Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA-09-100_Report 04
Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Web date: 0811812008 ~ King County Department of Development lit Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98057-5212 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 Project Name: East Renton/Rosemonte Early Start Location: Renton, WA Clearing greater than or equal to 5,000 board feet of timber? X yes If yes, Forest Practice Permn Number: (RCW76.09) ___ no L08GF033 For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600. Date: 8/25/2008 Project No.: l02P0005/l03P0018 Activity No.: l08SR025 Note: All prices include labor, equipment, materials, overhead and profit. Prices are from RS Means data adjusted for the Seattle area or from local sources if not included in the RS Means database. Page 1 of 9 Ar(rDtJ~J FE£S f (yv-S ,r;T I f- KC Bond Quantity Worksheet 8-25-0B.xls Unit prices updated: 02112102 Version: 07107/2008 Report Date: 812512008 · . Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet -.r-'$~f?'~:. "1.,; " Page 2 019 KC Bond Quantity Worksheet 8-25-08.xls ESC SUBTOTAL: 30% CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION: ESC TOTAL: COLUMN: Web date: 0811812008 $ 106,688.68 $ 32,006.60 $ 138,695.28 A Unit prices updated: 02112/02 Version: 0710712008 Report Date: 8125/2008 Page 3 019 -Kec 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. KC Bond Quantity Wor1<5heet 8-25-08.xI5 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet SUBTOTAL vveooare: U0I10lLUUO 565,890.23 Unit prices updated: 02112102 Version: 07107108 Report Date: 812512008 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet weD cate: Utslltl/2UOB Page 4 of 9 SUBTOTAl Unit prices updated: 02112/02 *Kec 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 07107108 KC Bond Quantity Worksheet 8-25-08.xls Report Date: 8/25/2008 Page 5 of 9 -Kec 27 A authorizes only one bond reduction. KC Bond Quantity WorKsheet 8-25-08.xls Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet SUBTOTAL weD oate: UOlll:Sl4:VVtt 17.50 Unit prices updated: 02/12102 Version: 07107108 Report Date: 812512008 Page 6 of9 -Kec 27 A authorizes only one bond redudion. KC Bond Quantity Worksheet S-25-08.x1s Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet SUBTOTAL "veo care: VOIIOILuue 28.299.82 Unit prices updated: 02112102 Version: 07107108 Report Date: 8125/2008 Page 7 of9 *Kec 27 A authorizes only one bond reduction. KC Bond Quantity Worksheet 8-25-ll8.xls Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet SUBTOTAL vvt!u UCl~. VOl' OI":UUO 27429.75 Unit prices updated: 02112102 Version: 07107/08 Report Date: 812512008 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet vveD aate: UOIHIlt.UUO SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL (SUM ALL PAGES): 30''{' CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION: Page 80f9 -Kec 27 A authorizes only one bond reduction. KC Bond Quanijty Worksheet 8-25-08.xls GRANDTOTAL: COLUMN: B ~ ~ !0"~""~~ ~ ~ ,.x,.~ •. i<' .~ ~'==:.4""f.t"; .: ,:?,;3, .. } ... ·<&:;" <.>-c<-J.-<~.,-" - C 36.242.00 657.879.30 197.363.79 855.243.10 D E Unit prices updated: 02112102 Version: 07107/08 Report Date: 812512008 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Web date: 0811812008 Original bond computations prepared by: Name: Sheri Murata Date: 8/25/2008 PE Registration Number: 41846 Tel..: 425-821-8448 Finn Name: Triad Associates Address: 12112115th Ave NE KirKland, WA 98034 Project No: L02P0005~03P0018 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS & DRAINAGE FACILITIES FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control (ESC) Existing Right-of-Way Improvements Future Public Road Improvements & Drainage Facilities Private Improvements Calculated Quantity Completed (A) (B) (C) (D) PERFORMANCE BOND" AMOUNT $ 138,695.3 $ $ $ 855.243.1 Total Right-of Way andlor Site Restoration Bond"r" (A+B) $ 138,695.3 (First $7.500 of bond" shall be cash.) Perfonnance Bond" Amount (A+B+C+D) = TOTAL (T) $ 993,938.4 Minimum bOna· amount IS $1000. Reduced Perfonnance Bond" Total - Maintenance/Defeel Bond" Total BOND" AMOUNT REQUIRED AT RECORDING OR TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY "- (E) $ T x 0.30 $ 298,181.5 OR (T -E) $ 993,938.4 Use larger of Tx30% or (f-E) PUBLIC ROAD & DRAINAGE MAINTENANCEIDEFECT BOND" (B+C) x 0.25 = _$"-______ _ NAME OF PERSON PREPARING BOND" REDUCTION: Date: .. NOTE: The word "bond" as used in this document means any financial guarantee acceptable to King County. fl. NOTE: KeC 27A authorizes right otway and site restoration bonds to be combined when both are required. The restoration requirement shall inctude the total cost for all lESe as a minimum, not a maximum. In addition, corrective work, both on-and off-site needs to be included. Quantities shall reflect worse case scenarios not just minimum requirements. For example, if a salmonid stream may be damaged, some estimated costs for restoration needs to be reflected in this amount. The 30% contingency and mobilization costs are computed in this quantity . .-NOTE: Per KCC 27 A, total bond amounts remaining after reduction shall not be less than 30% of the original amount (T) or as revised by major design changes. SURETY BOND RIDER NOTE: If a bond rider is used, minimum additional performance bond shall be I $ 855,243.1 I(C+D)-E REQUIRED BOND" AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND MODIFICATION BY DDES Page 9 of9 Check out the DOES Web site at www,kingcounf¥ gOv!J2ermits KC Bond Quantity Worksheet 8-25-08.xI5 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 07/07/08 Report Date: 812512008 Project No. East Renton & Rosemonte Plats L02P0005 & L03P0018 (Activity No. Plan Review #3 September 5, 2008 L08SR025) 1. Add the following notes in bold type to the plans and resubmit the plan sheets that you change: 1 A. On plan sheets 5 & 6, per Examiner's Conditions 7.g (Rosemonte) and 7.h. (East Renton), show and label the 100-year floodplain line. B. On plan sheets 2 & 3 add the following: 1) On sheet 2, add a copy of Adjustment L07V0039. 2) On both sheets 2 & 3 state that the "Shared facility plan in Adjustment L07V0039 (on sheet 2) applies to the Rosemonte and East Renton Plats". C. On the TESC plan sheets, state that the "TESC Supervisor must determine and implement an effective erosion control plan that meets water quality requirements. Sediment laden water shall not flow into the wetland or its buffer". D. On the grading plans, state that "Grading for final roadway alignments is not approved by these plans". 2. Provide 2-copies of each of the following for insertion into the TIR's: A. Replace "not applicable" in the following sections of Section 2, page 2-2, with the correct answers: 1) 2.1.8.5: Shared Facility Drainage Plans. 2) 2.1.9: Special Requirement #2 Floodplain/Floodway Delineation. B. The 2003 geotechnical report referenced in the Examiner's Condition 20 for Rosemonte Plat. C. All approved drainage adjustment applications and approvals. I ~ I a: w '" :!: :l Z W ..J ... w C o u o w " King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Onkesd;lle A\'enue SoUlil\\'t'sl Rellton. \\',\ 98055-1219 ~~~e J.J.a..I.-;.a -......... ~"~""' ... "'''.;,: ... '''-' MEMORANDUM FROM: Site Investigator BEl H CHESH I ER TO: Engineer P E=--T-'---'=E=-."D"'--'Y_E"=-_____ _ RE: Field Check Observations I. PROJECT NUMBER I NAME L02POCO 5 / ~AST garmN , Address I Location 120 13 I Y 16TH ME S E Date 5 . I· "2.. 1", El. D ~ ec 1(, 'i. '2. "t . 'Z. Related Project # I Name --,A-,-,=o"",1.""-,P-,O"",,O~7LLI _______________ _ Thomas Map Page (new) (02,(0 Thomas Guide Page (old) _______ _ 2. SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSAl SUBDIVIDE IS.Sf AO<ES INTD CoCo Sf' LOTS. ~ Z/3 TO BE. DEVELOPE[); 1/3 TO BE SEN5n<.ACrj OPEN SPACE, 3. SIERRA FilE INFORMATION Parcel #(s) 10'2.305 50 n ,'902.3 Kroll Map B05 E Acres I Feet' 1C).57 A Community Plan NEWCASTLE S-T-R E .10,2.3,05 Current Zoning_--'-'R>--_YL--___ _ Comprehensive Plan ~lJ.!....!.M-L ____________________ _ Limited Text Entry NO P-SuFEIX CONDITIOlJS fCUND PAGE 1 4. SENSITIVE AREAS INFORMATION MAP FOLIO PAGE# S1TECONTAINS SITE ABUTS YES NO YES NO COMMENTS ·Wetlands ____ g) 0 Wetland # 3{2. '-\ B Wetland Class d. Drainage Basin _______ _ Sub Basin MAY C\2.E"E1(, (ttoN EY CQ.£:'El<') Critical Basin? ill ffiJ • Streams --___ 0 rgj ~ 0 Stream Class _____ Stream Name ________________ _ • IOO-year Floodplain _0 • Erosion Hazard __ 0 • Landslide Hazard_O • Seismic Hazard __ 0 • Coal Mine Hazard_O • Other known SA's _~ ~_O ~ ~. __ O ~_O ftJ o 121 ~ ~ __ O !i1_0 0_0 o 'KED JAIL HAWKS /NEsrS ON-SITE , Class I or 2 Stream or Class I Wetland within one mile downstream of project site? _N'-"'-O-<-__ _ FEMA FIRM number' _ ....:....-=5_3::::.::0:...:3::::..::3:::...=C=--:D:::......C)!..!8~Z:...l..F _____ ln FEMA Floodplain? ill ®" Soils Mapped ' Map # _____ _ Best available Topographical Map ......::.V.:::.~:::::L,S::..-1f::IL..!2~5~_-'-____________ _ S. SITE DESCRIPTION MATCHES T.i.R. DESCRIPTION! THE Sf"/E IS MADE. up of ::rwo PARCEl S CREATlN~ AN EAST/WEST RUNNINh <k'aTbN6! E, A t-toUSE AND 6f's12A8E/SrtoP Ai2E LDCA I ED> IN mE SE CC12.NER i AUESSED BY A 6QAVa. DRIVE, -mE EASTERN 1/3-IS PASTVI?E W 150M E T!2EES TIt E CENT!2.A L '/3 I S PAS1U2E I AND WOODS SLOPIN'=I 20-30% -ro THE WEST. THE WESreJ2N 'I'? I 5 WCODffi PeND wEJ}...A:NDS \iJ In-! "L HAW!S"> NESTS WI1l:IIN/ADIACENT Tt::> =ruE WETLANDS, I PA GEl 6. EXISTING SITE FEATURES Unmapped Sensitive Areas: 2..",0 NEST NOT Stto.N/'J ON MAI? Ag,E7\S. oF gVSH ALaN 9 e:;A;ST SIDE OF PA$D.JR...E J Soils types seen and evidence of soil movement, slides, slumps, erosion, or deposition: _____ _ NO SOIL MCNEMENT SEEN, Ground Cover: PASTuRE 8 !?ASSES / WODDS! Wr2fL Y'Eca ! r I I L-PrN DS ct51?1 N 9 Existing Utilities (hydrants, signs, poles, etc,) shown on site plan?_Y,,-,,=~,-,S=-_-,-______ _ Wildlife and habitats: QED IAILm H-AWK... SCN'=1 81!2DS S~VII2j28S O\1PMUrJK.'5. , J. ' Water Wells: NONE 'SEEN ON-SIT£" Work started on site? _' ,LN"'D""-_____________________ _ 'Closed depression >5000 feet'? [!] 