HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-06-071_MISCb. Underground hazardous waste treat-
ment and storage facilities shall comply
with RMC 4-5-120, Underground Storage
Tank Secondary Containment Regula-
tions;
c. Hazardous waste treatment and stor-
age facilities shall comply with article 80
of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by
ordinance by the City of Renton;
d. A hazardous waste spill contingency
plan for immediate implementation in the
event of a release of hazardous wastes
at the facility shall be reviewed and ap-
proved by the Renton Fire Department
prior to issuance of any permits; and
e. The location of all on-site and off-site
facilities must comply with the State siting
criteria as adopted in accordance with
RCW 70.105.210.
6. Review of Street Frontage Landscape:
A mix of hard suriaces, structured planters,
and terraces may be incorporated into street
frontage landscape buffers where such fea-
tures would enhance the desired streetscape
character for that particular neighborhood.
7. Review of Compliance to Design
Guidelines for Development in CD, RM-U,
RM-T, UC-N1, and UC-N2 Zones: Develop-
ment proposed in the zones where design
guidelines are in effect must show how they
comply with the intent and the mandatory el-
ements of the design guidelines located in
RMC 4-3-100.
(Ord. 3981, 4-7-1986; Ord. 4186, 11-14-1988;
Amd. Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 4851,
8-7-2000; Ord. 4854, 8-14-2000; Ord. 5028, 11-
24-2003; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004)
G. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
PROCEDURES:
1. General: All site development plan appli-
cations shall be reviewed in the manner de-
scribed below and in accordance with the
purposes and criteria of this Section. The De-
velopment Services Division may develop
additional review procedures to supplement
those required in this subsection.
9 -67
4-9-200G
2. Preapplication Conference: Applicants
are encouraged to consult early and infor-
mally with representatives of the Develop-
ment Services Division and other affected
departments. This consultation should in-
clude a general explanation of the require-
ments and criteria of site development
review, as well as the types of concerns that
might be anticipated for the proposed use at
the proposed site.
3. Submittal Requirements and Applica-
tion Fees: Submittal requirements and appli-
cation fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-8-
120C, Land Use Applications, and 4-1-170,
Land Use Review Fees. Consistent with sub-
section B of this Section, an applicant may
submit:
a. A Master Plan; or
b. A Site Plan; or
c. A combined Master Plan and Site
Plan for the entire site; or
d. A Master Plan addressing the entire
site, and a Site Plan(s) for one or more
phases of the site that address(es) less
than the entire site.
4. Public Notice and Comment Period
Required: Whenever a completed site devel-
opment plan review application is received,
the Development Services Division shall be
responsible for providing public notice of the
pending site plan application, pursuant to
AMC 4-8-090, Public Notice Requirements.
5. Circulation and Review of Applica-
tion: Upon receipt of a completed applica-
tion, the Development Services Division shall
route the application for review and comment
to various City departments and other juris-
dictions or agencies with an interest in the ap-
plication. This routing should be combined
with circulation of environmental information
under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Review
Procedures.
Comments from the reviewing departments
shall be made in writing within fourteen (14)
days. Unless a proposed master plan or site
plan is subsequently modified, the recom-
mendations of the reviewing departments
shall constitute the final comments of the re-
(Revised 1/05)
4-9-200G
spective departments with regard to the pro-
posed master plan or site plan. Lack of
comment from a department shall be consid-
ered a recommendation for approval of the
proposed plan. However, all departments re-
serve the right to make later comments of a
code compliance nature during building per-
mit review. This includes such requirements
as exact dimensions, specifications or any
other requirement specifically detailed in the
City Code.
6. City Notification of Applicant: After the
departmental comment period, the Develop-
ment Services Division shall notify the appli-
cant of any negative comments or conditions
recommended by the departments. When
significant issues are raised, this notification
should also normally involve a meeting be-
tween the applicant and appropriate City rep-
resentatives. The applicant shall have the
opportunity to respond to the notification ei-
ther by submitting a revised site plan applica-
tion, by submitting additional information, or
by stating in writing why the recommenda-
tions are considered unreasonable or not ac-
ceptable.
7. Revisions or Modifications to Site De-
velopment Review Application: Whenever
a revised site development plan or new infor-
mation is received from an applicant, the De-
velopment Services Division may recirculate
the application to concerned departments.
Consulted departments shall respond in writ-
ing within ten (10) days with any additional
comments. In general, the City's environmen-
tal determination of significance or nonsignif-
icance pursuant to RMC 4-9-070,
Environmental Review Procedures, will not
be issued until after final departmental com-
ments on the site development plan or re-
vised site development plan are received.
8. Special Review for Planned Actions: A
consistency review shall be conducted by the
Zoning Administrator for proposals submitted
under the authority of an adopted Planned
Action Ordinance.
If found consistent with the Planned Action
Ordinance, including required conditions and
mitigation measures, the Zoning Administra-
tor shall notify the applicant of the departmen-
tal comments and the consistency analysis
consistent with subsection G6 of this Section.
(Revised 1/05) 9 -68
Revisions or modifications may be made in
accordance with subsection G7 of this Sec-
tion.
If found inconsistent with the Planned Action
Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator shall no-
tify the applicant of the departmental com-
ments and the consistency analysis
consistent with subsection G6 of this Section.
Revisions or modifications may be made in
accordance with subsection G7 of this Sec-
tion. If the application is still found to be in-
consistent once these steps have been
completed, the Zoning Administrator shall
forward the findings to the Environmental Re-
view Committee to determine ij additional en-
vironmental review is required. The
application shall then follow the process, in
subsection D of this Section, to determine if a
public hearing is necessary.
9. Environmental Review Committee to
Determine Necessity for Public Hearing:
Upon receipt of final departmental comments
and after the close of the public comment pe-
riod, the Environmental Review Committee
shall determine the necessity for a public
hearing pursuant to subsection D2a of this
Section.
10. Environmental Review Committee
Decision Appealable to Hearing Exam-
iner: The final decision by the Environmental
Review Committee on whether a site devel-
opment review application requires a public
hearing may be appealed within fourteen (14)
days to the Hearing Examiner pursuant to
RMC 4-8-11 OE, Appeals.
11. Administrative Approval of Site De-
velopment Plan: For projects not requiring a
public hearing, the Reviewing Official shall
take action on the proposed site development
plan. Approval of a site development plan
shall be subject to any environmental mitigat-
ing measures that may be a part of the City's
declaration of significance or nonsignifi-
cance.
12. Hearing Examiner Approval of Site
Development Plan: For projects requiring a
public hearing pursuant to subsection D of
this Section, the Hearing Examiner shall take
action on the proposed site development plan
following the hearing process in subsection
G13 of this Section.
8. INSTRUMENTS IMPLEMENTING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
In order to fully accomplish the objectives and
principles of the Comprehensive Plan, all resolu-
tions and regulations of the City concerned with
the development and welfare of the community
and its people shall be considered in light of the
principles, objectives and policies set forth in the
Plan. To fulfill the requirements of chapters 35.63
and 36. 70A RCW, and in the interest of public
safety, health, morals and the general welfare,
the following instruments will implement the Com-
prehensive Plan:
1. Title 4 -Development Regulations:
Chapter 1 Administration and Enforcement
Chapter 2 Zoning Districts: Uses and Stan-
dards
Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and
Overlay Districts
Chapter 4 City-Wide Property Develop-
ment Standards
Chapter 5 Building and Fire Prevention
Standards
Chapter 6 Street and Utility Standards
Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations
Chapter 8 Permits -General and Appeals
Chapter 9 Permits -Specific
Chapter 1 O Nonconforming Structures, Uses
and Lots
Chapter 11 Definitions
(Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005)
2. Title 8 -Health and Sanitation:
Chapter 2 Storm and Surface Water Drain-
age
Chapter 4 Water
Chapter 5 Sewers
Chapter 6 Solid Waste Utility
Chapter 7 Noise Level Regulations
3. Title 1 O -Traffic:
Chapter 1 O Parking Regulations
(Ord. 4437, 2-21-1994; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000;
Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002)
1 · 3
4-1-080C
4-1-080 INTERPRETATION:
A. ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION:
1. General: The Planning/Building/Public
Works Administrator is hereby authorized to
make interpretations regarding the imple-
mentation of unclear or contradictory regula-
tions contained in this Title. Any interpretation
of the Renton Title IV Development Regula-
tions shall be made in accordance with the in-
tent or purpose statement of the specific
regulation and the Comprehensive Plan. Life,
safety and public health regulations are as-
sumed to prevail over other regulations.
2. Zoning Conflicts: In the event that there
is a conflict between either the development
standards or special development standards
listed in chapter 4-2 RMC, Zoning Districts:
Uses and Standards, and the standards and
regulations contained in another Section, the
Zoning Administrator shall determine which
requirement shall prevail in accordance with
the intent or purpose statement of the specific
regulation and the Comprehensive Plan. Life,
safety and public health regulations are as-
sumed to prevail over other regulation. (Ord.
5153, 9-26-2005)
B. CONFLICTS AND OVERLAPS:
This Title is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or
impair any existing easements, covenants, or
deed restrictions. However, where this Title and
another regulation, easement, covenant, or deed
restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes
the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. (Ord.
4071, 6-1-1987; Amd. Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005)
C. INTERPRETATION OF
REQUIREMENTS:
In interpreting and applying the provisions of this
Title, the requirements herein shall be:
1. Considered the minimum for the promo-
tion of the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare;
2. Liberally construed in favor of the gov-
erning body; and
3. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any
other powers granted under State statutes.
