. 0.365 0.039 0.00 6.98 106.98 16892. 0.388 0.040 0.00 7.39 107.39 17884. 0.411 0.041 0.00 7.79 107.79 18852. 0.433 0.043 0.00 8.20 03.20 19844. 0.456 0.044 0.00 8.61 108.61 20836, 0.478 0.045 0.00 9.01 109.01 21804. 0.501 0.046 0.00 9.42 109.42 22796. 0.523 0.047 0.00 9.83 109.83 23789. 0.546 0.048 0.00 10.23 110.23 24757. 0.568 0.049 0.00 10.64 110.64 25749. 0.591 0.050 0.00 11.05 111.05 26741. 0.614 0.051 0.00 11.45 111.45 27709. 0.636 0.052 0.00 11.$6 111.86 28701. 0.659 0.053 0.00 12.27 112.27 29693. 0.602 0.053 0.00 Stage(StoragelDischarge Performance (continued) Stage ft) Elevation ft) Storage Discharge cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) Percolation cfs) 12.68 112.68 30686_ 0.704 0.054 0.00 12.75 112.75 30855. 0.708 0.054 0.00 12.77 112.77 30903. 0.709 0.055 0.00 12.76 112.78 30928. 0.710 0.056 0.00 12.80 112.80 30976. 0.711 0.059 0.00 12.81 112.81 31000. 0.712 0.062 0.00 12.83 112.83 31049. 0.713 0.066 0.00 12.84 112.84 31073. 0.713 0.071 0.00 12.86 112.86 31121. 0.714 0.075 0.00 12.88 112.88 31170. 0.716 0.076 0.00 13.28 113.28 32138. 0.738 0.100 0.00 13.69 113.69 33130. 0.761 0.116 0.00 14.10 114.10 34122, 0.7B3 0.128 0.00 14.50 114.50 35090. 0.806 0.139 0.00 14.91 114.91 36082. 0.828 0.149 0.00 15.32 115.32 37074. 0.851 0.157 0.00 15.72 115.72 38042, 0.873 0.166 0.00 16.13 116.13 39035. 0.896 0.173 0.00 16.54 116.54 40027. 0.919 0.181 0.00 16.94 116.94 40995. 0.941 0.188 0.00 17.35 117.35 41987. 0.964 0.194 0.00 17.76 117.76 42979. 0.987 0.201 0.00 18.00 118.00 43560. 1.000 0.205 0.00 18.01 118.01 43584. 1.001 0.205 0.00 18.02 118.02 43608. 1.001 0.206 0.00 18.03 118.03 43633. 1.002 0.207 0.00 18.04 118.04 43657. 1.002 0.208 0.00 18.05 118.05 43681. 1.003 0.210 0.00 1B.06 116.06 43705. 1.003 0.212 0.00 18.07 118.07 43729. 1.004 0.213 0.00 18.08 118.06 43754. 1.004 0.214 0.00 18.09 118.09 43778, 1.005 0.214 0.00 18.50 118.50 44770. 1.026 0.231 0.00 18.91 118.91 45762. 1.051 0.244 0.00 19.31 119.31 46730, 1.073 0.255 0.00 19.72 119.72 47722. 1.096 0.264 0.00 20.13 120.13 48715. 1.118 0.274 0.00 20.53 120.53 49683. 1.141 0.283 0.00 20.75 120.75 50215. 1.153 0.287 0.00 Stage/StoragelDischarge Performance at Significant Storm Events Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev Cu -Ft) (Ac Ft) 1 1.52 0.37 0.69 20.90 120.90 50584. 1.161 2 0.75 x**** 0.29 20.70 120.70 50104. 1.150 3 0.93 0.19 17.41 117.41 42124. 0.967 4 0.90 0.20 17.83 117.83 43154. 0.991 5 0.80 0.14 14.52 114.52 35130. 0.806 6 0.77 0.09 13.18 113.18 31892. 0.732 7 0.60 0.05 12.50 112.50 30253. 0.695 8 0.64 0.04 7.66 107.66 18546. 0.426 KCRTS Routing Instructions Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf outflow Time Series File:RDOut Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: Peak Outflow Discharge. Peak Reservoir Stage: Peak Reservoir Elev: Peak Reservoir Storage: 1,52 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 0.892 CES at 10:00 on Jan 20.90 Ft 120.90 Ft 50584. Cu -Ft 1.161 Ac -Ft 9 in Year 8 9 in Year 8 Duration Comparison Analysis Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: predev.tsf New File: rdout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS Fraction of Time Check of Tolerance ------- Cutoff Base New Change Probability Base New Change 0.064 I 0.95E-02 0.69E-02 27.1 j 0.95E-02 0.064 0.054 15.7 0.081 I 0.63E-02 0.61E-02 4.1 I 0.63E-02 0.081 0.077 4.5 0.098 I 0.50E-02 0.49E-02 1.3 j 0.50E-02 0.098 0.098 0.9 0.116 I 0.37E-02 0.38E-02 4.0 E 0.37E--02 0.116 0.118 1.8 0.133 I 0.29E-02 0.29E-02 1.1 j 0.29E-02 0.133 0.134 0.4 0.151 I 0.22E-02 0.21E-02 5.1 i 0.22E-02 0.151 0.149 1.1 0.168 I 0.15E-02 0.15E-02 2.2 I 0.15E-02 0.168 0.169 0.5 0.185 I 0.10E-02 0.10E-02 3.2 j 0.10E-02 0.185 0.187 0.9 0.203 I 0.62E-03 0.47E-03 23.7 I 0.62E-03 0.203 0.200 1.6 0.220 I 0.34E-03 0.38E-03 9.5 I 0.34E-03 0.220 0.221 0.5 0.238 I 0.21£-03 0.26E-03 30.8 I 0.21E-03 0.238 0.256 7.8 0.255 I 0.16E-03 0.21E-03 30.0 0.16E-03 0.255 0.265 4.1 0.272 I 0.98E-04 0.11E-03 16.7 j 0.98E-04 0.272 0.275 1.1 0.290 I 0.16E-04 0.00E+00 100.0 j 0.16E-04 0.290 0.286 1.3 Maximum positive excursion = 0.019 cfs 7.8%p occurring at 0.243 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.262 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion - 0.019 cfs 25.7%) occurring at 0.073 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.055 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Duration Comparison Analysis (Continued) Paused - Duration AnaFysis - KCRTS C7 o RDOut.dur c targetdur a mN O N G O OW N O LL U r LUdl f N 17o 00b o i 00 o Q OrmO 10 10 10.3 i0 .2 10 10° Probability Exceedence Wetvault Sizing Calculations Per 2009 King County Stormwater Management Manual Project Name: Wilson Park 2 Facility Description: Wetpool Storage Volume Step 1: Identify required wetpool volume factor (f). f = 3 Per KCSWDM 6.4.1.1 Step 2: Determine rainfall (R) for the mean annual storm. R = 0.47 Per KCSWDM Fig. 6.4.1.A Step 3: Calculate runoff from the mean annual storm (Vr) for the developed site. V, = (0.9A. + 0.25A4g + 0.10AK + 0.01 A4) x (R 112) where: A; = Impervious Surface Area = 107,347 s,f. Aig = Till Grass Area = 62,482 s.f. Atf =Till Forest Area = 0 s.f. k = Qutwash Area = 0 s,f. V, = 4,392 c.f. Step 4: Calculate required wetpool volume (Vb). Vb=fxVr Vb = 13,176 c.f. Step 5: Calculate required wetpool depth (DJ. Dmin = V o /(L v x W y/) where: Dm;n = Minimum Calculated Depth Lv = Vault Length = 110 ft. Lw = Vault Width = 22 ft. Dmin = 5.44 ft. Dr = 6 ft. (Min. depth, rounded up to the nearest 0.5 -ft) RAIMA & HOLMBERG IN( TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT fo r Wilson Park May 5, 2009 J PE WAS fro e 113322.p I3Tkt`" i I IVAL Baima & Holmberg, Inc. Job No. 2687-001 Prepared For Robert Wilson 720 South 55th Street Renton, WA 98055 city 0f Renton Planning Division OCT 16 t c RECOVER 100 FRONT STREET SOUTH • ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027-3817 • (425) 392-0250 • (425) 391-3055 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 3 OFFSITE ANALYSIS 4 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7 OTHER PERMITS S ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Street Address 720 South 55`x' Street King County Tax Parcel No. 312305-9125 Project Overview This project involves developing a 2.5 -acre parcel into 13 single-family lots. The site currently is occupied with a single residence, lawn and wooded areas. The site is located about 250' north of South 55th Street, about 150' east of the east terminus of South 53rd Place, on the slope overlooking SR 167, about 1/z mile to the west. The site generally slopes down to the west at an average slope of approximately 20%. Per the SCS soil maps, the site is underlain with Alderwood soil, sandy loam over glacial till. Upstream Tributary Drainage A portion of the parcel to the east of the site drains onto the site. No problems related to this runoff was noted. Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis In general, runoff from the site flows west into lots in the adjacent development, Geneva Court (A). The majority of these runoff flows apparently collect in the drain behind an 8'± rockery (B) constructed along the back yards of the west -most lots of said development or in area drains in the back yards, then flow into the storm system in South 53rd Place (C & D). This flow collects in a stormwater pond/bioswale facility located at the intersection of South 53`d Place and Talbot Road South (E), about 750' downstream from the site. This facility outfalls through an 18" pipe to the west side of Talbot Road South into a shallow, poorly defined channel flowing west through the woods (F). The flows pass through a short 12" culvert (H) under a walking path then disappear into thick woods/brush, continuing to flow west to a wooded wetland area (1) beyond 'A mile downstream from the site. This wetland apparently drains to a 10' X 5'± box culvert crossing under SR -167 (Q), about % mile downstrearn from the site. A small area of the south part of the site drains southwest across the south property line of the site into the adjacent parcel to the south (Z). These runoff flows through woods, collecting in a ditches along South 551h Street (K)(about 350' downstream from the site) and/or Talbot Road South (L)( about 800' downstream from the site). Flows into the ditch along South 55` h Street (K) continue west in a 6"-12" rock -lined ditch channel r PORTION OF THE SE -1/4 OF SEC. 31, TWN. 23 N., RNG 5 E_, W[1 CEN OF RENTON, WASHINGTON OIFRiIAP IS 9Ss' FXW 5/B- REEAR t GIP SET ffIM FpOF6 S/9' RE94R t CAP lP1C S. 525: SE I At N PROF. 111E TPS 21170- 0.11' N. t //. 5.f 1/4 W nv 1YR 'CRCI 15' 29337 0.39' N a 953' C OF PROP NR .583 2R 34£ 015' E OF FROF COP I L !A1C. r. su. .m' SS.ea 5x.56- 5e.ao x.ec 165.ao' S.E r/4. S.E r/1, Fm caw ;TRACT r 6 A 1 . 9 7 s OPEJT SPAa/ w 13 8 12 $ '[ 8 Q B I, $ S S,1ST Sq FL 8 s r S10RIF RnPk a Ste2 $ R 9 5•Lt Sq F1 S 5.112 s4 n 5.111 Sq FI $ 5,>16 Sq FL 5.333 Sq fl I N 11 10,494 5'q FI 1 g I rI (!.324 Sq Ft I I) I L.1114' vss o {13,171 Sq Ft R-141 R.5066' ! VV, IS 55 L•10.iJp, t6.33 ,ed E45EL1[1/F r 6.512 SR FI B K .w, Se A7 44 -Tp' ( 1 t11" w s1, I R 1 4,0 1L!3123 03-912 Lee wT131 ISe.eY $ 40=---------- ROAD A Fc :ti. -ems'+ p '°+ 22e.i1- I.51AMES L l 86.00 60.02' 4.1.00' LaarynR.7e.06 dd R0 4 6.356 59 Fl d ?' TR v FOU14 5/9' REBLR t CAP _ - _ ,.'e4,319- to 7 rj g - 124,12' CPS Z2339 05-z' N 8 ^ I Fl C Sq Fc 4 L 34 !] r 6PLTIYSPACC 10.14' E OF PROP COR 4.e3! Sq Fl ' 17T0 9q FL 'rppEx $aA[E S,p3e Sq R 1.321 sq FI 'j - 15' BSBL R $ 4 g OVER1Aq 5 IO Ifi' ' rte- i'F 'C 8 AT S. PROP 113fE 6,2N Sq Fl 6144' } \36.65 60.p6' 7660' }15.60' R I'1 317 O2' I A69 25 3B'M 515 N. IV?'. 3- I I I i SE 1/4. 5.E 1/4 1RACT w 51011" 6RAR.Aa6 TRACT- 065581E iFITUKACCESSFPIPROPERTYT6 I I I' ItPIRI-0IkBD/MNR1R9IeP eT NOA Q 4 I I I eucr Y I I Pn,ICnL 11sR IARC, ls,EeP Ii I I I rl 9LP'iRl-owFm/O.IT.RILa eY I k m a 1RACF 'C Vt I I ' I OD[M SAS - e1A10]•hdNTIMieO I LOT I ;I w RfNrCN SP l 059-85 1 { +I c"K se' II! 50' ROAO AND J + rL" °'E - p P m/ RR 1Rd p I UTUTY EASEA EN T ei xw II 4 i REC NO 200.90327002018 i I 94mit so gifg a N hEA "r I 22t AMS RENO ?1102050 LOT 2 I I i RLTf1rNI SP l 059-93 I I a l I I I i I 1 I 1 ALE Ir 30' I , u I I 11. r• v^p` r 1` QT TIP I [ r COGS 169 sTi X11119.71' '•+''- I y/ Y o \ rt. " b RI z731,a3' S 55TH ST. a" I F , 1111 r T NW X'b1r 2616.43PE153 roLra CI?MCREJI . 8705 O iL. SEC. cw Site Plan V=80 a' Vicinity "~ U rt atd i - pgC 2 1 Py .. i ® . ° 451 Cl Wo Jr 9k =-= i o IAgC I m . . A 8g I I, TTu 4 j I ag6 f to 1 _ Inc a a So j Ago , 7 a me • a M 17 Py Wbb .r r • ; : s ; WO ` M 194 1 ' n ` •1 • 3 AmB e AgC • ++ .. S. 1 I u r r } I Ng I •• e s D -32 w WO r.. ASC' E IS q6 `• A$B • • NS Ur Br Re' a _ W9{er, $ WO C dz H Tank+ pgC • ' I?Y Os N` IQI I+ ! y mUr ' n 3tr So r I "E: s ABC C 11R I• s • AS asp • .. i . JiAYES Ng Ng AgC- r U •d A4 4 I 'r T .•t Tu I I .... AMC Uri •• AkF AgC {:: AgS Ur ICO . fariv9-i ..1 - • . p er p` PII i Os - -- .... , B S Ng fc ' Wo g A•B N r AgC Oro t e• S.• Uri ri' AMC =? o ai®l Qs hr AMC i ' ... .• 05 t Ago M/ A3C Tu WO 1 ': •• wO _ 5 • aC ' • AMC tl • .. `+ Os . Ur Ur AMC• - f . • Q. p ; C5 AgD AgC Sk Q Ei AMC— a i r- . ,.. ,• f AMC AgC Ptj Wo 2 a AgC Amc F Os rt I a NO Nr r 12 Pk a k m - 31_ u x O ` +a' Am C Re R It r r I • AmC. .. o a"a Ur rails• AkF ABB• . man • ca` + nC Ag Re Ur n Re Ur. WO• • . Os AkF ; ASC\ _•; Qs C}s LP 8O a OW AkF + 1 AgCRe I r CS uOP If our I r • Ag Ur SCS Soil Ma I ASD • { • Pu Sm OF [ Ur y yW , EMUS q E\ Ki• County Department of Development a- 'Environmental Services TECI CAL INFORMATION REPO (TIR) WORKSHEET Parti °PROJEGTOWNER=REVD PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Address wn ;,.)un -4 S 5nA- e r apt Project e, 5nglneer LKA B04 Company I Address/Phone _j[.Z gOt-T `PT- Subdivison Short Subdivision Grading Commercial Other Part 2 _ PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name WiLLU10 RrIfZ - Location Township 2.3 Range -S Jr .....Sectton 31 Part 4 }THER REITIEWS, [ND_PEI31NiTS F := DFW HPA Shoreline Management COE 404 Rockery DOE Dam Safety Structural Vaults FEMA Floodplain Other GO Wetlands Pait5 SITE C N MCINiTYaND DRAINAGE B3 SI[ 4f Community Drainage Basin Part 6 'SITE CHARAGTERISTFGS River Floodplain Wetlands Stream Seeps/Springs Critical Stream Reach High Groundwater Table Depressions/Swales Groundwater Recharge Lake Other Steep Slopes Part7= .SOI LS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential A OfttAlao D KAOE fl r Additional Sheets Attached Erosive Velcoties Part'S., DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT Ch. 4 — Downstream Analysis— t a U& A — 1jC9 gp r, We ?s Additional Sheets Attached MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS I DURING CONSTRUCTION Sedimentation Facilities v Stabilized Construction Entrance Perimeter Runoff Control Clearing and Graing Restrictions I vCover Practices f I/Construction Sequence Other MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION k6tabilize Exposed Surface . Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities CEean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas Other Part 10-:SURFAGL. 1ATER 8"YSTEM Grass Lined Tank Infiltration Channel Vault Depression Pipe System Energy Dissapator Flow Dispersal Open Channel Wetland Waiver Dry Pond Stream Regional Wet Pond Detention Method of Analysis Compensation/Mitigati on of Eliminated Site Storage Brief Description of System Operation 51TFF,-- D1101fuez 122 60"3Q --Ry IA- LIT1't G Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation Fait 1 .,.STFiIJCTFiA:AN/ALYS[S', mast in Place Vault Retaining Wall bckery a 4' High Structural on Steep Slope Other PartAi2:. E1 SESTWCTS ° 3. Drainage Easement Access Easement Native Growth Protection Easement Tract Other Park 13.4'SIGNATU,RE 01= PRDFESSiQiVA ENGINEER I or a civil engineer under my supervision my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Denis Law Clty OMayorr Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Interim Administrator June 5, 2012 Darrell Offe Offe Engineers, PLLC 13932 SE 159th Place Renton, WA 98058 SUBJECT: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD Dear Mr. Offe: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended May 25, 2012 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated for the above -referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination therefore, this decision is final and the applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures outlined in the Report and Decision dated May 7, 2012. Also, a. Hearing Examiner Public Hearing has been scheduled for June 12, 2012, where additional conditions may be issued. The applicant or representati.ve(s) of the applicant are required to be present. Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner for your review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jennifer Henning Current Planning Manager. Enclosure cc; Robert & Doravin Wilson / owner(s) Jonathan Vu, Paul & Frieda Witt, Steve McNamee, Quang Dang & Kim Duong, Khanh Nguyen / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law CI ty OMayor- _{, Department of Community and Economic Development May 31, 2012 C.E."Chip"Vincent, Interim Administrator Darrell Offe Offe Engineers, LLC 13932 SE 159`h Place Menton, WA 98058 Subject: Notice of Revised Hearing Date Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat, LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD Dear Mr. Offe: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has rescheduled the public hearing for the above -referenced project. This matter is scheduled for a Public Hearing on Tuesday, June 12, 2022 at 2:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430-7286 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jennifer Henning Current Planning Manager cc: Robert & Doravin Wilson / Owner(s) Parties of Record Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov NOTI CE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DN5-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION RRDJECr NAME: Wilson Park I Preliminary Plat P HO) Cf NUMBER: LUA22-013, ECF, PP, PPUD LOCATION: 09g S 55' Street MSCRIM N: The applicant proposes to subdlylde in ulsthsg 2.15 aces parcel Into 10 lab for the eventual de"lopmem of detached single Family homes, and i trap for open apace. The she Is coned Residential -14 dulac R -14y & Residential -1 du/ac IR -1y. The site contains 9,783 s.1. of Protected slopes (-40%). Pnspaced damit, awr•Ras GA dwelEnB un Hs per ane across she site, with 9 LM proposed In the A-14 area, & 1 lot proposed within the R-1. A Planned Urban newlopment Is proposed In order to modlfr minimum lot: sire within the R-1 Zone and provide larger WU within the R-14 lone. Adeess would be praeided from South 55th Street via new street constructed as part of the appnsaed Wilson Park at plat A small hydrologically Isolated, nnauleted wetland oIslooted an the wall—cmlportionestthesite. The she talns 92 Trees, o1 which 21 would be remewd ter the ceastrurtlen of the new street —Ong Mison Park 81. Ten 1101 trees would be retained, and new trees wauw be Named Including 2 new trees per lot. The prplect requires Emlmmnento (5EPAI Renew, PFanned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preilminary Plat —I.- THE eelew. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC} HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Appeals of the enrdronmental detemslnatlon must he filed in wrltin8 - or before 5:06 p.m, on May 25, 201; together with the required he with: Hearing E—mer, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by Oty of RML d-8-110. Additional Lnfoemmlon regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Cleric's Oftlm 142S) 430-651D. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BL HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON 731E 7TH FLOOR Of CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JUNE 11, 2012 AT 10TDU AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HFABiNG, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT 1425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper Nle IdentlficaUon. CERTIFICATION I, t" ' I`i`i i` Z hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted in conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: l `' l i Signed: k STATE OF WASHINGTON ) j SS COUNTY OF KING certify that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledge •t to be hisiher/their free and voluntary act far e uses and purposes mentionedl.r, r_t lkf ant. Dated: mot P otor.7 C3`,_' . - SSC? `. pires ublic in)and f6r the State of Washington CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 9th day of May, 2012, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Darrell Off e Contact Robert & Doravin Wilson Owners Steve McNamee Party of Record Paul & Freida Witt Party of Record Jonathan Vu Party of Record Khanh Nguyen Party of Record Quang Dang & Kim Duong Party of Record Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) l SS COUNTY OF KING ) ,•'% i- I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker .w , signed this instrument and acknowledged it tv be his/her/their free and voluntary act d tFti$ s s aV purpose mentioned in the instrument. ; F Dated: Notary Pu lic in and for e State of Vastf Notary (Print): My appointment expires: Project Name: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD Project Number: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division " Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S- Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn_ SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attm SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: if the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template - affidavit of service by mailing I r Citi of a r .. ri r r i OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD LOCATION: 698 S 55"' Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.25 acre parcel into 14 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential -14 du/ac (R-14) & Residential - 1 du/ac (R-1). The site contains 9,783 s.f. of protected slopes (540%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed in the R-14 area, & 1 lot proposed within the R-1. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots size within the R-1 Zone and provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 plat. A small hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site. The site contains 82 trees, of which 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street serving Wilson Park #1. Ten (10) trees would be retained, and new trees would be planted including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 25, 2012, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JUNE 11, 2012 AT 10:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. ANOL Denis Law City OfMayor 0il DMay9, 2012 .= •,,. Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Ch i p"Vin cent, Interim Administrator Darrell Offe Offe Engineers, LLC 13932 SE 159th Place Renton, WA.98058 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD, LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD Dear Mr. Offe: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 25, 2012, with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Also, a Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on June 11, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. to consider the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Urban Development. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing and a copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jennifer Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager Enclosure cc: Robert & Doravin Wilson / Owner(s) Steve McNamee, Paul & Freida wilt, Jonathan Vu, Khanh Nguyen, Quang Dang & Kim Duong / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa,gov Denis Law Mayor r City of May 9, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 7, 2012: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD PROJECT NUMBER: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD LOCATION: 698S 55th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 25, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7286. For the Environmental Review Committee, V Jennifer Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager Enclosure Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa_gov Washington State Department of Ecology Page 2 of 2 May 9, 2012 cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal Office Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY C't` of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 698S55 th Street LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012, for the duration of project construction. 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume 11 of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 4. Because of moisture -sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Therefore, the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. 5. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY d a City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT] DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 698S5 51h Street LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant. The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock 9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 2 6. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6) high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING — Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if fess than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. Fire Prevention: 1. The Fire Mitigation Fees are applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to the recording of the plat. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feeet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5 -inch storz fittings. 3. Fire Department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -tan vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within150- feet of all points on the buildings. Maximum grade of 15% is allowed. Dead end streets that exceed 150 -feet in length require an approved turnaround. Plan Review: Water Water service will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City with the site plan application. Plan Review: Sanitary Sewer 1. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadway is required. Sewer stubs are required to be provided to each lot. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic waters to serve the new homes on the new lots. Sewer fee for a %- inch water meter is $1,591.00. Sewer fee for a 1 -inch water meter is $3,977.00. An"approved" water plan from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District will be required to be submitted to the City. Property Services: 1. See attached memo for comments from Property Services. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATED (DNS -M) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 698S55 th Street 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 (E15) 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 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 25, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.13. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: May 11, 2012 DATE OF DECISION: May 7, 2012 SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmer n dministrator Mark Pet rson, Admi strator Public Works D partment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date L%_ S'? ! Z =4-2 Terry Higashiyama, Administrator C.E.'"Chip" Vincent, Interim Community Services Department Date Administrator/Planning Director Hate Department of Community & Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTT e"' Dcr 0 D ENVIRONMENTAL. REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TO: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Mark Peterson, Fire & Emergency Services Administrator Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator FROM: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager MEETING DATE: Monday, May 7, 2012 TIME: 3:00 p.m. LOCATION: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD (Henning) LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD Location: 698 5 55` x' Street. Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential -14 du/ac (R-14) & Residential - 1 du/ac (R-1). The site contains 9,783 s.f. of protected slopes (>40%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed in the R-14 area, & 1 lot proposed within the R-1. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots size within the R-1 Zone and provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 plat. . McDonalds on Sunset Timmons) LUA12-023, ECF, SA -A, MOD Location: 4411 NE Sunset Blvd. Description: The applicant, McDonalds USA LLC, is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review, Environmental Review and a parking modification, for the construction of a new McDonalds restaurant with associated parking, landscaping and a play area. The proposed building would have a gross square footage of approximately 5,050 square feet which includes the 865 square foot enclosed Play Place structure. The site contains an existing 5,200 square foot McDonalds restaurant which is proposed to be demolished. The 0.97 acre site is within the Commercial Corridor (CC) land use designation and the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning classification. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director I R. Perteet, Deputy PW Administrator - Transportation C. Vincent, CED Planning Director m N. Watts, Development Services Director L. Warren, City Attorney Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal J. Medzegian, Council DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JY...' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: May 7, 2012 Project Name: Wilson Park II Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD Owner: Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson 2107360 th Street East Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Applicant: Same as owner Contact: Darrell Qffee, P.E. Offee Engineers, PLLC 13932 SE 159th Place Renton, WA 98058 File Number. LUA122-013, ECF, PP, PPUD Project Manager: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Project Summary: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential -14 du/ac (R-14) & Residential - 1 du/ac (R-1). The site contains 9,783 s.f. of protected slopes (>40%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed in the R-14 area, & 1 lot proposed within the R-1. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots size within the R-1 Zone and provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 plat. A small hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site. The site contains 82 trees, of which 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street serving Wilson Park #1. Ten (10) trees would be retained, and new trees would be planted including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. Project Location: 698 South 55th Street Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A Site Area: 2.15 acres Total Building Area GSF: 93,801 s.f. STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). FRC Report. d oc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT & PRELIMINARY PUD LUA12-013, PP,PP_UD, ECF_ Report of May 7, 2012 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential -14 dwelling units per acre (R-14) and Residential — 1 dwelling unit per acre (R-1). The R-1 portion of the site is considered to be Urban Separator, and as such 50% of the Urban Separator area is required to be dedicated as open space. New residential lots would range in size from 5,559 square feet to 6,778 square feet. The open space tract would be 19,164 s.f. in size. Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed for the portion within the R-14 Zone, and 1 residential lot proposed within the R-1 Zone. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots sizes within the R-1 zone and to provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street that would be constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park I subdivision (LUA09-140, PP, ECF). The topography of the site slopes upward from the west to the east; an area of steep protected slopes occurs on the eastern portion of the site, Site soils are comprised of Kame Terrace and Ground Moraine which are glacial till soils. Approximately 820 cubic yards of material would be excavated and 11,200 cubic yards of fill would be required to accomplish the project. A small wetland is located on the western portion of the site. This wetland is not regulated per Renton Municipal Code. Of the 82 trees onsite, 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street, 10 would be retained, and new trees would be planted, including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012, for the duration of project construction. 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II ERC Report. doe City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT & PRELIMINARY PUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 3 of 11 of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 4. Because of moisture -sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Therefore, the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. 5. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. 6. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Zoning Map Exhibit 2 PUD/Plat Map Exhibit 3 Grading Plan Exhibit 4 Drainage/Utilities Plan Exhibit 5 Tree Retention Plan Exhibit 6 Landscape Plan Exhibit 7 Comment letter (dated April 15, 2012) Exhibit S 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 and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The subject site is located on a broad moderate to steep westerly -sloping hillside. This downward slope is at grades of 13 to 39 percent. Steeper slopes greater than 40% are located on the eastern portion of the site. The higher gradient portions of the site generally lie within the eastern 100 to 200 feet and the western 150 to 200 feet of the site. Approximately 820 cubic yards ERC Report. doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT & PRELIMINARY PUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 4 of 11 of earth material would be cut and approximately 11,200 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposal. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012. The report identifies the soils on the site as Kame Terrace deposits underlain by Ground Moraine. Kame Terrace deposits consist mostly of silty sand and gravel to cobble. Locally, they may also contain lenses and pods of till and beds of sand, silt and clay. According to the Geotechnical Report, these isolated lenses were not encountered on the subject site. Kame Terrace deposits are of moderately -high to high permeability and can provide good foundation support to structure in their native undisturbed state. Ground Moraine deposits are mostly thin ablation till over lodgment till, and were deposited during the retreat of glaciers during the last Ice Age, more than 14,000 years ago. Lodgment till is generally a compact mixture of unsorted clay, silt, sand, gravel and cobble, commonly referred to as "hard pan". Ablation Till is similar to lodgment till, but is much less compact and coherent. Lodgment Till is practically impervious, except local lenses of sand and gravel. It has the character of low-grade concrete and can stand in a steep natural or cut slope for long periods. This soil provides excellent foundation support with little settlement expected. Overlying ablation till is generally looser and is more compressible and permeable. The site contains areas of protected slopes (greater than 40%) in the northeastern portion of the property. This area of protected slopes would be contained within Tract A. There is also a cut slope on the west portion of the property that slopes up to about 6 to 12 feet. This slope likely resulted from the original land grading. Subsurface conditions on the site were explored in November 2004 via six (6) test pits on the western half of the site. The test pits sampled soil at depths ranging from 5.0 to 8.0 feet. The test pits identified a layer of loose, organic topsoil from 1.0 to 2.5 feet thick. The topsoil is generally underlain by a layer of brown Ablation Till soils of loose to medium -dense, silty fine sand, with a trace of gravel and occasional cobble and boulder, about 1.0 to 3.2 feet thick. Underlying the Ablation Till to the depths explored is a Lodgment Till deposit of light -brown to light -gray, dense to - very -dense, weakly -cement, silty fine sand with a trace of gravel. Additional test pits were explored for the eastern half of the site in February 2012. These recent test pits included a layer of loose, organic topsoil, from S to 10 inches thick, on the surface. The topsoil is underlain by a layer of brown to light -brown ablation till (weathered till) of medium - dense, silty fine sand, with a trace of to some gravel and occasional cobble and boulder, about 3.5 to 4.0 feet thick. Underlying the Ablation Till to the depths explored is a Lodgment Till (fresh till) deposit of light -brown to light -gray, very -dense, weakly -cement, silty fine sand with some gravel. The soil conditions of added land are generally similar to that of the original land. Both report conclude that the subject site is stable and can support the development provided the recommendations of the November 22, 2004 report are fully implemented and observed during construction. The topsoil and loose to medium -dense weathered soils on-site are of low resistance to erosion. Erosion may occur in the weaker surficial soils over the higher gradient areas if they are devoid of vegetation. Progressive erosion can lead to shallow, skin -type mudflows. The geotechnical report recommends preservation and maintenance of vegetation outside of construction limits to mitigate this potential hazard. The study also recommends that concentrated stormwater should not be discharged uncontrolled onto the ground. Stormwater from impervious surfaces should be ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WILSONPARK2 PRELIMINARY PLAT& PRELIMINARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 5 of 11 captured by underground drain line systems connected to roof downspouts or by catch basins installed in roadways and driveways. Temporary erosion control measures are also recommended and these include: a thin layer of quarry spalls placed over excavated areas to protect the subgrade soils from disturbance by construction traffic; silt fences installed along the downhill sides of construction areas to prevent sediment from being transported onto adjacent properties or streets; and ditches or interceptor trench drains installed on the uphill sides of construction areas to intercept and drain away storm runoff and near -surface groundwater seepage. In order to mitigate for potential geotechnical impacts such as erosion, staff recommends a mitigation measure which requires compliance with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012. Staff also recommends that the applicant provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. Staff further recommends that weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. Because of moisture -sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Staff recommends that as a mitigation measure that the applicant adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. dated November 22, 2004 and amended February 15, 2012, for the duration of project construction. 2. The applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. This mitigation measure shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works inspector. 4. Because of moisture -sensitive fine-grained soils mantling the site and the higher gradient areas within the site the geotechnical study recommends that grading and foundation construction be carried out and completed within the dryer period of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Therefore, the applicant shall adhere to a construction schedule involving grading and foundation work during the dryer period of the year. ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT & PRELIMINARY PUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 6 of 11 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Storm Water Impacts: A Technical Information Report (dated May 5, 2009) was prepared by Baima and Holmberg Inc, for the previous Wilson Park l Plat. An addendum to this report was prepared by Baima and Holmberg on February 28, 2012 to consider the current proposal. The May 2009 report includes an analysis of upstream tributary drainage which states that the parcel to the east drains onto the site, with no problems related to runoff. The Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis in the report states that runoff from the site flows west into lots in the adjacent Geneva Court development. The majority of these flows collect in a drain constructed along the back yards of the westernmost lots of the Geneva Court development and then flow into the storm system in South 53rd Place. This flow collects in a stormwater pond/bioswale facility located at the intersection of Talbot Road S and South 53rd Place approximately 750 -feet downstream from the site. This facility outfalls through an 18 -inch pipe to the west side of Talbot Road S into a poorly defined channel flowing into the woods. The flows then pass through a 12 -inch culvert under a walking path and continue to flow west to a wooded wetland area more than a quarter mile downstream from the site. Flows into the ditch along S 55th Street continue west in a rock lined channel along the north side of the street to the intersection of Talbot Road S and S 55th Street. The channel is eroded and shows signs of flowing into the street. Flows from the ditch along Talbot Road 5 collect in the storm system about 850 -feet downstream from the site eventually flowing into Springbrook Creek at about 1,800 -feet downstream from the site. The Creek continues flowing west to about one-half mile downstream of the site where it enters a box culvert crossing SR 167. The Technical Information Report indicates that there are no apparent drainage problems. The amended February 28, 2012 report evaluates the addition of the subject 10 -lot plat. The original stormwater system for Wilson Park I and located within the street that would serve both Wilson Park I and II was sized to accommodate Wilson Park I lots and the new streets including the access street located within Wilson Park II. The addendum provides calculations intended to evaluate the sizing of the storm treatment facility for the two projects. The report notes that City of Renton's 2009 Drainage Manual requires Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new developments. One BMP's is to restrict impervious areas on future lots to help reduce runoff, mitigate for development, and minimize the treatment system needed for the project. This is known as a "Restrictive Covenant" provision and was utilized as part of a preliminary sizing of the future system for both Wilson Park I and II. The applicant intends to utilize the Restrictive Covenant provision and limit impervious surface on each of the new lots in both Wilson Park I and li to 3,300 square feet per lot. By limiting the impervious area for homes, patios, driveways and walkways, the proposed stormwater vault will be of an appropriate size to accommodate both developments. The applicant has also intended to develop both plats at the same time. Comments received from surrounding property owners expressed concern as to whether the vault was sized appropriately to accommodate both projects. The applicant has stated that the vault is sized to the 2009 drainage manual and will provide the necessary volume and capacity for both projects. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation necessary. Nexus: Not applicable. ERC Report. doc City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Environmentol Review Committee Report WIL50N PARK 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT & PRELIMINARY PUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 7 of 11 3. Water (Wetlands) Impacts: The applicant submitted a letter from Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC, dated March 11, 2011, that documents the wetland reconnaissance conducted on the subject property March 1, 2011. The primary focus of the reconnaissance was to verify the results of a wetland determination report prepared by Alder NW (dated October 19, 2004), which indicated the presence of a small less than 800 s.f.) hydrologically isolated wet area in the western portion of the site, immediately adjacent to a remnant foundation of an old loafing shed. The Alder NW report previously indicated that this small wetland area was unregulated as it was significantly disturbed. Altmann Oliver's reconnaissance concurred with the previous findings, describing the wetland as a small Category 3 wetland. Altmann also confirmed that the drainage course flowing from east to west through the southern portion of the site is from an outfall of a storm drain line that collects surface water runoff from South 192nd Street. Therefore, the drainage course is not considered to be stream and is not regulated by City of Renton. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: Not applicable. 4. Vegetation Impacts: The applicant submitted a Tree Inventory and Retention Plan and a Tree Retention with the project application. There are 82 total trees on the project site, of which 21 would be removed for construction of the roadway, and 3 trees are within the protected slope area. There are 21 trees within the R-1 zoned area of the site, and 37 trees within the R-14 zoned area. City Code requires that 30% of the trees in the R-1 (or 6.3 trees) and 10% of the trees in the R-14 (3.7 trees) be retained. The applicant is proposing to retain 10 trees and plant street trees and provide enhanced landscaping in the open space tract. The portion of the site zoned R-1 is within the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay. The purpose of the Urban Separator Overlay includes providing a continuous open space and wildlife corridor. The applicant proposes to retain trees within the critical area and buffer, to plant two trees per each new lot, and to enhance Tract A with native and ornamental trees, shrubs and groundcover. The enhancement area will be located proximate to the comparable area within Wilson Park I to provide for the continuous open space corridor. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation necessary. Nexus. Not Applicable. 5. Parks and Recreation Impacts: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents who would use City park and recreation facilities and programs. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot to be payable prior to recording the final plat. The fee is estimated at $5,307.60 (10 new lots x $530.76 = 5,307.60). Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WILSONPARK2 PRELIMINARY PLAT& PRELIMINARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 8 of 11 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance No. 4527 4. Transportation Impacts: Access to the site would be from S 55th Street via a 50 -foot wide right-of-way that was identified on an access easement through the subject site for the Wilson Park I Plat. The roadway would be constructed to serve both plats (Wilson Park I and II) and would be dedicated as a public right-of-way. The roadway will have two 13 -foot wide travel lanes, 8 -foot planter strips on each side, and 5 -foot wide sidewalks. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by TraffEx (Northwest Traffic Experts, dated June 23, 2004 and supplemented January 25, 2012). The report indicates that the proposal would utilize the same access to South 55th Street s the approved Wilson Park I Plat. The site access street intersects South 55th Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The report also indicates that the horizon year for the study is considered to be 2014, as that is the year construction of both plats is anticipated. The study indicated the increase in traffic with the proposal and determined that the traffic would operate at acceptable levels at the intersection of South 55th Street and the new street within the plat. The Level -of -Service (LOS) with the project was determined to be LOS B for future 2014 conditions. Previously, the site distance on South 55th was evaluated as part of Wilson Park I. It was determined then that the City of Renton intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions would be met. Comments received from surrounding property owners concern the ability of school buses to safely serve the plat. The applicant has observed that presently the Renton School District buses travel east on South 55th in the morning, stopping in South 55th to pick-up students. The buses then travel west in the afternoon, stopping in South 551h to drop-off students. It is anticipated that this practice would continue with the project, and that children would wait together for pick-up. While this is not necessarily a concern for SEPA environmental review; staff will study the issue further and make recommendations to the Hearing Examiner during the Plat and Planned Urban Development Nearing. The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips to the City's street system. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $75.00 per additional average daily vehicle trip. Each new residence is expected to generate 9.57 trips; credit is given for the existing residence on the subject property. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated to be $7,177.50 (10 new lots x 9.57 trips x $75.00 = $7,177.50) and would be payable prior to recording the final plat. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip associated with the proposed project prior to recording of the final plat. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100, Ordinance 4527 ERC Report. doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT& PRELIMINARY PUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 9 of 11 5. Fire & Police Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the condition that the applicant provides the required improvements and fees. As the proposal could potentially add 10 new residences, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee in the amount of $488.00 per each new single family lot. The total fee is estimated to be $4,880.00 (10 new lots X $488.00 = 4,880.00). Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per each new single family lot prior to recording the final plat. Nexus: <add Nexus info here> 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, May 25, 2012. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or ERC Report. doc City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development E nmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRELIMINARY PLAT & PRELIMINARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 10 of 11 cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety 90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 6. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6) high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING — Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees. Fire Prevention: 1. The Fire Mitigation Fees are applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to the recording of the plat. 2. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feeet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5 -inch storz fittings. 3. Fire Department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within150-feet of all points on the buildings. Maximum grade of 15% is allowed. Dead end streets that exceed 150 -feet in length require an approved turnaround. Plan Review: Water 1. Water service will be provided by Soos Creels Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City with the site plan application. Plan Review: Sanitary Sewer 1. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadway is required. Sewer stubs are required to be provided to each lot. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic waters to serve the new homes on the new lots. Sewer fee for a 3/- inch water meter is $1,591.00. Sewer ERC Report.doe City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development E nmental Review Committee Report WILSON PARK2 PRELIMINARY PLAT& PRELIMMARYPUD LUA12-013, PP,PPUD, ECF Report of May 7, 2012 Page 11 of 11 fee for a 1 -inch water meter is $3,977.00. An"approved" water plan from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District will be required to be submitted to the City. Property Services: 1. See attached memo for comments from Property Services. ERC Report. doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY Cit'Uf OeR. AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: April 17, 2412 TO: Kayren Kittrick FROM: Bob Mac Onie M SUBJECT: Wilson Park II, LUA-12-013-pp Format and Legal Description Review I have reviewed the above referenced short plat submittal and have the following comments: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LLA -12 -013 - FP and LN D-10-0489, respectively, on the final short plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-134-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited, per WAC 332-130-150, and what was found. Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided by the city as soon as possible after the initial final plat submittal. Note said addresses and the street name on the plat drawing. hAfile sysllnd - land subdivision & surveying records\h)d-10 - plats14489(wilson park ii)1rv120417.doc Page 2 of 2 04/17/2012 On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities, trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. Do note encroachments. Remove from the "LEGEND" block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do include in said "LEGEND" block the symbols and their details that are used in the short plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the properties to the north are platted, do note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing. Do not show building setback lines for the proposed lots. Setbacks are determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the short plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" block is signed by the City of Renton Administrator Department of Public Works. Include a DEDICATIOM block on the drawing,. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat submittal. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner. h:lfile sysllnd - land subdivision & surveying recordsllnd-10 - plats10489(wilson park ii)Vv120417.doc ZONING MAP BOOK PW Ir"NICAL5ERVW-15 PRINTED ON 13/13109 rrrer.r...ar rr.w,.,... H3 - 30 T23N R5E E 112 J3 - 06 T22N R5E E 1/2 0 ?p0 Opp Feet 1;4.800 EXHIBIT 1 I3 31 T23N R5E E 112 5331 ern ivuana N NWIMYG Y 9M y I LL7l,rm-,wnw m, NOS1E1Yt iLi38DL! O IN6m11lfYMiO[EY SM3bUDNR R"p Z# )4UVd NOSTAA a ILI H OR i 1 WOO t J r 1,7164+1A44 FMt 5 i 5 I's Mg 77- WL MAN rw.Lw la- w AN EXHIBIT 2 IOFJ5if 6 I3Il, Tl'YRJ'AAA+1]YJlnl YNRmlQI Ylf illl Mt s ra ta amp r A Id ONIaV80 NOS -11M 183SOL1 Z# )fHVd NOSIIAA Z rV Z o Ail ! Via E r i 1 1 r J 30. EXHIBIT 3 4L' ANIINIHSY\ WMMI Ai0.1KHH &. qaL )WII NOSIA d0 )Jj3 gram^ _- 3D)m IIp V 1tl/m owmrc.w o+lo vls S'l1HflmDN3 M. NYld i111N30VNPdaQ NOS lt/ i1 11313ONAAZ# NH d WSW I 1 _ / Itoo !M I 1 ' I 1 11xm EXHIBIT 4 NOi'JNIHSVAI 'NOIN'211 Ai0J.N88H. - L/ XWd MOSAM t id© ALID x "y HL1131311 33x1 urwo M uomm s I r Noslim LTJ3soa RUOMHSW X" EXHIBIT 5 Rt':-RSR=Rha'-.=:t=..a='Res s?•2rs= tttcctt =--ei;ec C, 1.I u s K W ZW 22 4 NGC N \ N NI 44N'flll W W t Li Li RUOMHSW X" EXHIBIT 5 Voy YT[' E!ss1i !i4 iV mO.LQmHvpw, WA I -- co Xpr" 1 mos- 1M 4 mr it is 9d 4AA EXHIBIT G 9 y April 15, 2012 CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED APR 16 2012 Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager BUILDING DIVISION CED -- Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD (Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat) Ms. Henning: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the above application. As the owners of property adjacent to the subject site (located directly northwest of the site), we have an interest in insuring negative impacts are avoided and appropriate measures are taken in the possible development of this site. We also commented on Wilson Plat 1. In as much as the development of this site is directly related to and is proposed to be done concurrently with Wilson Park 1(approved by the City in 2010), some of these comments will be related to this development in its entirety. Comments/Concerns: 1. DRAINAGE Development of proposed Wilson Park 2, as well as Wilson Park 1, will certainly change the current site drainage due to increased impervious surfaces. Significant changes to the existing slopes and changes in the current vegetation/tree coverage will mean a change in the current natural drainage of the sites. The Wilson 2 Plat proposal indicates it would be using the detention vault proposed for the Wilson 1 Plat. We are concerned that the vault be engineered to accept this significantly increased additional use. We are further concerned that the outflow be properly managed. Should the open drainage ditches along S. 55th Street be used for this increased outflow due to development, measures should be in place to insure these ditches to not overflow. Under new City practices, it is assumed that the City will be the owner of the detention vault and responsible for its maintenance and repair. Due to the unusual location (beneath a public street), design/engineering should insure that the vault can accept the gross vehicle weights of large trucks (garbage trucks, large fire engines, etc.). EXHIBIT 7 2. ROADS The roads serving the proposed plat are outlined in the Wilson Park 1 plat and indicate that parking will be allowed on one side of the street. As this is the case, we recommend the City identify ahead of time which side of the road vehicles will be allowed to park. Our neighborhood is also on a hill and based on our HOA experiences, we suggest for Wilson Plat 2 that parking be on the east side of the road entering the plat and the south side of the road in the Wilson 1 plat. We suggest the sidewalks mirror parking and be "only" on the side of the road where parking is allowed. The suggestions for east/south side parking are: This may aid in minimizing a risk issue identified in the Plat 1 application, that being road conditions (the down slope of the east -west roadway) during winter weather. Parking "only" on the east/south side may give a Wilson Plat 1 homeowner more "road" to maneuver in "icy road conditions" especially at the bottom on the curve area. If people are parked there, there is no place to maneuver one's vehicle without hitting another vehicle. Prohibiting vehicles being parked on the west and north sides of the road at the curve area of the two new roads may avoid parked vehicles being struck by vehicles sliding downhill during poor weather road conditions. Keeping people parking on the east and south side of the roadway may also minimize vehicles parking illegally on City streets by parking in the "wrong direction" (RCW 46.61.575). This RCW mentions vehicles parking with tires against the "right side of the curb". Parking on the east and south sides encourages this as drivers tend to enter and park to the right curb as opposed to turning their vehicles around (facing downhill) prior to parking on the opposite side of the street. The proposed road entering from S. 55u' Street is indicated as being 26 feet wide with parking allowed on one side of the road. RMC 4-6-060 (2009) requires that 6' parking lanes be allowed for on one side of a residential street. This same RMC requires an 8' parking lane on arterial streets. It is confusing that the RMC seems to indicate that vehicles parked on residential streets needs less width to park than vehicles parked on arterial streets. On paper, for calculation purposes, the required 6' parking lane subtracted from the 26' road width leaves 20' for vehicles access (particularly emergency vehicles). In reality, the parking width needed for a legally parked vehicle is 8', subtracted from 26', leaves an 18' width for emergency vehicles (below recognized nation standards). While the submitted roads within the plat meet the current RMC, the City made consider revisiting the long-term impacts of allowing substandard street widths on residential streets. Plat 2 indicates sidewalks on both sides of the street and Plat 1 indicates Sidewalks only on one side of the street. We suggest that if sidewalks are only required on one side that they be placed only on the 'parking only' of the street. Moving the sidewalk to the south side of the street in Plat 1 would allow a connected flow between the plats and tie them together with the walking path in Plat 2. Elimination of the west side sidewalk in Plat 2 would allow for a wider roadway (creating better parking space on the east side of the street). There remain significant concerns over the protection of the four (4) Geneva Court subdivision properties located west of the new roads serving Plat 1 and 2. These new roads run directly ABOVE the adjacent homeowners lots. Headlights from vehicles driving in a westerly direction on the street in Plat 1 at night will be aimed directly at the rear of the houses in the adjoining Geneva Court neighborhood. We are also concerned if vehicles on the new road lose control at the bottom of their hill, they will breach our wooden 5 foot current fences and end up in our backyard. Lastly, we are concerned with noise and visual impacts that minimize our enjoyment of our properties. We feel the Impact could be minimized by installation of a safe, sturdy, tall retaining/barrier wall across the back of all 4 current horses (along the entire western section of Plat 1). Currently there is only a 5 foot wooden fence on a slope. We suggest a retaining wall which is at least 6 foot tall and concrete. The concrete wall would be to the east of our current wooden fence. To the east of the new concrete barrier wall, we ask that Evergreen trees (such as fast growing Leland Cypress trees) be planted as they will also help with noise and visual impacts. 3. ACCESS The issue of access to the Wilson Plats from and to S. 55th Street was identified and addressed in the Plat 1 process. Concern remains that this access point will become problematic, due to the serpentine nature of the road, the narrow width of the existing S. 55th Street and the significant slope of the roadway on S. S50'. Concerns exist over how school buses will safely (for students and other drivers) serve these new homes as well as delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc. While sidewalks are being required for the new plats, there are currently NO sidewalks on S. 55th Street. So the Wilson Plat sidewalks do not lead to "anywhere". Due to the narrow existing shoulder and narrow road width, pedestrian foot traffic on S. 55th (outside of and serving the Wilson Plat) is either not possible or done at a risk that is beyond acceptable — especially to children. 4. MISC During the Wilson Plat 1 process, the establishment of a homeowners association HOA) was identified as a requirement. It is recommended that with Wilson 1 and 2 being developed concurrently that only one homeowners association be established serving both Wilson 1 and 2 (as opposed to two separate associations). During the Wilson Plat 1 process, concerns from adjacent homeowners as well as from the Hearing Examiner were made about impacts (visual and safety issues) along the adjoining boundary with the existing Geneva Court subdivision (located to the west of the site). These concerns remain and it is requested that part of the concurrent Wilson 1 & 2 development address these (safety & visual). A safe and adequate separating retaining wall (prefer a minimal height of 6 feet and concrete) along the entire western section of Plat 1 is requested. Currently there is only a 5 foot wooden fence on a slope. The maintenance of this retaining wall shall be the responsibility of the Wilson HOA. Candidly, it has been difficult to determine what has been approved for the final Wilson Plat 1. Our understanding is that no final plat site map exists indicating final outcomes of the Hearing Examiner (4/1/10), the appealed changes, or the Council's actions (8/16/10). Absent drawings that reflect the written changes, if it difficult to make informed comments on development impacts. Respectfully submitted, Paul & Frieda Witt 617 S. 53rd Place Renton, WA 98055 425) 227-5462 Jonathan Vu 622 S 53rd Place Renton, WA 98055 808) 218-4403 Khanh Nguyen 616553 rd Place Renton, WA 98055 425) 271-3691. Quang Dang and Kim Duong ' 623S53 rd Place Renton, WA 98055 425) 917-9733 Ia6: April 15, 2012 U11Y OF RENTON RECEIVED A! , 16 2012 Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager BUILDING DIVISION CED — Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD (Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat) Ms. Henning: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the above application. As the owners of property adjacent to the subject site (located directly northwest of the site), we have an interest in insuring negative impacts are avoided and appropriate measures are taken in the possible development of this site. We also commented on Wilson Plat 1. In as much as the development of this site is directly related to and is proposed to be done concurrently with Wilson Park 1 (approved by the City in 2010), some of these comments will be related to this development in its entirety. Comments/Concerns: 1. DRAINAGE Development of proposed Wilson Park 2, as well as Wilson Park 1, will certainly change the current site drainage due to increased impervious surfaces. Significant changes to the existing slopes and changes in the current vegetation/tree coverage will mean a change in the current natural drainage of the sites. The Wilson 2 Plat proposal indicates it would be using the detention vault proposed for the Wilson 1 Plat. We are concerned that the vault be engineered to accept this significantly increased additional use. We are further concerned that the outflow be properly managed. Should the open drainage ditches along S. 55th Street be used for this increased outflow due to development, measures should be in place to insure these ditches to not overflow. Under new City practices, it is assumed that the City will be the owner of the detention vault and responsible for its maintenance and repair. Due to the unusual location (beneath a public street), design/engineering should insure that the vault can accept the gross vehicle weights of large trucks (garbage trucks, large fire engines, etc.). 2. ROADS The roads serving the proposed plat are outlined in the Wilson Park 1 plat and indicate that parking will be allowed on one side of the street. As this is the case, we recommend the City identify ahead of time which side of the road vehicles will be allowed to park. Our neighborhood is also on a hill and based on our HOA experiences, we suggest for Wilson Plat 2 that parking be on the east side of the road entering the plat and the south side of the road in the Wilson 1 plat. We suggest the sidewalks mirror parking and be "only" on the side of the road where parking is allowed. The suggestions for east/south side parking are: This may aid in minimizing a risk issue identified in the Plat 1 application, that being road conditions (the down slope of the east -west roadway) during winter weather. Parking "only" on the east/south side may give a Wilson Plat 1 homeowner more "road" to maneuver in "icy road conditions" especially at the bottom on the curve area. If people are parked there, there is no place to maneuver one's vehicle without hitting another vehicle. Prohibiting vehicles being parked on the west and north sides of the road at the curve area of the two new roads may avoid parked vehicles being struck by vehicles sliding downhill during poor weather road conditions. keeping people parking on the east and south side of the roadway may also minimize vehicles parking illegally on City streets by parking in the "wrong direction" (RCW 46.61.575). This RCW mentions vehicles parking with tires against the "right side of the curb". Parking on the east and south sides encourages this as drivers tend to enter and park to the right curb as opposed to turning their vehicles around (facing downhill) prior to parking on the opposite side of the street. The proposed road entering from S. 55'h Street is indicated as being 26 feet wide with parking allowed on one side of the road. RMC 4-6-060 (2009) requires that 6' parking lanes be allowed for on one side of a residential street. This same RMC requires an 8' parking lane on arterial streets. It is confusing that the RMC seems to indicate that vehicles parked on residential streets needs less width to park than vehicles parked on arterial streets. On paper, for calculation purposes, the required 6' parking lane subtracted from the 26' road width leaves 20' for vehicles access (particularly emergency vehicles). In reality, the parking width needed for a legally parked vehicle is 8', subtracted from 26', leaves an 18' width for emergency vehicles (below recognized nation standards). While the submitted roads within the plat meet the current RMC, the City made consider revisiting the long-term impacts of allowing substandard street widths on residential streets. Plat 2 indicates sidewalks on both sides of the street and Plat 1 indicates sidewalks only on one side of the street. We suggest that if sidewalks are only required on one side that they be placed only on the `parking only' of the street. Moving the sidewalk to the south side of the street in Plat 1 would allow a connected flow between the plats and tie them together with the walking path in Plat 2. Elimination of the west side sidewalk in Plat 2 would allow for a wider roadway (creating better parking space on the east side of the street). There remain significant concerns over the protection of the four (4) Geneva Court subdivision properties located west of the new roads serving Plat 1 and 2. These new roads run directly ABOVE the adjacent homeowners lots. Headlights from vehicles driving in a westerly direction on the street in Plat 1 at night will be aimed directly at the rear of the houses in the adjoining Geneva Court neighborhood. We are also concerned if vehicles on the new road lose control at the bottom of their hill, they will breach our wooden 5 foot current fences and end up in our backyard. Lastly, we are concerned with noise and visual impacts that minimize our enjoyment of our properties. We feel the impact could be minimized by installation of a safe, sturdy, tall retaining/barrier wall across the back of all 4 current homes (along the entire western section of Plat 1). Currently there is only a 5 foot wooden fence on a slope. We suggest a retaining wall which is at least 6 foot tall and concrete. The concrete wall would be to the east of our current wooden fence. To the east of the new concrete barrier wall, we ask that Evergreen trees (such as fast growing Leland Cypress trees) be planted as they will also help with noise and visual impacts. 3. ACCESS The issue of access to the Wilson Plats from and to S. 55th Street was identified and addressed in the Plat 1 process. Concern remains that this access point will become problematic, due to the serpentine nature of the road, the narrow width of the existing S. 55th Street and the significant slope of the roadway on S. 55th. Concerns exist over how school buses will safely (for students and other drivers) serve these new homes as well as delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc. While sidewalks are being required for the new plats, there are currently NO sidewalks on S. 55th Street. So the Wilson Plat sidewalks do not lead to "anywhere". Due to the narrow existing shoulder and narrow road width, pedestrian foot traffic on 5.55th (outside of and serving the Wilson Plat) is either not possible or done at a risk that is beyond acceptable — especially to children. 4. MISC During the Wilson Plat 1 process, the establishment of a homeowners association HOA) was identified as a requirement. It is recommended that with Wilson 1 and 2 being developed concurrently that only one homeowners association be established serving both Wilson 1 and 2 (as opposed to two separate associations). During the Wilson Plat 1 process, concerns from adjacent homeowners as well as from the Hearing Examiner were made about impacts (visual and safety issues) along the adjoining boundary with the existing Geneva Court subdivision (located to the west of the site). These concerns remain and it is requested that part of the concurrent Wilson 1 & 2 development address these (safety & visual). A safe and adequate separating retaining wall (prefer a minimal height of 6 feet and concrete) along the entire western section of Plat 1 is requested. Currently there is only a 5 foot wooden fence on a slope. The maintenance of this retaining wall shall be the responsibility of the Wilson HOA. Candidly, it has been difficult to determine what has been approved for the final Wilson Plat 1. Our understanding is that no final plat site map exists indicating final outcomes of the Hearing Examiner (4/1/10), the appealed changes, or the Council's actions (8/16/10). Absent drawings that reflect the written changes, if it difficult to make informed comments on development impacts. Respectfully submitted, A Paul & Frieda Witt r ' 617S.53 rd Place - Renton, WA 98055 425)227-5462 Jonathan Vu 622 S 53` d Place Renton, WA 98055 808) 218-4403 Khanh Nguyen 616 S 53rd Place Renton, WA 98055 [ j 425) 271-3691 Quang Dang and Kim Duong 623 S 53rd Place Renton, WA 98055 425) 917-9733" f:it Y of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M Q R A N D U M DATE: April 18, 2012 TO: Jennifer Henning, Planner FROM: Jan Illian, Plan Review 91, SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments for: Wilson Park 2 Plat 598 — S. 551h Street LUA 12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD 1 have reviewed the application for the Wilson Park 2 Plat located at 698 S. 55th Street and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS: WATER Water service will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. SEWER Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is a 12 -inch sewer main in S. 55th Street. STORM There is no drainage conveyance fronting the site in S. 55th Street. STREETS There are no street frontage improvements in S. 55th Street. CODE REQUIREMENTS: WATER Water service will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted to the City with the site plan application. SANITARY SEWER 1. Extension of an 8 -inch sewer main in the new roadway is required. Sewer stubs are required to be provided to each lot. 2. System development fees for sewer are based on the size of the new domestic waters to serve the new homes on the new lots. Sewer fee for a 3/- inch water meter is $1,591.00. Sewer fee for a 1 -inch water meter is $3,977.00. An"approved"water plan from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District will be required to be submitted to the City. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PROJECTS/12-013Jennifer/Plan Review Comments LUA 12-013.doc Wilson Park 2 Plat— LUA12-013 Page 2 of 3 April 18, 2012 SURFACE WATER 1. Surface water system development fee is $1,012.00 per new lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. 2. A drainage plan and drainage report has been submitted by CPH Consultants with the site plan application. The report addresses compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and six special requirements have been discussed in the report. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The drainage report discusses meeting the area specific flow control requirement under Core Requirement #3. A combined detention and water quality vault is proposed in the roadway; however, it will need to be relocated. Grates are not allowed in the travel lanes of a public roadway. 3. A geotechnical report prepared in 2004, and updated on February 15, 2012, was submitted by LIU & Associates, Inc. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from the Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site. TRANSPORTATION[STREET 1. Transportation mitigation fees of $7,177.50 will be assessed. The rate is $75.00 x 9.57 trips x 10 lots. See Transportation Mitigation Fee sheet included. The fee is required to be paid prior to recording of the plat. 2. Street improvements are required to be constructed as part of this project. Frontage improvements are required to be constructed fronting the site and in the future right-of-way within the plat. Residential access road will require 26 feet of pavement, an 8 -foot planting strip, and 5 -foot sidewalk on both sides of the street. Parking will be allowed on one side only. Right-of-way width for this street shall be a minimum of 52 feet. Street improvements fronting the site along S. 55th will require an 8 -foot planting strip, a 5 -foot sidewalk, and a pavement width of 26 feet. Right-of-way width for this street shall be a minimum of 52 feet. 3. Paving and trench restoration will comply with the City's Trench Restoration and Overlay Requirements. 4. Street lighting is required for this plat. LED lighting pians will be required with the civil plan submittal. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer connections and storm connections will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PROJECTS/12-018.Vanessa/Plan Review Comments LUA 12-018.doc Wilson Park 2 Plat— LUA12-013 Page 3 of 3 April 18, 2012 3. Rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will require a separate building permit. Structural calculations and plans shall be submitted for review by a licensed engineer. Special Inspection is required. 4. A tree removal and tree retention/protection plan and a separate landscaping plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. 5. Sewer stubs, water services, and storm connections shall be provided to each lot prior to recording of the plat. H:/CED/Planning/Current Planning/PROJECTS/12-018,Vanessa/Plan Review Comments LUA 12-018.doc City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: + 666 COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 17, 20 ,_.. 4:,,::'.... APPLICATION NO: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 3, 2012 APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT MANAGER: Kayren Kittrick PROJECT TITLE: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jennifer Henning SITE AREA: 2.15 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A EC, E1 E LOCATION: 698 S 55th Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned R-14 & R-1 and contains 9,783 s.f. of protected slopes greater than 409). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed for the portion within the R-14 Zone, and 1 residential lot proposed within the R-1 Zone. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots sizes within the R-1 zone and to provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street that would be constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 subdivision. A small wetland is located on the western portion of the site. This wetland is not regulated per Renton Municipal Code. Of the 82 tress onsite, 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street, 14 would be retained, and new trees would be planted, including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Environment Minor Major Impacts Impacts More information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Naturol Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Mare Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hVGlare Recreation utilities Trans ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of ctor or Authorized Representat a Date S# 894 TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number: Project Description: Land Use Type: X Residential Retail Non -retail Calculation: 10 x 9.57 = 95.70 ADT 95.70 x $75.00 = $7,177.50 Wilson Park 2 PP 698 S 551h Street Robert & Doravin Wilson LUA12-013 10 Lot SFR plat with one tract Method of Calculation: X ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8" Edition Traffic Study Other 210) SFR 9.57 trips/DU Transportation Mitigation Fee: $7,177.50 Calculated by: K.Kittrick Date: 4/11/2412 Date of Payment: City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 17, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 3, 2012 , T APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT MANAGER: Kayren Kittrick PROJECT TITLE: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jennifer Henning SiTE AREA: 2.15 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 698 S 55`h Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned R-14 & R-1 and contains 9,783 s.f. of protected slopes greater than 40%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed for the portion within the R-14 Zone, and 1 residential lot proposed within the R-1 Zone. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots sizes within the R-1 zone and to provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South SSth Street via a new street that would be constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 subdivision. A small wetland is located on the western portion of the site. This wetland is not regulated per Renton Municipal Code. Of the 82 tress onsite, 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street, 10 would be retained, and new trees would be planted, including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources fW 54 q ,fie 14111 /;*i - S. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hVGiore Recreation Utilities TranspoTtation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 1 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ( M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 17, 2012 TO: Kayren Kittrick FROM: Bob Mac Onie I SUBJECT: Wilson Park 11, LUA-12-013-pp Format and Legal Description Review I have reviewed the above referenced short plat submittal and have the following comments: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-12-013- FP and LND-10-0489, respectively, on the final short plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-130-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited, per WAC 332-130-150, and what was found. Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided by the city as soon as possible after the initial final plat submittal. Note said addresses and the street name on the plat drawing. hafile sysllnd - land subdivision & surveying recordsllnd-10 - plats10489(wilson park ii)1ry 120417_doc Page 2 of 2 04/17/2012 On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities, trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. Do note encroachments. Remove from the "LEGEND" block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do include in said "LEGEND" block the symbols and their details that are used in the short plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the properties to the north are platted, do note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing. Do not show building setback lines for the proposed lots. Setbacks are determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the short plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" block is signed by the City of Renton Administrator, Department of Public Works. Include a DEDICATIOM block on the drawing,. A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat submittal. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner. hAfile syAnd - iand subdivision & surveying recordsllnd-10 - plats10489(wiison park ii)lrv120417.doe City of — mon Department of Community & Economic--.,elopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ` COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 171, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 3, 2012 APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT MANAGER: Kayren Kittrick PROJECT TITLE: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jennifer Benning SITE AREA: 2.15 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 698 5 55" Street I PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned R-14 & R-1 and contains 9,783 s.f. of protected slopes greater than 40%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed for the portion within the R-14 Zone, and 1 residential lot proposed within the R-1 Zone. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots sizes within the R-1 zone and to provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street that would be constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 subdivision. A small wetland is located on the western portion of the site. This wetland is not regulated per Renton Municipal Code. Of the 82 tress onsite, 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street, 10 would be retained, and new trees would be planted, including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Cade) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources S. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housin Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Culturai Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM Al DATE: April 10, 2012 TO: Jerry Wasser, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Preliminary Comments for Wilson Park #2 PUD Environmental Impact Comments: The fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. This fee is paid prior to recording the plat. Code Related Comments: The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 -feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement as long as they meet current code, including 5 -inch storz fittings. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20 -feet wide fully paved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30 -ton vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within 150 -feet of all points on the buildings. Maximum grade of 15% allowed. Dead end streets that exceed 150 -feet in length require an approved turnaround. CT: ct W ilsor12sp City of 11 --on Deportment of Community & Economic De—lopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fi cc COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 17, 2012 APPLICATION N0: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 3, 2012 APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT MANAGER: Kayren Kittrick PROJECT TITLE: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jennifer Henning SITE AREA: 2.15 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 698 5 55th Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned R-14 & R-1 and contains 9,783 s.f_ of protected slopes greater than 40%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed for the portion within the R-14 Zone, and 1 residential lot proposed within the R-1 Zone. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots sizes within the R-1 zone and to provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street that would be constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 subdivision. A small wetland is located on the western portion of the site. This wetland is not regulated per Renton Municipal Code. Of the 82 tress onsite, 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street, 10 would be retained, and new trees would be planted, including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major information impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants tandl5horeline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Fr. Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hVGlare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet I/A We have reviewed this applicotion with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative d Date City of R,Aon Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 17, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 3, 2012 LX i J. ' rte'`" APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT MANAGER: Kayren Kittrick PROJECT TITLE: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jennifer Henning SITE AREA: 2.15 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 598 S 55`h Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned R-14 & R-1 and contains 9,783 s.f_ of protected slopes greater than 40%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed for the portion within the R-14 Zone, and 1 residential lot proposed within the R-1 Zone. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots sizes within the R-1 zone and to provide larger lots within the R-14 zone_ Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street that would be constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 subdivision_ A small wetland is located on the western portion of the site. This wetland is not regulated per Renton Municipal Code. Of the 82 tress onsite, 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street, 10 would be retained, and new trees would be planted, including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shorefine Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hVGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation__ Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, ODA Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we hove expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative G/ iz Date A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreation facilities and programs. The City has adopted a Parks Mitigation Fee of $530.76 per each new single family lot to address these potential impacts." Parks Mitigation Fee City of nu,rton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: r!( COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 17, 2012 Earth Air C7 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 3, 2012 Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT MANAGER: Kayren Kittrick C__ PROJECT TITLE: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jennifer HenningT: O I SITE AREA: 2.15 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A m7r LOCATION: 698 S 55`h Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A CO E27: 1 iii v SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned R-14 & R-1 and contains 9,783 s.f_ of protected slopes greater than 40%)_ Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed for the portion within the R-14 Zone, and 1 residential lot proposed within the R-1 Zone_ A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots sizes within the R-1 zone and to provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street that would be constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 subdivision. A smail wetland is located on the western portion of the site. This wetland is not regulated per Renton Municipal Code. Of the 82 tress onsite, 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street, 10 would be retained, and new trees would be planted, including 2 new trees per lot. The protect requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet I4, 000 Feet C cd 8. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housin Aesthetics Li hVGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet I4, 000 Feet C CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas w re additional infor o .on is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Aut orized Represe tative Date City of ton Department of Community & Economic _ _ _ _lopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 17, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 3, 2012 APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT MANAGER: Kayren Kittrick PROJECT TITLE: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jennifer Henning SITE AREA: 2.15 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 698 S 55th Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned R-14 & R-1 and contains 9,783 s.f. of protected slopes greater than 40%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed for the portion within the R-14 Zone, and 1 residential lot proposed within the R-1 Zone. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots sizes within the R-1 zone and to provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street that would be constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 subdivision. A small wetland is located on the western portion of the site. This wetland is not regulated per Renton Municipal Code. Of the 82 tress onsite, 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street, 10 would be retained, and new trees would be planted, including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review_ A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Environment Minor Impacts Probable More Major information Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment I0, 000 Feet 14, 00O Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature gr6irectir or Authorized Representative Date City of ___..ton Department of Community & Economic _ _ _lopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 17, 2012 APPLICATION NO: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 3, 2012 APPLICANT: Robert & Doravin Wilson PROJECT MANAGER: Kayren Kittrick PROJECT TITLE: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat PROJECT REVIEWER: Jennifer Henning SITE AREA: 2.15 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 698 S 55" Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned R-14 & R-1 and contains 9,783 s_f_ of protected slopes greater than 40%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed for the portion within the R-14 Zone, and 1 residential lot proposed within the R-1 Zone. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots sizes within the R-1 zone and to provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street that would be constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 subdivision_ A small wetland is located on the western portion of the site. This wetland is not regulated per Renton Municipal Code. Of the 82 tress onsite, 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street, 10 would be retained, and new trees would be planted, including 2 new trees per lot_ The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreotion utilities Trons ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this ap ication with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ada formation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date city OE NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS -M) DATE: April3,2012 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA12-013, ECF. PP, PPUD PROJECTNAmE: Wilson Park 2 Prebminary Plat& PUO pROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appllrent propose$tosuhdirlde an epating 1.15 aVe parcel Into 10 lots Spr the ewri development of detached single family homes, and J Imct for open space. The site Is zoned Resldennal- l4 du Jac IR.14} & Residential -1 du/ac IR -11. The site remains 9,783 s.f. of protected dunes (s4U%l. Proposed density n the R id aneri, A-ireaaplennled Urh n Derelvpme6. 4 dwelikin 11 -tor P't M a Proposed in order9oomodlfy NIPOcea "thin the min mium lots size with$ thelRo- Zone end provide Iatger lots within the A 14 epee. Access would be Pmvlded from 5outh 55th31ree1 V. new street constructed as part if the approved Wilson Park pl plat. A small hydrOlagl[ally Isd a ted. unreguialed weriand Is looted on the western pottEon et the Mie. The site contains 87 trees, or whichm11wouldberemoved for the mmlructbn or the new street seryl ng Wltsnn Park 41 Ten $191 trees would he retained, arc new trees would be planted Inc Wding 2 new tree! Perlist. The project requires Envbonmemal (SEPA] pewew, Planned Urban Development (PU01 Revtew, and Piellminary Plat review. pitmECTrDCATION: 896 5 55' Street OPTIO NAI DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS.M): Aa the Lead Agency, the CIN of Aentnn has determined that signiflcanI. rmounmenUi impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed praJect. Therefore, as permitted Under the RCW I. 210.110, the City of Fannin Is using the OlVi nal DNS-ae process 10 glue notice that a ONS M R it" to be Issued. Comment pedods far the Rrpje and the proposed DNS M are 'integrated Into a single ommenl Period - mere will be n int pednd following the Icruance or the Thri shpld Ueterminatlon of Nan - S liniflcance-MIU9.1ed (DNS. ha , A t4.day appeal period will f Al.. rhe issuance Of the DNS -M. VERMITMMCATION DATE: March 2,20I1 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: Apd13. 2012 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: D 9Ill aireEm1E'E anell omsafl site$ 13932#159'Plan;flrntoM1, permVe$/Rerirw Requested: En Imromital(5EPA)Reelew, Prallopirmy Plat Rerlera, PlannedUrbanZi,lopm-L Revlew ONrar permits ari may be required: C—trucilen and Building Permits R.Wested Studies: Geptech,IRal Report, Traffic Study, and Welland Verification Location where rppilcatTon may Dept rtmentchf Community & Economic UmIopment (CEO) - Planning WA be reriewtd: DNhIon, Math Floor Rennin aty Half, 1D55 South Grady Way, 98057 er,bnc bearirt¢i' - - ^ d" jglx before the PUBLIC NEARING: - I - L t.., u- ha4cu-ThtjsUrnat Iselin ii R i__ - - __ _ - ,,, wan ler.t.d at sD55 south Gtadv Wav CON5ISTENCy OVERVIEW: Zeminetrnd ora: The subject site is destgnaled Residential Medium Density IRMO)and Residential Low Density (FEDI psi the CIN of Aenton CompehensNb Land Use Map arc Residential -141R-141 and Resldental -1(9.1) dwelllhg ..its per etre on the awc zoning Map- Dere!rpmem Regulations Uaed For Praltet Mltli,111 : The project w'rI! be wbi— tv the City's SEPA .,41 sire, RMC a-3-0501. RMC 4- 2.115F, RMC a-7-080, RMC 49.150, and other apPliraele codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed MlllgaHan Manure: The following M!tiga!lon Measures will likely be Imposed on the Dr9posed project. These recommended Ml;lgatbn Measures add,,, prpj![t impacts not covered by ea41 codes and regulations as elled abgve. The sppli— roil!8e ncruk d Io Puy fire oPw-pni-t' T enrpaTplldd Miflpotioo roe; The appIkonf m4he requrred topoythe eppropricre Fire. Ni N9edan Fee. and me ap0oant witihl requrred to Acy!he oeorepldr, Parks Mi[ipatiaa Fer. me appiiCanrsrwRfolfow cher—mendatiom offhe GeoieMnkvl Enpinrrnngsludy That the opP2lreat Shpl7 pmvfde n Ternpp-ory Erosion and .5edimen.00,o Plon designed pursuonr to fire DePartmenf of Ecaia l E -;u, vad Sediment Confrof Aequtenlents .,it Preto. staff with is ConsImCt/on Mibgolion Pse' prior to isSvoM' 0.rconsyruc fon permits. Weekly reports on the stotus and Milfflvn of the erosion central pian with any recammendotinns of Uanpe or re -ion to mafn!anaace srhimsk-s or o u1P Po-she11 be, submAre m the Pub9' Works fnspedor. Gmai and fowdvsivn Mean!" shell he Canduaed during the drier months of Nle year from April I rhi October 3J UMeu otherwise oppmvedbythc Devefgpmrnf 5ervrce DidsiOe, Comments an 11116 above appilcrtlon must be submitted In writin] to Jennifer Ranninlgr Currrne Planning Manager, CED- Planning Ulrlsion,1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 91057, hp 5.00 PM on Aprlj 17, 2012. This matte is also tematlrefy scheduled for a public hearing Oo May 211 2012, rT 1:110 p.m., C0u1111 Chambers, 5ewalh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested In atlerlding the bearing, Fit— contact the Planning Di to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at 1425143U-7181. If comments Cannot be submitted In dung by the date Indicated abate, you may still appear at the hearing and present your Comments on the proposal before the Hearing E—iner. If you have qurstlons about this pmposel, or wish od be made a party of record and receive additional Information by mail, please contact the projn mrnager. Anyone who submils wrlden comments will automalkally become a perry o1 retard and will be rattled many dectslon on this project. CONTACTPERSON: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager; Tel: {425) 430-7266; Erni: Jhenning@rentanwa.gov R you would tike to be made a pert, Ot —Ord to receive further information on t% proposed project, complete thls form and relurn lo: Cityof Aenton, CED - Planning DMslon, In55 sp. Gmdy Way. Aenlun, WA 9905]- Name/Fik NO.: Wiban Park 1 Preliahmi,, Plat & PUDJLUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUO NAME: C-4onmental Dotumentr that rt, and Wetland verlNcalion MAILING ADDRE55. Eralpate *a Proposed Project: Enrlmnm ri (SEPAI CheGeotechnical "part. P° TELEPHONE NO.: CERTIFICATION 41e eby certify that copies of the above document were posted in conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: ( Signed: STATE OF WASHINGTON j 1 SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses ar,%.Purposes mentioned in the instrument. Ate+9 Notary Public in and forrthe State of Washington s t t Notary (Print): 8-29 1141 I FEkkLs.a•, $ `ti= My appointment expires:^ ,Afa 6 a Q-213 rIIII I+ O MW CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 3rd day of April, 2012, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, Notice of Application (NOA), Wetland Verification, Environmental Checklist, Reduced Site Plan documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies — NOA, Environmental Checklist See Attached Karen Walter, Muckleshoot - Wetland Verification, NOA, Environmental Checklist, Site Plan Agency Robert & Doravin Wilson Owners/Applicants Darrell Offe Contact 300' Surrounding Property Owners - NOA only See attached io Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON SS 'y S COUNTY OF KING h4 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker cw w signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for th purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ,,,; 3 a.o l2 Notary Pu lic in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): 1+- Myappointment expires: A,,j , -2qr ;L':,3( Project Name: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD Project Number: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 — 172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn. Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172 nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn! Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, M5 KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS', the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template - affidavit of service by mailing 338820009003 312305902404 272850008009 ADAMS JOHN DELNO+MARY LOIS AHLUWALIA RAVINDER SINGH+JA BEAUREGARD IDRIS C 19203 99TH PL S 730 E 55TH ST 515 S 53RD PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 794120001001 BITEMAN JAMES F+RUTA D 19203 98TH AVE S RENTON WA 98055 793100015304 EDEN ESTATES LLC TONEY FAMILY TRUST 10519 158TH AVE NE REDMOND WA 98052 272850011003 KIEV MINH HANG LE 605 S 53RD PL RENTON WA 98055 338820001000 NANN SOPHAT H+SOVANNA LINDA 15824 32ND AVE SE MILL CREEK WA 98012 338820010001 PEDRO JOHN F+MARY ELLEN 19211 99TH PL S RENTON WA 98055 855720019006 ROCHE ELAINE ADAIRRE 3200 130TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98005 272850014007 DANG QUANG+DUONG 623 S 53RD PL RENTON WA 98055 793100014000 GILL BALWINDER 10885 214TH PL KENT WA 98031 338820011009 KIM EATON GAIL & CERNEY CHERYL 19219 99TH PL S RENTON WA 98055 338820012007 LEWIS MARK S+KRISTI S 19229 99TH PL S RENTON WA 98055 272850016002 NGUYEN KHANH C+DUCQUY DANG 616 S 53RD PL RENTON WA 98055 312305908005 PENOR JOSEFINA 520 S 55TH ST RENTON WA 98055 794120002009 SHAVERDIAN MERDAD 4022 93RD AVE SE MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 312305911900 272850009007 312305915604 TA GIANG HOANG+VAN MINH-CHAU SNYDER GORDON NGOC 750 S 55TH ST 521 S 53RD PL RENTON 98055 RENTON WA 98055 794120018005 272850012001 TRAPP HARRY D+AGNES T VAN ALAN B+LY LIN 19223 98TH PL S 611 S 53RD PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98005 312305911900 272850013009 WILSON ROBERT+DORAVIN WITT PAUL+FREIDA 21703 60TH ST E 617 S 53RD PL LAKE TAPPS WA 98391 RENTON WA 98055 312305907502 GURUDWARA SINGH SABHA 5200 TALBOT RD S RENTON WA 98055 793100015106 MT DEVELOPMENT LLC 11625 RAINIER AVE S #201 SEATTLE WA 98178 272850019006 NGUYEN XUAN N 520 S 53RD PL RENTON WA 98055 794120017007 POTRA MARIA 19222 98TH AVE S RENTON WA 98055 272850010005 SINGH JASWANT 531 S 53RD PL RENTON WA 98055 272850017000 TAM KAWAMA & SAUYI 604 S 53RD PL RENTON WA 98055 272850015004 VU JONATHAN 622 S 53RD PL RENTON WA 98055 272850018008 XAVIER MANUEL A JR+MICHELLE 526 S 53RD PL RENTON WA 98055 a City ofo NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS -M) DATE: April 3, 2012 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD PROJECT NAME: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots for the eventual development of detached single family homes, and 1 tract for open space. The site is zoned Residential - 14 du/ac (R-14) & Residential - 1 du/ac (R-1). The site contains 9,783 s.f. of protected slopes (>40%). Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with 9 lots proposed in the R-14 area, & 1 lot proposed within the R-1. A Planned Urban Development is proposed in order to modify minimum lots size within the R-1 Zone and provide larger lots within the R-14 zone. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 plat. A small hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site. The site contains 82 trees, of which 21 would be removed for the construction of the new street serving Wilson Park #1. Ten (10) trees would be retained, and new trees would be planted including 2 new trees per lot. The project requires Environmental (SEPA) Review, Planned Urban Development (PUD) Review, and Preliminary Plat review. PROJECT LOCATION: 698 S 55" Street 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: March 2, 2012 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: April 3, 2012 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Darrell Offe, P.E.; Offe Engineers, PLLC - 13932 SE 159" Place; Renton, WA 98058; Eml: darrell@comcast.net Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat Review, Planned Urban Development Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction and Building Permits Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report, Traffic Study, and Wetland Verification Location where application may Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning be reviewed: Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for Monday. May 21, 2012 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. The hearing begin at 1:00 a.m. on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Residential Medium Density (RMD) and Residential Low Density (RED) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential -14 (R-14) and Residenial -1 (R-1) dwelling units per acre on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist, Geotechnical Report, and Wetland Verification Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-050.1, RMC 4- 2-115F, RMC 4-7-080, RMC 4-9-150, and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Troosportotion Mitigation Fee; The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; and The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Study. That the applicant shall provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Plan designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted to the Public Works inspector. Grading and foundation activities shall be conducted during the drier months of the year from April 1 through October 31 unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Comments an the above application must be submitted In writing to Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager, CED — Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5,00 PM on April 17, 2012. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on May 21, 2012, at 1:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Wayr 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 stili appear at the hearing and present your comments an 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: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager; Tel: (425) 430-7286; Eml: jhenning@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED — Planning Division, 1055 5o. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Wilson Park 2 Preliminary Plat & PUP/LLJA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: Denis Law - Mayor Cl fI6 f Department of Community and Economic Development April 3, 2012 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Darrell Offe Offe Engineers, LLC 13932 SE 159` h Place Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Notice of Complete Application Wilson Pack 2 Preliminary Plat, LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD Dear Mr. Offe: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on April 23, 2012. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on Monday, May 21, 2012 at 1:00 p.m., Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430-7286 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jennifer Henning Current Planning Manager M Robert & Doravirn Wilson / owner(s) Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 96057 0 rentonwa.gov Denis Law Ci Mayor / k April 3, 2012 Department of Community and, Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Nancy Rawls Department of Transportation Renton School Distract 420 Park Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Wilson Park Preliminary Plat & PUD LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD The City of Renton's Department of Community and Economic Development (CED) has received an application for a 10 -lot single-family subdivision located at 698 S 55th Street. Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details. in order to process this application, CED needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children living in 'residences at the location indicated above. Please fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return this letter to my attention, City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057 by April 17, 2012. Elementary School: Middle School: High School: Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes No Any Comments: Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7286- Sincerely,. 30-7285_ Sincerely,. y . . L* Jennifer Henning Current Planning Manager Enclosure Renton City Hall @ 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 98D57 0 rentonwa.gov City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATIO PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Robert Wilson & Doravin Wilson ADDRESS: 21073 60"' Street East CITY: Lake Tapps WA ZIP:98391 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 253-208-3263 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (if applicable)! ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON NAME: Darrell Offe, P.E. COMPANY (if applicable): Offe Engineers, PLLC ADDRESS: 13932 SE 159"' Place CITY: Renton, WA ZIP:98058 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 425-260-3412 darrell.offe0comcast.net 02/13/12 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Wison Park #2 PROJECTIADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 55th Ave So. Renton WA KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 312305-9119 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Vacant land PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Residential subdivision EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:Low density multi and single family residential PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION if applicable): NA EXISTING ZONING: R-14 and R-1 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NA SITE AREA (in square feet): 93,801 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 16,194 sq. feet SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): 6.4 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): 10 lots and 1 tract Pr%OJECT INFORMA' NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 10 NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable)_ NA NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NA tIUN ilcontllnued PROJECT VALUE: $1,500,000 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): sq. ft. 9,783 _ sq. ft, sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY IAttachleaaldescriptiononseparatesheetwiththefollowinainformationincluded) I SITUATE IN THE _SE QUARTER OF SECTION _31_, TOWNSHIP 23N_, RANGE -5E, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. _PUD 3. SEPA 2. Preliminary Plat 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 7,210 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namels) SZ' il D 0 j I _5"eclare that I am (please check one) the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that T tf°{Z} - D'j r— N r a (A1 + 5'djj signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary act for theZJ ije Z_ uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of OwnerlRUepresentative) 1 Signature of Owner/Representative) Notary Public in arid'for the State of Washington Notary My appointment expires: 02/22112 2 Notary Public Stale of Washington BRITNEY MAE HURLEY My Appointment Expires Apr 4, 2015 PLANNING DIVISION WAII ..z OF SUBMITTAL REQU.. .EMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS AN O nn r .s t ,. lI41l I l C3 nnaot i!> cQ> NTS, RitJlZhrIE NTS` EKYs 6Y' i•..,'.•....,. Calculations , OIJf 9d':lavf':17 4:. 00 Construction Mitigation Description 2AND 4 Density Worksheet a Drainage Report Z iv€.a.awl,.4'....'....:..,..:.:.:.:.;.:..;-:::.:.:...::::::' Environmental Checklist 4 Ekisti :::Ciavenhts Caor e* Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 L F1dor• pla j WIM Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Habitat Data Report 4 Irrigation Plan 4 un t.. R+w wr.:Ma :kilaG ,te Landscape Plan, Conceptual, 0.n Legal Description 4 Ilacif:,€lsi gte.fd tzrts °; s Master Application Form 4 M UM.. rYt arCis ( t3e>r r r ttuf entj 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building DATE: LC2 4• Planning H:10ED%Data\Forms-TemplateslSeif-Help HandautsPanninglwaiverofsubmitialregs.xis 06/09 I PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER wF SUBMITTAL REQUIRE..,ENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by. 1. Property Services 2. Public Warks Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning H:1CEE)Tata\Forrns-TemPlatesl5elf-HeiP Handouts\Planning%waiverofsubmittalregs.xis 06/09 4-.t L P REAPPLICATION MEE , ING FOR WILSON PARK 2 FUD 698S 55TH ST CITY OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Dervelophnent Planning Division P'REI I - 042 September I S, " 20.11 Contact information: Plariner: Gerald Wasser Phone: 425.430.73$2 Public Works Reviewer: Kayren Kittrick Phorke: 425.430.7299 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Phone: 425.430,7023 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430.729€3 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 workontheproject. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply forlanduseand/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, cali andscheduleanappointmentwiththeprojectmanager (planner) to have it pre- screened before making all of the required copies. The pre -application meeting Is informal and non-binding, TheontheProposalarebasedonthecodesandpoliciesineffect at the a oorovided review_ The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regulariamendedandtheproposalwillbeformallyreviewedunderther Yeffectatthetimeofprojectsubmittal. The info 9ulatlOflS inissubjecttomoclifeationend/or concurrence brmation contained In this summaryHearingExa'niner , Plannihq. Director, Development°fficial decision -makers gOfCommunityand ` Services Di '' Adrnin' Economic Development Administrator, Public or, DepartmentistratorandyCoesrU)- Works ZT/TO 3!DVd JN3 3330 ZT0E09z9zV bT*LO TTOZ/9Z/60 CITY OF RENTON CS*i' wo' FIRE PREVENTION WmE AU MEMORANDUM DATE: September 6, 2011 TO: Jerry Wasser, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Preliminary Comments for Wilson Park #2 PUD 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family Home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings upto3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600squarefeet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm tyre flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300 -feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fireflowgoesupto1,500 gpm. Existing hydrants can be counted toward the requirement aslongastheymeetcurrentcode, including 5 -inch storz fittings. 2. The fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $488.00 per single family unit. Thisfeeispaidpriortorecordingtheplat. 3. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be minimum 20 -feetwidefullypaved, with 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside turning radius. Fire accessroadwaysshallbeconstructedtosupporta30 -tan vehicle with 322 -psi point loading. Access is required within 150 -feet of all points on the buildings. Maximum grade of15% allowed. Dead end streets that exceed 150 -feet in length require an approvedturnaround. cr:a MSun2sp ZT/ZO 39Cd ON3 3.940 ZTVE09Z5Zb bT:LO TTOZ19Zf60 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY Of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT t`='--• •- M E M o R A N D u M DATE: September 1, 2011 TO: Gerald Wasser, Planner 3 FROM: Kayren Kittrick, Development Frigineering Supervisor . SUBJECT Wilson Park #2 Short Plat 698 S. 55* Street PRE 11-442 VOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non- binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision -makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. I have completed a preliminary review for the above -referenced proposal. The following comments are based on the pre -application submittal made to the city of Renton by the applicant. Water 1. The site is within the Renton service area; however, due to the elevation of the property, Renton cannot provide sufficient sustainable water pressure. A Soos Creek Water and Sewer District certificate of water availability is required if Renton is to release the service area. Z. Soos Creek Water may serve the site. Extension of a water line will be required for domestic and emergency service. A proposed extension is part of the pians for the Wiison Paris Plat. sanitary Sewer 1. The proposed subdivision is within the Oty of Renton service area. An existing 12 -inch diameter sanitary sewer main is located in S. 55th Street. 2. A minimum 8 -inch diameter sanitary sewer is required to be extended to serve the site. The extension is part of the construction plans for Wilson Park Plat. 3. No dual sidesewer services are allowed and all services shall be a minimum 2%grade. 4. The System Development Charge shall be determined by the size of the meter installed per each lot. This fee is payable with the construction permit. A Development Fees Handout is available for your reference. ZT/EO 39Vd ON3 3330 ZTV609Z9Zb t7T:LO TTOZ/9Z/60 Iffilsan Park #2 5.ort Plat —PRE 1 Pale 2 of 2 February 22, 2011 Street Im rovements 1. Due to the location of the proposed access road on the curve of S_ 55th Street, a limited or amended Wilson Park traffic study addressing the additional traffic generation and impact an the intersection proposed with the Wilson, Park plat is required with recommendations for any mitigation for traffic safety. 2, Depending on the recommendation from the amended traffic study, additional dedication of right-of-way along the frontage may be required to accommodatedesign and safety standards, 3. Frontage improvements along the northerly side of S. 551h Street, including but not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, planting strip, paving, street lighting and surface water facilities in conformance with city code, are required. 4. The access road from S. 55th Street serving the proposed short plat is required to provide a minimum cross-section of 26 -feet of paving, parking on one side, curb, planting strip and sidewalk per current city street cross-sections. 5. All wire utilities and services shall be installed underground. 6. Traffic mitigation fees will apply, These fees are calculated in accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8"' Edition or as included in the amended traffic study. Storm Draina e 1. The storm drainage shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 icing County Surface Water Drainage Manual. 2. A storm drainage checklist, report, and conceptual drainage plan shall be submitted with the formal application. 3, A soils report is required with notes on suitability for infiltration and recommendations of surface water BMP selection and typical design. Individual lot designs will be required at building permit unless recorded as a requirement with the short plat. 4. The Surface Water SDC fees are $1,012 per new single family lot. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. General 1. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals, prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards Ixy a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Network. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. ZT/VO 39Vd JN3 3330 ZTti£09Z5Zb PT:LO TTOZl9Zf60 of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNM t t anc_Ce-n AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M b R A N D U M DATE: September 15, 2011 TO: Pre -application File No. 11-042 FROM: Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner LIBIECT: Wilson Park 2 PUD 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 eh des n effect a the• daapplication t ls made to the af review. The alpplican# is ty Of Renton by the applicant and t cautioned that information contained in this surnmary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official d ecislon -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 DevelopmentDv onn o Rtheafirst floor of Gtyavailable Mail or online at for $100.00 plus tax, from the Fina www. re ntu.gQy project proposal: The subject property is located northeast of the intersection of Talbot Road south and South 55 Street (APN 3123059119). The project site totals 2.7.5 acres in area and contains two zoning designations. The east side of the project site is zoned Residential —1 dwelling units per acre (R-1) and the west side of the project site is zoned Residential —1.4 dwelling units per acre (R-14). A previous pre -application report PRF07-070) on the subject property identified that l;-14 designationapproximately and approximately( 1.05 acres) of the property is located wrthin the47,585 square feet (1.09 acres) is located %i thin the R-1 designation. On February 24, 2011, staff reviewed a pre -application (PRE11-404) which included two optional proposals for subdividing the subject isior:process oplicant proposes to ess to develop the the Planned Urban Developmentp ess and the subdi subject property with 9 lots and an "open Morris Avenue , Access is proposed from South 55` Street via a future access road Current Use: The property is vacant. t_\ced\p1ar1nin9\current planning\preapps`11-042.jerrY18re011-042,wiWA saltZ Pud,r-1 & r-14.doc ZT/90 39Vd 9N3 333{ Z1bE99Z9Z0 VT:LO TTOZ/9Z/50 Wilson Park 2 PLM, P1 1 Page 2of& September 15, 2011 Notes: Please refer to PREII-004 for specific development standards for the IR -1 and R-14 zones. That report also references residential open space and design standards. The submitted materials for the current pre -application proposal do not address Planned Urban Development Purposes, Planned Urban Development Standards, or Planned Urban Development Decision Criteria. These standards and criteria are discussed below. Planned Urban Development There are two principal purposes of the planned urban development regulations. First, is to preserve and protect natural features of the land. Second, is to encourage innovation and creativity in the development of residential, business, manufacturing, or mixed use developments by permitting a variety in the type, design, and arrangement of structures and improvements. Planned Urban Development Standards RMC 4-9-150 states that in approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of chapters 4-2, 4-4, and 4-7 and RMC 4-.5-050, except aslistedinsubsectionB3ofthisSection. Ali modifications to tot size, width, depth, building standards and setbacks will be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development. ings Zoning/DensityZoning/Density Requirements -- RM of the appl cabhe base orB3 states that te e oaerdlay zone orunitsshallnotexceedthedensityaIwance bonus criteria in chapter 4-2 or 4-9. The subject property is located within the Residential -1 dwelling units per acre (R-1) zone and the Residential -14 dwelling units per acre zone. The density range required in the R-14 zone is a minimum of 10.4 to a maximum of 14.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The maximum density in the R-1 zone is 1 du/ac. The area of public and private streets and critical areas would be deductedfromthegrosssiteareatodeterminethe "net" site area prior to calculating density. The applicant proposes a total of 9 lots which is less than the total allowed maximum density in both zones. Common open Space — open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or Passive e ation. Open Space must OpeR pace mayinclude, butlls not at least 10% of the development site's gross land aea limited to: a trail that allows opportunity , shall be includedliri the open spacecritical area buffer (only the square footage of the strip, when abutting the edge ofcalculation); or a sidewalk and its associated landscape p. a critical area buffer and when a part.of a new public or private road; or Similar proposalasapprovedbythereviewingofficial. Additionally, a minimum area equal to 50 square h.