00 Steep slopes? [!] ~ ' ___________ _ 7., DRAINAGE Drainage complaint records _______________________ _ Proposal will add >5000ft' of new impervious surface? III [l!J Approximate Area ______ _ Proposal will collect and concentrate surface and storm water runoff from an upland and site drainage area of over 5000 ft'? III [l!J Approximate Area ______ _ Upl~nd Draina~e Basin (draining directly onto site): ::t 500' of I Y5T1l A\fE SE (WE.ST HAl-F~ De.AJN S TO A Rd\'DSIDf; PItCH PloWINg NDI<.J7-I AND DNIP WE SIP. , On-site Drainage: Ttl E. MA 1012' ry DF TIE sen:. Pt:2.ro tJ S 7P TH E. WEJL./hlDs DN WE WEST'fJ?-N 'Pd2.-'TloN OF -mE ;:'ITE AND NOI2:n-J 'TD -n-I £ BoUIJ D/'rl2:.« ::::: Y s oP -n-t E EAST E)2.N POI?. DoN ~LOvJS NoRTH IN A SItALLQw/BJ2cA=Q PA1l-\ TD!He:. j3.Cll.MD~'(. Downstream Drainage (minimum 114 mile distance): lHE. DI2.A1I\1AbE:' AZoM ]}I E asl eJZ..N frgeA c.eoSSB· A1}JACE\,jT PA'STE'2.. Ny,) TD Tl-l E WE]},l\ND /c:ttlrNtJEL DE WE'( G2ff.K.. 1l-l£ \JJESTe:?-N WE::TunJDS L E,A\J E: -rit E:: S!IE 1}t13.C:Ub H 2. I 2." CV \... VfJ2.TS. 11+'£ WESTER L '( WnLfrND -rv(2.I\IS as., riND FLOvJS INTI> THE e7\SW2.L-i (\....Ow PQ-lO J?;,QD-1 fV?,.A.J Noi2..TJ-I At DN~ A swkMP /U)0VoJD) I CJ-\1'nJM~L CoMr3 blAl\Or.J. of HvtJpY 02.ffl(.. Drainage Description Matches T.l.R.? YE'S -EXCEP I 2'-1 .' c..M P C.l lLYERT 1\ E" I S ONE PfrBc.a 3oLJ~Dg.'( "Tb t-Jog:n-\ PA G £ 3 B. EXISTING ROAD NETWORK On·site Roads Stt0l2.T b&YEL pgl\J E Adjacent Roads IYBn1 AyE SE (eow:z..roe fI12.~\A,-j ~) 1\ I AC. LANES vJ J DCAJi6U6 Y@LO\A.l C~'TEl2. AND 'SINbLF. wH1W, FOb L-Ir-JE'S. S I Ac.. sttcUl..·OE12. ALoNg WEST SoIDE. y' Ac.. StIDULD& ON E!\srSJOE._ i Closest Transit Stop __ ---'-___________________ _ B. ESTIMATE OF PROJECT IMPACTS ON SOIL AND WATER 9. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS • FIELD CONDITIONS wElZE :SUNNY ANDll<'( PREVIOUS CDND'TloNS wERE rtEAVY !2AJI-J S 'fbt--lDINq wATER IhJD MEA S OF \/EJ2,.y WET 6Q.QUt-JD E'lZ---rENDED • PI bE2A5S"goAD" FolLOWS mE BOc..Jt-JpA!?'1' oF Tl+f NOt2..-n-t"©2..."-A '?t'G<.cEL. _ PAf<'CEL IS RECENT / AcTIVE 'PA-STYI2E PAGE ., , --~ 10 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS WITHIN 500 FEET AND ADJACENT USE I I NUMBER OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN PAGE 5 ,----- ATTACHMENT TO MEMORANDUM PROJECT NUMBER: FIELOIOFFICE SKETCH WORK: Drainage systems, features, channels within the upland site plan areas, on the development site, and in the downstream receiving areas: SKETCHEO BY: S CAL E Notes: ____________________________________________________ ___ I" = ______ __ 0) PA G£ , Tuesday, Apr 30, 2002 04:20 PM King County -DDES King County Department of Development and Environmental Suvices 900 Oakesdale A venue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 Applicant :CAM WEST DEVELOPMENT Location :12013 148TH AVE SE Site Address Permit Type :PRE-PLAT, Sub-Type: PRE-PLAT Title :EAST RENTON Permit No Date Printed Status Applied Decision : L02POOOS : 04-30-2002 : PENDING : 04/03/2002 Description :EAST RENTON PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 148TH AVE SE. SITE CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS TOTALING 19.57 ACRES. THE PROPOSAL IS TO DEVELOP A 66 LOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME COMMUNITY. CURRENTLY, TWO PARKS ARE PROPOSED, TOTALING 33,963 SQ FT. THE REQUIRED PARK SPACE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS 25,740 SQ FT. The following holds, notices, and comments have been entered. ------- PINTABER 04/03/2002 REC'D CHECK NUMBER 9825 IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,472.50 FROM CAM WEST DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL. PINTABER 04/03/2002 THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS REC'D APPLICATION, ASSESSOR'S MAPS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROOF OF LEGAL LOT STATUS WITH PLAT CERTIFICATE, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, WATER & SEWER AVAILABILITY, 35 PRINTS OF THE PROPOSED PLAT, FIRE DISTRICT RECEIPT, 8 COPIES OF LEVEL ONE DRAINAGE ANAL YSIS, COPIES OF TRANSPORTATION CERTIFICATE OF CONCURRENCY, DENSITY & DIMENSION CALCULATIONS, CERTIFICATE/AFFIDAVIT OF SENSITIVE AREAS COMPLIANCE, APPLICANT STATUS FORM, 8 COPIES FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING EXPLORATION PIT LOGS, WETLAND DETERMINATION, AND TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES. I NUMBERED AND DATE STAMPED ALL DOCUMENTS FOR THE FILE, FILE WILL BE DELIVERED UPSTAIRS TOMORROW. PLANCROG 04/05/2002 New file information routed 415 to planner L.Henoch, geo, wetlands, traffic, WRLD, GIS, fire and school. LSDSTHIN 04/08/2002 Checklist, plans, etc routed to NGIL & LWES PLANCROG 04/09/2002 Notice of Incomplete application lelter sent 4/9/02. LSDSNGIL 04/10/2002 Routing this one to Laura Casey. BFMOBMUD 04/11/2002 Fire Engineering approval is granted subject to requirements outlined in the FENG file located in the LUSD folder on the "S" drive. PLANCROG 04/24/2002 Notice of Complete Application lelter and posting package sent 4/24102 to Cam West. Application considered complete alo 4/17102. Legal ads faxed to the S.County Journal and emailed to the Seattle Times for pub I. on 4/29. NOD being mailed 5/8 to all agencies and 500ft parcels. Notice posted to the DDES web page. lu_comm 11/30/01 ,.' -_. -. iii, A.lPJD's For Parcel: 102305-9017 I!iIII!jJ IE3 ----------------------------- iii. AIPJI)'s For Parcel: 102305-9023 !i1il1i3 Parcel Number. 1023059017 Taxpayer: INTLEKOFER MICHAEL J Annexation: N1A Jurisdiction: Unincorporated King County Situs Address: Postal City: Renton, 98059 Plat Name: ; Rec: nil Lot: N1A; Block: N/A Kroll Page: 805 E Thomas Bros. Page: 626 1/4-S-T-R: NE-l0-23-5 Acres: 14.68 Current Zoning: R-4 Potential Zoning: Comp. Plan Land Use: um Assessor's Open Space: N/A Commercial Use: N/A Number of Units: N/A Mobile Home: N Land Value: 258000 Improvements Value: 0 Community Plan Area: NewcasHe Unincorporated Area Council: Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council School District: Issaquah 411 Fire District: 10 Roads MPS Zone: 442 (S2913.00) Waterfront: No Water Service: WATER DISTRICT Water Service Planning Area: King County Water District 90 Sewer Service: No Information Airport Noise Remedy Program: NIA Bald Eagle Flag: N/A Council District: 12 David Irons (R) Drainage Basin: May Creek, WRIA 8 Police: King County, Pct: 3, Dist: F2 Service/Finance Strategy Area: Service Planning Snowload Zone: Standard Agricultural Production District: N Forest Production District: N Rural Forest Focus Area: N TDC Program: N/A Building Inspection Area: Keller Rockey Clearing Inspection Area: Bruce Engell Code Enforcement Inspection Area: ESA Inspection Area: Chris Tiffany Grading Inspection Area: Ron Ainslie Land Use Inspection Area: Gary Casad Sens. Areas Notice(s} on Title: NONE · ' Parcel Number. 1023059023 Taxpayer. SCHIRMAN MICHAEL +WOLF CY~ Annexation: NlA Junsdiction: Unincorporated King County Situs Address: 12007148TH AVE SE Postal City: Renton, 98059 Plat Name: ; Rec: nil Lot: N/A; Block: N/A Kroll Page: 805 E Thomas Bros. Page: 626 1/4-S-T-R: SE-10-23-5 Acres: 4.89 (213008 SqFl) Current Zoning: R-4 Potential Zoning: Compo Plan Land Use: um Assesso(s Open Space: N/A Commercial Use: N/A Number of Units: N/A Mobile Home: N Land Value: 152000 Improvements Value: 173000 Community Plan Area: Newcastle Unincorporated Area Council: Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council School District: Issaquah 411 Fire Distnct: 1 0 Roads MPS Zone: 442 ($2913.00) Waterfront: No Water Service: WATER DISTRICT Water Service Planning Area: King County Water Dlstnct 90 Sewer Service: PRIVATE Airport Noise Remedy Program: N/A Bald Eagle Flag: N/A Council Distnet: 12 David Irons (R) Drainage Basin: May Creek, WRIA 8 Police: King County, Pet: 3, Dist F2 ServicelFinance Strategy Area: Service Planni Snowload Zone: Standard Agncultural Production District: N Forest Production District: N Rural Forest Focus Area: N TDC Program: N/A Building Inspection Area: Keller Rockey Clearing Inspection Area: Bruce Engell Code Enforcement Inspection Area: ESA Inspection Area: Chrts Tiffany Grading Inspection Area: Ron Ainslie Land Use Inspection Area: Gary Casad Sens. Areas Notice(s) on Title: NONE .- ." .... ~~ -';;: \"t ,.';::C" ":;,~tJi~, rr:::::t~rr:;yJ: '_'. -. BD08 KING COUNTY DEPT OF ASSESSMENTS REAL PROPERTY HISTORY ACCOUNT: 102305-9017-0 SITUS: TAXPAYER: LOT: BLK: INTLEKOFER MICHAEL J PLAT: " A S S YEAR 02 01 00 99 99 98 97 95 95 94 93 E S S E LAND 258,000 231,000 223,000 242,000 202,000 202,000 202,500 202,500 215,400 D VALUE H IMPS DATE 04/01 05/00 07/99 10/98 04/98 09/97 09/96 08/94 11/93 11/93 04/92 ISTORY"I"SAL REASON I DATE REVALUE REVALUE REVALUE REVALUE EXTENSION REVALUE REVALUE REVALUE I 11/94 I 01/94 I I I I I I LEVY CODE CHN I LEVY CODE CHN I REVALUE I BD01 PAIl1270-S1 04/30/02 16:35:37.0 QSTR: HE 10 23 05 JURS: KING CO E S· HIS TOR Y " SALES PRICE REMARKS 375,000 DEED QCD * • • CONTINUED *"" I " END OF SALES HISTORY • ec=============================================================== ( 0.4) == CHOOSE ONE OPTION: PRESS <PRINT> TO PRINT SCREEN, <ENTER> FOR MORE HISTORY, <PF2> FOR CHARACTERISTICS, <PF4> FOR LEGAL, <PF7> FOR TAXES OR <PF8> TO END. BD08 ACCOUNT: 102305-9017-0 KING COUNTY DEPT OF ASSESSMENTS REAL PROPERTY HISTORY SITUS: TAXPAYER: INTLEKOFER MICHAEL J LOT: BLK: " A S S E S S E D YEAR LAND 91 187,300 89 132,100 88 87 132,100 85 146,800 83 146,800 PLAT: V A L U E H IMPS DATE 06/90 04/88 07/87 06/86 03/84 03/82 I S TO R Y REASON REVALUE REVALUE LEVY CODE CHN REVALUE REVALUE REVALUE "I"SAL I DATE I 11/94 I 01/94 I I I I I I I I I BD01 PAIl1270-S1 04/30/02 16:35:45.4 QSTR: HE 10 23 05 JURS: KING CO E S HIS TO R Y * SALES PRICE REMARKS 375,000 DEED QCD * END OF VALUE HISTORY " I " END OF SALES HISTORY " ===e============================================================= ( S.7) == CHOOSE ONE OPTION: PRESS <PRINT> TO PRINT SCREEN, <PF2> FOR CHARACTERISTICS, <PF4> FOR LEGAL, <PF7> FOR TAXES OR <PF8> TO END. BDOS KING COUNTY DEPT OF ASSESSMENTS REAL PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS SITUS: 12013 14STH AV SE 9S055 BD01 PAIl1260-S1 04/30/02 16:34:51.5 ACCOUNT: 102305-9023-0 TAXPAYER: SCHIRMAN MICHAEL+WOLF CYNTH QSTR: SE 10 23 05 LOT: BLK: PLAT: (SEE ALSO S SPLIT) JURS: KING CO * LAN D ZONE ACTUAL JURISDICTION ACRES DATA * I * * B U I L DIN G BLDG SQ FOOTAGE DATA FIRST FLOOR D A T A * * BLDG 1 OF 1 * * I KING CO I 4.S9 I WATER SYSTEM WTR DIST I 1/2 FLOOR 2ND