(Ord. 4071, 6-1-1987; Amd. Ord. 5153,
9-26-2005)
(Revised 12/05)
5. Facsimile Filings: Whenever any appli-
cation or filing is required under this Chapter,
it may be made by facsimile. Any facsimile fil-
ing received at the City after five o'clock (5:00)
p.m. on any business day will be deemed to
have been received on the following business
day. Any facsimile filing received after five
o'clock (5:00) p.m. on the last date for filing
will be considered an untimely filing. Any party
desiring to make a facsimile filing after four
o'clock (4:00) p.m. on the last day for the filing
must call the Hearing Examiner's office or
other City official with whom the filing must be
made and indicate that the filing is being
made by facsimile and the number to which
the facsimile copy is being sent. The filing
party must ensure that the facsimile filing is
transmitted in adequate time so that it will be
completely received by the City before five
o'clock (5:00) p.m. in all instances in which fil-
ing fees are to accompany the filing of an ap-
plication, those filing fees must be received by
the City before the end of the business day on
the last day of the filing period or the filing will
be considered incomplete and will be re-
jected. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-1992)
6. Notice of Appeal: (Reserved)
7, Restrictions on Subsequent Actions:
Any later request to interpret, explain, modify,
or retract the decision shall not be deemed to
be a new administrative determination creat-
ing a new appeal period for any new third
party to the permit. (Ord. 4168, 8-8-1988)
8. Limit on Number of Appeals: The City
has consolidated the permit process to allow
for only one open record appeal of all permit
decisions associated with a single develop-
ment application. (Ord. 4587, 3-18-1996,
Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997)
There shall be no more than one appeal on a
procedural determination or environmental
determination such as the adequacy of a de-
termination of significance, nonsignificance,
or of a final environmental impact statement.
Any appeal of the action of the Hearing Ex-
aminer in the case of appeals from environ-
mental determinations shall be joined with an
appeal of the substantive determination.
(Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985)
8 -25
4-8-11 OE
9. Exhaust of Administrative Remedies:
(Reserved)
D. APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS TO THE PLANNING/
BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT:
Any decisions made in the administrative process
related to the City's storm drainage regulations
may be appealed to the Planning/Building/Public
Works Administrator or his/her designee within fif-
teen (15) days and filed, in writing, with the Plan-
ning/Building/Public Works Department. The
Administrator shall give substantial weight to any
discretionary decision of the City rendered pursu-
ant to this Chapter. (Ord. 4342, 2-3-1992; Ord.
5156, 9-26-2005)
E. APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS:
(Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000)
1. Applicability and Authority:
a. Administrative Determinations:
Any administrative decisions made may
be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in
writing, with the Hearing Examiner, Ex-
aminer's secretary or City Clerk. (Ord.
4521, 6-5-1995)
b. Environmental Determinations:
Except for permits and variances issued
pursuant to RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline
Master Program Regulations, when any
proposal or action is granted, condi-
tioned, or denied on the basis of SEPA by
a nonelected official, the decision shall
be appealable to the Hearing Examiner
under the provisions of this Section.
c. Authority: To that end, the Examiner
shall have all of the powers of the office
from whom the appeal is taken insofar as
the decision on the particular issue is
concerned.
2. Optional Request for Reconsidera-
tion: See RMC 4-9-070N. (Ord. 5153,
9-26-2005)
(Revised 12/05)
4-9-2000
..
vii. Additional exemptions for the R-
14 Zone are listed in subsection C2c
of this Section.
2. Development Exempt from Site Plan
Review:
a. In the RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, RMH, RM,
CO, CA, CN, CV, CD, IL, IM, and IH
Zones: In all zones, the following types
of development shall be exempt from the
requirements of site plan review:
i. Interior remodel of existing build-
ings or structures.
ii. Facade modifications such as
the location of entrances/exits; the lo-
cation of windows; changes in sig-
nage; or aesthetic alterations.
iii. Planned unit developments.
iv. All development categorically
exempt from review under the State
Environmental Policy Act {chapter
43.21C RCW and chapter 197-11
WAC) and under RMC 4-9-070, Envi-
ronmental Review Procedures.
v. Underground utility projects.
b. In the R-10, R-14, COR, and UC-N1
and UC-N2 Zones: In the R-10, R-14,
COR, UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones, the fol-
lowing types of development shall be ex-
empt from the requirements of site plan
review:
(Revised 1/05)
i. Interior remodel of existing build-
ings or structures.
ii. Facade modifications such as
the location of entrances/exits, the lo-
cation of windows, changes in sig-
nage, or aesthetic alterations.
iii. Exterior remodeling or expan-
sion of an existing detached or semi-
attached home and/or primary resi-
dence, excluding the addition of a
new dwelling unit{s).
iv. All development categorically
exempt from the State Environmental
Policy Act (chapter 43.21 C RCW and
9 -62
chapter 197-11 WAC) and under
RMC 4-9-070, Environmental Re-
view Procedures.
v. Underground utility projects.
c. In the R-10 and R-14 Zones, the fol-
lowing types of development shall be ex-
empt from the requirements of Site Plan
Review:
i. New or replacement detached or
semi-attached homes on a single
previously platted lot.
ii. Planned unit developments.
iii. Development of detached or
semi-attached dwelling units on legal
lots where part of a subdivision appli-
cation.
d. In the R-1 O Zone, the following types
of development shall be exempt from the
requirements of site plan review: All de-
velopment categorically exempt from the
State Environmental Policy Act (chapter
43.21C RCW and chapter 197-11 WAC)
and under RMC 4-9-070, Environmental
Review Procedures, excluding shadow
platting of two (2) or more units per RMC
4-2-110F.
{Ord. 3981, 4-7-1986; Ord.4008, 7-14-1986; Ord.
4614, 6-17-1996; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord.
4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002;
Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003)
D. CRITERIA TO DETERMINE IF PUBLIC
HEARING REQUIRED:
In all cases, the public hearing for Master Plan or
Site Plan Review should be conducted concur-
rently with any other required hearing, such as re-
zone or subdivision, if the details of the
development are sufficiently defined to permit ad-
equate review. A public hearing before the Hear-
ing Examiner shall be required in the following
cases:
1. Master Plans:
a. All Master Plans proposed or re-
quired per subsection B of this Section,
Master Plan Review, Applicability. Where
a Master Plan is approved, subsequent
Site Plans submitted for future phases
r
. .
may be submitted and approved adminis-
tratively without a public hearing.
b. Exception for Planned Actions: A
hearing before the Hearing Examiner is
not required if both of the following crite-
ria are met:
i. One or more public hearings
were held where public comment
was solicited on the proposed
Planned Action Ordinance, and
ii. The environmental impact state-
ment for the planned action reviewed
preliminary conceptual plans for the
site which provided the public and
decision-makers with sufficient detail
regarding the scale of the proposed
improvements, the quantity of the
various types of spaces to be pro-
vided, the use to which the structure
will be put, and the bulk and general
form of the improvements.
2. Site Plan Review:
a. Significant Environmental Con-
cerns Remain: The Environmental Re-
view Committee determines that based
on departmental comments or public in-
put there are significant unresolved con-
cerns that are raised by the proposal; or
b. Large Project Scale: The proposed
project is more than:
i. One hundred (100) semi-
attached or attached residential
units; or
ii. One hundred thousand
(100,000) square feet of gross floor
area (nonresidential) in the IL or CO
Zones or other zones in the Employ-
ment Area Valley (EAV) land use
designation (see EAV Map in RMC 4-
2-0808); or
iii. Twenty five thousand (25,000)
square feet of gross floor area (non-
residential) in the CN, CD, CA, CV, or
CO Zones outside the Employment
Area Valley (EAV) land use designa-
tion (see EAV Map in RMC 4-2-
080B); or
9 • 63
4-9-200E
iv. Four (4) stories or sixty feet (60')
in height; or
v. Three hundred (300) parking
stalls; or
vi. Ten (10) acres in size of project
area.
c. Commercial or industrial property lies
adjacent to or abutting the RC, R-1, R-4,
R-8 and R-1 O Zones.
(Ord. 4551, 9-18-1995; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999;
Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963,
5-13-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003)
E. DECISION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN
AND MASTER PLANS:
The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon
plans based upon a finding that the proposal
meets Comprehensive Plan objectives and poli-
cies and the criteria in this subsection and in sub-
section F of this Section, as applicable. These
criteria also provide a frame of reference for the
applicant in developing a site, but are not in-
tended to discourage creativity and innovation.
Review criteria include the following:
1. General Review Criteria for Both Mas-
ter Plans and Site Plan Review:
a. Conformance with the Comprehen-
sive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives,
and policies. In determining compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan, conform-
ance to the objectives and policies of the
specific land use designation shall be
given consideration over city-wide objec-
tives and policies;
b. Conformance with existing land use
regulations;
c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding
properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed
site plan to the site;
e. Conservation of areawide property
values;
f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and
pedestrian circulation;
(Revised 1/05)
4-9-200E
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other
harmful or unhealthy conditions;
i. Availability of public services and fa-
cilities to accommodate the proposed
use; and
j. Prevention of neighborhood deterio-
ration and blight.
2. Additional Special Review Criteria for
COR, UC-N1, and UC-N2 Zones Only:
a. The plan is consistent with a Planned
Action Ordinance, if applicable;
b. The plan creates a compact, urban
development that includes a compatible
mix of uses that meets the Comprehen-
sive Plan vision and policy statements for
the Commercial/Office/Residential or Ur-
ban Center North Comprehensive Plan
designations;
c. The plan provides an overall urban
design concept that is internally consis-
tent, and provides quality development;
d. The plan incorporates public and pri-
vate open spaces to provide adequate
areas for passive and active recreation
by the occupants/users of the site, and/or
to protect existing natural systems;
e. The plan provides view corridors to
the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where
applicable;
f. Public access is provided to water
and/or shoreline areas;
g. The plan provides distinctive focal
points such as public area plazas, promi-
nent architectural features, or other
items;
h. Public and/or private streets are ar-
ranged in a layout that provides reason-
able access to property and supports the
land use envisioned; and
i. The plan accommodates and pro-
motes transit, pedestrian, and other alter-
native modes of transportation.
(Revised 1/05) 9 -64
3. Additional Criteria for the UC-N1 and
UC-N2 Zones Only:
a. The plan conforms to the approved
conceptual plan required by development
agreement for the subarea in question, if
applicable.
b. The plan conforms with the intent
and the mandatory elements of the de-
sign guidelines located in AMC 4-3-100.
The Master Plan clearly identifies the ur-
ban design concept for each district
enunciated in the Urban Center North
Comprehensive Plan policies.
c. The proposed interconnected circu-
lation network must demonstrate the
function and location of required circula-
tion elements required in AMC 4-3-100.