\ced\planning\current planning\ preapps\11-042.jerry\PreC)1-1-042,wilson park 2 pud.r-1 & r-14.doc ZT/90 39Cd ON3 3.30 ZT17€09Z5Zb VT:L0 TTOZ/9Z/60 Wilson Park 2.'UD, FRE] 2 Page 3 of 8 Sept=ber 15, 2011 feet per unit of common open space or recreation area on a case-by-case basis if the Reviewing official finds. (a) the stormwater facility utilizes the techniques and landscape requirements set forth in The Integrated Pond, 1Gng County and Land ResourcesOiY[SIOn, or an 24uiva[ent manual, or M the su.e water feature serves outside of theZr-',,Prban -*-Velopment and is appropriate In size and creates a benefrL while the ProAen SPGe easement"" inducles areas outside of the identified critical area, the W icam has nat provided specific Wortr don regarding proposed common open space areas.. Such inkirmation is necessary in order to adequately assess conformance With this standard. Private oven Space — Each residential unit in a planned urban development small have usable private open space (in addition to parking) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each detached unit shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. The private open space shall be of lapplication demarcated fnr a planned Urthar Developeen feet ment every dimension. At the time of form pp such information would be required. installation and Maintenance of Cornman D en 5 acs -All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the City; provided, that common open space containing natural features'worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the Oty in anamountequaltotheprovisionsofRMC49-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period oftwo (2) years thereafter prior to the release of theesecurityiadevice. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed with the i]e elopmen Sve for a twoervices Di2) year vision. Landscaping A copy of such contract shall be kept onLandscapingshallbemaintainedpursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4070• Planned Urban Development Decision Criteria The City may approve a planned urban development only 1f it finds that the following requirements are met. De -MO of Com liance and Su eriori R wired ` Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of the Planned Urban Development and with the Comprehensive Plan, uthat eproposed rban development, ment anthat the will be superior to that which woutd result without a panned development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. Qn fit — In addition, applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed developmentulirBwillprovidespecificallyidentifiedbenefitsthatclearlyoutweighanyadverseimpactsorundesirableeffectsoftheproposedplannedurbandevelopment, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed h:1ce<i\plann1r glcurren1 planninglpreapps\11-042.jerrylpre0ti-4 2,wilsor park z pud,r-1 & r-14.doc LT/L9 30Vd ON3 3jjO ZTb609z9z1;' bT:LO TTOZ/9Z/60 Wilson Park 2 FUD, PRE 42 Page 4 of $ September 15, 2811 development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: 1. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development; or 11mr-u"I %ea%.rc- ; preserves, er6anr4s, or rehabilitates natural features of the SLbOM Properry, such as signifi=t woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitalLs, noT otherwise required by other City reguiations; or 3. Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a planned urban development; or 4. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior in one €r more- of the following ways to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development: a. Open Space/Recreation: i. Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082; and ii. Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreation facilities and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways; or b. Circuiation/Screenirig: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities; or c. Landscaping/Screening: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or around the proposed planned urban development; or d. Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design, placement, relationship or orientation of structures, or use of solar energy; or e. Alleys: Provides alleys to at least fifty percent (50%) of any proposed single family detached, semi -attached, or townhouse units. Additional Review Criteria — A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria. 1. Building and Site Design: a. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to h:\ced\pianning\current planning\ preapps\11-042.jerry\preQ11-442,wilson park 2 pud,r-1 & r-14.doc ZT/89 30vd JN3 3330 ZTt7C09Z9Z17 bT:LO TTOZ/9Z/60 Wilson Park 2 PUD, PRE 1 Page 5 of 8 September 1S, 2011 adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. b. Interior design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building, orientation or housing type; e.g., single family, detached, attached, townhouses, etc. 2. Circulation: a. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. b. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. c. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. d. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. 3. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. 4. Clusters or Building Groups and Open space: and thrpearance of ough the use of wells created by clustering, separation of building groups, designed open space and Landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. S. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwellingunits, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, enhancement of tthe are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aestheticproperties, and for property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding pro pscreeningofstorage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for thereductionofnoise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. h.lzedlplanninglcurrent planning\preapp,$\Il.442•jariY\pro011-042,wiison park 2 pud,r-7. & r-14,doe ZT/89 3OVd JN3 3 -HD ZTVE09Z9ZG hT :L0 TIOZ/9Z/60 Wilson Park 2 PUD, PRE 1 2 Page 6 of Septauber 15, 2011 G. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. 7. Parking Area Design: a. Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate. b. Adequacy: Provides sufficient on-site vehicular parking areas consistent with the parking demand created by the development as documented in a parking analysis approved by the City. Parking management plans shall ensure sufficient resident, employee, or visitor parking standards, and there shall be no reliance on adjacent or abutting properties unless a shared parking arrangement consistent with RMC 44-4-080 is approved. c. Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so that each phase, together with previous phases, can stand alone. Access. Access is proposed from South 55a' Street via a future access road (Morris Avenue South). Significant Tree Retention: Please refer to PRE11-004 for information regarding significant tree retention. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed development would belocatedwithintheResidentialLowDensity (RLD) and Residential Medium Density (RMD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations. The proposed project must be consistent With the policies of the.RLD and RMD land use designations, Critical Areas 004 Critical areas have been identified on the subject property- for roperty Please refer to PRE1 for information regarding critical areas. Hillside Subdivisions: Please refer to PftE11-004 for information regarding hillside subdivisions. Talbot Urban Separator: Please refer to PRl"11-W for information regarding the Talbot Urban Separator. h:\ced\planNnglcurrent planningipreapps\li-042.)ercYlpreoll-o42,y"'ilson park 2 pud,r-1 & r-14.doc Zi/0I 39Vd JN3 33A0 ZTEMZ9ZV bi:L0 «YTAZ/9Z/60 Wilson Park 21'UD, PRE1 2 page 7 of 8 September 15, 2011 Environmental Review The proposed project would be subject to Washington State Environmental Policy Act SOPA). Please refer to PRE11-004 for information regarding environmental review. Permit Requirements The project would require Preliminary Approval of a Planned Urban Development, Preliminary Plat review or a Short Plat review, and Environmental (SEPA) review. A preliminary planned urban development maybe considered simultaneously with any other land use permit required for a proposal, including preliminary plats, environmental review, or other applications. Where merged, the review criteria for all of the applications shall be considered simultaneously with the planned urban development criteria. With Concurrent review of these applications, the process would take an estimated time frame of 12 weeks. After the required notification period, the Environmental Review Committee would issue a Threshold Determination for the project. When the required two-week appeal period is completed, the project would go before the Hearing Examiner for a decision on the Preliminary Planned Urban Development and the Short Plat or Preliminary Plat, The Nearing Examiner's decision would be subject to two --week appeal periods. The application fee would be $2,060-00 0 I $ 4,1 0.00 ($4,000. 00ogy plus plusg aF396 for the Preliminary Planned Urban401}.00 plus a 396 Technology surcharge Fee) for a Preliminary Plat or $1,442.00 ($1 Technology Surcharge Fee) for a Short Plat, and. $1,030.00 ($1,004.00 plus a.3% Technology surcharge Fee) for SEPA Review. The cost for the f=inal Planned !Urban Development is $1,034.00 ($1,000.00 plus a 3%Tech nology Surcharge l=ee). The applicant will be required to install a public information sign on the property. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal requirements isuts. Once Preliminary Planned Urban Development andprovidedintheattachedhando Preliminary Plat or Short plat approvals are obtained, the applicant must complete therequiredimprovementsanddedications, as well as satisfy any conditions of thepreliminaryapprovalbeforesubmittingforFinalPlatreview. Once final approval isreceived, the plat may be recorded. The newly created lots may only be sold after the plat has been recorded. impact/Mitigation Fees: In addition to the applicable construction and building permit fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to issuance of building permits. )moo T ffes which would re lace mitigation Lees, may be ado 1 ted adpr to buil din ermit a roval for which an ap. !;cont MOV vest to a on ees. These fees have yet to be determined. Currently fees are theffollowing: A Parks Mitigation fee based on $530.76 per new single family residence; h.\ced\plannin&urrent planning`preapps111-042 jerrylpreal l-042,wilson park 2 pud,r,i & r-14_doc 6Z/11 39Vc] 9N3 3J90 Zib6996SZ17 V1:L0 IZOZ/9Z/66 W lsm Park 2 PUD, PRE 2 Page 8 of 8 September 15, 2011 A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project; A fire Mitigation Fee based on $4ag.00 per new single-family residence; and, A Renton School District Impact fee based on $6,300.00 per each new single-family residence and is payable prior to issuance of building permits. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Expiration: The developer shall within Z years of the effective date of action by the Hearing Examiner to approve the Preliminary Planned Urban Development plan, submit to the Department of Community and Economic Development a Final Planned Urban Development plan showing the ultimate design and specific details of the proposed PL -"mad urban deveiopment or the ffnal phase or phases thereof, provided, however, that for a preliminary plan submitted concurrently with a preliminary subdivision, the developer shall submit the final development plan within 5 years of the effective date of action by the Hearing Examiner to approve the preliminary plan. u; Jennifer Henning h.\ced\planning\current plan"ing\FreappS\11-04Z.yerry\preO11-042,wilsvn park Z pud,r-1 & r-14.dOC ZZ/ZT 30Vd SN3 3330 ZZ46oKsi-t wtii-L@ ZT9Z/9Z/69 iq Wilson Park #2 Project Narrative This discussion outlines the application for the Wilson Park PUD and Preliminary Plat on South 55`h Street, Renton WA. The proposal is to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into 10 lots and one tract by applying for a PUD and Preliminary Plat. The current zoning of the site is mixed, R-14 and R-1. The property to the west is zoned R-14, to the east the zoning is R-8, to the north the zoning is R-14, R-1 and R-8, to the south the zoning is R-4. The site is presently vacant. The existing lot is 93,801 square feet in size. 9,783 square foot of the site is a steep slope exceeding 40%. 38,326.23 square feet is zoned R-1 which includes the steep slope area. 55,474.76 square feet is zoned R-14. The soil type is Vashon Till (Glacial Till). Drainage will be provided per the drainage report attached. Temporary erosion control will be provided per city of Renton Standards. A PUD and Preliminary Plat are being requested in order to subdivide the parcel into 10 single family lots and one tract to be used as open space, steep slope protection and passive recreation. The lots will range from 5,559 Square feet to 6,778 square feet. The R-1 zoning requires that 50% of the area of the urban separator (R-1) be dedicated as open space. The R-1 zone is 38,326.23 square feet and the open space will be 19,164 Square feet. Density averaging for the site is being used for the proposal. Density averaging is being addressed by a pending administrative interpretation. The combined density proposed for the site is 6.4 Dwelling units per acre, 9 units for the R-14 zone and 1 unit for the R-1 zone. The tree retention plan requires that 10 trees be saved which will be within the open space tract and along the rear of the lots abutting the open space tract. Native trees and ground cover such as sword ferns will be planted within the open space tract where the blackberries and ivy are removed. Two trees per lot will be planted as shown on the landscape plan. Additional public benefit will be provided as part of the proposed FUD over and above that required by a regular subdivision. A three foot wide soft trail of wood chips will be provided from the north edge of the plat to South 55`h ST thru the open space tract. Passive recreational facilities will be provided in the form of a gazebo and benches located within the open space tract as shown of the landscape drawing. Additional landscaping will be provided within the open space tract as described above. Through the PUD process we are asking that the lot size be modified for the lots in the R- 1 zone and the lots in the R-14 zone be larger that required. We believe that lots of the proposed size will provide a very good transition from the R-14 zone to the R-8 zone to the east of the site while protecting the steep slopes and the urban separator. The parcel qualifies for a hillside subdivision which allows for larger lots to compensate for the slope conditions. The setbacks proposed are the same as the R-14 zone requirements. The PUD process will also allow density averaging for the site which will provide a more sensible subdivision than the strict interpretation of the code which would require 10 lots in the R-14 zone of about 30 foot wide and one lot in the R-1 zone. Access will be provided off a new street being constructed as part of Wilson Park #1 to the north connecting to South 55` h ST. The site contains $2 trees. 21 trees will be removed for construction of the new street serving Wilson Park #1. The City of Renton tree standards require that 30% of the trees within the R -I zone be retained and 10% of the trees within the R-14 zone be retained. In total 10 trees are required to be retained. In addition to the required trees to be retained, two trees per lot will be planted and additional trees will be planted within the open space tract in areas where the blackberries and ivy are removed. (See Landscape Plan) The cuts and fill for the roadway will be done as part of the approved Wilson Park #1 subdivision to the north. On site grading will occur to accommodate reasonable building pads on the west side of the new street. A balance of cuts and fill will occur between the Wilson Park #1 and Wilson Park #2. Cut material from the roadway in Wilson Park #1 will be used for the fill needed in Wilson Park #2 for roadway construction and to provide reasonable building pads on the west side of the new street. A small amount of imported fill may be needed for final grading. The source of that material has not been determined. We appreciate the city's review and approval of this application for a PUD and Preliminary Plat. If you have any questions please contact Jim Hanson at 360-422-5056 or e-mail, ichanson;u N avecablc.coiii. Wilson Park#2 PUD project Compliance and Superiority 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority: The parcel proposed to be subdivided is just over 2 acres about'/2 of which is zoned R-14 the balance is zoned R-1. A portion of the R-1 area contains steep slopes over 40%. The plat will qualify as a Hillside Subdivision. The proposal will allow a superior project to be developed. The boundary between the R-14 and R-1 portion is not a straight Iine. The property is bisected by a new city street providing access to the property to the north. A portion of the R-14 zoning lies on the east side of the street along with the R-1 zoning. The remaining R-14 portion is on the west side of the street. To develop the site with some very small R-14 lots on the east side of the street and one large R-1 lot will create an undesirable lot layout. The proposed lot layout will provide reasonable sized lots on each side of the street and a large open space tract which will provide protection for the steep slopes along with passive recreational opportunities. The proposed lot layout will comply with Objective LU -FF, 2 of the Comprehensive plan promoting efficient land utilization. The PUD process will allow the density for the whole site to be averaged per the pending Administrative Determination providing the ability to provide reasonable sized single family lots on each side of the new street. The density proposed is 6.4 DU/Acre. The density allowed is 14 units for the R-14 portion and 1 unit for the R-1 portion. The proposed density falls within the density called for in Policy LU -165 of the Comprehensive Plan for R-14 zoned areas. Policy LU -12 allows for minimum density to be reduced due to lot configuration or physical constraint. The proposed plat will provide a better subdivision than one containing between 11 and 15 lots. The required open space will be enhanced by provided a soft trail, benches, a gazebo, and enhanced landscaping for passive recreational use by the residents. Such amenities and enhancement would not be required by a regular subdivision. Public Benefit: a. Critical areas will be protected by a larger open space area then required. b. Natural Features will be enhanced by providing a three foot wide soft trail of wood chips from the north of the site to South 55`h ST. Enhanced landscaping consisting of native plants such as sword ferns and native trees in areas where black berries and ivy are removed within the open space tract. c. Passive recreational facilities consisting of a gazebo and benches will be provided within the open space tract near the north end. d. The overall Design is improved by providing reasonable sized lots on each side of the street rather than some very small lots in strange shapes on the east side of the street along with one large lot. Additional Review Criteria: a. Building design will meet the requirements of the city's design standards. b. Circulation: Sufficient streets will be provided. The new street constructed as part of the subdivision to the north will provide access to all lots. c. Infrastructure and Services: All utility services will be provided to all lots. d. Clusters or Building groups and Open Space: By having one single family residence per lot it will have an appearance of greater open space than attached units. Side yards will be provided for each residence thus decreasing the impervious surface. c. Privacy and Building Separation: By having one house per lot privacy will be improved. Additional light and air will be provided. Building Orientation: One building per lot will allow variations in elevation and location which may be needed because of the topography of the lot. g. Parking Area Design: Parking will be provided per the city's design standards. One unit per lot will be preferred over the Row House look. h. Phasing: No phasing is proposed for the plat. r t,: q, ..i?l it•_cra.. _ ' - --__ s.. .aw .. aaSTf{r ..'.:._-., .. -. :.`P.: r.Y. "' DENSITY WORKSHEET .:. City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets** Private access easements** Critical Areas* Total excluded area: 3- Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: l square feet T r square feet square feet 2. 7, V square feet 3. square feet 4. r 9GO acres 5_ \0 units/lots 6. = dwelling units/acre Critical. Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. http:l/rentunti%a.gov/uploeidcdFiles/Business/PBIIWIL)EVSERVIFORM',PI.ANNINGIdcnsity.doc - I - 03108 City of Rennin TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter' on project site: 1, trees 2_ Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangeroUS2 -r' trees Trees in proposed public streets _ . — trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts trees Trees in critical areas3and buffers trees Total number of excluded trees: 2. O trees 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 3. 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 R.-1 ZI Tajo 0-7j - tv 0.1 in all other residential zones >z -l4 .0 - 0 ,, : 4 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. _ 1 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing5toretain 4: 5. 0 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. 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, 0 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: Minimum 2° caliper trees required) 8. inches per tree 9. Divide line T by line 8 for number of replacement trees: if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 9. trees Measured at chest height. 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. Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplain and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 4. Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. s_ The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a 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. http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/PBPW/DEVSERV/FORMS_PIaA,NNINGITreeRetentionWorksheet.doc 12/08 WILSON PARK #Z SOUTH SSTH STREET / - rHA VENUE SOUTH < r 10 Single Family Residence PLA T/PUD) CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION ' Proposed Construction Dates (begin and end dates): Start of construction is proposed for Spring - Summer 2013 with the clearing of the existing vegetation, demolition of existing structures (Wilson Park), and grading. All construction activities are anticipated to be completed by spring of 2014. This schedule is subject to change dependent upon housing market demands. The site work will be constructed with the improvements for Wilson Park (LUA09-140). These two projects will be constructed simultaneously. Frontage improvements will be installed with minor disruption to South 55"' Street. These frontage improvements will include: off- site drainage, paving, sewer and water connections, curb/gutter and sidewalk, street lights and landscaping. Hours and days of operation; 7:00 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday Proposed Hauling/ Transportation routes: Materials and labor to the site are proposed off of South 55'h Street. Vehicle parking and material storage are proposed to be onsite. Measures to minimize construction activities: Construction activity on South 55"' Street is proposed to be minimized by balancing the cut and FII of the two projects; Wilson Park is a proposed cut project with Wilson Park #2 as a proposed fill project. The dirt balancing of these two projects will be critical to cost and minimizing offsite construction activities. During the design phase of these two projects, cut and fill quantities will be evaluated against building pads and lot views in an attempt to balance the two sites. Additional material may be needed from offsite sources to finalize grading of lots and roads. At this point, a minor amount of offsite material (gravel, backfill, and trench backfill) may be necessary. Construction traffic and stockpiling of materials will occur onsite utilizing the two entries to the two projects (both off of South 55"' Street). Due to the moisture sensitivity of the existing soils, major construction is proposed to be done during the dry (summer) months. Special hours: No special hours are necessary to complete construction. Weekend work may be necessary to be scheduled for completion; this will be determined by owner, contractor, and City of Renton. Preliminary Traffic Control Plan: Utility connections and material hauling on South 55th Street will require a traffic control during these limited activities. Coordination with the City of Renton Inspector will be critical. Once a contractor is selected, a traffic control plan will be submitted and approved prior to the pre - construction meeting with the City of Renton. This plan will be installed prior to any construction activities. H3 - 30 T23N R5E E 1/2 rM DCA co SW iM St SIT R-8 co R 8 R -I4 gt1d4 co R-8 co co co co R -14 S co RM -F aw+A,e : taaM se 9 Uy 8[ S 1 co co co R -1O co N co cc b co , 3 a RM -FWI M R-8 yaeM a ire. ......... ...... .. ... ... .. 9 R-1 w Amo rt a son a a s ° R-14 sef°ms 9Sf 6 R-14 R-1 R-4 SITE s[ uun a R-8 a 1N nLLZONINGMAPBOOK .J aV T22NFr 1/2 PW TECHNICAL SERVICES I3PRINTERON11/13/09 1 p ..- m,., rl rynt Feet= 31 T23N RSE E 112 fIfC fl 1:4,800 5331 111F.I,11-0 I I ki Icl 11 WIM911- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.210 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 NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). 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. 1 - 06109 A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable: Wilson Park #2 2. Name of applicant: Robert Wilson 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Owner. Robert Wilson, 21073 60= Street East, Lake Tapps WA 98391,253-208-3263. Contact: Offe Engineers, PLLC, Darrell Offe, PE, 13932 SE 159`h PL, Renton WA 98058, 425-260-3412 4. Date checklist prepared: 2-12-2012 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Rentor: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Summer 2013 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. Trac study, Wetland/sensitive areas assessment, soils reports, and drainage analysis — have been submitted as part of this application. Additionally, Wilson Park aUA #09-140) prepared documentation that was reviewed that affects this property. 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. Yes, Wilson Park — LUA 09-140 was granted preliminary approval. Construction permits have not been approved by the City of Renton. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Planned Urban Development approval and Preliminary Plat, NPDES Permit from State, Construction Permits, and Developer Extension Agreement with Soos Creek. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Subdivide a parcel of 93,801 square feet into 10 residential lots and 1 tract containing open space, steep slopes and passive recreation. 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, IPM township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed pians submitted with any Permit applications related to this checklist. Location, South 55` Street, SF quarter, Section 31, Township 23N, Range 5F in the City of Renton. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EARTH General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _Hilly with steep slopes. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Over 40% 9,783 sq. feet of steep slope sensitive areas C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soil on site is classified as Vashon Till (Glacial Till) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Between Wilson Park and #2, grading will occur to try to balance the cut material from Wilson Park with the need for fill material for ##2. The access road into the projects is currently configured to a maximum grade of 15% lowering this profile will be consistent with city standards and generate additional material from Wilson Park. At the time of engineering design, the cut and fill balance will be evaluated for the two sites. In addition, a small amount of grading will be needed to instill a soft trail within the open space tract. The street and utility construction will be done as part of the adjacent plat approved by the City. Fill material will be imported from the adjacent plat cut needed for roadway construction. Small amounts of additional fill may be needed on the west side of the new street for final grading. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Temporary erosion control will be in place during all construction per the City of Renton standards. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 50% - roads, sidewalk, houses, driveways, and walkways 3- h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion control per City of Renton standards 2. AIR 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. Minor dust during construction. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site including year-round and. seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 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. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 4- 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. The runoff from ##2 will be collected within the storm water facilities (vault) constructed under Div. 1. The discharge from the facility will be into the exisiitng road side ditch along 55` h Ave South. A more detailed review of the downstream system can be found within the drainage report prepared for Wilson Park (Div. 1). Additionally, road side runoff from 55` h Ave on the southeast corner of the plat will be conveyed around the property and back into the roadside ditch to the southwest corner — back into 55`h Ave drainage. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Temporary erosion control per City of Renton standards. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Clearing and grading will occur for the construction of the public facilities and for the construction of the single family homes. 1.5 acres of clearing and grading on this parcel will occur during this construction. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Blackberries and ivy will be removed from the open space tract. Native plants will be maintained within the open space tract along with planting of additional native plants. A soft trail and passive recreational facilities will be provided per the landscape plans. Mil S. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other —Song birds_ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other _ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _None b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Yes, None d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The open space corridor will serve as a wildlife corridor for any wildlife in the area. 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. Fuel during construction Electricity and natural gas will be used to provide energy to the new homes and street improvements street lights). 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: None 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project {for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None I&V 1 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 will be created from construction equipment for plat improvements. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is vacant. The surrounding area is zoned residential. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No C. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NA e. What is the current zoning classification of the .site? R-14 and R-1. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Low density multiple family and low density residential. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NA h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, the steep slope area shown of plans. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? NA j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project will provide an excellent transition from R-14 to R -S uses to the east. 9. HOUSING 7- a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. NA b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: A soft trail and passive recreation facilities will be provided within the open space tract. (See Landscape plan) 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION 8- 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. No Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The parcel abuts 55th ave south. Access to the parcel will be from 55Th,$ access to the lots will be off the new road constructed as part of Div. 1. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? NO — Carr Road and Tolbet Road — near hospital C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? There will be 2 parking stalls per house within the driveway and two within the future garages - 4 per house. 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? None. The new street serving this plat will be constructed as part of the adjacent plat (Wilson Park). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 19. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None 15. PUBLIC SERVICES 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. Additional fire and police protection will be needed when new homes are constructed but they are not part of this proposal. 9- Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. UTILITIES Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Water and Sanitary sewer will be provided as part of the adjacent plat {Wilson Park) construction. All other utilities are available to the site. Sewer, access, refuse service, fire, police, and emergency services will be provided by the City of Renton. Water will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 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. Utilities will be constructed as part of the plat construction of the adjacent plat (Wilson Park). C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct, and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentatio 1 lack of full disclgp. rf rUy part. Preparers Signature: Name Printed: Darrell Offe, P.E fPrinci all — Engineers, PLLC Date: February 13, 20.12 10- 570 Kirkland Way, #100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone: 425-739-8887 Fax: 425-468-9125 SUPPLEMENTAL DATEDOWN TITLE POLICY NO, NP - 30048506 Re: File No.: NP - 30048506 -]G1 Reference: Buyer/Borrower(s): Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson Seller(s): Prime Pacific Bank Subject Property: 98XX S 192nd Street, Renton, WA 98055 This company has preformed a Datedown which shows that there have been no changes as of February 2, 2012 Dated: February 2, 2011 A] Supplemental WFG National Title Company of Washington, LLC Page 1 of 1 By N" . Authorized Sin tore Lynn M. Riedel Policy No.: WA0037-81-30048506-2 1230641558225 File No.: 30048506 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT A THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST 317 FEET OF THE WEST 1,003 FEET OF THE SOUTH 318 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT COUNTY ROAD; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. APN: 3123059119 ALTA Standard Owner's Policy (6117106) Page 2 27306 (6106) Fidelity National Title Insurance Company SCHEDULE A Name and Address of Title Insurance Company: Northpoint Escrow & Title LLC 570 Kirkland Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone: (425) 638-1177 Policy No.:WA0037-82-30048506-2011.8230641558225 File No.: 30048506 Address Reference: 98XX S 192nd Street, King, Renton, WA 98055 Amount of Insurance: $250,000.00 Premium: $662.00 Date of Policy: March 17, 2011 at 12:04 p.m. 1. Name of Insured: Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson, husband and wife 2. The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy is: A FEE 3. Title is vested in: Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson, husband and wife 4. The Land referred to in this policy is described as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof ALTA Standard Owner's Policy (6117106) Page 1 27306 (6/06) 570 Kirkland Way, #100CWF(G National Title Insurance Company Kirkland, WA 98033 a Williston Financial (7mup company Phone: 425-739-8887 Fax: 425-468-9125 April 28, 2011 Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson 21703 601h Street E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 BORROWER: Robert Wilson and Doravin Wilson YOUR REF: OUR NO.: 30045506 Attached is your ALTA Standard Owners Policy (6-17-06) policy of title insurance. Thank you for allowing us to serve you. We look forward to assisting you in the future. Fidelity National T Insurance Company POLICY NO.: WA0037-82-30048506-2011.82306-41558225 OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE Issued by Fidelity National Title Insurance Company Any notice of claim and any other notice or statement in writing required to be given 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 THE EXCLUSIONSFRO MCOVERA GE, THE EXCEP TIONS FRO M CO VERA GE CON TA INE D IN SCHED ULE A A ND THE CONDITIO NIS, FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation (the "Company') insures, as of Date of Policy and, to the extent stated in Covered Risks 9 and 10, after Date of Pol icy, against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance, sustained or incurred by the Insured by reason of.''- 1. T'ille being vested other than as stated in Schedule A. 1, Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the Title. This Covered Risk includes but is not limited to insurance against loss from a) A defect in the Title caused by 1) 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 bylaw; or vii) a defective judicial or administrative proceeding. b) The lien ofreal estate taxes or assessments imposed on the Title by a governmental 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 ofexisting 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. 5. The violation or enforcement ofany 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 fa notice, describing any part of the Land, is recorded in the Public Records settingforth 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 Records, 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 Public Records. S. 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 Schedule A or being defective a) as a result of the avoidance in whole or in part, orfrom a court order providingan alternative remedy, ofa transfer ofall oranypart ofthe 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 ti) 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 I 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 oftransfer 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 ofany matter insured against by this Policy, but only to the extent provided in the Conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its duly authorized officers. Northpoint Escrow and Title, LLC Fidelity National TWe Insurance Company as agent for Fidelity National Title Company 9V %1 n_ Anew By SEAL ' W Authorized si n ture Authorized Signature 92306 (6/06) ALTA Owner's Policy (6117106) EXCIA':S1ONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from tl 'rage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or ;e, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a) Arty law, ordinance, permit, or governmet_L,_ _egulation (including those relating to building and zoning) r,.;tricting, 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 ofland, 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 1(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 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 c) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title. 4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, 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 Pol icy and the date of recording ofthe deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A. CONDITIONS 1, DEFINITION OF TERMS from the Insured ofeither (i) an estate or interest in the Land, or (ii) an obligation secured The following terms when used in this policy mean: by a purchase money Mortgage given to the Insured. a) "Amount of Insurance": The amount stated in Schedule A, as may be increased or 3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY INSURED CLAIMANT decreased by endorsement to this policy, increased by Section 8(b), or decreased by The Insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing (i) in case ofany litigation Sections 10 and 11 of these Conditions. as set forth in Section 5(a) of these Conditions, (ii) in case Knowledge shall come to an b) "Date of Policy": The date designated as `Date of Policy" in Schedule A. Insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest that is adverse to the Title, as insured, c) "Entity": A corporation, partnership, trust, limited liability company, or other and that might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable by virtue ofthis similar legal entity. policy, or (iii) if the Title, as insured, is rejected as Unmarketable Title. Ifthe Company is d) "Insured": The Insured named in Schedule A. prejudiced by the failure ofthe Insured Claimant to provide prompt notice, the Company's i) The term "Insured" also includes liability to the Insured Claimant under the policy shall be reduced to the extent of the A) successors to the Title ofthe Insured by operation of law as distinguished prejudice. from purchase, including heirs, devisees, survivors, personal representatives, or next of 4. PROOF OF LOSS kin; In the event the Company is unable to determine the amount of loss or damage, the B) successors to an Insured by dissolution, merger, consolidation, Company may, at its option, require as a condition of payment that the Insured Claimant distribution, or reorganization; furnish a signed proof of loss. The proof of loss must describe the defect, lien, C) successors to an Insured by its conversion to another kind of Entity; encumbrance, or other matter insured against by this policy that constitutes the basis of D) a grantee of an Insured under a deed delivered without payment of actual loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of valuable consideration conveying the Title the loss or damage. 