FLOOR SEWER PRIVATE I UPPER FLOOR VIEW OPEN SPACE NO I TOTAL BSMT I FIN BSMT I BSMT GARAGE lS50 TIDELANDS I TOTAL LIVING AREA lS50 WATERFRONT FEET I ATTACHED GARAGE WFT LOCATION I WFT BANK I ROOMS WFT RIGHTS ONLY 3 MISC BLDG INFO YEAR BUILT #STORIES #LIVING UNITS DAYLIGHT BSMT HEAT SOURCE HEAT SYSTEM ACCESSORY IMPS POOL AREA POOL CONSTR DET GARAGE AREA CARPORT AREA MOBILE HOME I ,BEDROOMS ================================================================= ( CHOOSE ONE OPTION: PRESS <PRINT> TO PRINT SCREEN, 19S7 1.0 1 ELEC HT PUMP 1400 0.1) == <PF4> FOR LEGAL, <PF6> FOR HISTORY, <PF7> FOR TAXES OR-· <PFS> TO END. BDOS KING COUNTY DEPT OF ASSESSMENTS BD01 PAIl12S0-S1 REAL PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION 04/30/02 16:34:57.6 ACCOUNT: 102305-9023-0 SITUS: 12013 14STH AV SE 9S055 TAXPAYER: SCHIRMAN MICHAEL+WOLF CYNTH QSTR: SE 10 23 05 (SEE ALSO S SPLIT) JURS: KING CO LEGAL DESCRIPTION -PAGE 1 LOT BLOCK PLAT: N 1/2 OF N 1/2 OF N 1/2 OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 LESS CO RD * END.OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION * 0.0) =============================================================================== CHOOSE ONE OPTION: PRESS <PRINT> TO PRINT SCREEN, <ENTER> FOR MORE LEGALS, <PF2> FOR CHARACTERISTICS, <PF6> FOR HISTORY, <PF7> FOR TAXES OR <PFS> TO END. --- ----------------------- ---------------- BD08 KING COUNTY DEPT OF ASSESSMENTS REAL PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS SITUS: BD01 ·PAI11260-S1 04/30/02 16:34:00.0 ACCOUNT: 102305-9017-0 TAXPAYER: INTLEKOFER MICHAEL J QSTR: NE 10 23 05 LOT: BLK: PLAT: JURS: KING CO • LAN D D A T A • I • • BUILD,ING D A T A * • ,BLDG OF •• ZONE ACTUAL I BLDG SQ FOOTAGE DATA MISC BLDG INFO JURISDICTION KING CO I FIRST FLOOR YEAR BUILT ACRES 14.68 I 1/2 FLOOR IISTORIES WATER SYSTEM WTR DIST I 2ND FLOOR IILIVING UNITS SEWER I UPPER FLOOR DAYLIGHT BSMT VIEW NO I TOTAL'BSMT HEAT SOURCE OPEN SPACE I FIN BSMT HEAT SYSTEM I BSMT GARAGE ACCESSORY IMPS TIDELANDS I TOTAL LIVING -AREA POOL AREA WATERFRONT FEET I ATTACHED GARAGE POOL CONSTR WFT LOCATION I DET GARAGE AREA WFT BANK I ROOMS CARPORT AREA WFT RIGHTS ONLY I BEDROOMS MOBILE HOME ================================================================= ( 0.2) == CHOOSE ONE OPTION: PRESS <PRINT> TO PRINT SCREEN, <PF4> FOR LEGAL, <PF6> FOR HISTORY, <PF7> FOR TAXES BD08 KING COUNTY DEPT OF ASSESSMENTS REAL PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT: 102305-9017-0 SITUS: TAXPAYER: INTLEKOFER MICHAEL J LEGAL DESCRIPTION -PAGE 1 LOT BLOCK PLAT: OR-<PF8> TO END. BDOl PAIl1280-S1 04/30/02 16:34:13.9 QSTR: NE 10 23 05 JURS: KING CO LOT 2 KCSP 1177003 REC AF II 7806130632 SD PLAT DAF S 990 FT OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 LESS CO RD • END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION • 0.1) =============================================================================== CHOOSE ONE OPTION: PRESS <PRINT> TO PRINT SCREEN, <ENTER> FOR MORE LEGALS, <PF2> FOR CHARACTERISTICS, <PF6> FOR HISTORY, <PF7> FOR TAXES OR <PF8> TO END. ----------------------------------------------------- BD08 KING COUNTY DEPT OF ASSESSMENTS REAL PROPERTY HISTORY BD01 PAIl1270"Sl 04/30/02 16:36:07.1 ACCOUNT: 102305-9023-0 SITUS: 12013 148TH AV SE 98055 TAXPAYER: SCHIRMAN MICHAEL+WOLF CYNTH QSTR: SE 10 23 05 LOT: BLK: PLAT: (SEE ALSO 8 SPLIT) * ASS E SSE D YEAR LAND 02 152,000 01 136,000 00 131,000 99 144,000 99 120,000 98 120,000 97 120,000 96 120,000 96 120,000 95 120,000 94 107,500 * * * YEAR LAND 93 107,500 93 107,500 93 93,500 92 93,500 92 93,500 91 93,500 91 93,500 91 66,000 91 66,000 90 66,000 90 66,000 * * * YEAR LAND 90 66,000 89 89 89 89 88 88 88 88 87 87 YEAR 85 83 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 20,200 * * * LAND 22,500 22,500 JURS: KING CO V A L U E HIS TOR Y IMPS DATE REASON 173,000 04/01 REVALUE 160,000 05/00 REVALUE 124,000 07/99 REVALUE *1* SAL 1 DATE E S HIS TOR Y * SALES PRICE REMARKS 190,000 DEED 96,000 10/98 REVALUE 80,000 04/98 EXTENSION 80,000 09/97 REVALUE 73,200 09/96 REVALUE 73,200 09/95 MAINTENANCE 73,200 07/95 LEGAL CHANGE 73,200 08/94 REVALUE 73,200 07/93 MAINTENANCE CONTINUED * * * IMPS DATE REASON 56,015 09/92 MOBILE HOME X 04/92 REVALUE 11/91 EXTENSION 56,015 11/91 MOBILE HOME X 11/90 EXTENSION 56,015 11/90 MOBILE HOME X 06/90 REVALUE 10/89 EXTENSION 10/89 EXTENSION 50,369 10/89 MOBILE HOME X 50,369 10/89 MOBILE HOME X CONTINUED * * * IMPS DATE REASON 10/88 EXTENSION 09/89 LEVY CODE CHN 50,369 10/88 MOBILE HOME X 04/88 REVALUE 10/87 EXTENSION 50,369 10/87 MOBILE HOME X 09/87 MAINTENANCE 16,400 09/87 LEGAL CHANGE 16,400 10/86 MERGER 16,400 10/86 MERGER 16,400 07/86 REVALUE CONTXNUED * * * IMPS DATE REASON 18,000 04/84 REVALUE 18,000 03/82 REVALUE 1 02/94 1 05/86 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 QCD 1 * 1 END OF SALES HISTORY SALES PRICE REMARKS 190,000 DEED QCD DATE 02/94 05/86 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * * END OF SALES HISTORY * DATE SALES PRICE REMARKS 02/94 190,000 DEED 05/86 QCD * END OF SALES HISTORY * --~ ----'- DATE SALES PRICE REMARKS 02/94 190,000 DEED 05/86 QCD * END OF VALUE HISTORY * * END OF SALES HISTORY * ================================================================= ( 16.1) CHOOSE ONE OPTION: PRESS <PRINT> TO PRINT SCREEN, <PF2> FOR CHARACTERISTICS, <PF4> FOR LEGAL, <PF7> FOR TAXES OR <PF8> TO END. Dev. Condo Query Result -DOES, King County Washington Page 1 of 1 ®King County ~~ Comments No P-Suffix Conditions Found The Parcel Number you entered "1023059017" does not have any Development Conditions. To start over click on the New Query link below. l. ____ .. = Updated: December 29. 1998 King County I DOES Page I DOES/GIS Page I New Query I News I Services I Comments I Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. Ibe_doJaiIs. Dev. Condo Query Result -DOES, King County Washington Page 1 of 1 ® King County ~-=-Comments No P-Suffix Conditions Found The Parcel Number you entered "1023059023" does not have any Development Conditions. To start over click on the New Query link below. Updated: December 29. 1998 King County I DOES Page I DOES/GIS Page I New Query I News I Services I Comments I Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details I • .? Q04. • j..'.. KiQ9, WA, 1998·99· 23-05·10NE, Sheet: 1 of 1 I Z fTI I I - 0 .,,1 , "' I A t." '" -".;.. ,,~ r--- I , /Jl I\) 0 n J> ()J r W Q) f1l -, r '-I, --'I ® .. .-. (' f) .. ~--:. /.0 , I I -0 ,,~ 1 0 (J1 , * * :s:: ~ to- ." , :0 .... IYJ ... < , • 1ii ~ 1"1 0 [:~ I I , , Vl '. rTJ z 0: , 'N rv~ '-"~ ,~ '-" ( , • • • • , " 0 . ® " 8j~~ , . ~ , ... I I ~. .. . . '. . ~ ." r48TH AVE SE t: , Kina, WA, 1998-99 -23-05-10NE, Sheet: 1 of 1 ~~~J~--"'t", lj , I~ 1------:;;- I I , I w " '" ~ I ®~ ! 0'~ I '~'----"'~'~'~"~'L-------,ll---t ___ ~"'~$~--------tc,---~~~.k~~~~~ IJI9.45 1 ;"U) ) Jai·e7 \8" ~~' "' ... ~ -1-"" '.1~ ~ "'::4. " Z!I;J.H r.,.J 1 , 31 5.96 , 1 I , ;1 ':j ~( J I , I .. I ~"~ ~~------~ ~I -I ~\ ----J~ , I :~· .... ~ " " , ;,-------- , J I " -w N . .. f."" 8"~ ------- . " ~\ \ ...... ----- .. ~~ "", ~ • ~'. .. . " ~ - , • • '. ~ . .. -~ ' , I--------! S£ SHEET NO . 11 KING COUNTY AREA, WASHINGTON (RENTON QUADRANGLE) I 680 COO fEET Akf 122'07'30" 47 '30' 180 COO fEET I-11 hH fIR f I C/) I ~ .R la~&mUU D II a~ l lUll J lil{ LO Z I ~ ~ ~~ i~~~~:::g~~~ I J 80 III II d 1I11!l!lUiilllll~!ll § ~ Ii f· j II e 01-• c.. z ~ ® hXI ~ I L I~lll J J I ~ rl ~~:i~m~j~~~~~~!B~6-' 5 II! N W -l 9 0::: ~ 0 illi ... ~ .~<i <U[J I III II 11 111111 1< i7; I I 0 156dt _ ~ J ~ .x ~. -~ :c ...a RENTON E110-23-5 • I~'''I .-.. .. ...,...._._._._ . .,...."._. ;~. ._.tJ:] .. -j-=':;V'::r:'=:r;' .~.~.-.-,..------.,....-.-.=t ••. -. ~--:r:--. ;: •• "" ",.. '021 ,.... ""',.., !C:io'DRAN. -................ 94~~ •. , _ •. 1&1 --Iii ! "Sttir-1St) 71(\111 tWt-, ._._. U ' /,·r"', [",,-r " =-'·· .. 1) t-.! . ./ ---' .~ ii . 'w : '.-i'.;t;;, I @I .'. "',~ .. I12Q ~. DAc-'I-; "',, 1'.-, f J -,..> '/' ". ,. ",' :.;; ;: . il2f!1 I;:' .,,' l-::l .!?tl8 ~t Q. 11231!1 sffeJ_j PIl5Tt/10E :.l" d] 11'118 _ /J4z.~ q}. I~" , . i-I> @j. ~ d.';. ( r:l '18(.(; . LJ OJ 'J. IZO()&- 1/61m I. ,I .. j ().()r~) .::..~ . :I ,/ rt~ L .. _..I ." .. ~ I? 0.-11 -". ~,7'A<. @) 'l.1I!! N. @ C"J ('Ii ,';TU ~ (0 a, ! 14~:,;:, rf67 Ac. -~J5 '@; '. ~"'~;'l '®I @I~ ®I @! ~1~1-~1 -~\~ ® .-,.... I'~-'" 'Z06 ® /(rf. ii": 1:Z.SJt.c @ u,!! liD ~ffi~,,:! . t:26k @J' 5017. \lTWn -'\,. ", /.z./+(. @ .. ~~.~ ~~. ~~" ~~ ~~ .~ " ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~,~ >,. ~ I , .... ~ ,,~.,~~ '" .~ <:-.... ':::", ~ ... , .. <0i~ , , E\ I 8!!7 6"(r~:Lt- Me"'. ~'" 0... LEVEl.. 1. U) \::'~\i-: II "! / , _j I ,-,I ~,t •.• ~ 0.) /J " , ....... '. eA~~: m e£,jj -('I' ,~5..\, ."-.,' .. ' "_"V'\'~ ~Q IIBI C' 1'1;131>£, t::1C.k.~ C. CIi!Vf4-: : ~\!!!!I "'-..., "-'\, I ,. . '.' "-,,, '," \, ~ ~\ ., ~~ ~,r'lt5N ~® PA <·-1 'J';"~:. o ! , , i , I I. T D 0>25 ~ ~~,.a~" \ ,./0 1\(. ®~. U lJJ!J tp IUH'j ~I' II = ~~ \1,11/2(\ Ii ~~~ '1l(oX: ~Jl~1 .,0 ~ 140 33~l .. ·' . 432.01 tl B Pte ~ KJ ~ lj 11. L~ tW H'a. H u UI~~ YJ jlrt. JJgI~ -::I.I-:n.v ~ I . 632.07 . .I: Ush:,d.::. ~_ DATE._':i!.X~~1",CHECKED BY .. ~ ..... ,_ ... _. n. I: ...... )1-,,,,,,,1 M.'h! 0'20 = r~'·I-'). -=:::.J ,--_;'~'" .1 II 1111P. ,,"~-' / ._ ..... , , , '. , :' " , ,', , , " , ',-, , , ,-.. : " ", " . ,'/ . '( " -,"(--~~, CI~O~'RENTON' "', ~. '. . , , PlanningiBuildingiPublicWorks Dt)partment , ',' -; , . '" , , 'GreggZimmerman,P,E., Administrator' .I~ r' , . , . , ~ .. _., , ' , 'c< ' Jamiary 2,.2007 , " '., :'. . :". Ms;'LisaDinsmo!e, ,""," ',', "'",,' ,King Cou'nty Department of Development & Environmental Services', , Land Use Services Division; " ',900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest ' Renton, washingion 98055"12i9 " SUBJECT: .. '. SEPA Mitigared'Determ~tion ~f,Non~Significance L02P0005IEast Renton ,,,' ' '" ' .f,' . , ,Dear Ms, binsrilor~: -,', " ..... '. , ' .. " ," !, ." ". " Th~ you for th~ opportuniiy to review and com~ent on the SEP AMitigated Determination of NilllCSignificance regardihgL02POOO~/East,R~nton:<Th,:"tity' of Renton:, ' , ',' , :, ,," Planning/Building/P':lblic Works Departmen\ would like to cOJ?Ullent as follows: " , .;, ". " . ". , , -' .. , ." The proposed de~elopine~t isloc~ied withintheCiiy'ofR~rit~';'s potentiaiannex~ti~n area" ,Ti)erefore we requesi that street improvements (road~ay pavement widening,and thickiless, curb, gutter, side\\'alk, street lighting, 'etc,) to 1 48th.l\v,enue SE abutting,the 'd~veloprtleni site, and th~ proposed new str~ets within the development site, be ,i ' " , -. ' ' . ~;." " . constructed to City of Renton standards, '..' " " ,~ . - -. ,,' .' ." ,," ". ,(. The sewer is located within the City of Renton and has an existing availability, '", '-,' • -Q. , ~ • '-:. : : ~ • ." ',' -, " • If you have ady questions H,lating'to either of these conditions, pleasecbntaCt Bob Mahn, Ciyi! Erigineer, at (42?) 