Internal or local roads shall provide ade-
quate edges and buffers to parking lots. A
sufficient number of pedestrian-oriented
streets are designated to implement the
vision for each district in the Urban Cen-
ter North Comprehensive Plan designa-
tion.
d. Gateways are designated consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and con-
ceptual plans for the gateway demon-
strate the design concept for gateway
treatment and identify significant gate-
way features to be provided.
e. The Master Plan includes a sequenc-
ing element that explains what phases of
the Master Plan will be built-out first, and
in what order the phases will be built, and
an estimated time frame.
4. Additional Criteria for the Airport In-
fluence Area: The plan conforms to AMC
4-3-020: Airport Compatible Land Use Re-
strictions.
5. Waiver of Further Consideration of
Site Plan Criteria: Approval of a Master Plan
that was not combined with a Site Plan appli-
cation may have satisfied portions of subsec-
tion F of this Section. The Reviewing Official
or his or her designee has discretion to waive
those portions of the requirements that have
been satisfied by the Master Plan approval.
Whenever the Zoning Administrator or his or
her designee has discretion to note those
"
.
ARVEST
.,) A R. T N E R S IF
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY:
QUADRANT 'A'
RETAIL SHOPS
C INEMA
TOTALSQIT
PARKING (Surface)
PARKING (Structured)
RATIO (Retail + Ci nema 704 ps / 146.4 k)
QUADRANT 'B'
JUNIOR ANCHORS
RETAIL SHOPS
FITNESS
roTAL SOIT
TOTAL PARKING
RATIO (1093 ps 1 235.2 k)
QUADRANT 'C'
ANCHOR
JUNIOR ANCHORS
Rt: 1' A IL SHOPS
TOTAL SOFT
TOTAL PARKING
RATIO (833 ps 1191.1 k RetaH)
92.4 k
54 k
146.4 k
29 ps
675 ps
4.8/1,000
80.8k
112.4 k
42 k
235.2 k
1093 ps
4 .6/1,000
126.8 k
41 .1 k
23.2 k
19U k
833 ps
4 .3/1,000
QUADRANT 'A,B,C' TOTAL SQFT 572.7 k
QUADRANT 'A,B,C' TOTAL PARKING 2630 ps
•~~~~ !LAN DING For leasing infonnatlon contact:
Project# 2043 00.03 MadisonMarx,ueue
July 21 st, 2006 Site Plan Rev iew
\
\
\
\
__.,,..
\
\
\
' \
(i
CALLISON
\.
\
\
\
\
'
\
\
\
\----~-----
. -~ ·--·. --~ . "'--../-------______ ,
• R E TAIL A N C HORS
• R E TAIL S H O P S
II THEAT RE
• PARKING S T R U CT U R E
r--~-------------
0' so 1 oo· 20 0 400"
1 ·
N
C)
Site Plan •
DIRECTOR'S FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN REGULATIONS
VIOLATION FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS APPELLANTS'RESPONSE
I
RMC 4-3-100.E.2.b: "The proposed development would comply with the intent of the • The Director failed to find that the requested modification (not the "proposed
Prohibits parking between design regulations through the creation of a retail development with development" as a whole) conforms with the intent and purpose of the Code, as
buildings and pedestrian-pedestrian-oriented elements ... If the buildings were required to required by RMC 4-9-250.D and 4-3-100.L. The presence of some pedestrian-
oriented streets. abut the sidewalk along Park Avenue N, a large gap would be oriented elements does not justify approval of a modification that eliminates other
, created between buildings, which would not be beneficial to required elements. Moreover, while the Site Plan for The Landing includes some
I pedestrians walking within the development. In addition, the pedestrian elements within surface parking lots, it largely ignores requirements for
building along the west side of Park [ J Avenue N has been pedestrian-oriented streets.
reconfigured to provide retail store fronts facing Park Avenue N.
Therefore, due to the provision of pedestrian pathways to the • The Director failed to address all but one of the modification criteria in RMC 4-9-
sidewalk along Park Avenue N, the provision of store fronts facing 250.D and 4-3-100.L. There are no findings by the Director and there is no evidence
Park Avenue N, and the desire to not have a large gap between to support a finding by the Examiner on any of these criteria.
buildings within the development staff recommends approval ... "
Site Plan Approval at p. 10. • The Director's modification relied on "the provision of store fronts facing Park
Avenue N," including buildings 102 and 400. Neither of these buildings has a
primary entrance facing Park Avenue N. In Update A, the Director specifically
approved the reconfiguration of building 400 to have its main entrance face north to
' the parking lot. I
I • The Director's reasoning is inconsistent. He found that "[i]f the buildings were
required to abut the sidewalk along Park Avenue N, a large gap would be created
between buildings, which would not be beneficial to pedestrians walking within the
development." See Site Plan Approval at p. 10. In Update A, the Applicant requested
and the Director approved the creation of such a gap. The current site plan (attached
as Exhibit A to Applicant's posthearing brief) shows a gap between buildings 406
and 407, which was created when a parking lot located between buildings and Park
Avenue was removed.
!
• The Director failed to find that "a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code
, impractical." RMC 4-9-250.D. An applicant's selective "desire to not have a large
1 gap between buildings" does not make compliance with the regulation impractical.
EXHIBIT A
VIOLATION FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS APPELLANTS'RESPONSE
I
RMC 4-3-100.F.1.b.i: No
1
"The portion of the surface parking lot located north of Building • The Applicant and Director have given parking lots higher priority than pedestrian-
more than 60 feet of 400 occupies more than 60 feet along [pedestrian-oriented] Park oriented streets. This is contrary to the intent ofRMC 4-3-100.F: to "allow an active
pedestrian-oriented street Avenue N. The original Site Plan decision approved more than 60 pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking
frontage is to be occupied feet of surface parking along Park N due to the desire to lot siting along sidewalks and building facades."
by off-street parking. consolidate surface parking, which would allow for future infill on
• The Director failed to address the 300+ feet of frontage on North 1 O'h street east of the surface parking areas ... and comply with the modification
criteria outlined in RMC 4-3-IOOL and RMC 4-9-250D." Update A building I 03 that is occupied by off-street parking. Therefore, the Director has only
at p. 4. modified the requirement as to the 60 feet of frontage along Park Avenue N.
I
• The Director's conclusion of compliance "with the modification criteria outlined in
RMC 4-3-100.L and RMC 4-9-250.D" is not a finding. It is a conclusory statement
without rationale or supporting evidence.
RMC 4-3-100.F.4.b: 'The driveway access to the proposed surface parking lots would • The Director failed to make findings regarding most of the criteria listed in RMC 4-
Prohibits surface parking be off of N I O'h Street, Park Avenue N ... The intent of prohibiting 9-250.D(2) and 4-3-100.L(l), including required findings that "a specific reason
driveways on pedestrian-driveway access to surface parking lots was to maintain a makes the strict letter of this Code impractical"; that "the proposed modification is
oriented streets. contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, the minimum adjustment necessary to implement [Comprehensive Plan] policies and
or eliminating access off of pedestrian-oriented streets. The objectives; that the modification "[c]onforms to the intent and purpose of the Code";
location of surface parking lots at mid block and the consolidation and that the modification "[c]an be shown to be justified and required for the use and
I
of surface parking areas to allow for further structured parking and situation intended." There is no evidence in the record that would support such
retail development requires that some access to the parking lot be findings. I provided off of pedestrian-oriented streets (N 1 O'h between Local
Avenue N and Park Avenue N) and Park Avenue N ... • The Director incorrectly concluded that "driveway access to the proposed surface
Due to the consolidation of surface parking areas, which would parking lots is unavoidable." The Applicant cannot create its own hardship and then
facilitate the future construction of structured parking and retail claim that code violations are unavoidable. There is no evidence to support the
development, into the center of the project site and the position that the Applicant could not have designed the Site Plan in compliance with
consolidation of access points to the parking area staff concurs that the RMC.
drivewav access to the 12ro12osed surface 12arking lots is
unavoidable." Site Plan Approval at p. 12 (emphasis added).
VIOLATION FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS APPELLANTS'RESPONSE
i
RMC 4-3-100.E.3.b: "The proposed reconfiguration of Buildings 400-407 results in the • These are not findings. They are recitations of preferences and arguments advanced
Primary entrances of site of Building 400 abutting Park A venue N and the primary by the Applicant. Again, the Director failed to address the modification criteria in
buildings shall be located on entrance facing to the north. To remain in keeping with the RMC 4-9-250.D and 4-3-100.L. The Director's bare conclusion that "[t]he proposed
the fa<;ade facing the pedestrian-oriented design of The Landing, the applicant contends modification complies with the modification criteria outlined in RMC 4-3-1 OOL and
pedestrian-oriented street. that it is preferable to allow the primar:,, entrance of Building 400 to RMC 4-9-2500" does not provide the justification and evidence necessary for a
be located on the north fa~ade towards the surface parking area, reviewable finding.
which is consistent with the entrances of Buildings 401-407 that
abut Building 400. In addition, the a11plicant contends that reguiring • Again, the Applicant and Director have oriented the Site Plan toward internal
the primar:,, entrance of Building 400 to be located along the Park parking lots and away from designated pedestrian-oriented streets. This is contrary to
Avenue N frontage would result in a disruption of the 11edestrian the purpose of RMC 4-3-100.£(3): to "ensure that building entries further the
flow as the primary entrance of this building would not be pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district."
consistent with the location of the primary entrance of the abutting
buildings. The proposed modification complies with the
modification criteria outlined in RMC 4-3-1 OOL and RMC 4-9-
2500." Update A at p.4 (emphasis added).
RMC 4-3-100.E.2.b: "If the buildings were required to abut the sidewalk along Park • The Director failed to cite any modification criteria to justify this conclusion.
Adjacent to sidewalk Avenue N, a large gap would be created between buildings, which
would not be beneficial to pedestrians walking within the • Again, the Director"s reasoning is inconsistent. He found that "[i]fthe buildings
development." Site Plan Approval at p.10. were required to abut the sidewalk along Park Avenue N, a large gap would be
created between buildings, which would not be beneficial to pedestrians walking
within the development." In Update A, the Applicant requested and the Director
approved the creation of such a gap. The current site plan (attached as Exhibit A to
Applicant's posthearing brief) shows a gap between buildings 406 and 407 that was
created when a parking lot located between buildings and Park Avenue North was
removed.