1) if the stock, shares, memberships, or other equity interests of the 5. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS grantee are wholly-owned by the named Insured, a) Upon written request by the Insured, and subject to the options contained in 2) if the grantee wholly owns the named Insured, Section 7 of these Conditions, the Company, at its own cost and without unreasonable 3) if the grantee is wholly-owned by an affiliated Entity of the named delay, shall provide for the defense of an Insured in litigation in which any third party Insured, provided the affiliated Entity and the named insured are both wholly-owned bythe asserts a claim covered by this policy adverse to the Insured. This obligation is limited to same person or Entity, or only those stated causes of action alleging matters insured against by this policy. •Che 4) ifthe grantee is a trustee or beneficiary ofa trust created by a written Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the right of the instrument established by the Insured named in Schedule A for estate planning purposes. Insured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the Insured as to those stated causes of ii) With regard to (A), (B), (C), and (D) reserving, however, all rights and action. It shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other counsel. The defenses as to any successor that the Company would have had against any predecessor Company will not pay any fees, costs, or expenses incurred by the insured in the defense Insured. of those causes of action that allege matters not insured against by this policy. e) "Insured Claimant": An Insured claiming loss or damage. b) The Company shall have the right, in addition to the options contained in Section f) "Knowledge" or "Known": Actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge or 7 of these Conditions, at its own cost, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or notice that may be imputed to an Insured by reason of the Public Records or any other to do any other act that in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the Title, records that impart constructive notice of matters affecting the Title. as insured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Insured. The Company may take g) "Land": The land described in Schedule A, and affixed improvements that by law any appropriate action under the terms ofth is policy, whether or not it shall he Gable to the constitute real property. The term "Land" does not include any property beyond the lines of Insured. The exercise of these rights shall not be an admission of liability or waiver of any the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in provision of this policy. If the Company exercises its rights under this subsection, it must abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify do so diligently. or limit the extent that a right ofaccess to and from the Land is insured by this policy. c) Whenever the Company brings an action or asserts a defense as required or h) "Mortgage": Mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument, permitted by this policy, the Company may pursue the litigation to a final determination by including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law. a court of competent jurisdiction, and it expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, i) "Public Records": Records established under state statutes at Date of Policy for to appeal from any adverse judgment or order. the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to 6. DUTY OF INSURED CIA IMANT TO COOPERATE purchasers for value and without Knowledge. With respect to Covered Risk 5(d), "Public a) In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to prosecute or Records" shall also include environmental protection liens filed in the records ofthe clerk provide for the defense of any action or proceeding and any appeals, the Insured shall ofthe United States District Court for the district where the Land is located. secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide defense in the action or Q) "Title": The estate or interest described in Schedule A. proceeding, including the right to use, at its option, the name of the Insured for this k) "Unmarketable Title": Title affected by an alleged or apparent matter that would purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the Insured, at the Company's expense, permit a prospective purchaser or lessee ofthe Title or lender on the Title to he released shall give the Company all reasonable aid (i) in securing evidence, obtaining witnesses, from the obligation to purchase, lease, or lend if there is a contractual condition requiring prosecuting or defending the action or proceeding, or effecting settlement, and (ii) in any the delivery of marketable title. other lawful act that in the opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable to 2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE establish the Title or any other matter as insured. If the Company is prejudiced by the The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in favor ofan failure ofthe Insured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the Insured. but only so long as the Insured retains an estate or interest in the Land, or holds an Insured under the policy shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, obligation secured by a purchase money Mortgage given by a purchaser from the Insured, prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the matter or matters requiring such or only so long as the Insured shall have liability by reason of warranties in any transfer or cooperation. conveyance ofthe Title. This policy shall not continue in force in favor of any purchaser 82306 (6106) ALTA Owner's Policy (07/06) b) The Company may reasonably require the ' ured Claimant to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representat' the Company and to produce for examination, inspection, and copying, at such reaso a 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 ofthe Company, the Insured Claimant shall grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company to examine, inspect, and copy all of these records in the custody or control ofa third party that reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information designated as confidential by the Insured Claimant provided to the Company pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonablejudgment ofthe Company, it is necessary in the administration ofthe claim. Failure of the Insured Claimant to submit for examination under oath, produce any reasonably requested information, 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 ofthe Company under this policy as to that claim. 7. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS; TERMINATION OF LIABILITY In case ofa 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 ofthe 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 terminate, 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 ofthe options provided for in subsections bXi) 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Title as insured and the value ofthe 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 ofthe 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. 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY a) If the Company establishes the 'Title, or removes the alleged defect, lien or encumbrance, or cures the lack ofa 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 ordamage 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 LIABILITY All payments undo olicy, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees. and expenses, shall reduce thi, , mount 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 OE' 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 SETTLEMENT 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 Claimant 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, attomeys' 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 ofthese rights and remedies. The Insured Claimant shall permit the Company to sue, compromise, or settle in the name of the Insured Claimant and to use the name ofthe 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 ofthe American Land Title Association ( "Rules"). Except as provided in the Rules, there shall be no joinder or consolidation with claims or controversies of other persons. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the Insured arising out ofor relating to this policy, any service in connection with its issuance or the breach ofa policy provision, or to any other controversy or claim arising out ofthe 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 j urisdiction. 15. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY; POLICY 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 pol icy. 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 ofthe terms and provisions ofthe 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 law, 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 ofpolicies oftitle insurance ofthe jurisdiction where the land is located. Therefore, the court or an arbitrator shall apply the law ofthe 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 Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Alm Claims Department, P. O. Box 45023, Jacksonville, Florida 32232-5023. 82306 (5106) ALTA Owner's Policy ((V17t06) Pokey No.: WA0037-82-30048506- .82306-41558225 SCHEDULE B Continued) Fife No.: 30048506 11. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: CASCADE SEWER DISTRICT PURPOSE: SEWER MAINS AREA AFFECTED: SOUTH 10 FEET OF SAID PREMISES RECORDED: DECEMBER 28, 1978 RECORDING NO.: 7812280144 12. RESERVATIONS CONTAINED IN DEED FROM THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, RECORDED OCTOBER 22, 1883, UNDER RECORDING NO. 3247, AS FOLLOWS: RESERVING AND EXCEPTING FROM SAID LANDS SO MUCH OR SUCH PORTIONS THEREOF AS ARE OR MAY BE MINERAL LANDS OR CONTAIN COAL OR IRON, AND ALSO THE USE AND THE RIGHT AND TITLE TO THE USE OF SUCH SURFACE GROUND AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MINING OPERATIONS, AND THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO SUCH RESERVED AND EXCEPTED MINERAL LANDS, INCLUDING LANDS CONTAINING COAL OR IRON FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING, DEVELOPING AND WORKING THE SAME. 13. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: OWNERS PURPOSE: ROAD AND UTILITY WITH MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS AREA AFFECTED: A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES RECORDED: MARCH 27, 2008 RECORDING NO.: 20080327002018 ALTA Standard Owner's Policy (6-17106) Page 4 27306 (6106) Policy No.: WA0037-82-30048506-: .82306-41558225 t ile No.: 30048506 SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE 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 1. (a) Taxes or assessments that 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; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 4. 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 and not shown by the Public Records. 5. (a) Unpatented 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. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 7. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the Public Records or attaching to the subsequent effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires of records for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 8. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: 1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 3123059119 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2011 $4,470.39 $2,235.20 $2,235.19 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $2,235.19. LEVY CODE: 2100 ASSESSED VALUE LAND: $365,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: $0.00 9. LIABILITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR IMPROVEMENTS WHICH HAVE RECENTLY BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND. LAND IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT PRESENTLY ASSESSED, BUT MAY APPEAR ON FUTURE ROLLS. 10. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY AND KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 58 PURPOSE: COMMUNICATION AND WATER SYSTEM AREA AFFECTED: SOUTH 15, FEET OF SAID PREMISES RECORDED: DECEMBER 14, 1971 RECORDING NO.: 7112140486 ALTA Standard Owner's Policy (6117/06) Page 3 27306 (6/06) AOAAltmannOliverAssociates, LLC i March 11, 2011 AOA -3796 Bob Wilson 21703 — 60th St. E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 SUBJECT: Wetland Verification for Wilson Park 2 (Parcel 312305-9119) City of Renton, WA (File # PRE11-004) Dear Bob: On March 1, 2011 1 conducted a wetland reconnaissance on the subject property utilizing the methodology outlined in the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. The primary focus of the reconnaissance was to verify the results of the wetland determination report prepared by Alder NW (dated October 19, 2004). The Alder NW report indicated a small (less than 800 s.f.) hydrologically isolated wet area in the western portion of the site, immediately adjacent to the remnant foundation of a large old loafing shed. Since the soils within this portion of the site have been significantly disturbed, and the small marginal area appears to have been created during historic site grading adjacent to the old shed, the Alder NW report determined the feature to be unregulated. Based on my wetland reconnaissance, I concur with the findings of the Alder NW report that the area consists of a small (well under 2,200 s.f_) hydrologically isolated Category 3 wetland. Small hydrologically isolated Category 3 wetlands are exempt from the City's critical area regulations if they meet the following provisions of RMC V-3-050.C.5.f: 1) Standing water is not present in sufficient amounts, i.e., approximately twelve inches (12") to eighteen inches (18") in depth from approximately December through May, to support breeding amphibians; Bob Wilson March 11, 2011 Page 2 At the time of the March 1, 2411 field investigation, soils within the wetland were generally saturated near the surface and ponding was limited to depths of about 2 inches within scattered disturbed pockets. Since ponding is restricted to small very shallow isolated pockets, this provision has been met. 2) Species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species, are not present, The wetland does not contain any species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, nor does it contain essential habitat for those species. 3) Some form of mitigation is provided for hydrologic and water quality functions, for example, stor mwater treatment or landscaping or other mitigation; and It is my understanding that as part of the proposed project, all runoff from impervious surfaces on the site will be treated and retained prior to downstream discharge. 4) A wetland assessment is prepared by a qualified professional demonstrating the criteria of the exemption are met The wetland assessment shall be subject to independent secondary review at the expense of the applicant consistent with subsection F7 of this Section. I have conducted a secondary review of the Alder NW report and have verified that all of the criteria of RMC IV-3-050.C.5.f have been met. In addition to the wet area, the Alder NW report also describes a drainage course that flows from east to west through the southern portion of the site. As identified in the report, this drainage originates at the top of the slope from an outfall of a storm drain line which collects surface water runoff from S. 192"a Street. Since this artificially collected runoff is conveyed within a channel where no channel previously existed, it also should not be subject to critical area regulation. Conclusion Pursuant to an on-site reconnaissance, the findings of the Alder NW report were confirmed and no regulated wetlands or streams were identified on the property. Bob Wilson March 11, 2011 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding the reconnaissance or verification of the Alder NW conclusions, please give me a call. Sincerely, ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC John Altmann Ecologist CC: Steve Beck October 19, 2004 Project No. 92.244 h1r. Karl Singly 5218 Talbot Road South Reatun, Wasbington 98055 Subject: Site Evaluation Singh -Property South 192nd Street at 98th Avenue South Renton, Washington Parcel4 3123059119 Dear Mr. Singh. As roqucstcd Ywo Dave- a site -evaluation for the prnper v located on the north side of South 192nd Street at 98th Avcaue South in the City of Renton- It is identified as King County Parcel 43123059119. The location of the property is shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure i). The purpose of this work was to conduct a site evaluation to detenuine if wetlatcis or other sw&ce water features are pwseut on the property, In conducting =site evaluation to identify possible wetland areas we. followed the general procedures for the Tout= on- ske-methodoloV as outlined in the March 1997 Washington State Wetlands Idenlift ation and Delineation fid, prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology. This procedure i avolves analysis of vegetation pattcros, soii conditions, and near -surface hydrology in rnaldng a determination of wetland conditions. This methodology is similar to the procedures outlined in the Corps ofEngineen Wetland Delineation A&nual Technical Report Y-8 7-J (1987). Our scope of work included a site visit an September 23, 2004, at shun time we completed our site evaluation. The apprwdi a location of the wetland is iffustraW on the SitE Map (Figure 2). PROCEDURES For the purpose of this study, we used the wedand definition adopted by the EavirounenW Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engine= (COP) for administering Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. According to this definition, wetlauds are. Those areas Haat are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration gufftcient to support, and that under normal diew Zstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wodands U=crally include scamps, marshm bogs, and sitifaar areas. (33 CFR 323). In Washington State, the Slrareline Management Act and Growth Mama =ont Aix have amended this definition W exclude some Mand situations by adding the following sentences to the wetland definition: 518 North 59d, Street, Seartte, Washington 98103- Phone (206)783-1036 email aidermv@tomcast.net Mr. Karl Singh October 19, 2004 Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wet -land sites, including but not limited to, imphon and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were intentionally. crud as a result of the constructions of a road, street or Highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intwtionaliy created_ from non- wcdand areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. In accordance with this definition, a given area is designated as jurisdictional wetland if the hydrology results in inundated or sahmW sails during -tlte growing season, hydric sails are prescat, and the dominant vegcUb an is hydtophy0c. Delineation procedures are based on diagnostic eaviromnertal indicators of wetland vegetation, weduid soils, and wetland hydrology. By defmitior6 an area is designated as wetland vdica there are positive indicators for all. three parameters. A listing of plant species has been developed for use in the methodology for delineating wetland areas. 'Phis listing assigns plana species to one of five indicator status catcgorios ranging from Obligate wetland species, which almost ahvays occur in wetlands, to Upland species, which rarely oc m in wetlands. Under normal conditions, hydrophytic vegetation is determined to be present if more than 50 perama of the dominant spocics arc in the Obligati (OBI..), Facuitarive Wedwd - FACW), or Facattative (FAC) indicator categories_ Diagnostic indicators of hydric souls are related to soil saturation, which leads to anaerobic conditions in the soil. Under these conditions, decomposition of organic material is inhibited and soil minerals are reduced, creating charaaa6stic soil colons that can be quantified by compaxisoD with Munsell Soil Color Charts. A ebrama of oar, or less in unmottled soils or a chroma oftwo or less in mottled soils generally indicates a hydric soil. Ia addition, soils that are saturated during the growing season satisfy a criterion for hydric souls. We used a hand auger to collect soil samples from a depth of 9 to 15 inches. Wetland hydrology is defined as mated or saturated sod conditions for at least 14 consecutive days during thegrowing season_ If no water is present at the time of evaluation, other indicators rwy include tapogra*c- low points or channels, flood debris, complete absence of vegetation, orpresencc of hydric soils. Standardized data forms are available to record observations on each parameter. For this project, we completed dam forms for the RotW a tan -Site Determination Method at 3 locations on the site. Copies of these data farms are included with this rgNxt. SITE CONDMONS The subject property is an irregiAwly $heed property with an area of approximately 2.15 acres. Al preserrt the site is undeveloped and is occupied by a mod forest stand. The property to the north is v=mtly undeveloped orad is similarly occupied by mixed forest stand Adjacent properties to the east? west and off the northwest comer of the property are occupied by existing single family homes. Topographically, the proMty generally sloes steeply down from the cast property lime at about elev. 298 to a slightly sloping bench which slopes down from about elev_ 240 to about elev. 220.at the west property line This somewhat flatter area occupies approximately the western third of the site. Vegetation on the more steeply sloping eastern two thirds of the property is characttmzed as mixed mx= mixed forest. Predai ituant trees present are Douglas fir (Fseudotsuga mwndesli), and big leaf maple (Acer macrcpV11um), with scattered black cottcrmwd (Populus balsamifera)'and red alder (Amus rubra) trees present closer to the toe of the steep slope. The predominant understory shrub species is Oso plum (OemlMa cemsifonwsl with sword feria (PoWchum munftm) as the pvedomigant kerbaceous species. Himalayan. blackberry (Rubia discolor) its present at the margins of the forested area where there had been some clearing. Project No. 92204 Page No. 2 Mr. Kari Singh. OvWbcr 19, 2404 There has apparently been some grading and clearing on. the Cower bench area. Vegetation here is dominated, by Himalayan blackberry grcmth. Thcrc are scattered tall black oottonwood big leaf maple and Douglas fu with dense small red alder and black cotton -wood along the toe of the slope where,there appears to have been more recent clearing. We identified a sfnall isolaaed area where, there appears to have been shallow surface water earlier in the year. Vegetation on tbis small isolated area includes creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repew), a small patch of slough sedge'(Ccu= obnupta), willows (Salix spp.). Conditions wither this small area are described on Data Fonn 3. This small depression has a width of less than 15 feet and length of approximately 54 fl. As such it has a total area of less than 804sgA It is unregulated under City ofReaton. regulatiow. We also examined the drainage coarse running across the south side ofthe property, This drainage originates at the tap of the stcW slope as the outfall from a storm drain line which collects sudkoe water runoff frorn South 192nd Strout. Directly below the storm draim outfall at the top ofthe slope there is a deeply eroded, steep sided channel. At the upper end the eroded cbxmel is 3f1 to Oft iu.depth. Further clown tine slope the channel depth decreases and the c h=el becomes less well defined. vegetation over fhe channel is dominated by Himalayan blAckbeny. There is a catch basin at the base of the slope within tie South 192nd Stra road shoulder. This catch basin oollects surface water from the road side ditch along the north side of South 192nd Street as weU as mnfacc water reaclvx3g the bottom of the slope in the drainage channel. . There is no evidence of a naturally aceuning topographic suightale _which mhave carried a nalamRy accurring seasonal s#re rz either up slope T'ro the Property or a;h a tie diazhage brosses the subject property. It is our interpretation that this drainage is an artificially genu drainage channel resulting from aonstrucUou of South 192nd street and the discharge of roadway storm_ runoff onto the top of the slope. As as artificially generated drainage channel it should not be subject to regalaticm., We #rust the infonxetion presented is sufficient for your current needs. if you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, ALDXR NW 9 Garet P. Munger Project Scientist Encl_: Data Foam (3) ViGin.ity Map - Figure 1 Site Map — Figure 2 Project No. 92204 Page Na 3 DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE NVETLAND DETERMINATION Desmbe General Site Site is generally forested, on steep slope Data Point No.: DP -1 Conditions: Site Disturbance? West end of site cleared with some grading in the Location: See site Map VEGETATION per=t of dorninant species that are OBI, kA(, W , a uaror rxt.; Is the hydroghyf"tc 'vegetation criterion Wet? Yes Rationale: More !hate 30% species hydmph3yc Soil Type: Alderwood Plis9c Epipedon? No Mabix Color: 2.5Y5/3 Other hydric soil indicaims: No Is the hydric, srnl ciituioa met? Na MIM Hydric Soils Lists NO Mottles? Slight Mottle Colors: Rationale: aroma greater than 2 HYDROLOGY lis the ground mrfae inrmdated? No Surface water depth: 15 tho soil satu gW? . NO Depth to freestanding seater in probe hole: Not in upper 18" Other fold evidence hydrology: No Gleyr,d? No Depth_ 12" Is the wetland by&ol4gp Criterion met? No Rat oWc: No evidence ofso!I safuratlon WETLAND DETEI IIIITATION Are wetland criteria met? No RaLiouale for vaetland decisiM Non hydric soil no evidence of long terns soil saturation! Project Name_ Singh Renton Property AlderNW Field Immsrigatw(s): 518 North 59th Strad ProjectNo_:. 92204 Date: 9/23104 Scathe, WasWVon 98103 DATA FORM RODUNE ONSITE WETLAND DETERMINATION Describe General Site Fite is generally forested on steep slope Condylions: Data Point No.: DP -2 Site Dishirbance? Evidence ofpast clearing and same grading. Location: See Site Map VEGETATION Percent of dommmt species that are UBL, kAUW, and/or FAU: A Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Rationale: More than 50% species hydrophytic Soil Type: Aidamood Histic Epipedon? JVo Matrix Color 2.5%'5/1 Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterim met? SOIL Hydric Soils List: Mottles? Tes Mottle, Colors: Possible masonal standing water Yes Fu&cnale: NO Chroma 2 with mottles HYDROLOGY Is tine ground surface mated? No Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in probe hole: Not in upper t 9- Other field evidence hydrology: Evidence of possible stcm&ng water Gleyed? No Depth: 1a„ Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? ? Rationale; Presumed an basis of hydric,soil and suggestion of asonal LuTace water. WETLAND DETERMINATION Are wetland criteria met? yes Rationale for wetland decision: Positive indicators for eaFh pararmetcr ProjectName: &i O Renton Property .Alclerl+ W Field lavestiptrn(s): G. Mzmger 518 North 59th Street Project No.: 92204 Date: 9;23104 Seattle; Washington 98103 Dominant Plaut Species B Domb aat Plant Species U9 1 Carex obnupta Obi H 8 2 Rnmanculus repens FacW H 9 3 Rubus discolor UP/ S 10 4 Populus trx*ocmpa Fac T 11 5 1121 6 1 1131 Percent of dommmt species that are UBL, kAUW, and/or FAU: A Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Rationale: More than 50% species hydrophytic Soil Type: Aidamood Histic Epipedon? JVo Matrix Color 2.5%'5/1 Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterim met? SOIL Hydric Soils List: Mottles? Tes Mottle, Colors: Possible masonal standing water Yes Fu&cnale: NO Chroma 2 with mottles HYDROLOGY Is tine ground surface mated? No Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in probe hole: Not in upper t 9- Other field evidence hydrology: Evidence of possible stcm&ng water Gleyed? No Depth: 1a„ Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? ? Rationale; Presumed an basis of hydric,soil and suggestion of asonal LuTace water. WETLAND DETERMINATION Are wetland criteria met? yes Rationale for wetland decision: Positive indicators for eaFh pararmetcr ProjectName: &i O Renton Property .Alclerl+ W Field lavestiptrn(s): G. Mzmger 518 North 59th Street Project No.: 92204 Date: 9;23104 Seattle; Washington 98103 DATA. FORM . ROUTINE ON SITE WETLAND DIKTERMINATION Describe General Site Conditions: Data Point No.: DP -3 Site Disturbance? Evidence ofpast clearing and some grading Location: See site map VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species ` a Dorninant Pians- Species 1 Populus irichocarpa Fac T 2 &bus discolor UPI H 9 3 1 4 11 12 bj 13 i 1141 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC:'. Sv Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterim met? Yes Rationale: 50% species hydrnphylic No herbaceous cover below dense hlackberry Soil Type: Ald&-wood H iisdc Epipedou? No Matrix Color. 10YR413 Other hydric sail indicators:. No Is the hydric soil criterion met? FM Is the ground surface inundated? loo Is the sod sahuawcd? no Depth to free-standing water in probe hole: Mor field evidence hydrology NO Hydric. Sniffs List: No Mottles? Yes Gleyed? No Mottle dors: - Depth: 12 " P360nde: Chrorna3, HYDROLOGY Surface wa#er depth: b the wetland bydmlogy criterion met? No Mlcn*- No evidence of inundation or sail suluration WETLAND DETERMINATION Are m etland criteria met? Na Rationale for wetland decision: Nun hydric snit; no evidence of long fern soil saturalion Or inundation Pni Wt Name: Singh Renton Pr*erfy AkkTNW Field hwesiigator(s): G. MungOr 5l8 North 54th Street Project No.: 0204 Date. 9,23104 Seattle, Washinpu 98103 ALDERNW VICINITY MAP Karl Singh Property Renton, Washington No,92204Date Oct,, 200 Figure 1 Y DP -1 APProxir:a'te DoLto Pclnt Ocatbr TWE COR. LS QS't W-' 3 t N OF PRRJ. LSF f SITE MAP APPROXIMATE SCALE Kari Singh Property 50 0 50 100 feet Kent, Washington Pr0j. No. 3DID2 Date Oct., 2004 Figure 2 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechn ca'Engtneenng Mr. Robert Wilson 720 South 55th Street Lake I -apps. V'A 98391 Dear Mr, Wilson: Engineering Geology 1, ebrua ry 15. 20 12 Subject. Addendum No. 1 to 11 2212004 Geotechnical Report Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Residential Development South 55th Street and Morris /Avenue South Renton. Washington L&A Job No_ 411134 IliTRODUCTIO>ti Earth 5c+exx Ale pretiiously completed a geotechnical engineering study for the site of a proposed 4 -lot short plat. located at the above address in Renton. Washington. with our findings. conclusions and recommendations presented in our 11'22-'2004 report titled 6cotechnical Engineering Stud-. Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat, 98xx South 192"" Street. Renton_ Washington.` We understand that expansion of the subject project to include more land to the east of the original site is bcing contemplated. This added land general]\ rises moderatcly to the cast. The purpose of this addendum is to explore subsurface condition ref' this added land and evaluate its stabilit\ to assure the geotechnical recommcndation5 for grading. surface and ground water control. erosion abatement. site stabilization. and foundation design and construction presented in our 11 22 2004 geotechnical report are also applicable to the development of the added land. Prescntcd in this addendum are our findings and conclusions. 19213 Kenlake Place NE • Kenmore, Washington 88028 Phone (425) 483-9134 - Fax (425) 486-2746 Februan- 15. ?01 Addendum No. 1 - Proposed Residential Development L&A Job No. 4A134 Page' PROTECT DESCRIPTIO' The project site is to be accessed from its south side b\ a roa& ay off South 55"' Street going north,,+ard into the site. The original land,,A,111 be living on the west side of this read and the added land hying cast of the road. The original land is general] flat. while the added land slopes up%%and easterly moderatelh. The added land is flanked by a steels slope up to about 6 to 12 feet high on its west Side iN hich appears to be a cut slope made years ago to allotiv the origin land being graded fiat. The added land is dotting by tall mature. deciduous and evergreen trees and covered bt dense brush and vine. The trees are all straight ti ith no bents in the trunks or do«nhill leaning. No signs of erosion car soil movement have been noted within the added land. SURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface condition of the added land s+ as e.xplored with three test pits excavated on February 28. 2011. to depths from 6.0 to 6.5 beet. The approximate locations of the test pits are shayvn on Plate I - Site and Exploration Location Plan. The test pits «-crc located with either a tape measure or by visual reference to existing topographic features in the field and on the topographic sun--ev map. and their locations should he considered only accurate to the measuring method used. A geotechnical engineer from our office ,%as present during suhsurtace exploration. who examined the soil and geologic conditions encountered and completed lugs of test pits. Soil samples obtained frorn. each soil unit in the test pits were visual] classified in general accordance with United Sail Classification System. a copy of which is presented LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Februan- 15, 2012 Addendum No. 1 - Proposed Residential Devclopment L&A Job No, 4A 134 Pa:~e 3 on Plate 2. Detailed descriptions of soil units encountered during site exploration are presented in the test pit logs on Plates 3 through 4, The test pits encountered a layer of loose. organic topsoil, tom 8 to 10 inches thick. on the Surface. The topsoil is underlain by a layer of brov;-n to light -brown, ablation till weathered till) of medium -dense, silly fine sand. with a trace of to some gravel and occasional cobble and boulder. about 3.5 to 4.21 feet thiel:. Underlying the ablation till to the depths explored is a lodgmont till (fresh till) deposit of light-bro,"n to light -grafi. very -dense. tiveakly-cement. silty line sand %Ith sonic gra„el. The soil condition of added land is generally similar to that of the original land. GROUNDWATER CONTRITION Ground” titer seepage xvas not encountered in an- of the test pits excar aced on the added land. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Bascd on the subsurface (soil and groundwater) condition encountered in the test pits exca% ated on the added land, the geotechnical recommendations in our 11 12 21004 geotechnical report should also be applicable to the developMent ol'the added land. It is our opinion that added land should be quite stable and geologic hazards over the added land should be minimal if the recommendations in our 1 2_004 report erre full, implemented and obsern ed during construction. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. February 15. ?O1'-' Addenduni No. 1 - Proposed Residential Development I.RA Job No. 4A 134 Page 4 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT A drainage course of surface uvater %,. as observed corning do-xn the hillside on the eastern half of the south side of the site. then 11o%kIng through a culvert into a ditch along the north side of South 54` x' Street. The eater in this drainage course appears to be stormy;-ater rrleased from the development ec`tst of the project site and dumped onto the subject site. It is our opinion that thi- stormwater should he collected and rc-muted in a pipe tiff the project site. CLOSURE We are pleased to he of sen'ice to }'ou on this project. Please feel free to contact us if z'ou have any questions regarding this report or need further consultation. Four plates attached Yours ver truh-- LTL' & ASSOCIATES, I1IC'. i j J J. S. (Julian) Liu. Ph.D.. P.F. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Wilsons I 4.y.. f S! Sr ff I Oih •BFR.' f7 7q ri 253-862-7285 p.2 v..Mlz- trr• r.01nD t rTR. l.s Z;= s:q q Sq Ft r r 7, fesn i II' . .. • wM sU i yPo TP ea y^.r.7 1 7", t1sw 11 I F C i r i sew ;:4 ft SZCd E Jw3's srif E_" fGt`AV•gI-vk -a E h _ l, cSyww *: JC1r.' I 4.y.. f S! Sr ff I Oih •BFR.' f7 7q ri 253-862-7285 p.2 v..Mlz- trr• r.01nD t rTR. l.s Z;= s:q q Sq Ft r r 7, fesn i II' . .. • wM sU i yPo TP ea y^.r.7 1 7", t1sw 11 I F C i r i sew ;:4 ft SZCd E Jw3's srif E_" mar. Sr vu, vp 0 4 , 56m ST_ KAV S;TE AND EXPLOR.t+TION LOCATION P7Rl Lit & ASSOCIATES. I.N RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPi,AENT S. 55TH STREET AND MORASS AVENUE S. wate•.vnI= ;r-nv ",a Int-rr -e, _t' ' EFuiS =--!cc RENTO:N, w'V+'SHfNGTON t k JC$ h i 'fr'.i:a G3;TC 3:2071 iPL TE 1 w UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM r0AJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL GRAVEL CLEAN F:N- T'2 t R L E ,v—:A.' COARSE- f fA RE-IhAt.:JF GRAVEL GP ti-RLY-SRI'CECGR-,'EL GRAVEL WITH GM SILT' GRAVE_ GRAINED GARvE FRAOTIOh MOILS RETAINEC Of. tJL 4 SIEVE FINES GC v,AYE'i GF(A,'Vc_ SAND CLEAN SW V,ELL-GRA1)EC SAND '7INE -C COARSE SAN) SP PC") RSV -GR ADEC SANG MORE -1 HAN S?x i NGRE THAI. 50'a: OF SAND SAND WITH SM SILTY SANDRETA?14EC ON THEI COARSE FRAC' Dt+ N-- 200 S EVE tisslNu . ' 4 SIEVE FINES SG CLAYS Sat.0 FINE- f SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML GRAINEDCL L.uIC u,'T ORGANIC 4L I nRGAIJIC 5'.T C]RGAI i cLASOILSLESSTHA.t* soy. Al RE THAN 52 SILTY AND CLAY i INORGANIC i I MH sI_T OF H!GH P ASTICITr' E STiC s CH GLA Dc L4 4 PiASTiC1TY FAT CLAS` PASSING ON THE LIC.::' IM!` ORGANIC QH ORGAPJIu SI,T DR54N14 SI4TNOICY' SIEVE k'* DR MORE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY Oq-aAN,C SO _F NOTES SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS C'L&5;',+'CATlJ'r!`6ASEDC?','V15'A.EKAM''.ATiJh DGw-ASSEt.' }/r;STURE RRi'T4: Dr S: it, GENE;µL ACCORDANCE WITH =c'ti D24,-C- SHE TOLL i SOIL GLA.SSIri^4Ti: ': jll It4S ,A5(:,RFTGR' TE5"S IS BASE"' 1'tr O.vT .'RH E If IS'URE hr"CT L iS.T D?•: ASTW GF` F,= AO'S' DAMP B-;- Nw: 'v 5'SLE VV nT ELS aESGP,'G ,rIJS SO1L OEtJS'. }P, 'YRF JER•'ri' I$- JERti' DAtJ.G ?V1JlST R[ FE,_7 cfiGRE'A'i^.`.'CF B'D'ti'-C O TL ',.S A T LTd15!5__ fR.E 1"r'?TER OR SA`UR EL' F7 Ca,- Afgp OR c tiESiJA.LY SC1L IS CgTA l C rRu." B4 Cb'. NATER, TASLE LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. UNIFIED ML CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM C;kr ir.hrn .a Fn }nee inr. EnPlneerng C nI»,y Ear SciPnr.F_ PLATE 2 TEST PIT NO. 3 Logged By JSL Gate 212812011 Ground EI DeatF h USCS CLASS Sall Descni tion Sample No W Caner Tes. 1 OL Brush and duff on surface 2 loose organic. sifty fine SAND, with roots.- 3 Stti1 Dark-b(own, moist gOPSOIL)L _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - 2 Light -brown to yellovosh-brown, medium -dense silty fine SAND. E trace gravel and occasional cobble and boulder moist 3 weathered VASHDN TILL) 4 5 10 SM Light -gray, very -dense. silty fine SAND. some gravel. weakly- moist fresh VASHDN TILL 7 Test pit terminated at 6 5 ft, groundwater not encountered 8 9 1Q 11 TEST PIT NO. Logged By SSL Date Ground El t Deptr fl USCS CLASS Soil Descnptlon Sample No W 016 Other Test 1 2 3 4 F E 7 8 g 10 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geoter,hn,CAI Eng:nee-in_ Engineer.rg Clot-)gy Earth Sc*nos TEST PIT LOGS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT S. 55TH STREET & MORRIS AVENUE S. RENTON, WASHINGTON J015 NO 4A134 C)ATr= 316/2011 PLATE 4 GEOTECHMCAL ENGINEERING STUDY 4 -LOT SHORT PLAT 98XX SOUTH 192ND STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON L&A Job No. 4A134 Date: November 22, 2004 Prepared for: Mr. Karl Singh c/o Cramer Northwest, Inc. 945 North Cental Avenue, Suite 104 Kent, WA 98032 Prepared By. Lin & Associates, Inc. 19213 Kentake Place NE Kenmore, Washington 98028 0 LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering - Engineering Geology Earth Science November 22, 2004 Mr. Karl Singh c/o Ms. Aleanna Kondelis Cramer Northwest, Inc. 945 North Central Avenue, Suite 104 Kent, WA 98032 Dear Mr. Singh: Subject. Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat 98xx South 192nd Street Renton, Washington L&A Job No. 4A134 INTRODUCTION We have completed a geotechnical engineering study for the site of a proposed 4 -lot short plat, located at the above address in Renton, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on Plate I — Vicinity Map. We understand that the proposed development for the site is to plat its western portion into four single-family residential building lots, on each of which a single-family residence will be constructed. The purpose of this study is to characterize the subsurface conditions of the site and provide geotechnical recommendations for grading, surface and ground water control, erosion abatement, site stabilization, and foundation design and construction for the proposed development. Presented in this report are our findings of the site conditions and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. PROJECT DESCRIPTION For our use in this study, you provided us with a topographic survey plan of the site, prepared by Cramer Northwest, Inc- As shown on PIate 2 - Site Plan and Exploration Location Plan, the 99213 Kenlake Place NE • Kenmore, Washington 98028 Phone (426) 483-9134 - Fax (426) 486-2746 November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No_ 4A I 34 Page 2 subject site is an irregularly-shaped tract of land, partially fronted by the right-of-way of the winding South 192°6 Street to the south. The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. We understand that the proposed development for the site is to platted its gently to moderately sloped western 95 feet into four single-family residential building lots. Site grading may require cut and fill to some degree for the northern two lots. SCOPE OF SERVICES Our scope of services for this study comprises specifically the following; 1 Review the geologic and soil conditions at the site based on a published geologic map. 2. Explore the subsurface conditions of the site with backhoe test pits. 3. Perform necessary geotechnical analyses and provide geotechnical recommendations for site grading, site stability enhancement, erosion abatement, surface and ground water control, and foundation design and construction, based on subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits and results of our geotechnical analyses. 4. Prepare a written report to present our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site is partially bounded by South 192n6 Street to the south, and is adjoined by single- family residences to north and west and by a wooded land to the east. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. It is situated on a moderate to steep, westerly -declining hillside. The terrain within the site mostly slopes moderately to steeply down to the west, except that the ground within the western 95 feet of the site, which is to be developed into four building lots, is mostly gently to moderately sloped down to the west at grades from less than 5 percent to 32 percent. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A 134 Page 3 The middle of the proposed 4 -lot plat area has been cleared previously, with a remnant concrete driveway off South 192nd Street to about the mid -depth of the proposed 44ot plat area. The unpaved area is now overgrown with brush and bevy bushes. Matured deciduous trees scatter throughout the interior (northern two lots) and the perimeter of the southern two lots of the proposed 4 -lot plat area, with occasional mature evergreen trees mixed in between, GEOLOGIC SETTING TheGeolo is a of Renton uadran IE Kin Cour WwWagion, by D. R. Mullineaux, published by U. S. Geological Survey in 1965, was referenced for the geologic and soil conditions at the site. According to this publication, the surficial soil units at and in the vicinity of the subject site are mapped as Karne Terrace (Qit) underlain by Ground Moraine (Qgt). The geology of the Puget Sound Lowland has been modified by the advance and retreat of several glaciers in the past and subsequent deposits and erosion. The latest glacier advanced to the Puget Sound Lowland is referred to as the Vachon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, which has occurred during the later stages of the Pleistocene Epoch and retreated from the region some 14,500 years ago. The kame terrace deposits were Iaid down by ice -marginal streams flowing between higher ground on one side and an ice margin on the other side during the last glaciation. They consist mostly of silty sand and gravel to cobble. Locally, they also contain lenses and pods of till and beds of sand, silt and clay. The kame terrace deposits were, however, not encountered by the test pits. Instead ground moraine deposits were found underlying the site_ The ground moraine deposits are mostly thin ablation till over lodgmont till, deposited by Puget glacial lobe of the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation_ The lodgmont till is generally a LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A 134 Page 4 compact mixture of unsorted clay, silt, sand, gravel and cobble, commonly referred to as "hard pan". The ablation till is similar to lodgmont till, but is much less compact and coherent. The thickness generally varies from 2 to 4 feet for ablation till, and 5 to 30 feet for lodgmont till_ The lodgmont till is practically impervious, except local lenses of sand and gravel. It has the strength of a low-grade concrete and can stand in a steep natural or cut slope for a long period. The lodgmont till can provide excellent foundation support with little settlement expected. The overlying ablation till is generally in a looser state, and is more compressible and permeable. SOIL CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions of the subject site were explored on November 14, 2004, with six test pits. The test Pits were excavated with a tire -mounted backhoe to depths from 5.0 to 8.0 feet. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Plate 2 - Site and Exploration Location Plan. The test pits wsem located with either a tape measure or by visual reference to existing topographic features in the Feld and on the topographic survey map, and their locations should be considered only accurate to the measuring method used. A geotechnical engineer from our office was present during subsurface exploration, who examined the soil and geologic conditions encountered and completed logs of test pits. Soil samples obtained from each soil unit in the test pits were visually classified in general accordance with United Soil CIassifcation System, a copy of which is presented on Plate 3. Detailed descriptions of soil units encountered during site exploration are presented in the test pit logs on Plates 4 through 6. The test pits revealed that the site is mantled by a layer of loose, organic topsoil, from 1.0 to 2.5 feet thick. The topsoil is generally underlain by a layer of brown ablation till soils of loose to medium -dense, silty fine sand, with a trace of gravel and occasional cobble and boulder, about LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. vv -arae P.b November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A 134 Page 5 1.0 to 3.2 feet thick The ablation till was, however, not encountered by Test pit 3 located jus above the toe of the steep hill at about the mid -length of the eastern boundary of the proposed 4. lot plat. Underlying the ablation till to the depths explored is a lodgrnont till deposit of light - brown to light -gray, deme to very -dense, weakly -cement, silty fine sand with a trace of gravel, except in Test Pit 2 where the ablation till was found underlain by weakly -cemented, fine -to - medium -grain sandstone bedrock. Fragments of this sandstone bedrock was also found mixed in the lodgrnont till deposit in Test Pit 3. ROUNDWATER CUNDITIOn Crronndwater seepage was not encountered in any of the test pits. The lodgmont till deposit and to a lesser extent the sandstone bedrock underlying the site at shallow depth is practically impervious and would perch stormwater infiltrating into the more permeable surficial topsoil and ablation till soils. This near -surface perched groundwater may dry up completely in summer months and may accumulate and rise during the wet winter months. The depth to and the amount of perched groundwater may fluctuate seasonally, depending on precipitation, surface runoff', ground vegetation cover, site utilization, and other factors. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSENDATIONS GENERAL Based an the soil conditions encountered in our subsurface explorations, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development from the geotechnical engineering viewpoint, provided that the recommendations in this report are fully implemented and observed during construction. The loose topsoil and unsuitable weak soils in the root zone should be completely stripped within the driveways, the building footprints and where the subgrade soils are to support structural or traffic load. The dense to very -dense lodgmont till at shallow depth are of high LTU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short plat L&A rob No. 4A 134 Page 6 shear strength and can provide excellent foundation support to driveways and buildings with little settlement. Conventional footing foundations placed on or into the underlying dense to very -dense iodgmont till soils may be used for supporting the houses to be constructed on the platted lots. Structural fill, if required for site grading, should be constructed over the underlying dense to very -dense lodgrnont till soils following the stripping ofsurficial unsuitable soils. The on-site topsoil and ablation till soils contain a high percentage of fines, and is sensitive to moisture. It can also be saturated quickly and result in heavy runoff with potential soil erosion over the steeper portion of the site during extended periods of heavy rainstorms. One or multiplei _ tines of curtain drains should be installed along the upslope side of the construction areas, as required, to intercept and drain surface runoff and near -surface perched groundwater to minimize soil erosion and facilitate site grading during construction. Permanent fill to be placed over slopes steeper than 15 percent grade should be retained structurally. Structural fill, if required for site grading, should be placed on compacted and Proof -rolled, unyielding, undisturbed, firm, native soils, following the stripping of the surficial unsuitable soils. The exposed ground exceeding 15 percent grade should be benched with vertical steps not exceeding 5 feet tall prior to placing structural fill. Storm runoff over impervious surfaces, such as roofs and paved driveway, should be collected and discharged into a storm sewer. Concentrated stormwater should not be discharged onto the ground anywhere within the site. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22. 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A 134 Page 7 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Landslide Hazards The subject site is underlain at shallow depth by dense to very -dense, weakly -cemented, lodgmont till soils of high shear strength and to a lesser extent by weakly -cemented sandstone. It is, therefore, unlikely for deep-seated landslides to occur on the site. The surficial topsoil and ablation till soils are loose to medium -dense. There is a remote chance that shallow, skin -type mudflows may occur in these surficial weak soils on steep slopes if they are overly saturated. To mitigate such potential, the vegetation cover over the site beyond construction limits should be maintained, concentrated stormwater should not be discharged onto the ground within the site or its adjoining properties, and spoil soils and yardwaste should not be disposed of onto the slopes within the site. Erosion Hazard The surficial topsoil and ablation till soils over the steeper portion of the site can be easily eroded when stripped of vegetation cover on steep slopes, while the underlying weakly -cemented Iodgmont till soils are of moderately high resistance against erosion. To abate the erosion potential in the surficial weals soils, the vegetation cover outside of construction limits should not be disturbed. Concentrated storm water should not be discharged onto the ground within the site. Spoil soils and yardwas€e should not be disposed of within the site. Storm runoff over impervious surfaces, such as roofs and pavement, should be captured with underground drain line systems tied to roof downspouts and by catch basins installed in pavement, and tightlined to discharge into a storm sewer or a suitable stormwater disposal facility. Unpaved, disturbed ground within the site should be re -vegetated to provide erosion protection. Once the drainage control measures for the roadways and houses are in place after the completion of the proposed development, the amount of surface runoff and near -surface groundwater flow will be reduced which would further mitigate soil erosion and enhance site stability. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A134 Page 8 Seismic Hazard The site is underlain at shallow depth by dense to very -dense lodgmont till soils of very high shear strength. These competent soils and the general lack of static groundwater table at shallow depth under the site should make it rather unlikely for such seismic hazard as liquefaction or soil Iateral spreading to occur on the site. The proposed houses, however, should be designed for seismic forces induced by strong earthquakes. Based on the soil conditions encountered by the test pits, the site should be classified as Seismic Use Group I in the design of the proposed warehouse in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code (IBC}. SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL GRADING Site preparation for the construction of the residences should include clearing and grubbing within construction limits. Loose topsoil and weak soils in the root zone should be completely stripped within the driveways, the building footprints of the proposed houses and in areas subject to traffic and structural loads. The exposed soils should be compacted to a non -yielding state with a vibratory compactor and proof -rolled with a piece of heavy earthwork equipment operated on the site. The on-site soils contain a high percentage of fines and are sensitive to moisture. A layer of clean quarry spalls should be placed over excavated areas and areas of frequent traffic, as required, to protect the subgrade soils from disturbance by construction traffic. Silt fences should be erected along the downslope boundaries of the site to prevent sediments being transported by storm runoff onto adjoining properties or the street. The bottom edge of the silt fence should be embedded in a trench and ballasted with crushed rock or gravel. LIU & ASSOCIA'T'ES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A134 Page 9 EXCAVATION AND FTLL SLOPES Under no circumstance should excavation slopes be steeper than the limits specified by local, state and federal safety regulations if workers have to perform construction work in excavated areas. Unsupported temporary cuts greater than 4 feet in height should be no steeper than 1H:1 V in the surficial topsoil and ablation till soils of loose to medium -dense silty fine sand, and may be vertical in the light -brown to light -gray lodgmont till soils of dense to very -dense, weakly cemented, silty fine sand with a trace of gravel, or in sandstone bedrock, provided that the overall depth of cut does not. exceed 10 feet. Permanent cut banks should be no steeper than 2H: l V in the surficial topsoil and ablation till soils, no steeper than 1-I/2H:I V in the underlying lodgmont till soils, and no steeper than IH:1 V in the sandstone bedrock if encountered. The soil units and the stability of cut slopes should be observed and verified by a geotechnical engineer during excavation. Pent fill embankments required to supportstructural or traffic loads should be constructed with compacted structural fill placed over proof -rolled, undisturbed, firm native, lodgrnont till soils after the unsuitable surficial soils are stripped. Permanent fill to be placed on slopes steeper than 15 percent grade should be retained structurally. Sloping ground exceeding 15 percent grade over which fill is to be placed should be benched with vertical steps no more than 5 feet high after stripping of unsuitable surficial soils. The slope of permanent fill embankments should be no steeper than 2H:1 V. Upon completion, the sloping face of permanent fill embankments should be thoroughly compacted to a non -yielding state with a hoe -pack. The above recommended cut and fill slopes are under the assumption that groundwater seepage will not be encountered during construction. If encountered, the construction work should be immediately halted and the slope stability re-evaluated. The slopes may have to be flattened and other measures taken to stabilize the slopes. Storm nmofi should not be allowed to flow LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Joh No. 4A 134 Page 10 uncontrolled over the top of cut or fill slopes. One or multiple lincs of interceptor trench drains should be installed, as zequired, on the uphill side of the areas to be graded to intercept and safely drain away surface nmoff and near -surface groundwater flow. Permanent cut slopes or fill embankments should be seeded and vegetated as soon as possible for erosion protection and long-term stability, and should be covered with clear plastic sheets, as required, to protect them from erosion by stormwater until the vegetation is fully established. STRUCTURAL FILL J Structural fill is the fill that supports structural or traffic load. Structural fill should consist of clean soils free of organic and other deleterious substances and with particles not larger than four inches. Structural fill should have a moisture content within one percent of its optimum moisture content at the time of placement. The optimum moisture content is the water content in the soils that enable the soils to be compacted to the highest dry density for a given compaction effort. The on-site till soils contain a high percentage of fines, and may be used as structural fill only under fair weather condition when its moisture content can be controlled to close to its optimum moisture content. imported material for structural fill should be clean, fine -draining, granular soils containing no more than 5% by weight finer than the No. 200 sieve based on the fraction of the material passing No. 4 sieve, and should have individual particles not larger than four inches. Imported structural fill should be stockpiled and covered separately from the on-site soils. Structural fill should be placed in lifts no more than 10 inches thick in loose state, with each lift compacted to a minimum percentage of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 Modified Proctor Method) as follows: LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A 134 Page 12 A one-third increase in the above recommended allowable soil bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term, transitory, wind or seismic loads. For footing foundations designed and constructed per recommendations above, we estimate that the maximum total post - construction settlement of the buildings should be 112 inch or less and the differential settlement across building width should be 3/8 inch or less. Lateral loads on buildings can be resisted by the friction force between the foundations and the subgrade soils or the passive earth pressure acting on the below -grade portion of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against undisturbed soils or backfilled with a clean, free -draining, compacted structural fill. We recommend that an equivalent fluid density EFD) of 350 pcf (pounds per cubic foot) for the passive earth pressure be used for lateral w resistance. The above passive pressure assumes that the backfill is levet or inclines upward away from the foundations for a horizontal distance at least twice the depth of the foundations below the final grade. A coefficient of friction of 0.60 between the foundations and the subgrade soils may be used. The above soil parameters are unfactored values, and a proper factor of safety should be used in calculating the resisting forces against lateral loads on the buildings_ BASEMENT AND RETAINING WALLS Basement walls restrained horizontally at the top are considered unyielding and should be designed for a lateral soil pressure under the at -rest condition; while retaining walls free to move at the top should be designed for active lateral soil pressure. We recommend that a lateral soil pressure of 45 and 65 pcf EFD be used for the design of foundation walls with level/descending backslope and rising backslope, respectively; and 35 and 54 pcf EFD for retaining walls with level/descending backslope and rising backslope, respectively. To counter the active soil or at - rest pressure, a passive lateral soil pressure of 400 pcf EFD may be used, except that the passive pressure within the top 12 inches of the finish subgrade should be ignored. The above passive LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lac Short Plat L&A Job No. 4A134 Page 13 press= assumes that the backfill is level or inclines upward away from the wails. The above lateral soil pressures arc under the assumption that groundwater behind the walls is fully drained. To resist against sliding, the friction force between the footings and the subgrade soils may be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.60. The above soil parameters are ultimate values, and proper factors of safety should be used in the design of the basement and retaining walls against sliding and overturning failures. Basement walls or retaining walls may be supported on footing foundations seated on or into the underlying very -dense fresh till or very - hard transitional beds soils, with an allowable soil bearing pressure not to exceed 3,000 psf. The is a remote possibility that shallow, skin -type mudflow may occur on the slope above the proposed houses. We recommend that the uphill -side basement walls of the house be extended at least 3 feet above the finish grade to act as debris catchment walls. A vertical drainage blanket consisting of at least 12 -inch -thick free -draining pea gravel or washed gravel should be placed against foundation and retaining walls to prevent accumulation of groundwater behind and buildup of hydrostatic pressure against the walls. The remaining backfill should consist of structural fill constructed per recommendations in the STRUCTURAL FILL section of this report. The top 12 inches of backfill should consist of compacted, clean, on- site soils. The backfill material for the foundation and retaining walls should be compacted with a hand -operated compactor. Heavy compaction equipment should not be allowed closer to the walls than a horizontal. distance equal to the wall heights. A footing drain, as recommended in the SITE DRAINAGE section of this report, should also be provided for foundation and retaining walls. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 22, 2004 Proposed 4 -Lot Short Piat L.&A Job No. 4A 13 4 Page 17 variations appear then, we should be retained to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report, and to verify or modify them in writing prior to proceeding further with the construction. CLOSURE We are pleased to be of service to you on this project. Please foci free to call us if you have any questions regarding this report or need fiMber consultation. Six plates attached r x est s 7l 17 ! p Yours very roily, LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. J. S. (Julian) Liu, Ph.D., P.E. Consulting Geotechnical Engineer LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ln 5 2I4ff - S 216TH LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ll Engineering - Engineering Geology - EaM Seienoe p S: VICINITY MAP , 4 -LOT SHORT PLAT 98XX S ` 192ND STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON 4A134 I DATE 11/2012004 PLATE 1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL GRAVEL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- MORE THAN 50% OF GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED COARSE FRACTIONGRAVEL WITH GM SILTY GRAVEL SOILS RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND MORE THAN 50% MORE THAN 30% OF SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND RETAINED ON THE COARSE FRACTION SAND WITH SM SILTY SAND NO. 200 SIEVE PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE EINES SC CLAYEY SAND FINE- SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC SILT GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT CL CLAY SOILS LESS THAN 50% ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CL745( MORE THAN 50% SILTY AND CLAY INORGANIPCE MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT PASSING CN THE LIQUID LIM1T CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY NO. 200 SIEVE 50% OR MORE ORGANICORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: i. FIELD CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON VISUAL EXAMINATION DRY - ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TO OF SOIL IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2488.83, THE TOUCH 2. SOIL CLASSIFICATION USING LABORATORY TESTS IS BASED SLIGHTLY MOIST - TRACE MOISTURE. NOT DUSTY ON ASTM 024$7.83. MOIST - DAMP, BUT NO VISIBLE WATER 3. DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY ARE VERY MOIST - VERY DAMP, MOISTURE FELT TO THE TOUCH BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF BLOW -COUNT DATA, VISUAL WEr- VISIBLE FREE WATER OR SATURATE 0, APPEARANCE OF SOILS. AND/OR TEST DATA. USUALLY SOIL IS OBTAINED FROM BELOW WATER TABLE LIU & ASSOCIA'T'ES, INC. EUNIFIEDOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Geoleah cal Engineering Engineering Geology • Earlh Science PLATE 3 TEST PIT NO. 1 Lagged By: JSL Date: 11114f1004 Ground EI. 220.0' t Depth uscs Sample W Other R. CLASS. Soil Description No. Test OL I Berry bushes, trash and duff on surface Dark -brown, Loose, organic, silty fine SAND, with roots to 1 -inch ter moi-st OPSOIL 2 SMISP Brown, loose to medium -dense, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, with roots to 6 -inch diameter, moist (ABLATION TILL) 3 SIF_tight-brown to light -gray, dense to very -dense, silty fine SAND, 4 trace to same gravel, weakly-cemenled, slightly moist LODGMONT TILL) 5 6 7 8 Test pit terminated at 6.0 ft, groundwater not enoountered. 9 to TEST PIT NO. 2 Logged By: JSL Date., 11/14/2044 Ground EI. 240-0' Mpth uses Sample W Other ft. CLASS. Soil Desai tion No_ % Test OL Berry bushes and duff on surface t Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, occasional cobble and boulder, fine mats, moist (TOPSOIL) 2 s SM Brown, loose, silty fine SAND, few roots, moist 4 SM Light brown, medium -dense, silty #toe SALVO, trace gravel and 5 occasional cobble and boulder, stightly moist (ABLATION TILL) 6 Light -brown, fine -to -medium -grained SANDSTONE, moist 7 BEDROCK) 9 i Test pit terminated at 8.0 ft, groundwater not encountered. D LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical E=ngineering Engineering Geology - Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS 410T RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 98XX SOUTH 192ND STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON Jos NO, 4A134 7DATE 11/15104 IPLATE 4 Logged By. JSL TEST PIT NO. 3 Date: 11/14/2004 Ground EI, 237.0' t Depth VSCS Sample W ether ft. CLASS, Soil Descn tion No. % Teat OL I Berry and fern hushes end duff on surFaoe Dark -brown, loose, organic, silly fine SAND, occasional cobble, with fine roots, moist (fOPSOIL) 2 SM Brown -gray, dense to very -dense, silty fine SAND, with chunks of sandstone fragments mixed in, weakly cemented, moist 3 LODGMONT TILL) 4 5 8 7 8 Test pit terminated at 8.5 ft, groundwater not encountered. 9 1© TEST PIT NO. 4 Logged By: JSL Date: 11/1412ON Ground EI. 226.5' t Depth I VSCS Sample W Other ft. GLASS. Soil Deser! tion No. % Test OL Berry bushes, trash and duff on surface Dark -brown, loose, organic, silty fine SAND, abundant roots to 6 -inch diameter, moist (TOPSOIL) 2 SM Brown, medium -dense, silty fine sand, trace gravel, slightly moist ABLATION TILL) 3 4 5 SM Lighl-grown, dense to very -dense, silty fine SAND, trace fine gravel, weakly -cemented, slightly moist (LODGMONT TILL) 6 7 3 Test pit terminated at 6.0 ft, grpundwaler not encountered. LIU & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology • Earth Science TEST PIT LOGS 4 -LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 98XX SOUTH 192ND STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON JOB NO_ 4A134 JDATE 11/16/04 IPLATE 5 February 28, 2012 ADDENDUM TO "TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT" Prepared for Wilson Park (LUA09-140) By Baima & Holmberg, Inc. dated May 5, 2009 Prepared By: Darrell Qffe, P.E. OVERVIEW The proposed Wilson Park #2 is a 10 lot single family residential subdivision situated on 1 existing lot with a total area of 2.15 acres. It is located on the north side of South Wh Street at 7t' Avenue South, when extended. The project was part of an earlier submittal called Wilson Park (WA09-140). The property was evaluated for development of a road and utilities to access Wilson Park. The Technical Information Report prepared by Baima & Holmberg dated May 5, 2009, discusses the onsite areas, off site drainage systems, and evaluates the downstream drainage system. This report is provides the necessary preliminary review of the drainage system for Wilson Park #2. As part of the report, a stormwater treatment system was proposed within the roadway at the entry of the new road and South 55h. This system was only sized, at that time, for Wilson Park and the road improvements on Wilson Park #2. Additional impervious areas will be added to this treatment system with the addition of 10 lots within Wilson Park #2. Attached within this addendum are calculations that are intended to be a starting point for sizing the storm treatment facility for the two projects. Under the 2009 City of Renton Drainage Manual, Best Management Practices (BMP`s) are required to be used for new developments. One of these BMP's is restricting the impervious areas on the future lots to help reduce runoff, mitigate for development, and minimize the treatment system needed for the project. This Restrictive Covenant provision was utilized as part of a preliminary sizing of the future system for both projects. It is anticipated that the two projects will occur (be developed) simultaneously. A review of the two developments utilizing a 3,300 square feet of impervious area per lot created the proposed stormwater vault shown on the Drainage/Utilities Plan. Based upon experience developing building footprints and impervious areas on building permits of similar size lots, 3,300 square feet gives the future builder plenty of impervious coverage for the home, patio, driveways, and walkways. once the final engineering plans are developed and cost evaluations are reviewed for this facility, restricting the lots further is an option to minimize the facility needed. This is a preliminary review of a possible scenario that a future developer can use. PRELIMINAR Y CAL CULA TIONS BREAKDOWN OF BASINS Existing Site Conditions Total Till Till Area Grass Forest Notes SITE 4.60 ac 0.00 ac 1 4.60 ac I KCRTS Input Parameters ac SITE Total, r Area jimpeNous Max . - Design_' Impervious Till Y Grass ill ' Forest Notes Public RNV 40,684 sf 32,547 sf 8,137 sf Open Space 31,093 sf 31,093 sf Lot 1 (WP) 4,594 sf 3,446 sf 3,400 sf 1,194 sf Lot 2 4,500 sf 3,375 sf 3,400 sf 1,100 sf Lot 3 5,896 sf 4,422 sf 3,400 sf 2,496 sf Lot 4 5,993 sf 4,495 sf 3,400 sf 2,593 sf Lot 5 5,979 sf 4,484 sf 3,400 sf 2,579 sf Lot 6 5,964 sf 4,473 sf 3,400 sf 2,564 sf Lot 7 6,782 sf 5,087 sf 3,400 sf 3,382 sf Lot 8 6,269 sf 4,702 sf 3,400 sf 2,869 sf Lot 9 5,400 sf 4,050 sf 3,400 sf 2,000 sf Lot 10 5,400 sf 4,050 sf 3,400 sf 2,000 sf Lot 11 5,404 sf 4,053 sf 3,400 sf 2,004 sf Lot 12 8,122 sf 6,092 sf 3,400 sf 4,722 sf Lot 1 (WP2) 5,775 sf 4,331 sf 3,400 sf 2,375 sf Lot 2 5,905 sf 4,429 sf 3,400 sf 2,505 sf Lot 3 5,905 sf 4,429 sf 3,400 sf 2,505 sf Lot 4 5,905 sf 4,429 sf 3,400 sf 2,505 sf Lot 5 5,909 sf 4,432 sf 3,400 sf 2,509 sf Lot 6 5,586 sf 4,190 sf 3,400 sf 2,186 sf Lot 7 5,560 sf 4,170 sf 3,400 sf 2,160 sf Lot 6 5,560 sf 4,170 sf 3,400 sf 2,160 sf Lot 9 5,559 sf 4,169 sf 3,400 sf 2,159 sf Lot 10 6,778 sf 5,084 sf 3,400 sf 3,378 sf Totals (Sq. Feet) 200,52201107,347 sf 62,082 sf 31,093 sf IKCRTSTotals (Acres) 4.60 ac I 2Af ac 1.43 ac 0.T 1 ac Input Parameters 1) Mabmum Impervious calculation -R-8 (75%) 2) Design Impervious -Restricted impervious area by Restrictive Covenant Existinc i Site Conditions Land Use Peak i Area Till Forest; 4.60 acres Time of Till Pasture. 0.00 acres; CFS} Till Grassi0.00 acres; 1 Outwash Forest) 0.00 acres! 0.290 s Outwash Pasture± 0.00 acres] 2/09/01 Outwash Grass) 0.00 acres 0.079 7 1/06/02 Wetlandl 0.00 acres. 0.215 0 f Impervious .00 acres: 2/28/03 Total -.- - 0.008 4.60 acres! Scale Factor: 1.00 Hourly Reduced 3/24/04 Time Series: PreDev.tsf Compute Time Series 1/05/05 Modify User Input 0.223 3 File for computed Time Series [.TSF] 21:00 0.188 5 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:predev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak CFS} 0.371 1 100.000.290 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.079 7 1/06/02 3:001 0.215 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.008 8 3/24/04 20:00 0.128 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.223 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.188 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.371 1 1/09/08 9:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis------- Peaks - Rank Return Prob CFS) Period 0.371 1 100.00 0.990 0.290 2 25.00 0.960 0.223 3 10.00 0.900 0.215 4 5.00 0.800 0.188 5 3.00 0.667 0.128 6 2.00 0.500 0.019 7 1.30 0.231 0.008 8 1.10 0.091 0.344 50.00 0.980 Developed Site Conditions Mand theNOW Area - ? Till Foresti 0.71 acres Till Pasture 0.00 acres' Till Grass; 1.43 acres; Outwash Forest! 0.00 acres; Outwash Pasturei 0.00 acres Outwash Grass' 0.00 acres! Wetiandi 0.00 acres! Impervious! 2.46 acres{ F Total - { 4.50 acres! ii Scale Factor: 1.00 Hourly Reduced Time Series: Dev.tsil I>>1 Compute Time Series Modify User Input File for computed Time Series TSF] Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak CFS) 1.52 1 100.000.752 6 2/09/01 2:00 0.602 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.899 3 2/27/03 7:00 0.640 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.770 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.800 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.930 2 10/26/06 0:00 1.52 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis------- Peaks - Rank Return Prob CFS) Period 1.52 1 100.00 0.990 0-930 2 25.00 0.960 0.899 3 10.00 0.900 0.800 4 5.00 0.800 0.770 5 3.00 0.667 0.752 6 2.00 0.500 0.640 7 1.30 0.231 0.602 8 1.10 0.091 1.32 50.00 0.980 Detention Facility Design Detention Facility Definition Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: 110.00 ft Facility width: 22.00 ft Facility Area: 2420. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 20.75 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 100.00 ft Storage Volume: 50215. cu. ft Riser Head: 20.75 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 3 Full Head Pipe orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter ft) (in) (CFS) ;in) 1 0.00 0.75 0.069 2 12,75 1.50 0.173 4.0 3 18.00 1.00 0.045 4.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage/StoragerDischarge Performance Stage ft) Elevation ft) Storage cu. ft) (ac -ft) Discharge cfs) Percolation cfs) 0.00 100.00 Q. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 100.01 24. 0.001 0.001 0.00 0.02 100.02 48. 0.001 0.002 0.00 0.03 100.43 73. 0.002 0.003 0.00 0.04 100.04 97. 0.002 0.003 0.00 0.05 100.05 121. 0.003 0.004 0.00 0.06 100.46 145. 0.003 0.004 0.00 0.47 100.47 1137. 0.026 0.010 0.00 0.88 100,88 2130. 0.049 0.014 0.00 1.28 101.28 3098, 0.071 0.017 0.00 1.69 101.69 4094. 0.094 0.020 0.00 2.10 102.10 5082. 0.117 0.022 0.00 2.50 102.50 6050. 0.139 0.024 O.DD 2.91 102.91 7042. 0.162 0.026 0.00 3.32 103.32 8034. 0.184 0.028 0.00 3.72 103.72 9002. 0.207 0.029 0.00 4,13 104.13 9995. 0.229 0.031 0.00 4.54 104.54 10987. 0.252 0.033 0.00 4.94 104.94 11955. 0.274 0.034 0.00 5.35 105.35 12947. 0.297 0.035 0.00 5.76 105.76 13939. 0.320 0.037 0.00 6.17 106.17 14931. 0.343 0.038 0.00 6.57 106.57 15899. 0.365 0.039 0.00 6.98 106.98 16892. 0.388 0.040 0.00 7.39 107,39 17884, 0.411 0.041 0.00 7.79 107.79 18852. 0.433 0.043 0.00 8.20 108.20 19844. 0.456 0.044 0.00 8.61 108.61 24836. 0.478 0.045 0.00 9.01 109.01 21804. 0.501 0.046 0.00 9.42 109.42 22796. 0.523 0.047 0.00 9.83 109.83 23769. 0.546 0.048 0.00 10.23 110.23 24757. 0.568 0.449 0.00 10.64 110.64 25749. 0.591 0.050 4.04 11.05 111.05 26741. 0.614 0.051 0.00 11.45 111.45 27709, 0.636 0.052 0.00 11.86 111.86 28701. 0.659 0.053 0.00 12.27 112.27 29693. 0.602 0.053 0.00 Stage/Storage/Discharge Performance (continued) Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation ft) ft) cu. ft) (ac ft) cfs) cfs) 12.68 112.68 30686. 0.704 0.054 0.00 12.75 112.75 30855. 0.708 0.054 0.00 12.77 112.77 30903. 0.709 0.055 0.00 12.78 112.78 30928, 0.710 0.056 0.00 12.80 112.80 30976. 0.711 0.059 0.00 12.81 112.81 31000. 0.712 0.062 0.00 12.83 112.83 31049. 0.713 0.066 0.00 12.84 112.84 31073. 0.713 0.071 0.00 12.86 112.86 31121. 0,714 0.075 0.00 12.88 112.88 31170. 0.716 0.076 a.00 13.28 113.28 32138. 0.738 0.100 0.00 13.69 113.69 33130. 0.761 0.116 0.00 14.10 114.10 34122. 0.783 0.128 0.00 14.50 114.50 35090. 0.806 0.139 0.00 14.91 114.91 36082, 0.828 0.149 0.00 15.32 115.32 37074. 0.851 0.157 0.00 15.72 115.72 38042. 0.873 0.166 0.00 16.13 116.13 39035. 0.895 0.173 0.00 16.54 116.54 40027. 0,919 0.181 0.00 16.94 116.94 40995. 0.941 0.188 0.00 17.35 117.35 41987. 0.964 0.194 0.00 17.76 117.76 42979. 0.987 0.201 0.00 18.00 118.00 43560. 1.000 0.205 0.00 18.01 118.01 43584. 1.001 0.205 0.00 18.02 118.02 43606. 1.001 0.206 0.00 18.03 118.03 43633. 1.002 0.207 0.00 18.04 118.04 43657. 1.002 0.206 0.00 18.05 118.05 43681. 1.003 0.210 0.00 18.06 118.06 43705. 1.003 0.212 0.00 18.07 118.07 43729. 1.004 0.213 0.00 18.08 118.08 43754. 1.004 0.214 0.00 18.09 118.09 43778. 1.005 0.214 0.00 18.50 118.50 44770. 1.028 0.231 0.00 18.91 118.91 45762. 1.051 0.244 0.00 19.31 119.31 445730. 1.073 0.255 0.00 19.72 119.72 47722. 1.096 0.264 0.00 20.13 120.13 48715. 1.118 0.274 0.00 20.53 120.53 49683. 1.141 0.283 0.00 20.75 120.75 50215. 1.153 0.287 0.00 Stage/Storage/Discharge Performance at Significant Storm Events Hyd Inflow outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev Cu -Ft) (AC -Ft) 1 1.52 0.37 0.89 20.90 120.90 50584. 1.161 2 0.75 0.29 20.70 120.70 50104. 1.150 3 0.93 0.19 17.41 117.41 42124. 0.967 4 0.90 0.20 17.83 117.83 43154. 0.991 5 0.80 0.14 14.52 114.52 35130. 0.806 6 0.77 0.09 13.18 113.18 31892. 0.732 7 0.60 0.05 12.50 112.50 30253. 0.695 8 0.64 0.04 7.66 107.66 18546. 0.426 KCRTS Routing Instructions Route Time Series through Facility inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:RDaut Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: Peak Outflow Discharge: Peak Reservoir Stage: Peak Reservoir Elev: Peak Reservoir Storage: 1.52 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 0.892 GFS at 10:00 on ,Ian 20.90 Ft 120.90 Ft 50584. Cu -Ft 1,161 Ac -Ft Duration Comparison Analysis Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: predev.tsf New File: rdout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS Fraction of Time ----- Cutoff Base New %Change 0.064 1 0.95E-02 0.69E-02 -27.1 0.081 1 0.63E-02 0.61E-02 -4.1 0.098 1 0.50E-02 0.49E-02 -1.3 0.116 I 0.37E-02 0.38E-02 4.0 0.133 I 0.29E-02 0.29E-02 1.1 0.151 1 0.22E-02 0.21E-02 -5.1 0.168 I 0.15E-02 0.15E-02 2.2 0.185 1 0.10E-02 0.10E-02 3.2 0.203 I 0.62E-03 0.47E-03 -23.7 0.220 I 0.34E-03 0.38E-03 9.5 0.238 1 0.21E-03 0.28E-03 30.8 0.255 1 0.16E-03 0.21E-03 30.0 0.272 1 0,98E-04 0.11E-03 16.7 0.290 I 0.16E-04 0.00E+00 -100.0 9 in Year 8 9 in Year 8 Check of Tolerance ------- Probability Base New %Change 0.95E-02 0.064 0.054 -15.7 0.63E-02 0.081 0.077 -4.5 0.50E-02 0.098 0.098 -0.9 0.37E-02 0.116 0.118 1.8 0.29E-02 0.133 0.134 0.4 0.22E-02 0.151 0.149 -1.1 0.15E-02 0.168 0.169 0.5 0.10E-02 0.185 0.187 0.9 0.62E-03 0.203 0.200 -1.6 0.34E-03 0.220 0.221 0.5 0.21E-03 0.238 0.256 7.8 0.16E-03 0.255 0.265 4.1 0.98E-04 0.272 0.275 1.1 0.16E-04 0.290 0.286 -1.3 Maximum positive excursion = 0.019 cfs ( 7.8'x) occurring at 0.243 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.262 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.019 cfs {-25.7%} occurring at 0.073 cfs on the Base Data:predev,tsf and at 0.055 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Duration Comparison Analysis (Continued) j Pam - DWAKM Analysis - MRIS ' M P..li()uC durIa target.dur • 0 o { 1! I1 p 000 _ LL Q f0 O r O N £ Q r fs 0 O 4i C a O t. O o D 10 5 10 ' 10-3 10 2 10 10 Probabiky Exceedence Wetvault Sizing Calculations Per 2009 King County Stormwater Management Manual Project Name: Wilson Park 2 Facility Description: Wetpool Storage Volume Step 1: Identify required wetpool volume factor (f). f= 3 Per KCSWDM 6.4.1.1 Step 2: Determine rainfall (R) for the mean annual storm. R = 0.47 Per KCSWDM Fig. 6.4.1.A Step 3: Calculate runoff from the mean annual storm (Vr) for the developed site. Vr=(0.9A;+0.25Ag+0.10Atr+0.01AJx(R112) where: A. = impervious Surface Area = 107,347 s.f. At® = Till Grass Area = 62,082 s.f. AK = Till Forest Area = 0 s.f. AQ = Outwash Area = 0 s.f- V, = 4,392 c.f. Step 4: Calculate required wetpool volume (Vb). Vb=fxVr Vb = 13,176 c.f. Step 5: Calculate required wetpool depth (Dr). Dmin = V& /(L v x W v7 where: Dm;, = Minimum Calculated Depth Lv =Vault Length= 110 ft. Lw = Vault Width = 22 ft. Dmin = 5.44 ft. Dr = 6 ft. (Min. depth, rounded up to the nearest 0.6 -ft) BAIMA & HOLMBERG IN.,. LEVEL 1 DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE REPORT for Wilson Plat January 23, 2009 Samna & Holmberg, Inc. Job No. 2687-001 Prepared For Robert Wilson 720 South 55th Street Renton, WA 98055 100 FRONT STRE=ET SOUTH • ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027-3817 • (425) 392-0254 • (425) 391-3055 iii H P_ Ell Street Address 720 South 55`h Street King County Tax Parcel No. 312305-9125 Project Overview This project involves developing a 2.5 -acre parcel into 13 single-family lots. The site currently is occupied with a single residence, lawn and wooded areas. The site is located about 250' north of South 55` h Street, about 150' east of the east terminus of South 53rd Place, on the slope overlooking SR 167, about '/z mile to the west. The site generally slopes down to the west at an average slope of approximately 20%. Per the SCS soil maps, the site is underlain with Alderwood soil, sandy loam over glacial till. Upstream Tributary Drainage A portion of the parcel to the cast of the site drains onto the site. No problems related to this runoff was noted. Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis In general, runoff from the site flows west into lots in the adjacent development, 1 Geneva Court (A). The majority of these runoff flows apparently collect in the drain behind an 8'± rockery (B) constructed along the back yards of the west -most lots of said development or in area drains in the back yards, then flow into the storm system in South 53`d Place (C & D). This flow collects in a stormwater pondlbioswale facility located at the intersection of South 53`d Place and Talbot Road South (E), about 750' downstream from the site. This facility outfalls through an 18" pipe to the west side of Talbot Road South into a shallow, poorly defined channel flowing west through the woods (F). The flows pass through a short 12" culvert (H) under a walking path then disappear into thick woods/brush, continuing to flow west to a wooded wetland area (I) beyond 'A mile downstream from the site. This wetland apparently drains to a 10' X 5'± box culvert crossing under SR -167 (Q), about %z mile downstream from the site. A small area of the south part of the site drains southwest across the south property line of the site into the adjacent parcel to the south (Z). These runoff flows through woods, collecting in a ditches along South 55th Street (K)(about 350' downstream from the site) and/or Talbot Road South (L)( about 800' downstream from the site). Flows into the ditch along South 55th Street (K) continue west in a 6"-12" rock -lined ditch channel 0 along the north side of the street, passing through a couple of 12" driveway culverts on the way to the intersection of South 55"' Street and Talbot Road South (M). This ditch is eroded in areas and shows signs of overtopping and flowing into the street, presumably during the recent storms that caused widespread flooding in Western Washington. Flows from this ditch collect in an 18" storm system (M). Flows from the ditch along Talbot Road South (L) collect in the same storm system, about 850' downstream from the site. The 18" storm system continues west under Talbot Road South and west along the north side of South 192"d Street (N) to about 1200' downstream from the site where it apparently discharges into another shallow roadside ditch (0)(because of heavy vegetation the pipe outlet was not located). This ditch is poorly defined with flows drifting west along the road, where they enter Springbrook Creek at about 1800' downstream from the site (P). Springbrook Creek, with a channel generally about 5' wide and 3' deep (water depth of about 1') continues west to about'/2 mile downstream from the site (J) where it enters the aforementioned 10' X 5't box culvert crossing under SR -167 (Q). The creek continues flowing west on the west side of SR -167. Other than the overtopping ditch noted along South 55th Street, there were no apparent downstream drainage problems. A check of King County drainage complaints on their 1MAP website yielded no reported complaints along this downstream drainage path. 0 i S d'rrm ST d9m 5'T 541 41PL 0-1 SE WMW 4 't. Somis .MM ST. ftIN Stc—-C S1 Wif fir L Vicinity Map 11{/U 9N ' 169 `203 m Py i s I n Wo Ur Sk = .= I • o IAgC r m I J, e®, Ell .•• AmC 1 a . a AgB rlu a So - I Aga • MB •i PU 1 •' Py I • i Wo Wo QM 194 q_ . `. ; Age. _. a i •a Amb •ti AgC! R. Ur . ad Am G' .i•.. t ,.. y• rp } sy. •• ...... ••a . •. I PY r bac •q •AmB aa I Ur •• 1 5E • ;' Ng _ $D 32J Wo + • AgC• 1 r o. MA i;• Ag8 ti Ng O Y • e i Ur M Br Re' ' q n • ;r n Ts r A d Wo c O — tank, ASCLf • 4i' Ur PY M as 1 o So So r 1 :•'i1 1: 4• a . AgC S•• Me I + np Age Elm Ng Ng • r its • ` i C+ • •a C A'gCi r. • Tu I Pui .• O I ArnC •; .• No + S. Uri kF AgC • Ag8. Sk Ur B AriiY • r q- s AgB • ; • q Al t • NH Pc x , • 'A'S N ,. I Wa 2.• Wo ..moi a • '• a . p Agc AmC C • r iq v a Rei 1 Uri 05 h AmC 7 •• • p' • ' 1 O AmC• ' v ' • =' IVO N ' , Os Ur •b , •• ASC ' 4 WO• r• •Age AgC a •.:.gB AmC a g • • ArnC :JtUr . . AmC. • Os A 3 Ur % AgC .. AHC Sk O • I AmC Am AgCrAgC • J Wo * m • • AgC ... ArnC K y r Qs 9r • Na SNO 2 Pk d + • m 31 x p • a ' } : '• AmC Re • ! qi• AmG. ".. o a. a Ur ralle• AkF AgB• ReUf u • nC r' Ag( O n Ra Ur; as AkF x t.> Os os R9 .• : a Re sQ ;° w' T AkF s • ASG rC O9q Ag Ur I Ur! • • Ur f 4 _ SCS Soil Maps Aga P. Sm AkF Ur db ••• \ I• BMs .. • . - S l l I I 1114\\ I} 5 1 I E I 1 1 1 114 X51 1 4 tL 1 115 \\\\1 514 5 y\ \5 1tt L\5\\. I I I l' I 1 1 11511 5 151 11 1 1 1! I!'I I L I I 14 I I i l7l it 111 1 1 \ I I i l 5 II i 1j555}11\L\\ I II !llf III111151}` r! I I!! f! 1 1 I y 1 5 F I! I! I i f L\\\ Il f if 1 f l l C I r I I f 1 I I I 5 1 1 f I! I i i l 4 11 1 I I I I 1 5 l l t t 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1\\\ 11 \ 1 1 5 \ 11 1 5 1 1 1y 115 \ 1 1 % I ! 5 T N Downstream Drainage Map V = 250' l( r I l l rIF I I 1 ! !• 1 11I ( I I ! r r I I ! I 1 I 11 1 I• T N Downstream Drainage Map V = 250' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d1 1 t v r r ,` v:.• r j' I I l11I J ; 1' I I ,'I',rNa 1''•'.I, f15 11''I'\' l `5 1 t I r Y 11V, l l,urL,llna`!liflrrllll I I I I 1' L II , I , 1,1'rll, rr rll/rrrlrnlrr R,rl, r:• 11 1 1 I I I 1 11 I ! Il \ ' 1111 I1V 11/fr l!I+,111,1 lll '111 }IIl I V I I 1 1 I V I jfjj / E ! r', II11• Ill,,llli lll,llllt''.YIIIL,LI III lI ! ill } t I I r11,. , 111 L1111f'1j1IiI I V+'.I I Yl I 4' 11 1 '1 ' 1 1 J 1 ll}l1 V1Ltt\\I4,Lt\\r\`\\5r1 Lj11111 - 1111 V I t , l} l N j ! fr\ iIIyII IV I j4i t Y1• IjM t1 1}5r i1 11. 5 } L 11 '' I 111 I ,n +ll+l,\} t_ II !' I II I1 i i JI//+ flf1'rll r+{i 11 I11 11'1111L 1 I 1 !/ I I 3 I IlllflrlJ,r r11!lflllll 11 iliLl .1 y` 41, 1'-11,111\ 1 I I f K / I I11l lel 1111, I 11 1 11511 ', t r I f L i t r'l , !I'lilli 1111: 1111 l f l1II. 1 1 1 j 1 I l t 1 t 1 f lr I 11111 I IIIIIIlllil l} IIl1' , I 14 1 4 1\ , I 1 1 ",1.1111 r IIIIn411L1 n'.11,.1j 11 fl II+1\• __ 1 II I I1i.11111i 111 IIII II I ' ,`1 1f 1 JI t. l ll 1j 1111 1 7 1 'i 1 1 1 1 l l 1 1 11 It t: I r11L 1111111 Ltl! 1111'1'. 11 w\ r1t`\ ttvti`y • \. rr / / !{' / I 1 t1111'.I'tt111'1l \\\\t\\\ ;•=3! , / . II ' l II 1 1111111111 vt R k ^l y % 1111 I I I l I I I 11, 1 =: r flll, i/I!!` t I I r} 1 1 II X 1 1 i}, l • L1, il j/f. I1IIIlfllr Il,t 1111\1+\ It \t `1 l 1 1 1111 'tl rf 1 ' 1r LI 11 11111 fl f fl/ 111111111111 1t111 \ I 11\t\51't t\t t\\ 1 15VL 1 11 V 1 1' I ' i11 1'111111 SII IV1L X111 t1\LI' 11 I 1 I ! 1 1111: 11, 1 1ij111\1114141'11 ,II.5 t11` 11' I ' V r I 111j 1 '.11,11 ''_11 1 LI151 1,1'.11 ILI'1 1 1 l 11 11141v1\ I,r\\1t L IVyL\' 1 11111} Ltlt}Lt 1 \ } l'. 1 . 111 1 I 1 I 1 } I 1111-._ \rte\15}tl \ 4, 1111141'.4111 V11 . t 1 x`,1,1\5l }. 1t 551}'11115 1 }11}1 1 t'S, IL I _ f 1 1 1 'S 4 t } I114 515, 't ,`5111 \t 1",1'. \'\tl 5• 1 I ' • 11\ 1111!+I i'1 \ti \ 11 ` L 51 \ 5•`\\ \,t 5` 1 1 • 1 r ` V i Itt \' \\v I p 1 I f 1 111( 1 AAV A A /.' Yy 1,5 4111111 A,.'V LA, A •A 1 T ' r 1Ll 1111 St, v,\ Rl 4.1V Ii 11115111 111\v Lv111 I { tir,A VA II R 1j1'; '•' r Il ' 1 ` I 1 fill r_,`7 f1 A , n ;fJ, L y iA S{ 1 __ *; ,. x. JI+( r' ' I t • \ M' ,''rf i f I / i 1 1111'1 ,` '' _ r f , I. ' 1 L' 1 / I Li r:. SECTION 4 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN I I N H ui H H U BAIMA & HOLMOW, INC. 100 Front Steet South ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3817 425) 392-0250 FAX (425) 391-3055 JOB Z 25-T-q90 ( SHEET NO. - OF CALCULATEDBY DATE MU943MMI-TA WAmy DATE Ac - PRO m Ei I H H BAIMA & HOLMB A, INC. 100 Front Steet South ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3817 425) 392-0250 FAX (425) 391-3055 JOB SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED B Q DATE CHECKED BY DATE IV- Pondcalc Worksheet 1 Enter site information in the yellow highlighted cells 2 Verify no error message is displayed 3 Results are displayed in Green Box Note; pondcalc will not work for negative landcover conversions. pondcalc does not handle existing El or TG very well. Disclaimer: This spreadsheet is provided without warranty of any kind. Use this spreadsheet at your own risk. All facility sizes should be verified using KCRTS software. acres type 2.5 TF i 0 TP TGmi EI till forest, TP = till pasture Acreage Check: gross adjusted either ST or LA see rainfall regions map} 0.8 - 1.2 see rainfall regions map} 1, 2, or 3 see flow control app map} eveloped (Adjusted Acres Error Messages acres converted cover Region ST Factor: M 1.00 Level: 2 acres type 2.5 TF i 0 TP TGmi EI till forest, TP = till pasture Acreage Check: gross adjusted either ST or LA see rainfall regions map} 0.8 - 1.2 see rainfall regions map} 1, 2, or 3 see flow control app map} eveloped (Adjusted Acres Error Messages acres converted cover till grass, EI = effective impervious post pre 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5a% 0 0.8 1 0.8 1.7 1.7 till grass, EI = effective impervious post pre 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Existing Conditions 100-yr-5BUH Peak -(offsite -Roadway) -------------- S.C.S. TYPE -1A. DISTRIBUTION *************r****** 100 -YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.90" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN 3 .3 81.0 .0 98.0 20.0 PEAK--Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) 14 7.83 2576 Developed Conditions 100 -yr 5BUH Peak (offsite Roadway) S.C.S. TYPE -1A DISTRIBUTION ******************** 100 -YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3.90" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS A CN 3 .0 86.0 PEAK-Q(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) 41 7.67 IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN 3 98.0 2.0 VOL(CU-FT) 4658 H u 1 s s H. BAIMA & HOLMB L INC. 100 Front Steet South ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027-3817 425) 392-0250 FAX (425) 391-3055 Joe SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY i CHECKED BY crar. F OF DATE PATE n SECTION 5 1 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN n 0 u El H4 0 BAIMA & HOLMBOG, INC. 100 Front Steet South 1SSAQUAH, WASHING70N 98027-3817 4250 392-0250 FAX (425) 391-3055 SHEET Na. OF CALCULATED BY 7T-?= DATE CHECKED BY DATE SECTION 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN BAIMA & HOLMBERG IN_. TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for Wilson Park May 5, 2009 Baima & Holmberg, Inc. Job No. 2687-001 Prepared For Robert Wilson 720 South 55th Street Renton, WA 98055 Oity of Renton Planning Division OCl 1 2l'`. RE E V CSD 100 FRONT STREET SOUTH ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027-3817 • (425) 392-0250 • (425) 391-3055 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 3 OFFSITE ANALYSIS 4 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 5 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7 OTHER PERMITS S ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 0 Street Address 720 South 55th Street King County Tax Parcel No. 312305-9125 Project Overview This project involves developing a 2.5 -acre parcel into 13 single-family lots. The site currently is occupied with a single residence, lawn and wooded areas. The site is located about 250' north of South 55th Street, about 150' east of the east terminus of South 53rd Place, on the slope overlooking SR 167, about 'h mile to the west. The site generally 1 slopes down to the west at an average slope of approximately 20%. Per the SCS soil maps, the site is underlain with Alderwood soil, sandy loam over glacial till. n Upstream Tributary Drainage 1 A portion of the parcel to the east of the site drains onto the site. No problems related to this runoff was noted. Level 1 Downstream Drainage Analysis In general, runoff from the site flows west into lots in the adjacent development, 1 Geneva Court (A). The majority of these runoff flows apparently collect in the drain behind an 8'f rockery (B) constructed along the back yards of the west -most lots of said development or in area drains in the back yards, then flow into the storm system in South 53rd Place (C & D). This flow collects in a stormwater pond/bioswale facility located at the intersection of South 53`d Place and Talbot Road South (E), about 750' downstream from the site. This facility outfalls through an 18" pipe to the west side of Talbot Road South into a shallow, poorly defined channel flowing west through the woods (F). The flows pass through a short 12" culvert (H) under a walking path then disappear into thick woods/brush, continuing to flow west to a wooded wetland area (I) beyond'/4 mile downstream from the site. This wetland apparently drains to a 10' X 5'f box culvert crossing under SR -167 (Q), about 1/z mile downstream from the site. A small area of the south part of the site drains southwest across the south property line of the site into the adjacent parcel to the south (Z). These runoff flows through woods, collecting in a ditches along South 55th Street (K)(about 350' downstream from the site) and/or Talbot Road South (L)( about 800' downstream from the site). Flows into the ditch along South 55th Street (K) continue west in a 6"-12" rock -lined ditch channel I" n t 11 t, . a 1 PORTION OF THE SE -714 OF SEC. 31, TWN• 23 N., RNG 5 E., Wh F IMIO 5/6' Raw d!CAP CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON SET REBAR = 11. 9cA'n SIB• RE9+R tr G1° pklkAP 6 4.56' Y?s 27530. 014' R tr N. lhK 5 575', SE. I/4. 51 1/4 A72. E YPgrFS 79157. 039 4 Ar N PROP CK ESR 11512. rw } 0 IS' E Or '" rU' I 913' E PF PA+I.° COR 589 2639E %%0)- E LIJ, 56a b.w MW 10500' SE 1/4. j.E Pty ceJ c"r TRACT I g 16 A8 R 5.237 So F1 R WEN SRA,¢/ 13 s 12 s ti $ 10 9 Q gs>'ORM OETENTgw • 5,167 59 rl S ' I ri sq It ! 5,112 Sq FI 8 7112 Sq TI R 5-114 sq R : 1OS19' vo,4w SQ h I g I A3(6.32. sq r! R-1) J is PIGYA R; 1 6 o d(y1'Tf Sq FI 6-14) L 12.1i ACRSS 15 ? M ] 5' Rrxi EA 1Qf1 1 &512 59 It 8n 50 14.,71' L ao' m' 56-40' 44.10 E 5 w n Al ROAD A n f n2Jas gF s 12651' I.StACle[ adz '}, fis7r! 4 : ,.11.7 sT.sr Ga. eo.m -1% vq 5 S14 ' :X n R R-IRM'Pd 6,&MSq r1 4 '' a TR D v FOUND 5/8 RE84R tr CAPpie Yp + A,a1R Sq fl 174.7 . CPS x7350 u ss' N tr q OPE„ 7Ac R 2 R `3 IS M44 E a P" CLR OPER SPACE 4.630 $4 F1 4.TI0 S, It 0976 Sq r1 796'4.321 Sq I1 'b - 15 ewL R $ 4 9ERGW $ oIS IQ 4a' — At 5 PRC° ZRIE 105' } 2! xe- `1 ' 4.2M Sq F1 76.63 Gam- 74.00'1Y IS' 115,06' J I J r JJ7 Q2' Am 05TJuw 5` , 1 L1w, H. 707', 5 571', SC 1/4, 3E 1/4 " $ I 1 ' 1 IIVICT A I SYpd OIM.MRE IIIACT, PO599.E it NRRE / Fp, pqwE 1 MORIN-p.IAYITJMV TOJ1RDB+ 1 I 1 CRIl,CAI A6El TRACT I51EEP W I I )- O G[ONA4RTA41W 61 Ij I' I O,SN $RqC! - OrEO/RGMTAGKO 1 IOT 1 REN ((IG / 039-0 1 TRACT 7Y 50 ROAD ANO { OREN SPAO(- o A mAu4R Tr[o J er a. U ru rT EA SEMEN T Ec NO 1008OJ270p2018 l 1 1 $Wi 0 FT J0' U4enS ECRESS ; I I I 9S.A013 O? Fr tr U O 7 EA22M I v2.72 ACRES AEC NO 7if07707R8 LOr T 1 MMM iP / ' 1 039-113 I I I a I a I I ' T wbtsdmm I ° % SCA11E J• 30• i i9r J, qr rw I 41. S 55TH ST. 7132_013 I ITfy Ff X'3qY xf61j RFASJ? fow CC,R.RfnW,' AHEM r99 a all 26J6 v im 0 - _L w-141 W" 1-5' E SEC. CCF f0 ro RE CRY OF REW(CR Zr-, ' ". Site Pian 1"=80' r 1 • .. i ' `, { %rµ5 I f i. L , Vicinity Map t1RM { _ t s9 i AgC i1 11 Sk I 9, Wo Ur = •- a u IAgr- I m o a e- t /• 4mC e q • e ' t Tu a t Age_]_ t Inc I a `.• I AgD, s a a ---ax —_—_ _— __ • y • • i ••,r _— asn 17. r1 G dl--• PLJ WQ I L Wa M194 • r' • s • • t AWB•'• ~• AmBmi t ` AgCUr • 6 r. wf1AmC . e.•:. ...y r? I q p • ,rr T O Py •; o cl •v Amb Ur Ng B3 Wp AgC' 1 • MA !«« G Agg ' , r l_ , n • Ata as , a i. Ng Ur •' ` Sr Ra w j 1.A Wader, a Wo Q ' / r Tenk • A¢C Ur P` Qs = I a e, m . So 4 AgC . o !+ 7 i Ag S Ma I •$ • . + 7 • .dAYli914 Ng Ng • { + ` t k • ' , • AgC- Tu t U • o Ao ' • a t i Pu O I AmC Ur kF AgC t AWB , Sk Ur h! n• t PI , as - - " 4 .. • ,. R B • , •S + m1C-1 • A t N8 Pc Wa AgC g ,1 A•B .. N 1 a g R_C : fWois :• •I q• e: wq Re 1 4 Uri as n ArnC •• s • ' • . O AmC• , ja_' Ag AgCUrAr , D 4V- AgC Tu 1 Ula Wa r 3 1 Agg •r AmC t' AmCaUr5 : i .• * .-•, .` o AmC_ • • Os a Ur ASD •" • AgC Sk AmC "14mC r AgC _ .... Pu Amd s t Wp a a ' a AgC AmC r s Br Na Ni 12 Pk; e e m • .. • 3'1 x O np 3 : AmC = n AWg• o pa Ur raii9• Ak . Re Ur Ag R urt • ate. Wa• [• . as AkF ?• AgC 03Os -- • •• j _ Re Q aow A F' . a•' • AgC Rig as A$ SCS Soil MapUrI •r Uri" / 'r + 1 i AQD ti ltl Pu Sm AkF • • 1 9Mas Ki county Department of Development Environmental Services TECI a„,1CAL INFORMATION REPO...' (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER.AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project 0 ner Kt2'i ICI UJc fes, N Address F 5 Phone Projectngineer I P -UA - Company 4 Address/ Phone 1 iCYM IffilL O -T d;T. 54. 1 Part 3 TYPE OFrPERMtT y Subdivison Short Subdivision Grading Commercial Other Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND. DESCRIPTION Project Name f -J Location Township Z3 Range JJ.F.....Section 31 t'a'rt 4 .OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS DFW HPA Shoreline Management COE 404 Rockery DOE Dam Safety Structural Vaults FEMA Floodplain Other COE Wetlands Part 5 SITE aCOMMPNITYaAND DkAINAGE 8ASlN Community Drainage Basin Part 6, SITE -CHARACTERISTICS. River Floodplain Wetlands Stream Seeps/Springs Critical Stream Reach High Groundwater Table Depressions/Swales Groundwater Recharge Lake Other Steep Slopes Part 7 =SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velcoties A (D.1.2ua4 o r Y%4 r Additional Sheets Attached Part 5:;. DEVELOPMENTLIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT Ch. 4 -- Downstream Ana{ sis L fi xS Additional Sheets Attached MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Sedimentation Facilities v Stabilized Construction Entrance VPerimeter Runoff Control Clearing and Graing Restrictions wCover Practices I/Construction Sequence Other r _ MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION k6tabilize Exposed Surface Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities P/Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris C/ Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas Other Part 10 :SURFACE,WATER'SYSTEM Grass Lined Channel ripe System Open Channel Dry Pond Wet Pond Tank Vault Energy Dissapator Wetland Stream Infiltration Depression Flow Dispersal Waiver Regional Detention Method of Analysis Compensation/Mitigat! on of Eliminated Site Storage Brief Description of System Operation 511371, zwo mu,, -T-i:7 UD"3n - 10, 1 1't G Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation paid 1I ;"STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS mast in Place Vault Retaining Wall Mockery > 4' High Structural on Steep Slope Other Part 12YEASMENTSlTRACjS . , 3 Drainage Easement Access Easement Native Growth Protection Easement Tract Other Part 13 `SIGNATUREO!'ROFESSIO[VAL EiVGINEER I or a civil engineer under my supervision my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. s e SECTION 2 CONDITIONS AND REQUIRMENTS SUMMARY j r- PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR WILSON PARK ma 720 S 55TH ST nF CITY OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Current Planning Division PRE09--012 February 26, 2009 Contact Information: Planner Gerald Wasser Public Works Reviewer Rick Moreno Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430.7382 Phone: 425.430.7278 Phone: 425.430.7023 Phone: 425.430.7290 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre -application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies In effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The Information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). 1 o FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES R DEPARTMENT Nrx`4 M E M 0 R A 1\ D U M DATE: February 24, 2009 Plan ReviewerTO: Rick Moreno, FROM: David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal, Community Risk Reduction SUBJECT: PRE -APP 09-012 Wilson Park Project A review of the plans and material regarding the Vasquez Short Plat has been conducted and completed. Please review the Renton Fire & Emergency Services Fire Code and Policy comments and concerns. 1. FIRE FLOW: Structures up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basement areas) shall require a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute for two hours. Structures in excess of 3,600 square feet shall meet a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute for two hours. A water availability certificate shall be required. 2. REQUIRED HYDRANTS: As in accordance with Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department standards, one (1) hydrant shall be required for structures up to 3,600 square feet and requiring a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute. For structures over 3,600 square feet and requiring a minimum fire flow of 1,500 gallons per minute or more shall require a minimum of two (2) hydrants. The number of hydrants shall also be based on spacing, which shall be in accordance with sound engineering practices. All hydrants servicing the Wilson Park project shall be equipped with five inch Storz fittings on the main ports, 3. HYDRANT SPACING: Residential spacing requires hydrants to be located no greater than 300 feet to the front of any structure. In this case, the existing hydrants are located much greater than the 300 feet to the existing structures. Therefore, a minimum of two (2) new hydrants shall be required in Order for the Wilson Park project to meet the 300 foot spacing. 4. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: The minimum fire apparatus road access shall be no less than 20 feet wide and on a surface capable of sustaining the weight of a fire apparatus. The turning radius shall be 45 feet to the outside and 25 feet to the inside. Rick Moreno, Plan Reviewer February 24, 2009 Page 2 of 3 At this time, I am concerned about the minimum 20 root access off of South 192"d as a private access. Private accesses are difficult to regulate and to prevent parking in fire apparatus access roadways that are 20 to 28 feet wide. If this access cannot be designed as a public street, there are same possible options that could be considered, but would need to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal. The options I am proposing as a possibility to mitigate the access issues are as follows: A) The gated access would reg uire it to be the type operated off a radio frequency and known as a Click To Entersystem. B) The 20 foot road access would require to be marked on both sides o the road as "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME ". The si a e would need to be provided b the developer and maintained by the Horne Owners Association. C) All of the proposed 16 lots would have to be equ ed with a residential ire sprinkler system. The ire sprinkler systems would not aide in mitg the stems Oracle Issue, 5, FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS -- GRADE: It appears that the access into the Wilson Park neighborhood may be greater than a 15 percent grade. It is important to note that we strongly require the grade to be no greater than 15 percent for Renton fire & Emergency Services to recommend a project. Using fire sprinkler systems to mitigate an access to allow for it to be greater than 15 percent is not an option. 6. FIRE SPRINKLER: Residential fire sprinklers are not applicable to this project unless used as an option to mitigate insufficient fire flow or an access issue other than grade. 7. FIRE MITIGATION FEES: Fire mitigation fees shall be $488.00 per unit and shall be paid prior to final plat recording. Credit would be given for the one home that has been dedicated to be removed. RECOMMENDATION: LADDER/AERIAL ACCESS: Ladder access for a 35 foot ground ladder set at a 70 degree angle shall be provided on all four sides of any structure two stories or greater in height. DP/kc h,%cedlplanninglcurrent planninglpreappslQ9-o12,jerrylire comments pre09-012 Wilson park.doc l j Rick Moreno, Plan Reviewer February 24, 2009 Page 3 of 3 c: Jerry Wasser, Associate Planner hAcedlplanning%current planning1preapps109-012.jerrylfire comments pre09-012 wilson park.doc A Fl k I. D DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT R)) + M E M O R A N D U 141 DATE: February 23, 2009 TO: Terry Wasser FROM: Rick Moreno SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments for Wilson Park Short Plat PRE09-012 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, We have completed a preliminary review for the above -referenced development proposa. The following comments are based on the pre -application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. WATER 1, This site is within the Renton service area. However, due to elevation a f the site, Renton caluiot provide sufficient sustainable water pressure.. It is recoinnlendcd that the owner receive a certificate of water availability through Soos Creek Water District. The City will be able to release the service area upon evidence that Soos Creek can service this parcel. This certificate will be submitted to the City prior to release of service area. TRANSPORTATION 1. Street improvements are required including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drainage, street lighting; and landscaping along street frontage. 2. Traffic mitigation fees of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed per single family home at a rate of 9.57 trips per day. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per City of Renton Ordinance. 4. A dedication of roadway to adjacent northern property is required prior to recording. It appears that Tract A is set up for this application. (See Storm Utility issues). 5 s:. ]u n, 44a.distarnea evaluation .shall be required for roadway 6. The proposed 32 ft. right-of-way with curb, gutter and sidewalk on one side does not meet current code. An approved variance is required with this proposal. PRE 09-012 PRCOMMen;s.dac fl t s C h t I -I D 7. Dedicated right-of-way, meeting City of Renton Street Standards including curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements fronting all lots shall be required prior to recording. Current proposal is not acceptable for lots 6 through 9. 8. Maximum road slopes shall be 15% in all cases. Maximum angle of approach is 8 degrees and maximum angle of departure is 10 degrees. 9. Secondary access roadways are sometimes required as specified by the Fire Marshall. Secondary access roadways are also required by the City of Renton Street Standards (Title 4, Chapter 6, Section 60G), if streets are over 500 feet, but not over 700 ft. long, dwellings shall either provide a secondary access road or provide an approved residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed, If streets are over 700 ft., a secondary access road is required. Any proposed access -gating system requires approval from the Renton Fire Department. 10. Sidewalk, curb and gutter shall abut S 192"d St with radius curb per City of Renton standards. SANITARY SEWER 1. This site is within the City of Renton Sewer area. The owner shall extend an fl- inch sanitary sewer main within the proposed right -of way from S 55" St. and extend to the frontage of each proposed lot. A 15 -foot utility easement shall be required to extend to the easterly boundary of lot 6, or lot 9. 2- All system development fees shall apply based on the size of the water meter services. SURFACE WATRER I . The project is required to do a drainage analysis and meet the design criteria in accordance with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual with conservation flow control criteria or current city standard. The 2005 KCSWDM criteria may be required subject to submitted calculations by the engineer. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) is $3,012 per new single- family residence. This is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued - 3. If the proposed Tract A is dedicated for detention, and a right-of-way dedication is used to connect to the northern lot, traffic bearing lid(s) will be required to any proposed storm vault. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All utility and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. If fire sprinkler systems are necessary, then a separate fire sprinkler permit will be required. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost of construction estimate for these improvements. 4. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 6% of the first 150,000 of the estimated construction costs 5% of anything over $150,000 but less than $300,000, and 4% of anything over $300,000. Half the fee must be paid upon application. PRE 09-012 PRComments.doc CITY OF RENTON PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works MEMORANDUM DATE: February 26, 2009 T0: Pre -Application File No. 09-012 FROM: Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner, (425) 430-7382 SUBJECT: Wilson Park 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, Planning Director, Public Works Administrator, Development Services Director and City Review may also need to be revised based on site planning and other designCouncil). comments 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, Project Proposal: The subject property is located north of S. 551" St. and east of Talbot Rd. S_ at 720S.5 5'h St. The proposal is to subdivide a 108,884 sq. ft. (2.5 acre) parcel into 16 lots and one tract, for future development of detached single -ramify houses. There is one existing home on the which would be removed. The site has three different zoning designations, R-1, R -B, and R- parcel, 14, and the applicant is proposing a zone change to R-8 for the entire site. The proposed lots range from approximately 4,500 sq, ft. to 6,243 sq. ft. in size. The preliminary plat would be accessed via a 50 ft. wide access easement running from S. 55'h St. over a neighboring parcel to the south. Secondary access would be provided via a 30 ft. ingress, egress, & utility easement over a neighboring property to the south. The site contains protected slopes and a number of significant trees. three different zoningZoninglDensityRequirements: The subject property encompasses designations. Staff estimates that approximately 75,300 sq. ft. (1.73 ac) are zoned R -B, 31,200 sq. ft, 0.72 ac) are zoned R-1, and 2,384 sq. ft. (0.06 ac) are zoned R-14. These are only approximations. Density is calculated by first subtracting the area of any access easements and critical areas from the gross site acreage, and then dividing the number of units by the net acreage. The applicant did not submit a density worksheet for the proposal. Based on the breakdown of how much land is located in each zoning designation, staff has estimated that up to 13 units could be built on the R-8 portion of the lot, no units could be bullt on the 0.72 acre portion in the R-1, and no units could be built on the R-14 portion of the lot. The R-8 zone permits a minimum of 4.0 units per acre and a maximum of 8.0 units per acre. The applicant's submittal is predicated on a rezone of the R-1 and R-14 portions of the site to R-8 zoning. Note: While the applicant may request a rezone to R-8, staff is not supportive of this change of zone. The R-1 zone was applied in this general area to aid in the protection of critical areas. The R -t zone designation on this property Is part of a larger continuous area which Includes wetlands, steep slopes, landslide areas, and coal mine areas. This rezone would also require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density (RLQ) to Residential Single Family (RSF). Development Standards: Because the only developable part of the lot is the R-8 portion, unless a rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment are approved, staff has only reviewed compliance with the development standards for that part of the site. E i L' u 0 1 Wilson Park Pre -Application Meeting February 26, 2009 Page 2 of 3 The R-8 zone permits one residential unit per lot. Detached accessory structures are permitted at a maximum number of two per lot at 720 square feet each, or one per lot at 1,000 square feet in size. No accessory structures are allowed on lots without a primary structure. Minimum Lot Size Width and Depth — The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 zone is 4,500 square feet for lots greater than 1 acre in size and 5,000 square feet for lots 1 acre or less in size. A minimum lot width of 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots, as well as a minimum lot depth of 65 feet, is also required. The total area of the proposed subdivision is greater than 1 acre, so the minimum lot size is 4,500 square feet. All of the proposed lots in the R-8 portion of the site would far exceed this minimum. Note: Since this may be a Hillside Subdivision, lots may be required to be larger than the minimums prescribed in the zone. Building Standards — The R-8 zone allows a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots over 5,000 square feet in size. Building height is restricted to 30 feet and 2 -stories. Detached accessory structures must be below a height of 15 feet and one-story. The gross floor area must be less than that of the primary structure. Accessory structures are also included in building lot coverage calculations. Given the proposed lot configuration, it appears that building standards could be satisfied. Setbacks — Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line or private access easement. The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are 15 feet in frontfortheprimarystructureand20feetinfrontfortheattachedgarage, 20 feet in the rear, 5 feet for interior side yards, and 15 feet for side yards along streets (including access easements) for the primary structure and 20 feel for side yards along streets (including access easements) for attached garages. Given the proposed lot configuration, it appears that setbacks could be satisfied. Access/Parking: The site has no street frontage, but has existing access easements to South 55th Street and SE 192"d Street. The applicant is proposing to access the project via 50 -foot road and utility easement. Road A would have to be a dedicated public right-of-way. Secondary access is proposed via a 30 -foot ingress, egress, and utility easement. Additionally, the City would require that the extension of Road A at proposed Lots 8, 9 and 10 be developed to the same standards as the rest of Road A (including width, sidewalk, curb and gutter) to the northern property line. Subdivisions with five or more internal lots must provide a public road to serve the new homes. Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements would be required. Public rights-of-way must be a minimum of 42 ft. wide. Reductions in public right -of width and street improvements would require a street modification. Sidewalks on both sides of the street within the plat and on one side of the southwest access from South 551h Street would be required. Each lot must allow for the parking of two vehicles on the property. Landscaping: The applicant would be required to plant at least two trees of a City approved species with a minimum caliper of 1 112 inches in the front yard or planting strip of each lot of the short plat and a 5 -foot strip along the new right-of-way. The trees and landscaping must be planted prior to final inspection of the new homes. In addition, the stormwater pond must also be landscaped, Critical Areas: The site contains two small areas of protected steep slopes. There is also an area of high landslide hazard on the parcel. A geotechnical report will be required at the time of submittal for a preliminary plat which should Include recommendations by the geotechnical engineer on location and footings of future homes on the site. Due to the fact that there are known wetlands In the area, a wetlands study must also be submitted- The wetlands study mast be conducted according to the City of Renton Critical Areas regulations, a copy of which is included In the packet of Information given to the applicant at the pre -application meeting. Secondary review of the wetlands study, at the applicant's expense, may be required. If wetlands are found, appropriate buffers and Natural Growth Protection Easements must be established. Hillside Subdivisions: Hillside Subdivisions are subdivisions in which the average slope is 20% or in which any street in the subdivision has grades greater than 15% at any point_ RMC 4-7-220 PRE09-012 Wilson Park PP (R-8, 164ot, access,new street, slopes).doc Wilson Park Pre -Application Meeting February 26, 2009 Page 3of3 establishes the regulations for Hillside Subdivisions including application requirements, grading information, street requirements, lot size and erosion control requirements. Significant Tree Retention: A tree inventory and a tree retention plan shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 30% of significant trees (6 -inches and greater). A tree retention worksheet will also be required at the time of formal application, The submitted tree plan must indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that will be retained. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The R-8 portion of the site is located within the Residential Single Family (RSF) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The following proposed policy is applicable to the proposal: Land Use Element Policy LU -158. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to 8,0 dwelling units per acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. Permit Requirements: Because staff is not supportive of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone, the applicant may wish to redesign the project utilizing the R-8 portion of the site only for residential lots. A redesign of the project would affect permit requirements. The following permit fees assume that a rezone will not be pursued by the applicant. To subdivide the parcel, the applicant must make formal submittal for Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat Review. A submittal checklist, listing the items that must be included in the submittal packet to the City, is included in the packet of information given the applicant at the pre - application meeting. The applicant will be required to install a public information sign on the property and the City will send out information on the plat to neighboring property owners. There is a $2,000.00 fee for preliminary plat review. The plat will also require Environmental Review with an additional fee of $500.00. The time frame for processing the environmental review and preliminary plat is approximately 12 weeks to the end of the appeal period. Once approval is received, the applicant must complete any required improvements, such as sewer and water stubs, surface water management facilities, fire hydrant and grading. A separate utilities construction permit is required for these improvements. The applicant must also satisfy any conditions of the preliminary approval from the Hearing Examiner before the plat can be recorded. The newlycreatedlotsmaybesoldonlyaftertheplathasbeenrecorded_ The applicant may submit for building permit review for the new houses before the plat is recorded, but the City can only issue the building permits when the plat has been recorded. A demolition permit would be required for the demolition of the existing house on the subject property. Fees: In addition to the fees for review of the land -use, construction and building permits, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to recording of the short plat. A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530,76 per new single family residence; A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project; and, A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family residence. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. Expiration: Upon preliminary plat approval, the preliminary plat approval is valid for 5 years with a possible one-year extension. cc: Jennifer Henning ppE49-012 Wilson Park PP (R•8, 16-1ol, access,new streel, staPO).dac F, rl w z m Fi T — J)U 1 L011 i[.:)G L' 114 J3 - 06 T22N RSE E 112 A + ZONING u zoo 400 PW TECNMCAL SMICE5 Feel TO" -7115108 4,800 13 31 T23N R5E E 1/2 5331 I I s D u Ni F] t SECTION 3 OFFSITE ANALYSIS WILSON PARK DIVISION 2 PLAT SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Robert Wilson 21703 60th St. E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Prepared by TjRqffhX7 TRA FF/C ExprR 7-s 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 January 25, 2012 rraff,my January 25, 2012 Mr. Robert Wilson 21703 601h St. E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Re: Wilson Park Division 2 Plat - City of Renton Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Wilson: NoRThIwirsT TRAFFIC EXPFRTB 11410 NE 124th St. # 590 Kirkland. WA 98034 Phone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 We are pleased to present this supplemental traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed 10 lot Wilson Park Division 2 Plat located on the north side of S.55 1h St. in the City of Renton. This TIA supplements the information and analysis presented in the original Wilson Park Plat TIA, dated June 23, 2009, prepared by Traffex. The Wilson Park Division 2 site is adjacent to the southwest corner of the aproved Wilson Park Plat. The proposed project site contains the access road to S. 55 h St. for Wilson Park Plat. The 10 lots of the proposed Wilson Park Division 2 will have direct driveway connections to the access road connecting the Wilson Park to S. 55th Street. The access road and the location of its intersection to S. 55th St remains the same as when approved for the original Wilson Park Plat. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan, the Cites Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 shows the Wilson Park Division 2 site plan. The site lies between the southwest corner of the Wilson Park plat and S. 55th Street. The proposed project utilizes the same access to S. 55th St. as the approved 12 lot Wilson Park plat. The site access street intersects S. 55th St. on the outside of a horizontal curve on S. 55th St. to optimize sight distance in both east and west directions for vehicles entering and exiting the site. Page 1 Wilson Park Traff y Development of the Wilson Park Division 2 plat is expected to occur by the year 2014. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2014 is used as the horizon year for this study. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 10 single-family units in the proposed Wilson Park Division 2 Plat are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Tota! Trips per unit Entering Exiting 48 48 Average Weekday 9.57 96 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 25% 75% 8 PM Peak Hour 1.01 686 8 ° 10 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 2 shows the site generated traffic volumes and distribution at the study intersection. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: Talbot Rd. S S55 1h St. Page 2 Collector Arterial Local Access Wilson Park Traffmy, 98th Ave S Local access 98th PI. S Local access 102nd Ave S Local access S 55th St. consists of two 11 ft. lanes and a shoulder that varies in width from approximately two to four feet in the vicinity of the project site. A section of S 551h St east of the project site consists of several sharp curves and is posted with a 15 mph advisory speed sign and with chevron arrows at each curve within the section. There is a left turn pocket on S 55th St. at 981h Ave. S, approximately 125 ft. west of the Wilson Park site access street. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 2 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the proposed site access street/S 55th St. intersection. The proposal generates less than 30 PM peak hour trips and no other intersection or street segment in the City of Renton will experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes due to this development. Therefore, only the site access street/S 55th St. intersection requires a level of service (LOS) analysis per the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, A PM peak hour traffic count taken for the Wilson Park Plat TIA was used for this supplemental analysis since traffic growth in the area has been generally flat over the past several years. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS) for future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual 2000. The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle at signalized intersections or the average delay for the worst minor approach at two way stop sign controlled intersections. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: Page 3 Wilson Park rraffzm s TYPE OF INTERSECTION A B C D E F 10.0 and 20.0 and 35.0 and 55.0 and 80. Signalized 10. 20.0 35.0 55.0 80.0 0 0 Stop Sign Control 1 10 and <15 15 and <25 25 and <35 35 and <50 50 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 2 shows projected 2014 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts, plus background traffic growth, plus 12 PM peak hour pipeline project trips generated by the Wilson Park plat. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the five year time period from the 2009 traffic count to the 2014 horizon year (for a total of 15%). This will result in a very conservative analysis since traffic volumes in the area have been generally flat for the past several years and are anticipated to continue this trend. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 2 shows the projected future 2014 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site -generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the Wilson Park Division 2 site access street/S. 55th St. intersection. The study intersection operates at a high LOS B for future 2014 conditions, including project -generated traffic, and meets the City of Renton LOS requirements for intersections. SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION Sight distance on S 55`h St. at the proposed site access street was extensively evaluated in the Wilson Park TIA and meets the City of Renton intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions. Page 4 Wilson Park rraffaw( TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. The net new daily trips due to this development are 96 trips (10units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $7,200 (96 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Wilson Park Division 2 Plat be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for site access street as shown on the site plan. Contribute the approximately $7,200 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or larry(a nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, Vincent J. Geglia Principal TraffEx Page 5 o Q7 2s tti 9£oSTti,....NG roti, L EA ES: Wt3l12 i Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WILSON PARK PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION EXISTING 2014WITH2011 WITHIOUTIPROJECT Site Access StIS 55th St. 1 NA B 10.4 SB B 10.5 SB XX Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the minor approach for unsignalized intersections, which determines the LOS for intersections per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual 2000 B Indicates calculated level of service SB (Southbound) Indicates direction of the minor approach for unsignalized intersections Page 6 Wilson Park Division 2 Plat - City of Renton Site Plan f Figure 1 Q r L13 IF z rg le- IWT R' h95Gt`+ lB n. I L LO7 lQ 595f../ -SO il. 6 L IS l u' IIIxx Its 10111' S 1 tL raxsr' JIR g FT t I LOT 3_•- l$ LOT 5.5Gp«/-59. rf $ I I 1 I7 S I r f ly fOT 7 lI} S.9d5 J-50- n l ia, AB I J 1 LOT 9 I JJ 8 JI . L1 1 I I JOT 1 " 5.775- I s26.5' 265 i - oi' L-3912 25 of wm' ia'. LG' 15 6,776+/ -SG. FT ff) J 557H AL'C. SOJTH 9 A -IM 101.ya 7 . iar r•' — Wilson Park Division 2 Plat - City of Renton Site Plan f Figure 1 rnF. A1OR rHwCS r TRAFFIC EXPERTS ri ME 11G7 1 Si SE *ATM ST f v1Q iL MQ ST i ! MT14 ST 1 1410 ST R # w o i' S OWN at 1 } Future ----,Project Future Without Generated With Existing Project Trips Project O -,J 0 466-0- 121 M J t 6 2 540'0`140 M 0-0`0 Wilson Park Division 2 Plat - City of Renton PM Peak Hour Volumes for Existing and Future Conditions cG N 540 - - 140 Figure 2 TECHNICAL APPENDIX TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information P, ite Information Analyst Intersection Jurisdiction RentonAgency/Co. Date Performed 611912009 Analysis Year 2014 Future Without Project Analysis Time Period -PMpeak Project DescriptionProject Description East/West Street: S 55th St orth/South Street, Site Access St Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 6 540 0 0 140 2 ID -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Flow Rate, HFR 6 580 0 0 150 2 rcent HeavyVehicles 0 0 dian Type Undivided T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfi uration LT TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 1 0 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (°1°} 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length and Leel of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR vph) 6 4 m)(vph) 1441 674 c 0.00 0.01 5% queue length 0.01 Q.02 Control Delay 7.5 10.4 LOS A 8 Approach Delay 10.4 Approach LOS B HCS200(FM Copyright V 2W4 university of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed 6/19/2009 Analysis Time Period PM peak Intersection Jurisdiction Renton Analysis Year 2014 Future with Project Descri tion East/West Street: S 55th St NorthlSouth Street: Site Access St Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 11 540 0 0 140 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 580 0 0 150 3 ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 2 0 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourlx Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 1 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfi uration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WE Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR vph) 11 8 C (m) (vph) 1440 668 Ic 0.01 0.01 5% queue length 0.02 0.04 Control Delay T5 10.5 LOS A B Approach Delay 10.5 Approach LOS B HCS20(O' M Copyright C, 2000 Universily of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c WILSON PARK PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Robert Wilson 21703 60th St. E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Prepared by NoR T WL -ST TRA F -F -IG E-XPFR Ts 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 June 23, 2009 city of Planr7in ta Division OCT 16 2!10E RA ce#vED rr9?ffZ&Y NOR TH..._5T TRAFFIC EXPERTS 11410 NF 124th Sc. #590 KirU,,1d. `NA 93ti34 Phom:425.522.11R Fax:425.522.4311 June 23, 2009 Mr. Robert Wilson 21703 60"' St. E. Lake Tapps, WA 98391 Re: Wilson Park Short Plat - City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Wilson: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 14 lot Wilson Park Residential short plat located at the 720 S. 55h St. in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis its based upon the preliminary plat site plan, the Ci of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, and conversations with City Renton staff. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page seven of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 is a close in area map showing the site location and surrounding street network. Figure 3 shows the preliminary site plan. The primary access street runs from the southwest comer of the site to S 55' St. through a 50 ft. wide easement on the parcel adjacent to the south side of the site. The primary access from S. 55th St. to the site is 28 ft. wide with a sidewalk on the west side of the street. A secondary gated emergency vehicle access connects to S 55th St. though a 30 ft. easement. Streets within the site will be 32 ft. wide with a sidewalk on one side. The primary site access street is located on the outside of a horizontal curve on S 55 h St. to optimize sight distance in both east and west directions for vehicles exiting the site. Page i wilso Development of the Wilson Park plat is expected to occur by the year 2011. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2011 is used as the horizon year for this study. An existing single family home within the project site will be removed with this development. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 14 single-family units in the proposed Wilson Park Plat are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Tris Trips TotalTripsperunitEnteringExiting 67 67 Average Weekday 9.57 134 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 8 1125% 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 5 146393 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 4 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site -generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. Page 2 Tra. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities Figure 5 shows existing traffic control, number of street lanes and other pertinent information. The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: Talbot Rd. S Collector Arterial S 55" St_ Local Access 98th Ave S Local access 98th PI. S Local access 102nd Ave S Local access S 55th St. consists of two 11 ft. lanes and a shoulder that varies in width from approximately two to four feet in the vicinity of the project site. A section of S 55th St. east of the project site consists of several sharp curves and is posted with a 15 mph advisory speed sign and with chevron arrows at each curve within the section. There is a left turn pocket on S 550h St. at 98th Ave. S, approximately 125 ft. west of the Wilson Park site access street. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 6 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the proposed site access street/S 55 h St. intersection. The proposal generates less than 30 PM peak hour trips and no other intersection or street segment in the City of Renton will experience an increase of 5% in traffic volumes due to this development. Therefore, only the site access street/S 55th St. intersection requires a level of service (LOS) analysis per the City of Renton Polipy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development A PM peak hour traffic count was performed on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 and is included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Page 3 Wilson Park rra ffza, Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS) for future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual 2000. The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: TYPE OF INTERSECTION A B C D E F Signalized 10• 10.0 and 20.0 and 35.0 and 55.0 and 80. 0 20 0 35.0 55.0 80.0 0 Stop Sign Control 51 10 and <15 15 and X25 25 and X35 35 and <50 50 Accident History Historical accident data for the section of S. 55th St. between the intersections Wh Ave_ S and 99th PI S was obtained from the City of Renton. A total of 4 accidents occurred from January 1, 2004 through December 31St 2008. Three accidents occurred on the street section between the intersections, one accident occurred at 99th Pi S and no accidents occurred at 98th Ave. South. Two of the accidents were injury type accidents with one being a fatality. The fatality was a single vehicle travelling in the westbound direction approximately 319 ft west of 99th PI. South. None of the accidents occurred at the curve on S. 55th St. where the site access street is proposed to be located. Based on the field review and historical accident data there are no readily apparent safety issues that should result from the proposed development. The historical accident data is included in the technical appendix. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 6 shows projected 2011 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period from the 2009 traffic count to the 2011 horizon year of the Page 4 Wilson Park rraffial proposal. Cit of Renton historical traffic count data supports the 3% per year growth rate on S. 55 Street. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 6 shows the projected future 2011 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site -generated PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 4 were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the Wilson Park site access street/S. 55th St. intersection. The study intersection operates at an excellent LOS A for future 2011 conditions including project -generated traffic. SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION Sight distance on S 55th St. is excellent looking to the west from the proposed site access street and extends approximately 785 ft. to Talbot Rd. South. Sight distance to the east is limited by a horizontal curve on S 55th Street. This curve has a posted advisory speed of 15 mph. In evaluating sight distance, the generally accepted rule is to add 5 mph to the posted speed to determine the design speed of the street. Sight distance requirements looking to the east from the Wilson Park site access street are therefore based on a 20 mph design speed for the horizontal curve on S 55"' Street. Intersection sight distances and stopping sight distances were measured and compared to City requirements at the Wilson Park site access street) S 55th St. intersection. City of Renton is requirements are based on current AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" standards. Intersection Sight Distance AASHTO standards for a 20 mph design speed require an intersection sight distance of 145 ft. looking to the left (east) from the site access street (using an eye height of 3.5 ft_ and a vehicle height of 4.25 ft.). Attached in the technical appendix are Exhibits 9-55 and 9-58 showing the current AASHTO standards for intersection sight distance. A right turning vehicle exiting from the side street is required to enter the westbound lane and accelerate to 85% of the design speed so as not to interfere with the traffic flow. The geld measured intersection sight distance looking to left (east) from the site access street is 215 ft. thus exceeding the AASHTO required 145 feet. Intersection sight distance looking to the right from the site access street is excellent and extends all the way to Talbot Rd. S at approximately 785 ft. Page 5 Wilson Park Stopping Sight Distance Stopping sight distance is the distance traveled while the vehicle driver perceives a situation requiring a stop, realizes that stopping is necessary, applies the brake, and comes to a stop. A stopping sight distance of 115 ft. is required for a 20 mph design speed (using an eye height of 3.5 ft. and an object height of 2 ft.). Attached in the technical appendix is Exhibit 3-1 showing the current AASHTO standards for stopping sight distance. There is an approximate 10% downgrade in the westbound direction on S 55 h Street. The required stopping sight distance is therefore increased an additional 40 ft. to account for a 10% downgrade with a 20 mph design speed. The required westbound stopping sight distance therefore is 115 + 40 ='155 feet. The field measured westbound stopping sight distance is 197 ft. thus exceeding the required 155 feet. Stopping sight distance for eastbound vehicles on S. 55th St. is excellent and extends from Talbot Rd. S. approximately 785 feet to the site access street. The City of Renton AASHTO based intersection and stopping sight distance requirements are met at the Wilson Paris site access street/ S 55th St. intersection in both the east and west directions. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. One existing single family home on site will be removed with this development resulting in a net increase of 13 single family homes. The net new daily trips due to this development are 124 trips (13units x 9.57 daily trips per unit). The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $9,300 (124 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). Page 6 Pa SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Tra, We recommend that the Wilson Park Plat be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk for site access street and internal site streets as shown on the site plan. Contribute the approximately $9,300 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or la nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, p A L i+ Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 7 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WILSON PARK PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECTION EXISTING 2009 WITHOUT PROJECT 2011 WITH PROJECT Site Access St1S 55th St. NA NA SB (A 9.9) Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual 2000 XX) LOS and average control delay for the worst approach or movement at an unsignalized intersection SB) southbound approach Page 8 dUr"FLAD F h 43 L j-11 PL I IL rraff- NORTHWEST ` TRA F-r1c 1.1 rri S1 7! rraff- NORTHWEST ` TRA F-r1c 1.1 Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Vicinity Map IE w Figure 1 4. U Aj LA tj Projekt Sfite__ PL Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Vicinity Map IE w Figure 1 7ra r,- rRAr IC J 1, 64v SIST CT 7v vOaP Ap SV if OL IL c e h to rr y T if A2 iY 4 *dk,- Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Area Map a 't Ak- 7aUML! A ft tl! Alp if A2 iY 4 *dk,- Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Area Map a 't Ak- 7aUML! 4 ft tl! Alp Figure 2 CI 1'i 7sFrf1 ] 6• n1u :LW A I3r7l05-fan 1 olta,w a /.se' K ,.-OwW 6rrtx• K . V4 sr -+. Gi r . tomes tnsran- x SDl+di bis r ' . Cr_"[ V mw r i krn n I Ili IC I 17 I I II I f'1 inn 1 IN _ __ _ __._/ f,.'. I • 1r1 i +y Nrr I IMiNA 14K11 I 1 4f/ h 1 e L_ _ J i • I II s'rw l I I I Hh:t 5 a+T x 3,n S rt' af 3 I WIS X, 055 M j yr s • II,, F rnw r ** C' -' us./n , i 3.! r----- ----- li. I ahs, « I sa / .r `{ r AF S 0WO rGic I sSE 1//. i ` _ _ _ J r .. _ 96 o,. s %'j,• I — 5r r . J IG i IFIL ryO i I I+ ••.1 s ' .+ r Q ry`1 I s / x.0 ioelelxleoans - +I 'S I} IL rs y_yrle e' - I wDra vivre sort Lo, r r a ti NIP iamr25Mv res a r' M }% 0 t`. I • . :' '.` $• Q mw C MOM OT I rn+o oars atf' SF6M9MOYOMIMt • M0. ' Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Site Plan Figure 3 65% t jm taz d:; ST 79% 3 S ssr, i ST 4 -4o- r- 14% v 7-o 4 4- 2 0-0- 0 J th St rrafff-.. .. Nor, ' rRA FF,(c ExPER 77.5 SL KUT-i ST 7% 21% 3 4 14% r-- 3 S- tea ,T 4 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Enter 9 Exit 5 Total 94 Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution Legend 15% Percentage of Project Traffic 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Figure 4 Traffl---t.' NOf7THN i 7 -RAF -,c -1C EXPEERTS r. x 197r•i ST d SL MTm ST S Si3y a, N 4 N C C E N N N C+7 2 Lanes 2 Lanes r s sst., sT 95 mph 2 Lanes sc IV, ST 25 mph — — 25 mph ch cn E J ELn J N N N cM S : i 5 t4 f 5T t7 E n i Legend 2 Lanes Number of travel lanes 25 mph Speed Limit Stop Sign Control Advisory Speed Sign Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Figure Existing Conditions 5 NORTHWEST L' TRA FFfC EXFyE`R T.S n SE t9LYT•I ST Y H7 9J C $c. 19J7 -I aT S Sp:D P" . l iszN:; sr SSST4 S7 1 sr >I*^sl:! sT r 4 sw r Future Without Existing Project o 0-1 ` 0 466-(D- 121 o, J Q 494-0-128 to Access/ S 55th St Site Access! S 55tH St Future With Project 7 j 2 494-0-128 to Access! S 55th St u Wilson Park Plat - City of Renton Figure PM Peak Hour Volumes for Existing and Future Conditions 6 TECHNICAL APPENDIX r 1 T Prepamu for: 1 T TraffeK Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX (425) 861.8877 E -Mail: TC2iw@aol.cum it teraection.- 96th Ave S @ S 55th St Locatlon: Renton WBEIDBE Date of Count. Checked By: Tues 6116M LBP iime interval From North on (SIB) 98th Ave S From South on (NB) 96th Ave S From East on (WB) S 5th St From West on (EB) S 5th St Interval Total Ending at T L S R T L S R T L S R T L S R 1 4:15 P 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 29 0 0 0 88 1 122 4:30 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 24 0 1 0 77 1 103 C45 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 32 0 1 0 0 109 0 144 5:00 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 34 0 1 0 0 124 1 160 5:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 17 0 0 0 116 3 138 5:30 P 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 35 0 0 0 112 0 151 5:45 P 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 23 0 0 0 106 1 135 6:00 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 80 1 110 6:15P t] 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45P 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00P 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TotalJ. 1SurveD0000a05162240---[ 1 0 816 8 1063 Peak Hour: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM Total 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 119 1 0 0 0 463 4 593 Approach 0 5 121 467 593 HV Na Na Na rda 0.0% F`HF Wa 0.63 0.82 0.93 0.93 S 5th St S 5th St 121 Pedr_0 i 4-- 129 221 Bike 0 5g8 1 0 Bike 17 4WE4 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM 0- tPed FEM. ee ! N 5 E W Ped' 0 x 3 L±Ej 1.0 PHF Peak Hour Volume INT 01 0 Bike, 0 PHF %HV INT 02 0 EB 0.93 We INT 03 0 Chock WB 0.82 n1a INT 04 0 ts: 593 NB 0.63 rda INT 05 0 ll Out: 593 SB da Wa INT 06 No Peds 0 98th Ave S Intersection 0.93 0.0% INT 07 0 Bicycles From: N S E W INT OB 0 INT 01 0 Special Notes: INT 09 0 INT 02 0 INT +0 0 INT 03 0 NT I1 0 INT 04 0 INF 12 0 INT 05 0 0 01 0 INT 06 0 INT 07 0 NT 08 2 2 DI 2 DI 0 2 TM07 D9043 n6z T«2a 9 la,5 _r&% 4 !,30 7.176 u RENTON TRANS. SYS T r) f; o K w q r R 3 f ae q f a oe q C) 6 7 m 2 w 2 6 Q a 2 a 5 22c 2i o 43 u 2tz f l;,2e 9 e V 2\430 I37r R K' ins SYS e j L b r d E o S o @ 22 cl to- c u 6 c w jtn I q9D WO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUM tY general Information Site Informatiok. Analyst Intersection A enc /Ga. Jurisdiction Renton Date Performed 6/1912009 Analysis Year 2011 Future with Project Analysis Time Period PM peak DIro'ect Description ast/West Street: S 55th St orth/South Street: Site Access St ntersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Jehicle Volumes and Ad ustments IAa or Street Eastbound Westbound 0ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Jolume 7 494 0 0 128 2 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 lourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 531 1 0 0 1 137 2 percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Aedian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 7.onf1 uration LT TR J stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Jolume 0 0 0 1 0 4 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 lourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 4 ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ercent Grade (%) 0 0 tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 3onf1 uration LR 3ela , Queue Len th, and Level of Servlce kpproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration LT LR i (vph) 7 5 m) (vph) 1457 733 c 0.00 0.01 35% queue length 0.01 0.02 ontrol Delay 7.5 9.9 OS A A 4pproach Delay 4pproach LOS A fCS200JM copyright 0 2DDO university offlorids, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 13ASHTO— Gea erric Desig-- . ighways and Strews Time gap (a) at design speed of Clegl n vehicle m!12r road Passenger car 6.5. Single -unit truck 8.5 Combination truck 10.5 Nate: Time gaps are for a stopped vehicle- to turn right onto or cross a two4ane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. The table values require adjustment as follows: For multilane highways: For crossing a major road with more than two lanes, add 4,5 seconds for passenger cars and 0.7 seconds for trucks for each additional lane to be crossed and for narrow medians that cannot store the design vehicle. For minor road approach grades: If the approach grade Is an upgrade that exceeds 3 percent, add 0.1 seconds for each percent grade. Exhibit 9-57. Time Gap for Cm B2 —PJght Turn from Stop and Case B3---Cressing Maneuver Note: Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to turn right onto or cross a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less For other conditions, the time gap must be adjusted and required sight distance recalculated. Exhdbit 9-55. Desdgn Intersection Sight Distances --Case B2 ---tight Turn from Stop and Case B3---C3rWing Maneuver M Metsc US customsq intersection Sight Intersection sight Stopping distance- for Stopping distance for Design sight passenger cars Design sight Essen ar cars speed distance Calculated Design speed distance Calculated Design kmfi m m m mph) tt ft ft 20 20 36.1 40 15 so 143.3 145 so 35 54.2 55 20 115 191.1 195 40 5o 72.3 75 25 155 236.9 240 50 65 90.4 95 30 .. .. 200 286.7 290 60 85 108.4 110 35 250 334.4 335 70 145 126.5 130 40 305 382.2 385 80 130 144.6 145 45 360 430.0 = 430 90 160 162.6 165 50 425 477.8 480 100 185 180.7 185 55 495 525.5 530 118 220 198.8 200 60 570.. 573.3 575 120 250 216.8 220 65 t345 621.1 625 13D 285 234.9 235 70 730 688.9 670 75 82D 716.6 720 80 914 764.4 766 Note: Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to turn right onto or cross a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less For other conditions, the time gap must be adjusted and required sight distance recalculated. Exhdbit 9-55. Desdgn Intersection Sight Distances --Case B2 ---tight Turn from Stop and Case B3---C3rWing Maneuver M Iatersecrions Note: intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger oar to tum left onto a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. For other conditions, the time gap must be adjusted and required sight distance recalculated. Exhibit 9-55. Design llntersw6on Sight Distance--wC B 1 LeR Tarn From Stop Sight distance design for left turns. at divided -highway intersections ghould consider multiple design vdhicles and median width. If the design vehicle used to determine sight distance for a divided -highway intersectitm is larger than a passenger car, then sight distance for left turns will need to be checked for that selected design vehicle and far smaller design vehicles as well. If the divided -highway median is wide enough, to store the design vehicle with a clearance to the through lanes of approximately I m 13 ft] at both ends of the vehicle, no separate analysis for the departure sight triangle for left turns is needed on the minor -road approach for the near roadway to the left. In mast cases, the departure sight triangle for Tight turas (Case B2) will provide sufficient sight distance for a passenger car to cross the near roadway to reach the av% ian. Possible exceptioris are addressed in.tk discussion of Case B3. If the design vehicle can be stored in the median_ with adequate clearance to the through lames, a departure sight triangle to the right for left turns_ should be provided for that design vehicle turning left from #leo median roadway. Where the median is not -wide enough to store the design vehicle, a departure sight triangle should be.provided for that design vehicle to turn ]eft from the minor -road approach. The median width should be considered in determining the number of lanes to be crossed. Tho median width should be converted to equivalent lanes. For example, a 7.2-m j24 -ft] median should be considered as two additional lanes to be crossed in applying the multilane highway adjustment for time gaps in Exhibit 9-54. Futthermore. a departure sight triangle for left tarns from the median roadway should be provided for the largest design vehicle that can be stored on M Metric US CUStOT Intersection sight Intersection s1gh1 Stopping distance for Stopping distance for Design sight ssen er cars Design sight passenger cars speed distance Calculated Design speed distance Calculated Design km1h m m m MPW— tt ft ft 20 70 41.7 45 is 80 165.4 170 30 35 62.6 65 20 115 2.20.5 225 40 50 B3.4 65 25 155 275.6 g _- 50 65 104.3 105 30 200 330.6 335 so 85 125,1 130 35 250 385.9 390 70 105 146.0 150 40 305 441.0 445 00 130 166.6 170 45 360 495.1 500 90 160 187.7 190 so 425 551.3 555 100 185 208.5 210 55 485 806.4 610 110 220 229.4 2.30 60 570 661.5 685 120 250 250.2 255 65 545 716.6 720 130 285 271.1 275 70 730 771.8 775 75 820 826.9 830 8o 910 882.0 885 Note: intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger oar to tum left onto a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. For other conditions, the time gap must be adjusted and required sight distance recalculated. Exhibit 9-55. Design llntersw6on Sight Distance--wC B 1 LeR Tarn From Stop Sight distance design for left turns. at divided -highway intersections ghould consider multiple design vdhicles and median width. If the design vehicle used to determine sight distance for a divided -highway intersectitm is larger than a passenger car, then sight distance for left turns will need to be checked for that selected design vehicle and far smaller design vehicles as well. If the divided -highway median is wide enough, to store the design vehicle with a clearance to the through lanes of approximately I m 13 ft] at both ends of the vehicle, no separate analysis for the departure sight triangle for left turns is needed on the minor -road approach for the near roadway to the left. In mast cases, the departure sight triangle for Tight turas (Case B2) will provide sufficient sight distance for a passenger car to cross the near roadway to reach the av% ian. Possible exceptioris are addressed in.tk discussion of Case B3. If the design vehicle can be stored in the median_ with adequate clearance to the through lames, a departure sight triangle to the right for left turns_ should be provided for that design vehicle turning left from #leo median roadway. Where the median is not -wide enough to store the design vehicle, a departure sight triangle should be.provided for that design vehicle to turn ]eft from the minor -road approach. The median width should be considered in determining the number of lanes to be crossed. Tho median width should be converted to equivalent lanes. For example, a 7.2-m j24 -ft] median should be considered as two additional lanes to be crossed in applying the multilane highway adjustment for time gaps in Exhibit 9-54. Futthermore. a departure sight triangle for left tarns from the median roadway should be provided for the largest design vehicle that can be stored on M AASFITO- -Geometric Design of ., ighways and Streets c e W LO a H cl o?rnhN DaeoOvv t} jTgou r afi rLoC"w d W O st [Q iD 't C m 1A 1h L'9 mM H meaIN CV toC4 T 0300400* M ( uy]C L'7GD ACDto O) w GV ' tC S N CU CQ NDi N Itc" i 0 C C5o J man 0m400too000 0 "+'?du?cnGgttina cy. C U7[ ri 1 CpV tiC?Q3C711?[VC" lcDiVy l 7dC 4W Nig9rww t- T- N Cv C01 Eind Q W OCJ r (L) C'} C1i qqpp 117 iT! r •-- r"N 47h rG''3WOi C q U? CV N c*? 1t) [D to G V00LtOpOC]O LV c? d 1q [G h Ob 0) - N m ca 11f T Ir- {- 112 cm 0 46 ]=[ z V Wilsons 253-862-7285 p.2 PLAT NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TO: ROBERT WILSON 21703 - 60TH ST. E LAKE TAP PS, WA 98391 PLAT RESERVATION EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2012 The plat name, WILSON PARK has been reserved for €uture use by ROBERT WILSON. certify that I have checked the records of previously issued and reserved plat nacres. The requested name has not been previously used in King County nor is it currently reserved by any party_ This reservation will expire February S, 2013, one year from today. It may be renewed one year at a time. If the plat has not been recorded or the reservation renewed by the above date it will be deleted. evfy,sc;tcA jeysi r. Deputy Lamy Chadwkk PLAT NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TO: STEVEN BECK 4735 NE 4TH ST RENTON, WA 98059 PLAT RESERVATION EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 2009 The plat name, WILSON PARK has been reserved for future use by ROBERT WILSON. I certify that I have checked the records of previously issued and reserved plat names. The requested name has not been previously used in King County nor is it currently reserved by any party. This reservation will expire May 13, 2010, one year from today. It may be renewed one year at a time. If the plat has not been recorded or the reservation renewed by the above date it will be deleted_ Deputy Auditor i PLAT NAME RESERVATION CERTIFICATE TO: STEVEN BECK 4735 NE 4TH ST RENTON, WA 98059 PLAT RESERVATION EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 2009 The plat name, WILSON PARK has been reserved for future use by ROBERT WILSON. I certify that I have checked the records of previously issued and reserved plat names. The requested name has not been previously used in King County nor is it currently reserved by any party. This reservation will expire May 13, 2010, one year from today. It may be renewed one year at a time. If the plat has not been recorded or the reservation renewed by the above date it will be deleted_ Deputy Auditor LIM King County ° ' Records and Elections Division Recorder's Office pepaftmCnt of Executive SeMm Kiag County Adminish on Bu0ding 500 Fourth Avmuc, Room 311 Seattle, WA 98104-2337 206) 296-1570 206) 296-0109 TDD 206) 205-8396 FAX Plat and Condominium Name Reservation Reguest Please NOTE: There is a $50.00 fee for this transaction Reservation TVe: X PLAT o CONDOMINIUM Name Reserved: Reserved by: Contact: Telephone: Address: City, State, Zip: Section: 3 Township: S 3 Norlh Range: Quarter: -T Quarter: Tax Parcel Number. 312-305-7112 Comments: Signed: 2 - Thisibis name reservation will expire one year from the date this request is filed with the K,tNG COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE. If the condominium or plat has not been declared within this time, and reservation of this name is still desired, a new NAME RESERVATION REQUEST must be filed The fee for Plat and Condo Name Reservations is $50.00 per KCO 2.12.120.D FOR RECORDERS USE ONLY: Approved: Date Filed: Date Reservation Expires: Records) Assessor) Sent to Assessor's: AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING Z C - ( sworn on oath, deposes says: 1. On the _ day of , 20 / , I installed f public information sigp s) nd lactic flyer b on the property located at C f for the following project: ZLII1 ,<,) 11-9 p ltz-- 1h, 2 - Project name a &/", •sol Owner Name 2. 1 have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. 3. This/these public information sign(s) waslwere constructed and installed in locations in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 7 Title 4 of Renton Municipal Code and the City's "Public Informations Installation" hand o # age. G nstaller igna 6r SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to bef me this a of, , 201 . Ry T F:Y PpBp and for the State of Washington, ding at commission expires on f ao1 . H:ICED\DataTorns-TemplateslSelf-Help HandoutslPlanninglpubsign.doc - 3 - 03/00/2009 4„ S6. U PROPOSED LAND USE ACTION ------- O Typ of Action: (Pravlded by AppGoant) i SITE MAP Project Nage: (Provided byAAPlicant) i LaminatmG r b Site Address: (Provided by Applicant) Imialled by Applicant i To SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBTAIN t__________________ ADDITIONAL iNFORIVATION PLEASE O coNTACT CITY OF RENTON STAFF AT. v Development Servlaes Division I Space I 1055 South Grady Way j reserved For ; i PLASTIC Renten, Washington 95055 ;City provided 1! CASE d25 4311 7PUD PUBLIC i I installed t7y I NoncE applicant Please reference the Fmjert number- If no 6-5'.x 14" number is listed reference the project name. InS'11llet, instruct-iors: Please ensure the bottom of the sign docs not exceed 48" fr'cn thcd ground. S K NOTES: Use 4` x4"' x 12' POSTS Use 4'x d' x 112" PLYWOOD Use 112" x3* GALV, LAG BOLTS- WrWASHERS l INN LETTERING: Use HELVETICA LETTERING, BLACK ON WHITE BACKGROUND. 4" j TITLE 3" ALL CAPS I OTHER 1 112" CAPS and 1" LOWER CASE H:10ED1DataTorms-Templates\Self-Help HandoutsTlanninglpubsign.doc - 4 - 03/06/2009 Printed: 03-02-2012 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA12-013 Payment Made: 03/02/2012 10:46 AM Total Payment: 7,210.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: r r_ pit r °•;' r- ,. . Receipt Number: R1200928 Payee. VISA - ROBERT D WILSON **9706 Trans Account Code Description Amount 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee 210.00 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 1,000.00 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat 4,000.00 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD 2,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Credit C VISA Account Balances 7,210.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000000.020.345 Park Mitigation Fee 00 3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee 00 3954 650.000000.000.237 Special Deposits 00 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees 00 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/Waivers 00 5008 000.000000.007.345 Sinding Site/Short Plat 00 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees 00 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 00 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat 00 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat 00 5013 000.000000.007.345 FUD 00 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees 00 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment 00 5016 000.000000.00'7.345 Mobile Home Parks 00 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone 00 5018 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 00 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev 00 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval 00 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 00 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees 00 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee 00 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend 00 5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies 00 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) 00