430:7322,:,' "" , ,:' '> ':, ,"", ' , " ,:, ~,: :'" . ;c. , ' , 'Sinceri:ly," ""'-'W4eM,1!#;f;tq~'" " , " ' ',' Gregg tinhnerman;, ,'. , ' , ' ,,; ." Administrator ' , " , , , Phinning!BuildingIPublic \\:' orks Dept. , '.' .. " , ,,' CC:. ,Alex Pietsch', EDNSp'Administrator >~ • ,Lys" Homsby, Utility Systems Director:: .. Peter Hahn, Deputy PBPW'~Admil)istrilior -Transportation Lesley'Betlach. Parks Director' '. , ," Jim Gmy,' A"ssistant Fire Marshall ~cnil!fer~Hennirig,_ Current-Planning ~anagcr .• " .' Bob Mahn, Civil Engineer " , " , " " ' ," ,:' t '" ',. " " , " , ' , , ," .' ". ~ '. , " ;! • , , " ~y ~-CITYO'riRENTON v ~~~~ + :1(' + ,. . Planningl Bundlng I, Public Works .-~~~'\'o~ 1055 South Grady' Way -Renton W A98057' "f, . J , , " .' " Ms, Lisa Dinsmore ...... .~~.-T.~( --= .. ~-JJZ~3=' ' : " lI''ibr, A~ . ,-• ~ '(foWl . . -* JA~H'01,W~DJ9'= ~ I PB . . _ METER ,:. ~ 70$0037 U•S:P OSTAOE'" --' - _ . 0 ~~~' ;;' '-::~ "C" z rn frio -. _11 I, (,J --' '~, rr: King c::oimty DepartDlent·ofDevelopmenl &: Environmental Services' , , .:;:-< rna . , .> .,-< ',"" '< fT1 d 1\ ". " L~d Use Services Division' . 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Rimton;WaShington 98055-12\9 ' \~~.~:-~. .;1., ~\"] .~~::'-' "I'~ ~. ,:'} 'i'') .-.1 c· .~ ~e.,Q!';_f'~'S2. \ '2.-0.0 _ c:oO'a.· \:I -This ~per~ins50:*> recycled pape~, 30% ~t..co~rm;:r . . 11,1,,1, :1,11,',; ,1,1, !",I,I,I",I;'I,"II"IIIII", fl"""lIi PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EAST RENTON Pennit Approval Conditions Document Fire System Review Tracking Number: L02P0005 Revised -12/8/2006 The following conditions apply to the Fire Engineering approval of the above referenced preliminary plat: AA02 MUDD Any questions regarding the fire review of this plan should be directed to: Bill Mudd, Fire Engineering . Telephone: (206) 296-6785. *** SPRINKLER REQUIREMENT *** All future residences constructed within this subdivision are required to be sprinklered NFPA 13D unless the requirement is removed by the King County Fire Marshal or hislher designee. The Fire Code requires all portions of the exterior walls of structures to be within 150 feet (as a person would walk via an approved route around the building) from a minimum 20-foot wide, unobstructed driving surface. To qualify for removal of the sprinkler requirement driving surfaces between curbs must be a minimum of28 feet in width when parking is allowed on one side of the roadway, and at least 36 feet in width when parking is p>ennitted on both sides. FHOI FIRE HYDRANT W ATERMAIN PERMITS A separate pennit is required for the installation of water mains and/or fire hydrants. Submit three (3) copies of drawings and specifications to DDES Building Services Division Pennit Service Center for a pennit application. Review and approval by Fire Engineering Section is required prior to installation. Plans shall include, but are not limited to; pipe sizes, pipe type, valves/fittings, thrust blocks and/or rodding and material listings. Fire hydrants shall be installed per K.C.C. Title 17 Water mains shall be installed and tested per A WW A standards and/or NFPA#24 (STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS AND W ATERMAINS); as applicable. Ref. 1001.4 UFC NOTE: UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED, ANY W ATERMAIN OR FIRE HYDRANT DETAILS ON BUILDING PLANSIDRA WINGS HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED OR APPROVED. FH74 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL Preliminary Fire Engineering approval has been granted based upon the following infonnation provided. To obtain final Fire Engineering approval, the following item(s) must be submitted to the DDES pennit service center; reviewed and approved: I. Certificate of Water Availability. (Provided by appropriate water purveyor). Valid one year from date of signature. Minimum acceptance flow shall be 1000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure. II. Three copies of plans indicating: \1IlI!l~ _,::. Copy Fire Systems Review Approval Conditions Page 1 of2 .. / .. ' • • A. Fire hydrant(s) location -measured by vehicular travel distance. (K.C.C. Title 17) Residential 1. 700 ft. maximum spacing. 2. Not more than 350 ft. from·each lot. B. Watermain placement (K.C.C. Title 17) I. Source (i.e.) supply connection. 2. Main sizes identified. C. Fire access roads Ref. IFC, Sections SOl through 503, 2003 addition I. Minimum 20 ft. wide unobstructed -13' 6" vertical clearance, unobstructed. All-weather surface, able to withstand 25 tons. (See sprinkler note above) 2. Fire access roads in excess of ISO feet (dead-ends), must have an approved tum-around area. Access road shall extend to within ISO ft. of all portions of building exterior walls. Required turn-arounds must be a minimum 80-foot diameter; or meet approved "hammerhead" requirements **********Including temporary turnarounds************ 3. Fire access roads must provide 20-foot minimum inside turning radius and 40 outside turning radius when said roads change direction. 4. Fire access roads shall not exceed 15% grade. 5. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times. D. Marking when required, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both. Ref. IFC, Sections SOl through 503, 2003 edition FH77 FINAL PLAT APPROVAL Final plat approval requires an inspection and approval of the fire hydrant and water main installation by a King County Fire Inspector, prior to recording. Call [8881546-7728 to schedule an inspection; after a permit to install has bee obntained from DDES; Fire Protection Engineering. Fire Systems Review Approval Conditions Page 2 of2 ~------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ® • King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 October 16, 2006 Sara Slatten Cam West 9720 NE 120th PI., Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98034 RE: Request for Time Extension Application No. L02P0005 -East Renton Dear Ms. Slatten: • The purpose of this letter is to notify you pursuant to King County Code that the Land Use Services Division has approved your request for extension of time until November 17, 2006. When submitting the requested information previously required, include a copy of the plat screening transmittal and retain a copy for your records. Provide a cover letter, which lists how each item, was addressed. Any clarification or explanation of the submittal can also be included in the cover letter. Please submit the information to: King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division ATTN.: Karen Scharer, Project Manager II, Current Planning Section 900 Oaksdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 If the submittal is hand delivered, submit at the address above. Your application is on "hold" from the date of this notice, until the date you are advised that the additional information satisfies this request or 14 days after the date the information has been provided. You will be notified if the Division determines that the information is insufficient. Please note that the supplemental information required after vesting of a complete application shall not affect the validity of such application. The deadline for the submittal of the necessary information is NOvember 17, 2006. In the event you feel extenuating circumstances exist, which may justify an extension of this date, you may submit such request, in writing, for consideration by this Department. Failure to meet the deadline shall be cause for the Department to cancel or deny the application. MAIN FILE COPY L02P0005 October 16, 2006 Page 2 • • If possible, please submit all of the information in one package. If you have any questions, regarding the additional information or the submittal deadline, please call me at 206-296-7114) or e-mail at karen.scharer@metrokc.gov. ~ Karen Sc rer, Project Manager II Current PI nning Section, LUSD cc: Kim Claussen, PPM III, Current Planning Section, LUSD via e-mail Pete Dye, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD via e-mail Application Files f ® • King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 August 15, 2006 Sara Slatten Cam West . 9720 NE 120th PI., Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98034 RE: Request for Time Extension Application No. L02P0005 -East Renton Dear Ms. Slatten: • The purpose of this letter is to notify you pursuant to King County Code that the Land Use Services Division has approved your request for extension of time until October 1, 2006. When submitting the requested information previously required, include a copy of the plat screening transmittal and retain a copy for your records. Provide a cover letter, which lists how each item, was addressed. Any clarification or explanation of the submittal can also be included in the cover letter. Please submit the information to: King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division AnN.: Karen Scharer, Project Manager II, Current Planning Section 900 Oaksdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 If the submittal is hand delivered, submit at the address above. Your application is on "hold" from the date of this notice, until the date you are advised that the additional information satisfies this request or 14 days after the date the information has been provided. You will be notified if the Division determines that the information is insufficient. Please note that the supplemental information required after vesting of a complete application shall not affect the validity of such application. The deadline for the submittal of the necessary information is October 1,2006. In the event you feel extenuating circumstances exist, which may justify an extension of this date, you may submit such request, in writing, for