I
I
VIOLATION
RMC 4-2-120.E:
: All truck docking and
loading areas must be
screened from view of
abutting public streets.
RMC 4-3-100.F. l .b.i:
Parking must be located on
the rear or side of buildings.
FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS
"All pervious areas are proposed to be landscaped. The rear
building elevations and truck docking and loading areas located
along N gth Street are proposed to be landscaped such that the
landscaping would provide screening from the abutting public
right-of-way (N gth Street), except along the south fa9ade of
building 200 [ now 102]. It appears that additional area is available
along the south fa9ade of building 200 [ now 102] for landscaping
to screen the rear building fa9ade and truck docking and loading
area from view, therefore staff recommends as a condition of
approval that a revised landscape plan be submitted prior to the
issuance ofa building permit for building 200 [now 102] showing
additional landscaping along the south fa9ade of building 200 [ now
102] to screen the rear of the building and the truck docking and
loading area from view." Site Plan Approval at p. 14 ( emphasis
added).
"The surface parking would be located to the rear of the buildings
proposed on the north end of the project site and in the front of the
buildings located on the south end of the project site. The surface
parking areas have been consolidated towards the center of the
project site to allow for future infill development and parking
structures. The Landing proposal complies with the intent of the
parking location requirements as an active pedestrian environment
would be created along streets, particularly on the northern portion
of the project site .... Due to the project's ability to maintain an
i active pedestrian environment and the consolidation of surface
parking areas for future retail and structured parking development,
staff recommends approval of a modification to the design
regulations allowing surface parking to be located in front of the
retail areas located on the south portion of the site." Site Plan
Approval at pp.11-12 (emphasis added).
APPELLANTS'RESPONSE
• The Director failed to find that Applicant's proposed landscaping meets the
requirement to "screen" loading docks.
• The Director failed to find that the requested modification (not the "project" as a
whole) conforms with the intent and purpose of the Code, as required by RMC 4-9-
250.D and 4-3-100.L. The alleged "ability to maintain an active pedestrian
environment" does not justify approval of a modification that eliminates other
, required pedestrian amenities.
• The Director failed to address all but one of the modification criteria in RMC 4-9-
250.D and 4-3-100.L. There are no findings by the Director and there is no evidence
to support a finding by the Examiner on any of these criteria.
VIOLATION FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS APPELLANTS'RESPONSE
RMC 4-2-120.E: "A maximum 5-foot front and side yard along a street setback is • The Lowe's Setback Decision does not apply in this case. See Appellant's
A maximum 5-foot front required. The Director of Development issued a Determination, Prehearing Brief at pp. 20-24. To the extent that the Director issued a new
and side yard along a street i which states that the maximum front yard and side yard along a interpretation regarding setbacks in the Site Plan Approval for The Landing (the
setback is required. street setbacks may be altered through the Site Plan Review "Landing Setback Decision"), that interpretation is also a nullity. See Appellant's
Process without the need for a variance ... The purpose of the Prehearing Brief at pp. 24-31.
maximum setback requirement is to foster a pedestrian-oriented
development. The proposed development incorporates pedestrian-• Even if the Lowe's Setback Decision has some effect in this case, the Director
oriented elements within and around the development ... Due to failed to address or make findings regarding the criteria required for modifying
the pedestrian-oriented elements included in the development, it setbacks in the Lowe's Setback Decision. There is no evidence in the record to
would appear that The Landing has complied with the intent of the support such findings.
UC-NI zone and the front and side yard along a street maximum
setback may be increased." Site Plan Approval at p. 5.
"Landing development incorporated several pedestrian-oriented • Again, the Director failed to address or make any findings regarding the criteria '
elements, which resulted in the development as a whole being a required modification to land use requirements in RMC 4-9-250.D. There is no
pedestrian-oriented project. Therefore, the proposed modification evidence in the record to support such findings.
to the maximum 5-foot requirements were approved. The proposed
reconfiguration of the buildings located along the north side ofN
gth Stre~t includes a 20-foot wide pedestrian connection between
Buildings 406 and 407 to N gth Street is in keeping with the
conclusions reached in the original decision regarding the
pedestrian-oriented nature of the development. In addition, the
12ro12osed modification com12lies with the modification criteria
outlined in RMC 4-9-0250D." Update A at p. 4 (emphasis added).
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
CITY OF RENTON
JUN O 7 2003
RECEIVED
PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL
INFORMATION REPORT
FOR
THE LANDING
RENTON, WASHINGTON
October 31, 200:'i
Revised May 19, 2006
Prepared for:
Harvest Partners
8214 Westchester Drive, Suite 650
Dallas, TX 75225
Prepared by:
W& H PACIFIC, INC.
3350 Monte Villa Parkway
Bothell, Washington 98021
( 425) 951-4800
-
EXPIRES:
PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL
INFORMATION REPORT
FOR
THE LANDING
RENTON, WASHINGTON
October 31, 2005
Revised May 19, 2006
Prepared for:
Harvest Partners
8214 Westchester Drive, Suite 650
Dallas, TX 75225
Engineer:
Nicole F. Hernandez, P.E.
-
Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
Project Overview
1.1 Purpose and Scope
1.2 Existing Conditions
1.3 Developed Conditions
Preliminary Conditions Summary
2.1 Core Requirements
Off-Site Analysis
3 .1 Upstream Drainage Analysis
3.2 Downstream Drainage Analysis
Retention/ Detention Analysis and Design
4.1 Existing Site Hydrology
4.2 Developed Site Hydrology
4.3 Water Quality
4.4 Detention
Conveyance Systems Analysis and Design
5.1 Roof Downspout System
5.2 Proposed On-Site Conveyance System
Special Reports and Studies
Basin and Community Planning Areas
Other Permits
Erosion I Sedimentation Control Design
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Bond Quantities Worksheet, Retention/Detention Facility Summary Sheet and
Sketch, and Declaration of Covenant
Maintenance and Operations Manual
AppendixA -
Appendix B
Isopluvial Maps (2-year, 10-year, 100-year)
Stormshed Water Quality Calculations
W &H Pacific, Inc. TIR The Landing-Harvest Partners
P:IHarvest Partners'i032536\Management1.Transfers\Old WHP Folde_rs\Office\Wordltir title-toe 5-19-06.doc May 2006
I
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
1 T.I.R. Worksheet
2 Vicinity Map
3 .1 Existing Conditions Map
3.2 Developed Conditions Map
4 King County Soil Survey Map
W&H Pacific, Inc. TIR The Landing-Harvest Partners
P:\Harvest Partners\032536\lvfanagement'ITran.efers\Old W1!P Fold~rs\.Office\Word1tir title-toe 5-19-06.doc May 2006
11
-
1.0
1.1
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Purpose and Scope
The following Technical Information Report (TIR) is provided for The Landing
development project. The existing site lies within a portion of NW V. Section 8,
Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. and NE V. Section 7, Township 23 North,
Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, Washington (see Figure 2 -Vicinity Map).
The site is approximately 3 8.8 acres in size. The site discharges to the north in a tightline
system before entering an existing tight line system which is conveyed to Lake
Washington. The site is located in a direct discharge basin. As directed by the City of
Renton, the hydrologic analysis will be based on the 2001 Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology Manual).
Conveyance facilities will be based on the 1990 King County Surface Water Design
Manual (KCSWDM).
1.2 Existing Conditions
The existing site consists of asphalt parking lots, existing buildings, and landscape islands
(See Figure 3.1). A more detailed description of each basin can be found in Section 4.
1.3 Developed Conditions
The proposed development will include buildings with associated drive aisles, parking
and landscape. These buildings are to be used primarily for parking garages, retail shops
and commercial purposes.
All drainage facilities and water quality treatment facilities were designed to a complete
build-out condition, and were designed per the 200 I Ecology Manual and the City of
Renton Standards. The proposed development will consist of asphalt parking, drive
aisles, buildings, and landscaping throughout the entire site. (See Figure 3.2), Developed
Conditions Map). Existing and developed condition basin delineations are found in
Section 4.
W &H Pacific, Inc. TIR The Landing-Harvest Partners
P:IJ!arvest Partnersl032536\Management\Transfers\Old WHP Folders\Office\Wordlpre tir body 5-19-06.doc May 2006
I
King County Department of Development and.Environmenlal Services
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
·.
Pad."1,:~c~AN[) ..
~-,;':· .,-.
·-.-'' ·'> ;·;_>_ . ,'·" --. . -...•
Proje,:t Owner #~es.,-~6'tS
Address
~Z.1 q! u!t-sralcs7&C .P/l-1>'& su ,re ~Sl>
])F'!Uif-S, TX 752.Z.S
Phone (z.;</2 5,P-.11~0
Pro~Engin~
.......!..._64(,€_ '6/G/-./11-/-./a,e
Company w 4 ;I P,1.:.., rt"-
Address/Phone (izs-) 95/ -11./oo
Subdivison
Short Subdivision
Grading
~·
Other ________ _
' ,c
Project Name _ . 1/./,; t.A-l>IP11VG
Location
Township.......:::2:..:3:.:.N~---
Range S'c
............. Section t/J.J Y4 .S6c.17o,.I 8
DFWHPA
COE404
DOE Dam Safety
FEMA Floodplain
COE Wetlands
.
Shoreline Management
Rockery
Structural Vaults
Other
Part.s' ;srtE,coM1v10Nm''/INJ) riRA1NAGt,Bk1N· · -.,. ,~•-;;--. . -· ' " ... ,-c . ,.,-,.---,; ., _. ,·• .. . . . ' .
Community
C,,r( or" ,{€,v-n>,,.!
Drainage Basin
(..Ov.Je'/!-Cf5o/l-/!-lJJ£A-11Vlf(~ Zttsm
'·· ' ' . . ,.
Part6 'SIT:E C$RACTERIST]CS ·
River
Stream __________ _
Critical Stream Reach
Depressions/Swales
Lake ___________ _
Steep Slopes
.
.
Floodplain ________ _
Wetlands ________ _
Seeps/Springs
High Groundwater Table
Groundwater Recharge
Other __________ _
PaitV,:S011c5 '··
;.· -.... -----. .
Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potenlial Erosive Velco!ies
tlyWI ?,I/NI? {tttV -----
.
Additional Sheets Attached
.E'art£ ... DEVEt.PPMENTLIMITA_TIONS
REFERENCE
Ch. 4 -Downstream Analysis
Additional Sheets Attached
'Rk¢9,:.£!:>C!BE@:iJlRE:MENJS••.
.· ...
-· ·• -: __ ~;·. ,-_ ': --. ,. -". .·:.
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION
Sedimentation Facilities
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Perimeter Runoff Control
Clearing and Graing Restrictions
Cover Practices
Construction Sequence
Other
_:.
LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT
'
.
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Stabillze Exposed Surtace
Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities
Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris
Ensure Operation of Pennanent Facilities
Flag Limits of SAO and open space
preservation areas
Other
GrassLined
Channel
(Pipe System")
Open Channel
Dry Pond
Wet. Pond
Tri
~
Energy Dissapaior
Wetland
Stream
__ , -' -
hiuilialbn
Depiession
Flow Dispersal
Waiver
Regional
Detention
·.
Compensafion'Mi
on of Eliminated Site
Storage
Brief Description of System Operation ---------------------
Faci!Ity Related Site Limitations
Reference · · Facility
Cast in Place Vault
Retaining Wall
Rockery > 4' High
Structural on Steep Slope
Other
Limitation
-.. ·; ·_c '. .· .-.
,'Part12 • EASEMENTS/TRACTS , .. ·
Drainage Easement
Access Easement
Native Growth Protection Easement
Tract
Other
P1ll1 '1~•·. SIGNiTURE:OF PROFESSIONALEl\lGlNEER
' . ' . ··, -· -.. :.· ' . ' ,·
.
.
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.
Si ....... ed/Date
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
FIGURE 2
2.0
2.1
PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY
Core Requirements
:,.. Core Requirement# I: Discharge at the Natural Location
The proposed project's conveyance system will utilize the similar discharge points as
the current conditions, which is to Lake Washington via a new 36" storm pipe along
Park Avenue North and an existing 54" storm pipe along Garden Avenue.
:,.. Core Requirement #2: Off-Site Analysis
The Level I Analysis was performed and the results presented in Section 3.
:,.. Core Requirement #3: Runoff Control
Since this project will discharge directly into Lake Washington through a conveyance
system, it is exempt from flow control. Water quality will be provided by wet vaults.
There is no upstream runoff that enters the proposed site.
:,.. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System
The new pipe system is designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain the
25-year, 24-hour peak flow using approved methods in the 1990 KCSWDM. It is
assumed that the downstream pipes utilized by the project have adequate capacity.
:,.. Core Requirement #5: Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
Erosion and sediment controls were installed during demolition and pre-loading of
the proposed building pads as detailed in the King County Erosion and Sediment
Control (ESC) Standards.
W&H Pacific, inc. TIR The Landing -Harvest Partners
P:Warvest Partners\032536\Management\Transjers\Old WHP Fo/dersl.QjJice\Word'oJ)re hr body 5-19-06.doc May 2006
2
3350 Monte Y"J.l!a Pari,ray
Bothell. Washington 98021------8972
(425JP5J-4&l0
(4ZS)~l -4&JB
•bpadf/c.~=
Pla.m,....,, • E'mrln...,..., • Sam ror,;, , r....,,d=as>~ ,ln,hil~et,,
'"""'" " c··" -.....,1-------} ~ ... ,, ' L, ·' ~1-
' ~Mi:~]
El
D
[:.J
[J
·8·
(•]
'3 :-J
(,] l3
IJ u D u
0 [j 0 [:)
8 [:] 0 r::i
LOT 1
,,
8 •JG 8
C·J C·:: 3
=·~ ;~-J c._::
~-[·~El G
:, ~
~-J [·J 8
3 ~·JG S r,
[·] L..J 3
L;J cl
D
0
3
8
~
~2,. .. l:l [:J .. .-.... lei [?J 0 0
8 l:i [' 0 l'I e.,
[;:J l'I 0 0 ol8l
8 8 ~·= 3 a a 8 3
"
~ ~ -.,"J
~
e :-J
;a,
::::1 3 :-.~
--...... .!!~!..."'"":~
--~~-~--=-1,,. ~:.=:~'}L ~;J_ 11~-' -1:~=j, ~~ -. .,;,-:c .. "
[-:_ --
~~,E!ri!'i" 8-~,0
C:.cJ
C
L...Ju "" -=--~.-----
~--·, ..,~~ --/' -,..--;,, ---_ --_ ___=i~:r·~u..,.-----;-,~-f.·J 3 'CJ_ '"""'t···
I
~~~)ir· --£::--. ~ _!;r~!L
,,:,
.. ----------.
~ ...... I.~t .,_ -.----:~ --;--. ; ~ i;f>J ~
NO.
[:J O ~-~
:.:1 EJ ~-J
p '-' ,.~
i.;J !~
!.0 3
REVISION
m--... ill
BY
ill
' I
•
"' 2 • :..'.i
l'J
"'"·;::;,
'
""' ~~
""' -..,
DATE j APPR
:-:
[:]
=·=
a
:•:::
l'I
8
·,
8
·,
8
:·~
.• ,_.,
,·,
8
~·=
8
.. ,_-_,
a
~-"'
r~
·-~.
. ·,
c~
S" )J
['j
-..·J
["
,i"}::...
;:,
c-.·;
:-:::
., ~·,
1·=,00'
·== s6w:'""~;:.
'"""°"""""''"°" """'"""-'""' """"" ~
1··
L1
il±) CITY OF
~ RENTON
Planning/Building/Public: Wor~s Dept.
N
I
---
6.388 oc TOTAL SITE
IMPERVIOUS 6.388 OC
FIGURE 3. lo
........ -~----
~becked for Compliance ta City Standards
THE LANDING
HARVEST PARTNERS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
I --
~
' • ~
" 2
lJ ~
() !,
0 0 a
C'\j lJ 2
C'\j 0 • l"s LD 0
C() () I LD ~
C'\j C'\j ~ ") ~ -l"s -c.
c::i -t,-j ' II II ~
I ~
II • Vi Lu -ti zf!)-~ Ct: • ::) Vi a ::) VJ Q
>6 Cl
C: -J Ct:> I_ ____ -·---------------
~ lei Ct:
Q Q lei
I-~Q
,.·
!I
H
I I !i
ill
CJ (/J z cc -w Oz z f-:s cc w <( cc (L
0 f-
I <Il
(/J w w>
"' cc :s :2
~ • ~
' '• E~ ,· ~i •• ~]
ii
~:g
g5 co "~
(/J z
0
E
0 z
0
0
CJ
~
f-(/J
X w
fr
0
0 z
' !
t
it
' t
"
--
cl
I 2 k--
,ED
'" I j
r·, I:
L'..J I~ ,'.t
"? I"
I•
G, )
I
• I
.[i]
(!]·
"
""'···f·-'I""_ , ... -r -1 ,_ I·. , ' : . I. I l -~-1 ........ -1-·---;,
I "-~
I
z-@-
' " ' I
I
I
I
!
I
~-
' ;
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
8
m
1 I ~ '\ ti] l::1 w El
'\ •·:1 fD D r;! 0
I !'~
I.
[,J
~·J
f
I •
r,-l -~1
"\
• i
I
L'H
l 1
J
rfJ
I·
I .
I "t '"1 Ii l~J
//
' .t • m •
rn
El
._,i 0 m r~ 0 ~-~
N
l<I
!!I 0 El 8 IT:
8 w
G El[:J El El
Gl Ii] Iii
C·.~ El G ;_.:; G [I]
"'"
" . ·• '
.... -::'
r
EJ !!'I
,-~··, --·
()
(J
~
CV")
[()
o::i -
II
~
Vi
-J
~
2
()
(J
~
CV")
[()
[() -
II
V)
::)
0
>
0::
Lu
Q
~
·~ . 'Fl
"{,).
'"11~
IL[J
m •
Ii)
I''
C-i j~-:
! I [_.
'
.. l'l
I!)
rs
'-.-'
h--rl
~-· L-l
,---, ,_._/
\J
~
CV")
Lu
0::
::)
Cl c::
• fol • Ci.J
(_;::)
\ • ~ -I • ~
" •
I
~
!,
G
I 2
\ • "
1.
a
i s
0 u -~
~ • ' ~
" I •
\
a
I
l_ .. __
1 Ji:,
' l~·'.
I /i
I
_I I ~
' I !! I ' '
Cf) Cf) z a: 0
('.)~ E z I-0 -a: z 0 <( z [l. 0
:'.S I-0
w [/) CJ
IW z
1-> ;:: a: [/)
<( x I w
.
~
Q
u.Z t oo 0
I-~
>--z 0
~ i-w 0 ~ u Ct'. " C
~
~
·5
m --..
f
2 I C
0
~
i
ii ~ !i@
11 ~
I
8 ~ii Ji ,!i
!
I I~ ! ~ lij 1'
~
~
~
w
~
>
ID
z
Q m
~
~
0 z
w
0
0
0 w
_J
LL
(9 z
0 z
<c(
_J
w
0:
0
I en w
~I
_J
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ , ,
/
•
3350 Jfo.nU' Villa Parklray
Bothe-H, ll'aslimgfon 8B02l-8Si72
("25~1-41100
(4.i.,)95J-48atl
..t,p,,cil'Jc.o:om
Pl&.11.D.,... • B.oeiDecr,r • Sw,,,,:mr,, • 1-,,o,h,,ap,t An:,hit=t..
f \-j+ITT-1/n
i
y )'-.f' '}/////IX'
·--~ 1---
-,--vmY" / ,#" ,,;0... ./ .,,,,..4Jtnltll,'Q,-\ ~ _I _ _,, V---~l\"~I\('(\
r
11
~
II_"'= ri· ,;,.
I -. I ~-~
••·----,-l~ ... -I • 11'~
iL
I ..
~ -· ...