consideration by this Department. Failure to meet the deadline shall be cause for the Department to cancel or deny the application. MAIN FILE COpy ..y 4~ L02P0005 August 15, 2006 Page 2 • • If possible, please submit all of the information in one package. If you have any questions, regarding the additional information or the submittal deadline, please call me at 206-296-7114) or e-mail at karen.scharer@metrokc.gov. Sincerely, ~";.';2" pcojoct M,""e, " Current Planning Section, LUSD cc: Kim Claussen, PPM III, Current Planning Section, LUSD via e-mail Pete Dye, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD via e-mail Application Files .. • • July 28,2006 Karen Scharer, Planner King County DOES 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton WA 98055-1219 • RE: Rosemonte & East Renton Properties: L03P0018 & L02P0005 Preliminary Plat Resubmittal Extension Request Dear Karen, The following request to extend the preliminary plat resubmittal deadline is for the Rosemonte and East Renton applications. Currently, we still need to obtain an offsite easement for future ROW improvements, nortb of Rosemonte. We also . need to provide notification to the neighborS on the east side of 148 th Avenue SE of the future improvements to 148th Ave SE. The improvements to 148th Ave SE will entail temporary mailbox relocations '!Od impacts to existing driveways. We fully expect to coordinate these efforts and keep all affected parties in the loop. If po~sible we "{ould like to extend our resubmittaltimeline to September 15, 2006. We believe this will be adequate time to proviae submittals on the above listed information. I can be reached at (425) 825-1955 should you need any additional information or have any furtber questions. Sara Slatten Cam West Development, Inc.· --------------------------------- • , .J ---------------~- ® • King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 March 30, 2006 Sara Slatten Cam West 9720 N E 120th PI., Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98034 RE: Notice of Request for Additional Information or Studies Application No. L02P0005 -East Renton Dear Ms. Slatten: • The purpose of this letter is to notify you pursuant to King County Code Title 20 that the Land Use Services Division is requesting additional information and/or studies after review of the additional materials submitted for project review. The information is described on the enclosed plat screening transmittal. When submitting the requested information, include a copy of the plat screening transmittal and retain a copy for your records. Provide a cover letter, which lists how each item, was addressed. Any clarification or explanation of the submittal can also be included in the cover letter. Please submit the information to: King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division ATTN.: Karen Scharer, Project Manager II, Current Planning Section 900 Oaksdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 If the submittal is hand delivered, submit at the address above. Your application is on "hold" from the date of this notice, until the date you are advised that the additional information satisfies this request or 14 days after the date the information has been provided. You will be notified if the Division determines that the information is insufficient. Please note that the supplemental information required after vesting of a complete application shall not affect the validity of such application. The deadline for the submittal of the necessary information is June 30, 2006. In the event you feel extenuating circumstances exist, which may justify an extension of this date, you may submit such request, in writing, for consideration by this Department. Failure to meet the deadline shall be cause for the Department to cancel or deny the application. MAIN FILE COPY 1)P L02P0005 March 30, 2006 Page 2 • • If possible, please submit all of the information in one package. If you have any questions, regarding the additional information or the submittal deadline, please call me at 206-296- 7114) or e-mail at karen.scharer@metrokc.gov. j/IY, ~~r, oject Manager II Current Plann' g Section, LUSD cc: Kim Claussen, PPM III, Current Planning Section, LUSD via e-mail Pete Dye, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD via e-mail Kris Langley, Senior Engineer, Roads Division, KCDOT via e-mail Nick Gillen, Senior Ecologist, CAO Section LUSD via e-mail Application Files !I J L02P0005 March 30, 2006 Page 3 • King County. ' •• > • i ... ' ,Department of DeveloPr11ent{ a~d Environmental Se,rv}ces '~f. < • ~ , 'l~n,~ Y~~'~~ryi,*~!f~iY,!~I~,~, '_:,; .',if ,>' ,-~: ,> -;\ ;-,', :-"',' ' '900·0i.:tkesdale'Avenue'Southwest" -,,,' ;;; ~,--.'.:' ,-P' • >.Re\\ton;livashingtori'(S805S:1:iis.. . '.. > /d'.>. . .•..• / :::.!<~~F.;~<, ::: -->:,' .:_:--:;;:, ~,l:,,> ;,;':>;;'i~Xi;-,,~ ?",':;',:i;.>:f" ? ~;;!,::'4~ ;"",:::t' ~ ~ ,,')'-;)/ ,,' ;; ,,' ~~f<_{, ',', / " el~XBEl~~sre;ElQm~·;;rr~nSnllt~al.;.3;' ;~ .) •• '.. ••... 'Ii.;' .' ·,Pr~llir1I!i~ry.~la(Appl!c~ti.on;L,V~D.File No;t.02.P,0005 .' . ;.q~~El·Qf;IIlf,9trf!~ti?s:!.;8e,gl,l~.~t~·; .. ;L: ..... :.>:;.: •..........•.. ;.. '. ;D~a'dlirie;f()r.;Subrrjittal·of(lnformatioh:June39j 2006,' . SUBMITTAL of INFORMATION Please provide ten (10) copies of the following, unless otherwise noted. PLAT Response to # 3 -see attached . ' .." e}--.-'j PLAT SCREENING TRANSMITTAL 1. Plat Map: For the sake of clarity at rl,e public hearing, given that East Renton and Rosemonte are two separate applications and mayor may not precede to hearing at the same time, we request that you provide separate plat maps for each application. This is also necessary in order for there to be a clear understanding as to what the County is approving or denying with each application, at the rinle a decision is issued by the Hearing Examiner and the County Council. We suggest that you accomplish this task by simply taking the existing plat map submitted on October 6, 2005, and modifying it to show the Rosemonte plat with phantDm lines for the East Renton map, and vice versa for the Rosemonte map. Regarding the legal description shown on each plat map, please include only the applicable portion. In other words, the plat map for East Renton should include a legal description for just the East Renton property, not East Renton and Rosemonte together. Note also that the recording number for the Boundary Line Adjustment shown in the legal description on rl,C maJY submitted on October 6, 2005 is incorrect. It should be 20041223900001, not 20041223900005. Regarding the "Site Information" shown on the plat maps, please modify the East Renton and Rosemonte maps so that they include data for each application, not just data for the two applications combined. 2. Tract E Access (formerly known as Tract G): In our July 15, 2005 "screening" letter (Item 3), we requested that you identify the proposed means of access to the Tract E "Future Development" tract (formerly Tract G), since DOES has not typically supported the creation of future development tracts unless they have a . viable, legal access. It is apparent from your response in your October 5, 2005 letter, that you were confused about which tract we were referring to. Therefore, please provide the requested information. 3. Improvements to 148 1 " Ave. SE: The proposed road profile for the plat frontage improvements on 148"' Ave. SE show gr~ding activity to occur outside of the existing right-of-way, on the east side of the street. In order to demonstrate these improvements are feasible to construct, please provide correspondence from the affected off-site property owners, indicating their willingness to provide the necessary easements prior to engineering plan approval for this project. 4. Wetland Buffers and Building Setbacks: It is unclear on Sheet 1 of 2 of the plat map set submitted on October 6, 2005, where the northwest boundary oETract G, the stormwater/ recreation tract, is proposed to be located. However, from viewing Sheet 2, the Tract G boundary is shown touching Werland B, i.e., no werland buffer is proposed. Please note that this design is unacceptable to ODES, which normally has been willing to support a maximum buffer 'reduction of 65% through buffer averaging, where we have concluded the Code's buffer averaging criteria can be. met. Therefore, please submit a revised plat map showing a wetland buffer which is at .. 5 , re' , least 32.5 feet in width, where buffer reductions are proposed. Also, the proposed plat design must include a 15-foot setback for the stormwater vault from the buffer edge. On a related subject, note that we have some concerns about the proposed use of the top of the vault for recreational use, given that the vault will be situated approximately 16 feet above grade at it's western edge. We can discuss this matter further in future meetings on this application. . Please submit 15 copies of a revised plat map and eight copies of any additional documents provided. ----I • •• 'O\M .WE'ST 1 DEVELOPMENT· INC J March 17, 2006 Lanny Henoch, Planner King County DDES 900 Oakesdale AvenueSW Renton WA 98055-1219 RE: East Renton Property: L02POOOS Preliminary Plat Resubmittal #8 Dear Lanny, Enclosed is the resubmittal to the East Renton plat based on your December 13, .2005 comment letter. I have enclosed 15 copies of the revised plat as well as a copy of your request for revisions. Below are respohses to each of the 4 issues raised: . I) Revise plat map to separate out the East Renton Property from the separate' ,Rosemont parcel. . Response: East Renton is now shown as a stand-alone plat for this application resubmittal. A separate resubmittal will be handed in for the Rosemont application in the near future. For the remaining plat proceedings, we will keep Rosemont and East Renton as separate plat submittals. Our hope is still to have a combined plat hearing for both applic.ations and to eventually combine them when we get to the engineering application stage. ' . . 2) Tract E Access (formerly Tract G) Response: The maximum density for the East Renton plat is 68 lots. We are currently proposing 66 which leaves two remaining parcels. . / Although there is ~o proposed access for the upland Tract E area, we believe access could be provid'ed at some point. We suggest that a final plat condition could be labeled for this future access tract which would condition its future development on viable access. It is our understanding that the parcel to south is currently being considered for development and could lend itself for the future needed access. 