="
---l_c!i,L_-_ .----•...JI'-,_1
"""' -=-:~"i",.., -... ® ""' -..., I --I
NO. I
I/'..,.~~
REVISION l BY I DATE l APPR -i.. --·
-
~
.~
.\ \
\
;\ \ _ _______..~ ..
\ I
\ \ ~~ \
\ 1\ \_-
\-'~-l~
' '~\ \ \; \ \ ,, (~ "i'\ \
I
\
\ \ \ \ . \
\ \
' \
\
\
\
• i;.:.. L_,~ __ •::c ---
CITY OF I RENTON
Plcnning/Suilding/Public W-Jrks Dept. j
=
0
@
(: ""'-~ ,~" \c~i
:: '-CS:~
1,?;
~
X
G=
[3,c,
F:]M~
0.
K'1""
c=
~p--;,,;! .. •
(' ~A;
"' ----,,----
CATCH BASIN. TYPE I
CATCH BAS!N, TYPE 2
STORM CLEANOUT
SANITARY SEW£R MANHOtE
SANITARY SEWER CL[ANOUT
WATER MANHOLE
WATER VAULT
WATER VALVE
WATER METtR
IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE
MONITOR WELL
nRE HYDRANT
POST INOICA TOR VAL \I[
FIRE DEPT CQNNECnoN
TACK IN LEAD
REBAR/CAP
I.IONUMENT
STORM DRA!N UN[
SANITARY SEWER l/NC
----I'/------WATER UN£
S PROPQS£D CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
D PROPOSED TREAWENT VAULT
t -8-
1
TOTAL SITE 38.8 oc
FIGURE 3.2
Checked tor Compliance to City standards
THE LANDING 1~-HARVEST PARTNERS
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
w
0
0
0 w
_J
u:::
('.) z
0 z
<(
_J
w er:
0
I
Cf)
w
~
<(
_J
/
II 3!150 Jlonte l'"tlla Far~y
Bothel1. r=hington 900Z1 -89?2
(~),:;J-~O
(.fill>~l-48ml
lrill"'~m~-=m
~
.'
~ RETAIL j
JOK ' .
K_~·
l~ -
I~· ~.~--,-c:-~.-... 7:'JJ..,
'. LL . -·~ ··.~,~
'-:~-. liil.'ir-__ ~ BIO ------.
RETAIL
~-~---.-~~-----S'ur¥,o,yu,-,.•l..u,<Hm ,,..~1ec1..o NO.
GARAGE
FFE= 30
--·01/0 .Qff/Cff RETAIL
ABOVE 17. 5K
REVISION BY
}'·•=
;;\
---~ """""'""',...............,.....,
AI04 1 RETAIL
16K 'I
i
i
Ir
-8109~
RETA/l i ''<'ll I 10K '"' ' I·
FFE= 29 ~fr':::
~
""' ~ -SCALE / """""'-"'-""•• ~ I ;;:;::,, I I ®TU" -... -..., .. __ """
DATE I APFR ~ --
!ll±) CITY OF
~ RENTON
P!anninq/8uilding/Publie Worl<s Oept.
{
\
I
0
@
=
O=
',8
,:: ,~w
J!}
:F.J
N
a~
2J,c~
g~ ...
Q
K:jo;,
"= ,. --y-,~_1..,
0 p,c
@
0---
----s ----•----•
D
CATCH BASJN, TYPE l
CATCH BASIN. TYPE 2
STORM QEANOUT
SAN! TARY 51:l'lcR MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT
WA rm MANHOL£
WATER VAULT
WATER VALVE
WATER METER
JRRIGATION CONffiOL VAL\IE
MONITOR WELL
nRE HYDRANT
POST IND/CA TOR VAL \IE
FIR£ DEPT CONNECTION
TACK IN LEAD
REBAR/CAP
MONUMENT
STORM DRAIN UN£
SANITARY SE1'1ER UNE
WATER UN£
PROPOSED CATCH BASJN
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED TREATMENT VAULT
t -e-
l
LOT 1
TOTAL SITE AREA= 6.4 ACRES
PARKING/ROADWAYS= 1.5ACRES
ROOF AREA = 4.9 ACRES
FIGURE 3.2a
Checked for Compliance to C.ity st.a..nd,u-ds
THE LANDING
HARVEST PARTNERS
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
w
0
0
0 w !--··"!"-··
_J
u:::
8106
GRDCrn
55K
~1."":C
_pj.,,,,.,-,, • .i:c,,:a...,.. • ~ • L..nd=op, .lnol!Jt,,e ..
~=·
C/01
RETA IL
14K
ffE= 31
NO. I
'ii:-:'-
C102 I \ITT C/03
JUN /OR ' ··--= ANCHOR ANCHOR la,;:.. I ,,., •• 125K
26K ,.-... '
·-· I FFE-32.I ..... ,. ![1 FFE-34.0
L 1-i{l~
f 1·--· -.J··. ·,. r,,_
I
I
I: 1
/
... '~ai ' ' ---~11/ ~' ,;i,,,~ :k ,Ri',,;-/~;;,. -
REVISION
;,: -~ ,_,, -
T, -4
";ii-"r.,c;'
17
£ z_ ---
..... ... -... -..,
! 8'!" \ DATE \ APPR -.n-E
.......... ~.];
\
'
f tl',,c
tR1•
~ ?:.~''L
1 ... .,.._=.,.
SCALE
! ,;::-:.... l ~--ICM --
.,,,,;g;r:j,:"',J.ii,, .. ,
®
-§it;.::::::
\ \I
\ I --• 1--t'"'" ,,..-1 \
' ~~ \ ! I~.~~~
\'1
1 I . ill ;
I [\
1\
I', : l
I " I' I i I
11'\ I I
I
' .. i ~:E
) \
I' l. • ~-. r-pa1c>·
0 11,,,:. 1,fl /J.. 1, l!t<1 ~r~J;.,. ---=
!~"'17-"-----,--
~"', . ··-----
~~ CITY OF
RENTON
Plcnnjnq;'Build<ng/Public Wor'~s Dept.
LOT3
LDillilt.
'.J CATCH BASIN, TYPE 1
rg) CA TOI 8AS1N, TYP[ 2
c =::-a STORM QLANOUT
.'?\
'-0'
(;,c=
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER CL£ANOUT
\,W WA TE:R MANHOLE
'.E
i'J
:TI"'
S3 ... ,
a~~
.8.
'Cl >,.·
0 ;,,::
..:lr "'I'..:;
o ,v~
@
----0----
----s----
----W----•
D
WATER VAULT
WATER VAL VE
WATER METER
JRRJGATJON CONTROL VAL~
MONITOR \\'Ell
FIRE HYDRANT
POST /ND/CA TOR VAL VE
F1RE DEPT CONNECTJON
TACK !N LEAD
REBAR/CAP
MONUMENT
STORM DRAIN UN£
SANITARY SE~ UN£
WA TE:R LJNE:
PROPOSED CATCH 8ASJN
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED TRE:A D.i£NT VAULT
t -8-
1
TOTAL SITE AREA= 13.6 ACRES
PARKING/DRIVE AISLES= 8.52 ACRES
ROOF AREA = 5.08 ACRES
FIGURE 3.2b
Checked far Compliance to City St=d=ds
THE LANDING \'0/31/05
HARVEST PARTNERS
.0
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
w
0
0
0 w
..J
lL
CJ z
0 z
<,:
..J
w
a:
0
I
(J) w ye
<,:
..J
(I
i 11
VI :\ \
I
\
·11
//
l
L~, .• l
I I "<'=-FFE~ i 30 5 I
~ -.. ;iBIOO I_ " ' ---F ~ -_ _1 Fl TNESS ' e, 1,.
u '~-·-'_'. ,-'\\'\ I I I
r, :-." I
, • ; -, I
s;; ~~ ii\, 42, 5K ~--=-.,, .,
, l ,,,11 ~m
t •• "-,; -L ~ ~J is-::~:--=... _ _,_=--1--·----=--,,---=-='
l1\11gl · ;/:-r;-,,;;,_ ,:,-"R,ii-;=+r~:fc f::: -'"-'~'\:,
1 r----1: -L.-' ........ ~<*I...!. .. l1-J -. ~~~~-L --__,.,,_ ·-, '~---, --------
~ ;'_ I--t-J -
j
' ---j -/------
' -i ! -I ' 1/
=~,,,.
ii 3350 Monte v-,n., Par.b'ay
Bothell, W"=hu:igtoi:, 9802l-8S72
('25)P5J-.1800
(426")~1-~Ml:I
-.!,J>6Citic.eom
PlaAnanl • .fzl(ill........ • Sllr-n,yat"lll • Lut<Lxap,, A.n:.h/l..e,:b
8101
JUNIOR
ANCHOR
14K
FFE=31
i
I
=------------~ """'--""' .,.-=,,, =-a-=·a-c;-' ----------'~
LOT4 l~ ! 1
810 RETAIL JUNIOR JUNIOR , 8103 I 8104 I 8105
RET1L p\ ~-( F;~};, ANCHOR ANCHOR
1
. .C,i"i---!
6K IBK 21K ,~_,,
FFE=.31 • FFE= 31 FFE= 31 :.~~~~ :;.•.:.,--;f.
~:·i,;;,_,,./
" I ~~=-··1:/ 11 -_ I ' -.... ··--I o o o, a
FFE= 31
/,_
-i r I/ I ,I« •-!..I ~.i: .......
1 I 1J I Ir:-' ~
1
/ i/ ' / ' , ,_ :-;---: _' , __ :, ·i -0
• , • , _J OAD ! NG . ------.. --" -j ~-~-~k ... :-.l , ":;-:. \,.J I I I I I I \"''·"·''' JL J L=--~ 1~----=· LOAli/NG, f'-.J -1 · 1) ',, -
'!:~.-" ,·---~ --·--· ----=i •'-"'· -__ -~-----i111ulq1 ' --=----~ " ----"~::;:,.__ --d=-------->-·---F::::=~!, -gr-.-, ' . -I I ~~t*JJi1P-')f~*~3f : 1\t-~---~ '= ~-~::-':'_~--~-::C_c_ __ , . =:: . --L::: 1+,,;,1
-----, -\ ' -=-=--' <·"-•~ #f• -= -~= -----= ,.-.,.----. -I ' ±BH"
--=-:__: ---·-----. ·-: --• ---c:rn=~:,;uu ' --' -11 I '-I~ --':9r~::; -1:f' f':!"1:::1-r:
IE!"-" I _ _ I _ ---=---:::++------F-1-------L_ ·-•..• ;l, -. --, -1 -/~ r r --,-f -. , -· --.. =~=~~ 1 _, -1 , -,,---1 ,,'ffi --1-J -I -• ' ' -=.-... ' '-' I -·" ~ f / . 1--------/-1 -----: --uJ_ --"'.'....::'.::.. 0 --'___J f---,, ;;.;,,....=..!.,.__~.. .:.......-,,,. .... =-------1--:.i ---_,_ -:±:'.! L..___------,..,,,,.,,. f r I ,I--' == -f -----\-f -hi:-----.
"'-'LE -~.:'1.k"1 .. , *' CITY OF I -..,, ~ ""' RENTON
-.,. l,, .. ;,_; I Plannrng/8uilding/Public w~rks Dept. [
NO. \ REVlSTON f 6Y I DATE ! APPR -.. --
LOT4
~
0 CATCH BASIN, nPE 7
(9) CATCH BASJN, TrPE 2
0 ,::-.:-;: STORM CI.EANOUT
@ SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
o=
ct
@
hl
23..,
'23,c,
Bu~
0.
(:j?r;
o;r,,:
-4,..,.!',..';
0 o,;c
'" ----o-----
-----s----
----;;.·----
SANITARY SEWER CL£ANOUT
WA 1ER MANHOLE
WATER VAULT
WATER VAL VE
WATER t.l[TER
/RR/GA TION CONffiOL VAL VE
MONITOR M:U
FJR£ HYDRANT
POST IND/CA TOR VAL \IE
FIR[ DEPT CONNECTION
TACK JN LEAD
RcBAR/CAP
MONUMENT
STORM DRAIN U(',1£
SANITARY SEWER UN[
WATER LINE
a PROPOSED CATCH BASIN
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
D PROPOSED TR£A TMENT VAULT
~
~ -S-
I
TOTAL SITE AREA= 18.9 ACRES
PARKING/DRIVE AISLES= 13.9 ACRES
ROOF AREA = 4.9 ACRES
FIGURE 3.2c
Checked !or Compliance to City St.=.dards
THE LANDING
HARVEST PARTNERS
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
'y/// )//
,// I ,
/// !
/
!'
I
:I
lj
i
.:3350 Monte Villa P11rh11y
Bothell, Washb:igton 98021-8972
(4-Zi)ileSJ-48Q0
(426)951-48{)8
,rbpad/Jc.=m
Prnnn•-, ............ , .'1,,,.....-~ • r,.,.c1..,, .. ,.,. Ar~h;tnrl~
--k'; ·: ~F ~:··"':~t1 . ' ' ...
LOT4
,, .. '~; l...,.:.,J\;_t!
'
··l ~ · 11:
:~ ·-·-:;l :::iJ -~ ,?. ~
..... ,1
~. ,,
'clo'. "
i· :;:_
•
s
" ..... ,J""'~---v =~ ~ "''· ~
! ':'·of.
-""' -""' -..,
NO. I REVISION I SY I DATE I APPR --
w,mcu,, ....., ....
1·=250' """"°"""MIO'"""'"' ~ I -~ I •== ~--""' -~
~~
\
\
\
\ '
' I \ ' i
\0
\
CITY OF
RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Dept.
N
I -8-
TOTAL SIT[ AREA
TOTAL SIT[ 38.8 QC
FIGURE 3.1
Checked !or Compliance to City Standards
---·-·····-----
THE LANDING C HARVEST PARTNERS --
EXISTING CONDITIONS
--
If drained, this soil is used for row crops. It
is also used for pasture. Capability unit Ilw-3;
no woodland classification,
I Urban Land j
Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by
disturbance of the natural layers with additions of
fill material several feet thick to ac:c:ommodate large
industrial and housing installations. In the Green
RJ.ver Valley the fill ranges from about 3 _to more
than 12 feet in thickness, and from gravelly sandy
10am to gravelly ~Oalll in texture •.
The erosion hazard is slight to moderate~ No
capability"or woodla~d classification.
Woodinvil I e Ser"ies
111.e Wo6dinville series is made up of nearly level
and gently undulating. poorly d7ained s?i.ls that
fo:rmed tinder grass and sedges, in alluvium, on stream
bottoms. Slopes are Oto 2 percent. The annual
precipitation ranges from 35 to 55 inches, -and the
mean annual air temperature is about 50° F. The
frost-free season is about 190 days~ Elevation
ranges from about sea level to about 8S feet'.
In a representative profile, gray silt loam,
silty clay loam, and layers of peaty muck extend to
a depth of about 38 inches. This is underlain by
greenish~gray silt loam that extends to a depth of
60 inches and more.
WoOdinville soils are used for row crops, past:ure.
arid urban developm~nt.
Woodinville silt loam (Wo) .--This soil is in elon-
gated and blocky shaped areas that range from S to
nearly 300 acres -in size. It is nearly level and
gently undulating, Slopes are l~ss than 2 percent.
Repre"sentative profile of Woodinville si-lt loam,
in pasture,. l. ?_DO feet south and 400 feet west of
the norta a.carter corner rf sec. 6, T. 25 N. • R. 7
E.:
Apl--0 to 3 inches, gray (SY 5/1) silt loam,_. grayish
brown (lOYR 5/2) 'dry; co~on, fine, prominent,
dark reddish-brown (SYR 3/4) and reddish-brown
(SYR 5/4) mottles; moderate, medium, crumb
structure; hard, friable, sticky, plastic;
many firie roots; medium acid; cleat, smooth
boundary. 2 to 4 inches thick.
Ap2--3 to 8 inches, gray (SY 5/1) silty clay loam,
light brownish gray (2.SY 6/2) dry; many,
fine, prominent, dark reddish-brown (SYR 3/3
and 3/4) mottles and common, fine, prominent
mottles of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) and-red-
dish yellow (7.SYR 6/6) dry; moderate, fine
and·very fine 1 angular blocky structure; hard,
friable, sticky, plastic; common fine roots;
medium acid; abnipt, wavy boundary. 4 to 6
inches thick.
B2lg--8 to 38 inches, gray (SY 5/1) silty clay loam,
gray (SY 6/1) dry; common, fine, prominent,
brown (7.SYR 4/4) mottles and mediwn, promi-
nent mottles of brownish yellow (lOYR 6/6) dry;
25 percent of matrix is lenses of very dark
brown (IOYR 2/2) and dark yellowlsh-b~~wn
(IOYR 3/4) peaty muck, brown (7.SYR 4/2) dry;
massive; hS.rd, firm,_ sticky, plastic; few fine
roots·; medium acid; clear, smooth boundary.
30 to 40 inches thick.
B~2g--38 to 60 inches, greenish-gray (5BG 5/1) silt
loam, gray (SY 6/1) dry; few, fine, prominent
mottles of brownish yellow (lOYR 6/6) dry;
massive; hard, Very friable, slightly sticky,
slightly·plastic; strongly acid.
The A horizon ranges from dark grayish brown to
gray and from silt loam to silty clay loam. The B
horizon ranges from gray and grayish brown to olive
gray and greenish gray and from silty clay loam to
silt loam. In places there are thin lenses of very
fine sandy loam and loamy fine sand. Peaty lenses
are conunon in the B horizon. These lenses are thin,
and their combined thickness, between depths of 10
and 4·0 inches, does not exceed 10 inches.
Soils included with this soil in mapping make up
no more than 25 percent of the total acreage. Some
areas are up to 15 percent. Puget soi ls; some are up
to 10 percent Snohomish soils; and some areas are up
to 10 percent Oridia, Briscot, Puyallup, Newberg,
and Nooksack soils.
Permeabilit:y is moderately slow. There is a sea-
sonal high water table at or near the surface. In
drained a-reas, the effective rooting depth is 60
inches or· more. In undrained areas, rooting depth
is _restricted. The available water capacity is
high. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is
s~ight. Stream overflow is a severe hazard unless
flood protection is provided (pl. III, top).
This soH is used for row crops I pasture. and
urban development. Capability unit IIw-2; woodland
group 3w2.
33
JRE
3"\
I,>
)::
m
-+-
lsl;,nd
1972 as part of
fpartment of
~· and the
!Station
' i
'
I
~-·
'l:l
~
'Y
u> ~.
?
.<I,>
Q'
......
R. 4 E.
5000
II·· I· ·1
R. 5 E.
¥.
4000
Coleman Pein
' . RENTON 1.7 Ml. 12'30" (Join, t•' 11)
f-'£OiJ 6" OT ~ITt
I, ~
3000 2000 iooo
_Q
0
Scale 1:24 000
n,;, m•P i, ant of, *•1 of 20.
= 5000
KING COUNTY AREA, WASHINGTON NO. 5
-~
Qvo .. :
-~----·
BM,
3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS
3.1 Upstream Drainage Analysis
There is no upstream flow that enters the site. Figure 3.1 -Existing Conditions.
3.2 Downstream Drainage Analysis
Lot 1 and 4 currently both discharge into an existing 30"' diameter storm drain pipe that
runs north along Park Avenue N. This existing pipe is being replaced as part of the
City's roadway improvements with a new 36"' pipe. The discharge for Lots 1 and 4 will
be re-directed into this new pipe. Lot 3 discharge into an existing 54" storm drain pipe
that runs north along Garden Avenue. Both the new 36" and the 54" pipe eventually join
and run along Logan Avenue. These flows ultimately discharge into Lake Washington.
The proposed site flows will be similar to the existing flows since the site does not gain
any new impervious surface. Therefore, the offsite conveyance system should be
adequate to convey the flow from the site to the discharge point, Lake Washington, and
will not have any erosion problems downstream.