3) Frontage improvements to 148 th Avenue SE. Provide correspondence of concurrence from the adjacent and affected property owners. Response: This is in process and we will follow up over the upcoming MAiN fILE COpy , .. -------~-----~~-------- .. -----l cCO\M·WEST! • • DEVgLOPMENT • INC I ~, weeks with this documentation. 4) Wetland buffers and building setbacks to TractG. Response: Please refer to sheet 2 of 2 ofthe plat drawings. The wetland boundary is indicated aswell as the 15 foot setback ( denoted with dashed lines). The proposed vault is located outside of the wetland. buffer and the IS-foot building setback. I hope this correspondence addressed the requested plat information. We will follow up with the documentation from our neighbors for the l4Sth frontage improvements over the upcoming weeks .. Also, if.there continues to be concern with access to the future development tract, lets discuss fUrther. . Sincerely, . ~. Sara Slatten CamWest Development, Inc: enclosures ®. • King County Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 (206) 296-6600 TTY (206) 296-7217 Alternative formats available upon request Drop-Off Cover Sheet for Land Use Services Division "''''''' ",'If""'" *** "'''''''*'''''''''''''''*''' ******* IMP 0 RT A NT '" **** "'''''''''''II *******'" '" "'''''''*''''''''''''''''''' PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME IS NECESSARY F R L DROP-OFFS .rn"r.S Project No.: --b=-=-jk-=-'.:!-"'-==;----,.,.,------ ADDITIONAL IN ORMATION REQUESTED BY KING COUNTY Short Plat I Plats Please specify item(s) dropped-off: ~ Lot Line Adjustment Permit Please specify item(s) dropped-off: Right of Way Permit Please specify item(s) dropped-off: Clearing I Grading Permit Date Received by LUSD AFF (please print) Additional information requested; please specify item(s) dropped-off: . Other: ________ ~--------------------------------------------- PLEASE NOTE: All drop-off item(s) will be logged into the computer under the project number, therefore, it is important that the top portion of this form is completed properly before you drop-off anything. Assistance in finding a project number can be provided by speaking to a Land Use Services Division Person of the Day (POD) or the Zoning/Land Use Technician. Your cooperation is important. Thank you. lUSD Drop·Off Cover Sheet Ig-cvs-dropoff.pdf 05-30-2002 Page 1 of 1 " ® "~ King Countv Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division • Drop-Off Ccfter Sheet for LUSD ONL Y 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600, Drop-Off Cover Sheet for Land Use Services Division **************************** IMPORTANT *************************** PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME IS NECESSARY FOR ALL DROP-OFFS Date R~cetEdca ~~ ~ to) ~ MAR 222006 K.C. O.O.E.S. Project No,: FROM: /3/JP-L}HA US t!! 101 -A/!-rItL#!L-S~//~~t., Company Name! Contact Person Telephone No: -?'Z~-If, '5'6 -7"1".>Y TO: ~.A }-I:.IJ SL-H/l J'-.,E. P- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY KING COUNTY STAFF (please print) Short Plat I Plats Please specify item(s) dropped-off: Lot Line Adjustment Permit Please specify item(s) dropped-off: Right of Way Permit Please specify item(s) dropped-off: Clearing I Grading Permit -Additional information requested, Please specify item(s) dropped-off: PLEASE NOTE: All drop-off item(s) wiii be logged into the computer under the project number, therefore, it is important that the top portion of this form is completed properiy before you drop-off anything, Assistance in finding a project number can be provided by speaking to a Zoning/Land Use Technician, Your cooperation is important. Thank you, Check out the DDES Web site at www,metrokc,govlddes Drop-Off Cover Sheet-LUSD Only Ig-cvs-dropoff,pdl 11-03-2004 Page 1 01 1 ,,' ® • King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 December 16,2005 Sara Slatten Cam West Development, Inc, 9720 Northeast 120" Place, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98034 RE: Request for Additional Information • Proposed Preliminary Plat of East Renton, File No. L02P0005 Dear Ms, Slatten: We have completed our review ofthe materials you submitted in response to our July 15, 2005 "screening" letter, and have concluded, unfortunately, there are still some matters for which we need additional information before scheduling a public hearing on this project. These items are described on the enclosed "Plat Screening TransmittaL" When submitting the requested information, please provide a cover letter which lists how each item on the "Plat Screening Transmittal" has been addressed. Any clarification or explanation of your submittal should be included in the cover letter, Please submit the information to: King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division l\TrN: Lanny I-Ienoch, Planner II, Current Planning Section 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 If your submittal is hand delivered, please submit it to the Land Use Counter on the first floor at the address above, Review of your application has been placed "on hold" as of the date of this letter, until we receive your submittal with the requested information, Please note that supplemental information required after the vesting of a complete application does not affect the validity of the vesting of the application. The deadline for the submittal of the requested information is March 17, 2006, In the event you feel extenuating circumstances exist which justify an exrension of this deadline, please submit a request in writing for consideration by this department. MAIN FILE COpy ,. Preliminary Plat of Eas&ton December 16, 2005 Page 2 of 2 • If you have any questions regarding the requested information or the submittal deadline, please call me at (206) 296-6632. Sincerely, . ? Lanny Henoch, Planner II Current Planning Section, LUSD Enclosure cc: Kim Claussen, Planner III, Current Planning Section, LUSD, w / encl. Pete Dye, P.E., Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD, w / encl. Kris Langley, Senior Engineer, Road Services Division, KCDOT, w/encl. Nick Gillen, Senior Ecologist, Critical Areas Review Section, LUSD, w / enc!. • • PLAT SCREENING TRANSMITTAL 1. Plat Map: For the sake of clarity at the public hearing, given that East Renton and Rosemonte are two separate applications and mayor may not precede to hearing at the same tinae, we request that you provide separate plat maps for each application. This is also necessary in order for tbere to be a clear understanding as to what the County is approving or denying witb each application, at the tinae a decision is issued by the Hearing Examiner and tbe County Council. We suggest that you accomplish tbis task by sinaply taking the existing plat map submitted on October 6, 2005, and modifying it to show tbe Rosemonte plat witb phantom lines for the East Renton map, and vice versa for the Rosemonte map. Regarding tbe legal description shown on each plat map, please include only tbe applicable portion. In other words, the plat map for East Renton should include a legal description for just tbe East Renton property, not East Renton and Rosemonte togetber. Note also tbat the recording number for the Boundary Line Adjustment shown in tbe legal description on tbe map submitted on October 6, 2005 is incorrect. It should be 20041223900001, not 20041223900005. Regarding tbe "Site Information" shown on the plat maps, please modify tbe East Renton and Rosemonte maps so tbat tbey include data for each application, not just data for tbe two applications combined. 2. Tract E Access (formerly known as Tract G): In our July 15, 2005 "screening" letter (Item 3), we requested tbat you identify the proposed means of access to the Tract E "Future Development" tract (formerly Tract G), since DDES has not typically supported tbe creation of future development tracts unless they have a viable, legal access. It is apparent from your response in your October 5, 2005 letter, that you were confused about which tract we were referring to. Therefore, please provide tbe requested information. 3. Improvements to 148'· Ave·. SE: The proposed road proflle for tbe plat frontage inaprovements on 148'" Ave. SEshow grading activity to occur outside of the existing right-of-way, on tbe east side of tbe street. In order to demonstrate tbese inaprovements are feasible to construct, please provide correspondence from tbe affected off-site property owners, indicating tbeir willingness to provide tbe necessary easements prior to engineering plan approval for tbis project. 