W&H Pacific, Inc. TIR The Landing -Harvest Partners
P:\Harvest Partners'i032536'iManagement\Transfers\Old WHP Folders'10jfice\Word\pre tir body 5-19-06.doc May 2006
3
4.0
4.1
RETENTION / DETENTION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Existing Site Hydrology
The site currently consists of 3 lots. The site is bound to the west and north by Logan
Avenue and the east side of the site is bound by Garden Ave. North. The site is divided
in half by Park Avenue North. The existing site area is mostly all impervious. Soils on
the site consist primarily of Urban Land (Ur) which is fill soil. See the Geotechnical
Report found in the Appendix for more information on site soils. See Figure 4 for the
Soil Survey Map. The site lies outside the 500-year flood plain, per FEMA panel
53033C0977 F, dated may 16th 1995.
Lot 1
Lot 1 is 6.4 acres in size. It consists of a well compacted gravel footprint where an
existing Boeing building once was and an asphalt parking lot. The lot is relatively flat
with elevations that range from 27 feet to 30 feet (See Figure 3.la, Existing Conditions
Map).
Lot 3
Lot 3 is 13.6 acres is size. It consists of an asphalt parking lot with planter strips an
existing 2 story, 8,000 square foot building and an existing road that runs through the
middle of the quadrant. The lot is relatively flat with elevations that range from 28 feet to
33 feet sloping from southeast to northwest (See Figure 3.lb, Existing Conditions Map).
Lot4
Lot 4 is 18.8 acres in size. It consists of a well compacted gravel footprint where an
existing Boeing building once was and an asphalt parking lot. The lot is relatively flat
with elevations that range from 28 feet to 30 feet (See Figure 3.lc, Existing Conditions
Map).
4.2 Developed Site Hydrology
Lot 1
This proposed lot will consist of retail shops, restaurants, a cinema, and a parking garage.
A drive aisle will run through the middle of the site with landscaping on each side. (See
Figure 3.2a, Developed Conditions Map).
W&H Pacific, Inc. TIR The Landing -Harvest Partners
P:\Harvest Partners\032536\Management\Transfers'10ld WHP Folders\Officel.Wordipre tir body 5-19-06.doc May 2006
4
-
4.0 RETENTION/ DETENTION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Lot3
This proposed Jot will consist of retail shops and restaurants with an asphalt parking lot.
Landscaping will be provided around each building and in landscape islands. (See
Figure 3.2b, Developed Conditions Map).
Lot4
This proposed Jot will consist of retail shops, restaurants, a fitness center, and an asphalt
parking Jot. Landscaping will be provided around each building and in landscape islands.
(See Figure 3.2c, Developed Conditions Map).
4.3 Water Quality
The water quality sizing was performed using StormShed software. A wet vault will be
used for the water quality treatment. The vault was sized based on the volume of the
water quality design storm or 72 percent of the 2-year, 24-hour storm (1.44 inches).
Since most of the site is impervious the calculations were performed using a general area
of 1 acre of asphalt. The result would be an overestimated volume per acre (4,400 cubic
feet per acre). (See Appendix for the Stormshed results).
Water Quality per Lot (non roof area)
Lot Acres Water Quality Treatment (cf)
Lot 1 1.5 6,600
Lot 3 8.52 37,500
Lot 4 13.9 61,160
A more detailed design will be developed for each area and an updated report will be
submitted with the construction documents.
4.4 Detention
There is no detention required, since the site will directly discharge to Lake Washington.
W&H Pacific, Inc. TIR The Landing -Harvest Partners
P:IJ!arvest Partners'i032536tVanagement\Transfers10ld WHP Folders'i0.ffice1Word\pre tir body 5-19-06.doc May 2006
5
5.0
5.1
CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Roof Downspout System
The building downspouts will bypass the water quality vault and discharge directly into
the roadway storm drainage system.
5.2 Proposed On-site Conveyance System
The project conveyance system is a conventional storm drainage collection system that
will collect runoff from the entire site, including asphalt, roof areas, and landscaping via
catch basins and pipes.
The new pipe system is designed with sufficient capacity to convey and contain the 25-
year, 24-hour peak flow using approved methods in the 1990 KCSWDM.
W&H Pacific, Inc. 11R The Landing -Harvest Partners
P:IHarvest Partners\032536\Management\Transfers\Old WHP Folders\Office\Wordlpre tir body 5-19-06.doc May 2006
6
6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
6.0 Special Reports and Studies
J.-Kleinfelder, Draft Geotechnical Engineering Report, July 2005. Provided under separate
cover.
W&H Pacific, Inc. TIR The Landing -Harvest Partners
P:\Harvest Partner:s1032536Vifanagement\Transfers\Old WHP Folders\Office\Wordipre tir body 5-19-06.doc May 2006
7
-
-
7.0 BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS
7.0 Basin and Community Planning Areas
Not applicable
W&H Pacific, Inc. TIR The Landing Harvest Partners
?:\Harvest Partnersl.032536\Management\Transfers'iOld WHP Folders\Office\Word'f)re tir body 5-19-06.doc May2006
8
8.0
8.0 Other Permits
Not applicable
W&H Pacific, Inc.
P:\Han,est Partners'i032536\Management\Transfers\Old WHP Folders\Ojfice\Word\pre tir body 5-19-06.doc
9
OTHER PERMITS
TIR The Landing -Harvest Partners
May2006
-
-
9.0 EROSION I SEDIMENTATION CONTROL CONTROL DESIGN
The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP) for The Landing has been developed
utilizing the King County Storm Water Design Manual and City of Renton standards.
Temporary erosion and sedimentation control requirements shall be maintained and are
specifically addressed in the King County Core Requirement No. 5 (SWDM). Erosion and
sediment control notes per City of Renton standards are provided on the Erosion Control plans.
};> ESC measures will be maintained and inspected daily during non rainfall events and
hourly during rainfall events. An ESC supervisor will be assigned to oversee the
standards, as directed on the construction documents and in the KCSWDM 5.4.10.
The City inspector will be given the ESC supervisor's name and 24-hour emergency
contact phone number prior to start of construction. The name and 24-hour
emergency phone number of the designated ESC supervisor will be posted at the
primary construction entrance to the site. A written standard ESC maintenance report
will be used to record all maintenance activities and inspections for the site.
W&H Pacific, Inc. TIR The Landing -Harvest Partners
?:\Harvest Partners'1032536\ManagemenJ\Transfers\Old WHP Folders\Officei.Wordlpre tir body j-]9-06.doc May 2006
10
-
10.0 BOND QUANTITIES WORKSHEET, RETENTIONillETENTION FACILITY
SUMMARY SHEET AND SKETCH, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT
10. Bond Quantities Worksheet
1. Not applicable at this time
W&H Pacific, Inc. TIR The Landing -Harvest Partners
P:\Harvest Partnersl.0325361Management\Transfers\Old WHP Folders\Office'1Word1pre hr body 5~19~06.doc May2006
11
11.0
11.0
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
Maintenance and Operations Manual
:,. King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual, Appendix A-
Maintenance Requirements for Privately Maintained Drainage Facilities. (selected
pages) 1992
W &H Pacific, Inc. TIR The Landing -Harvest Partners
?:\Harvest Partners\032536 1Management\Trcmsfers'10ld WHP Folders\Office 1,Wordipre tir body 5-19-06.doc May 2006
12
Appendix A
Isopluvial Maps
(2, 10, 100-year, 24hour storms)
W&H Pacific, Inc.
P:IJ!arvest Partners\0325361ManagemenL\Transjers\O[d WHP Folders 1Dffice\Worr.fipre tir body 5-19-06.doc
Appendix
APPENDIX
TIR The Landing -Harvest Partners
May2006
I
' i
!
I
I
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
I \
i ('-r~ '4-<~~~ I ., ,r
' I \\ /-,,l
i
i,,,
I
2-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION
.-3.4 -ISOPLUVIALS OF 2-YEAR 24-HOUR
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MIies
1: 300,000 3.5.1-8 1/9(
I i . I !=:
\ I
\~
K I N G C O U N T Y, W A S H I N G T O N, S U R F A C E W A T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.e
~9
10-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION
{:),, 3.4-ISOPLUVIALS OF 10-YEAR 24-HOUR
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Miles
l: 300,000
(
4.0
K I N G C O U N T Y, W A S H I N G T O N, S U R F A C E W A T E R D E S I G N M A N U A L
FIGURE 3.5.lH 100-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS
46
lOO-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION
, 3.4 -ISOPLUVIALS OF 100-YEAR 24-HOUR
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mlle-s
1: 300,000
3.5.1-13
1/90
-
-
Appendix B
Stormshed Calculations
W&H Pacific, Inc.
P:\Harvest Partners\032536\Management\Transfers'IO[d WHP FoldersiOffice\Word',pre tir body 5-19-06.doc
Appendix
APPENDIX
TIR The Landing -Harvest Partners
May2006
CLEARHIS
WQ Event Summary:
BasinlD PeakQ Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype
Event
(cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss
WQ 0.41 8.00 0.1401 1.00 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 2 yr
Water Quality fiow (assuming 100% EIA) = 0.32 • 0.41 = 0.13 cfs I acre
Water Quality Volume= 0.72 '0.1401 • 43560= 4400 cf/ acre
Drainage Area: WQ
Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd
Peak Factor: 484.00
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs
Area
Pervious 0.1000 ac
Impervious 0.9000 ac
Total 1. 0000 ac
Supporting Data:
Pervious CN Data:
10% pervious
Impervious CN Data:
Parking area
Pervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Sheet SHEET
Sheet across parking lot
Channel pipe
Impervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Sheet across parking lot
Channel pipe
CN
86.00
98.00
86.00
98.00
Loss Method: SCS CN Number
0.20 SCSAbs:
lntv:
TC
0.14 hrs
0.09 hrs
0.1000 ac
0.9000 ac
Length:
20.00 ft
93.00 ft
340.00 ft
Length:
93.00 ft
340.00 ft
10.00 min
Slope: Coeff:
2.00% 0. 1500
2.00% 0.0110
0.50% 21.0000
Slope: Coeff:
2.00% 0.0110
0.50% 21.0000
Travel Time
3.42 min
1.45 min
3.82 min
Travel Time
1.45 min
3.82 min
-
-