4. Wetland Buffers and Building Setbacks: It is unclear on Sheet 1 of 2 of tbe plat map set submitted on October 6, 2005, where tbe nortbwest boundary of Tract G, the storrnwater/ recreation tract, is proposed to be located. However, from viewing Sheet 2, tbe Tract G boundary is shown touching Wetland B, i.e., no wetland buffer is proposed. Please note tbat tbis design is unacceptable to DDES, which normally has been willing to support a maximum buffer reduction of 65% tbrough buffer averaging, where we have concluded tbe Code's buffer averaging criteria can be met. Therefore, please submit a revised plat map showing a wetland buffer which is at -------------- . ' • • least 32.5 feet in width, where buffer reductions arc proposed. Also, the proposed plat design must include a 15-foot setback for the stormwater vault from the buffer edge. On a related subject, note that we have some concerns about the proposed usc of the top of the vault for recreational use, given that the vawt will be situated approximately 16 feet above grade at it's western edge. \V'e can discuss this matter further in future meetings on this application. . Please submit 15 copies of a revised plat map and eight copies of any additional documents provided. ® • King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 July 15, 2005 Sara Slatten Cam West Development, Inc. 9720 Northeast 120'h Place, Suite 100 Kirkland, W A 98034 RE: Request for Additional Information or Studies • Proposed Preliminary Plat of East Renton, File No. L021'0005 Dear Ms. Slatten: We have completed our review of the materials you have submitted in response to our March 11, 2003 "screening" letter, and previous "screening" letters dated July 1, 2002 and Ocrober 24, 2002. While many of the issues raised in these letters have been satisfactorily addressed, unfortunately, there are still some remaining issues which must be resolved before we can proceed to a public hearing on the preliminary plat application for East Renton. Therefore, please submit the lIlformation described on the enclosed "Plat Screening Transmittal." When submitting the requested information, please provide a cover letter which lists how each item on the "Plat Screening Transmittal" has been addressed. Any clarification or explanation of your submittal should be included in the cover letter. Please submit the information to: King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division ATTN: Lanny Henoch, Planner II, Current Planning Section 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 If your submittal is hand delivered, please submit it to the Land Use Counter on the first flooi: at the address above. Review of your application has been placed "on hold" as of the date of this letter, until we have determined that the information you submit in the future satisfies our request, or 14 days after the date of the receipt of the requested information, whichever is sooner. If the Division determines that the information you submit in the future is insufficient, we will notify you of any MAIN FILE COpy Preliminary Plat of East Rein July 15,2005 Page 2 of 2' • additional informatio'n which is needed. Please note that supplemental infonnation required after the vesting of a complete application does not affect the validity of the vesting of the application. The deadline for the submittal of the requested information is October 14, 2005. In the event you feel extenuating circumstances exist which justify an extension of this deadline, please submit a request in writing for consideration by this departtnent Note that, per KCC 20.10.1 OOCl b, failure to meet the October 14, 2005 deadline may be cause for the Departtnent to cancel the application. We request that you submit all of the requested information in one package. If you have any questions regarding rhe recluested information or the submittal deadline, please call me at (206) 296-6632. Lanny I-!enoch, Planner II Current Planning Section, LUSD Enclosure cc: Kim Claussen, Planner III, Current Planning Section, LUSD, w/encL Pete Dye, P.R, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD, w/encL Kris Langley, Senior Engineer, Road Services Division, KCDOT, w/encL .' • • PLAT SCREENING TRANSMITTAL 1. Revised Application: In a July 8,2005 telephone conversation, you indicated that the boundaries of the subject property and the proposed plat of East Renton had been modified through an exchange of land with an adjacent property owner, Northward Homes, Inc. You noted that this modification of parcel boundaries had been previously approved through the review of a Boundary Line Adjustment application by DDES. Therefore, please submit the following: • A copy of the approved, recorded Boundary Line Adjustment application. • Copies of the recorded deeds for the exchange of property. • Twenty-five copies of a revised plat map for the plat of East Renton, which includes a revised legal descrip60n of the East Renton site. • Twenty-five copies of a revised conceptual drainage plan showing the revised site boundaries. Regarding the revised plat, we have noted a minor design issue which we would like you to address on the new map layout. Please add a 25 foot property line radius where SE 119,h St. intersects 148,h Ave. SE, per the reguirements of King County Road Standards Sec. 2.lOA4. 2. Density Calculation Worksheet: Please submit an updated Density Calculation Worksheet which is based on the modified acreages in the subject proposal, including, for example, the modified total site area, the amount of area for required recreation space, the modified amount of area in sensitive areas and buffers, and the amount of area provided for stormwater facilities (not including facilities which are completely underground). 3. Tract G Access: On the most recent set of plans for East Renton which were submitted to DDES (dated November 12, 2004 and received on November 24, 2004), Tract G is now proposed as a future development tract. DDES has not typically supported the creation of a future development tract within a proposed subdivision, unless access is available to the tract. Therefore, please indicate how access to Tract G will be provided. 4. Traffic Volume and Turning Analysis: With the revised loca60n of the access to East Renton, SE 119,h St., it is possible that southbound left-turning gueues into the church located east of East Renton could obstruct traffic movements into and out of this plat. Likewise, northbound tUrning movements into the plat could obstruct access into and out of the church. In order to assess the potential impact to safety associated with this scenario, please provide an analysis of this issue prepared by your consulting traffic engineer. The analysis should measure the peak volume of traffic and maximum 'number of southbound vehicles gueued at the church driveway on weekday evenings during the commute peak period, and on weekends prior to the beginning of church services and during the overlap period between services. The analysis should also include an evaluation of the impacts of likely gueues for the northbound left turning movements into the proposed plat. Please submit 25 copies of the revised plat map and conceptual drainage plan, and eight copies of the reguested traffic analysis. '® King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 , March 24, 200S Sara, Slatten • CamWest Development 9720 NE, 120th Place # 1 00 Kirkland, W A 98034 • Rebecca S. Cushman, P.E. Triad Associates 1li!l4 -l1Sth Avenue NE Kirkland, W A 98034 RE: East Renton Subdivision 1998 KCSWDM Shared Facility Plan: DDES Project File No. L02POOOS and Adjustment File No. L04VO I 03 Dear Applicant and Engineer: The Land Use Services Division, Engineering Review Section, has completed review of the Shared Facility Plan request for the East Renton and adjoining Rosemonte subdivisions. This request addresses the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), Special Condition No. I, Section 1.3.1, Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements and the Shared Facility Plan Guidelines published in a memo dated September IS, 1999 describing the Shared Facility Plan approval process. Our review of the preliminary plat plans provides the following findings: 1. The East Renton subdivision is located on the east side of 148 th Avenue SE at approximately SE I 20th Street. The 66 lot, 19.6 acre, East Renton subdivision is undergoing preliminary review under LUSD file n\lll1ber L02P0005. The East Renton subdivision had previously processed 1998 KCSWDM adjustment L02V0089 for a diversion to consolidate subbasin flows into a single, on-site facility. 2. The proposed Rosemonte subdivision is located adjacent to East Renton along the north property line. The 41 lot, 14.7 acre Rosemonte subdivision is also undergoing preliminary approval under LUSD file number L03POO 18. At this time, Cam West (developer of East Renton) is in negotiation to purchase the eastern portion of ' Rosemonte. The developer of Rosemonte is also in negotiation with the City of Renton to annex the western portion of Rose monte into the city. 3. The East Renton and Rosemonte subdivisions are located in the Honey Creek subbasin of the May Creek basin. Both sites are subject to the Level One flow control and Basic water'quality requirements of the 1998 KCSWDM. 4, The proposal is to officially acknowledge the accommodation of the northeast portion of the East Renton subdivision that is naturally tributary to the north property line into , . . . East RentonlL02P0005 .osemontelL03POOl8 March 24, 2005 Page 2 of3 • the shared facility design of the Rosemonte subdivision. This approach would abandon the diversion adjustment (L02V0089) previously processed that. would have diverted flows from this area into the East Renton's on-sitedrainage facility. 5. If Cam West purchases the eastern portiori of Rose monte, as previously indicated, then . these two projects could be designed and reviewed concurrently. Construction could then either occur concurrently or in phases with the understanding that the shared drainage facility would be constructed before the development ofthe two contributing portions of each site. If the two projects remain with separate applicants, the shared drainage facility in the Rosemonte subdivision would still need to be constructed first to its final configuration. 6. A consolidation offacilities for the proposed subdivisions will be more economical in long term maintenance. .. Based on these findings, we hereby approve this request for a shared drainage facility with shared facility plan for the East Renton and Roseinonte subdivisions with the following conditions: 1. The developer of the shared drainage facility is responsible for any cost sharing agreements that may need to be set up as part of the implementation of the shared facility plan. 2. Engineering plans for both the East Renton and Rosemonte subdivisions shall note this approved shared facility plan. 3. If the two projects are phased separately in time, the shared drainage facility must be constructed first and operational before any lots tributary to the facility can be recorded. 4. If there is a change of design standards or project design that requires modification of . the shared facility design, an update to the shared facility plan shall be provided as part of the trailing project's engineering review submittal. If you have any further questions regarding this KCSWDM Shared Facility Plan approval or its conditions, please contact Mark Bergam at (206) 296-7270. Sincerely, James Sanders, P .E. Development Engineer Engineering Review Section Land Use Services Division Jim Chan, P.E. Supervising Engineer Site Engineering and Planning Section Building Services Division '= < . East RentonlL02P0005· &osemontelL03 POO 18 March 24, 2005 Page 3 of3 • cc: Curt Crawford, P.E., Supervising Engineer, Storm water Services, KCDNR Pete Dye, P.E., Engineer III, Engineering Review Section, LUSD Kim Claussen, ProjectlProgram Manager III, Current Planning Section, LUSD MarkBergam, P.E., Engineer III, Engineering Review Section, LUSD . , . • King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale A venue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 Project Name: S LJ04 East Renton • Surface Water Design Manual Requirements I Standards Adjustment* Request DOES Prole. FiI'If'l'l tXI2 II' , cIS\ 1 0 0 DOES EngIWI\#>~e:v V iJ Peter Dye, Kim·Cl~ussen Project Address: 12013-148th Ave K.C, SE Renton, Design Engineer:· WA 98059 Rebecca S, Cushman Phone: Applicant/Agent: Camwest Development Signature: Date: IH~~ Triad Associates Address: City, State, Zip Code: Address: City, State, Zip COde: 9720 NE 120th PL #100 KirlHand, 9803 11814 115th Ava NE kirkland 980 4 INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT/DESIGN ENGINEER: Please be sure to include all plans (T.I.R., if available), sketches, photos and maps that may assist /n complete review and consideration of this adjustment request. Failure to provide all pertinent infannation may result in delayed processing or denial ot your request. Please submit two complete copies of this reqyest. application tonn. and applicable fee to the DOES Intake Counter, at 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, Renton, Washington 98055-1219. For additionallnfonnation, phone Randall Parsons, P.E., at (206) 296-7207. DESCRIPTION OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST: ~Standard 0 Complex 0 Experimental 0 Blanket o Pre-application Core Requirement #3 & Spe6ial Req~irement #1 -Offsite shared facility. APPLICABLE VERSION KCSWDM: 01990 (11/95)' Iii 1998 (9/98) 0 • (Note: the term "variance" replaced by '"ad;-ju-s'-tm-e-n-:r::7)- APPLICABLE SECTION(S) OF STANDARDS: 1998 KC.SWDM 1.2 .. 1 Core Requirement #3; Special Requirement #1 JUSTIFICATION PER KCSWDM SECTION 1.4,2 (]I: See attachments listed below. Adjustment letter, Level 1 Downstream Analysis, Preliminary Plat Map, Preliminary Drainage Report for IrOhwood (Rosemonte). o Approval ~ Conditional Approval (see below) o Denial o DNRlWLRD Approval Signed: ---ALf--fj-7"i7-7L:----'""'0. ______ (Experimental & Blanket variances DOES Staff Recommendation Date: See attached Memo Dated: DOES, Bldg, Servo Dlv., Site Engineering & Planning f'99!ERS/SWDM-ADJ .doc f'96!ERS/SWDMR-S.cpy22.doc 11/17/99 clc ." November IS, 2004 Mark Bergam King County DDES 900 Oakesdale Ave MS IB • • j \. IWt\l? ... 11814 II 5th Avenue NE Kjrkl.?nd, WA 98034-6923 425.821.8448 425.821.3481 fax 800.488.0756 toll free WW'W_triadassoc.com Renton, WA98055-1219 RE: East Renton KC Project # L02P0005 Triad Job No, 01-047 LU4VOI03 Dear Mark: This request is to approve the following adjustments to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 1, Adjustment to Core Requirement #3 -Allow stormwater quantity and water quality treatment controls to be provided in an offsite facility, 2, Adjustment to Special Requirement #1 -Allow the utilization of the offsite facility as a shared facility within the Preliminary Plat of Rosemonte, King County File No, L03POOI8, To assist in the review of the adjustment request, please see the enclosed project description, Level 1 Downstream Analysis and the Preliminary Plat Map submittal for East Renton, In , addition, copies ofthe Preliminary Storm Drainage Calculations for Rosemonte plat (Formerly' known as Ironwood) are included, Project overview: The East Renton project proposes to create 66 single-family lots on a 19,6 acre property, 15,92 acres will be developed, with the remainder left as protected wetlands and associated buffers together with a future development tract with assigned density not to exceed two single-family lots, The site is west of 148th AVE. SE, north ofSE 124th Street and south of SR 900 in King County, Washington, Two detention/water quality facilities are proposed; one located in the northwest comer of the site referred to as the East Renton Vault, and the other, located at the north east comer of the preliminary plat of Rose monte (King County Project No, L03POOI8), referred to as the Rosemonte Pond, Land DevoiD ment Consultants . . ' 'Page 2 Mark Bergam' King County DDES November t 5, 2004 Adjustment Discussion: • • The request for adjustment is to provide an offsite-shared facility utilizing the Rosemonte Pond. Core Requirement #3 states that all proposed projects must provide onsite flow control facilities to mitigate the impacts of increased storm and surface water runoff generated by the addition of new impervious surface and any related land cover conversion. Special Requirement # I states that shared facility drainage plans shall be approved by King County to allow two or more projects to share drainage facilities required by this manual. In addition to serving Rosemonte, the shared facility will serve that portion of the East Renton project that currently sheetflows across its north property line onto Rosemonte. The Applicant for East Renton previously applied for and obtained an adjustment for diversion away from this parcel for the same tributary area (Activity No. L02V0089). Approval of this adjustment request will eliminate the need for a diversion. The assumed land cover for the design of the pond has been calculated based on maximum zoning impervious coverage and utilization of a Level I Detention Standard. Water quality will be provided using a basic wetpond design. Benefits to the public are as follows: • Maintenance costs for a single facility are lower than maintaining two facilities. • In addition to savings in pond maintenance, the conveyance system maintenance will be streamlined since less pipe with appurtenances will be required. Please review and approve our request for a drainage adjustment. If you require any further . information for your consideration, please give me a call. Sincerely, Project Engineer J.,sv4VOIO o c.) ?---...... / , . \ . -*' ... ':" " ... ... -----. t 4... __ ......... \ -"'--'I<-.. ~-.....:--,-"-- , \ \ \ ..... ') --, I~ L. ~iiiiiii· ~ ') \ . -•• '::.:" -:. ,,' .::--... ", .......... :-• .:::.. ..... " I. "\ 1 / / .-."" '"-) ... -....:; ... · ... ·· ....... :\1 I ' / /' •..•. ' .). »\'11 , ,~ I / / I '>¥ '" ~j >¥ '" ",)..v' ) 1 ~.,." '/-v " /' '" .", f ", '" '¥ '!",,,r • / I I .,.....,......-.>. ( . -1.1\1 ..?' , ----+ '.1 / .,' '" ~ "" ...... ~. -v '" "" ... ,,)I.-'" ~.. ,,,,' .. ...... ...... "--.v '" '" .i~ '" '" .... )/1"... '" ... "," • / .. --' '" '" w,.,..· '" J "." SE 117TH ST _"""'1/' '" '" ..... *"""" / -II --.v-'~ ,p-q.._ .. A "":.j., "'.,/ "." ". _ '±:.-_.. _.ri .;"",.., ". .... ",,,-: ..v '" '" W • .111'" . ."r -.. -_ .• "-_A _____ ~,..",.,. .,," -", '" '" '" ..; """'-", ",,' ..... -_._--...... -... ___ .. ~_... ,.,.1' .... '" w:y, .-.. -'" .-. ".".", '~~J . ~ -·-";:-7.!.-'--_. -, ... -... -. -_.' "" ~ .. ~.' _ ... ~ ----. ----.~~~ .. -----....... -.. ~ -------~~ ---_ ... _._ .. _. ~.. . .... ~. ,/ /' ". . .---sO ...... -/! I,. / / ' "., .~ ~ .. -.... -~450 ..... "" . ;>""/-. .... ' .... . ..... ..... " f i I I ( / / / / ........ . .. ~ ~..... ....-.'-:-i~··:_ ....~ ..... -.. --.~~ ....~.,/ () I f / 1 ( ,.. ......... "" '_ -. ~~: -? 2:' ..... : ... >..-~ .. ~~~ _. ~ .. ,;.-" . .J II! 1 I r; f ,.. ... ". ---/4 -___ ---~. I I, I I , , , :t' / "-'-.... ~., ...... " ........... . .... I' ! E3 -/ .".,,--. ....-. ..~~ ... _ ... _ .... _ .. -._... _............ . . . \ . /., --_. ..... ~ sOC... .. ,,-.--...... -.. _. _.. ..... . ... " ., ...... _" _ ... ;_. -.. ...~., ::::1:=f: f ; \ \ I f ~:~ ~::: //' ' ." \' I ---_. ::: ........... ., : ..... . .............. ) I . \ I I ,.-.... ~ .. / ......... ) I 'I ('-/ .. ..... ........ ..... ......... ..-..... -I ) f ,II, < •. , .. -"" ."J'. "'----'.'1' -::;;;-,-·......".;:·1 _.'-::;0 .. -.. "r-': .+ j...,....\ ~::., ;:.:,. .... '--.. . ,.,.," .. ~ ..... .-r-N' ~ •• ,. ,..... • .. "'. \/' \...... , ..... \ (1-. l -.. ¥ .... -. ! _N .... ···.. • ............ /" / V ~".., .. • ........ \ ....... -, ....... , ..... ~.... ",' ....... ,.,... N' .......... " .................... -._, .... ;' / / ,.. \\ "- .. -::. ..... , r,/-- I I )I / I . } , f I , . I I / / / / / ---/ ,;/ .' ! / / ,,,,, / .. --, --l"·f 'f-':":::' ,... , ,. -' " ... .. -I· ..-. \j . I / \'1~,' ;-.,.-/ \ .. -'f' \"1 "'y/ ......... /' / )\. .. -~ , ... --1·"'" ...... .. ........ ,_... .. ·l" ........... . I .. / ./ ! / \ \1 " ' . / . \ ",-,,, ~ .. -!¥ ....... -_ ..... _. . ......... --_' ,,," , .. ,., I .. . \ / /" ....... /~ ! ....... -,,'-' ............ -........ ..-",.... •. ",' ~ •. , •• ,.," I . i : ( /"-~:::--. ....~. ,,, .--; .... / , ......... ".-' ....... _ .. _ ~.' ."," "",--........ ".". ,"",." .. ,rr~'" .",' , .. ", " ! I I lQ \ \ 1 \' ".17:-..> .;E.~.:... f8 I ...... 19 1 2{) ....... .1 ~ .... :n ,.'.... ,''22 J \ -,'_ I ,) ,... __ , r-/ I /' .. _ .. "_, ...... '--1,-"'..\ ( . / It I I ,) / 15 \ { .............. ·_·,;;;r 1 \ ,-'1'-_ ~ .. m_ .... ··' ;.t.. d""" .• ' .. ' ... "'" i ...... \., \... .. -... ! /,. .-'" ....... ' . • ,." '" ".", ",~ ,.", t ... --~".-,~~' I ! '\AI \ . j •.. l 1/ t 'f .. -.~ -" r . --, " .' .~ I " ".. f /"'",' ,., f. I . J ' .... ~'---''''''''''' ,,/~/ ,: ," ,,' /'" " ... , ... , / ' . Ii·Y' PI;A~T ... OFtiJO~EMONTe., ,.. .;:. < I . /' ~/ .... /"-', " ...... ·1····_········· ...... ···[ .. -::>· / ,,/ ;" 1"-,,, ·r· ' , .; ~~... __ -'-w._ ,/ "'. / ... 4,' ..... ",3 .. , -" 2 1 / ·'r· ,... "'t /' . t"-... i . j .. .~" .,./ ~ /" ........ N ~ ••• N _ .. ~ _. _., ,-. .. ~ ,.¥. ( II ! ------ ! 24 ( _.\ _.,- 1 -- :J;,·;';~;;.)ll IrQ, I ,'" .'''~ /'" ~ ",." • /' ,." •• ",' ,;'" d ~. /' ",.' ",-'" ,," .~ _ .,.; .. ,_. ,_ ,,,." -to ,." i·/ /"1 / .... 1 '--1 ........ . .r .,/ .-.", 0 .,'" , .... " ".N .... .,.. ., ..... ,; _.\.,,, . 0"_' _. 48 ...... ~,_.". ! i &25 II I r tt'~WII' )if-......... i . .. J~.~ 'vt I I .,' ." _ ... _.-.,. ..... , ... ". .,,~_", "..... ...,w ........... ,,,_ ......... 1 ... ····· .. ·,··--·"f···-t:,0 . D 'WAGE"cASCi .EN,r.. ............ .. /_.._ ......... " ..... ~ --_:.j .. , :J.4""-"1'~"" ...... -I TRACLC __ .. /. ...~_ .. : ......... ,2'-··--··OPtN SPAC£/ :-cJtORJ .. ····T....... "1 .. -1 R£C. TRAC .. -/ _--1 ---t--~---~ t \ ) , > -~ - . I 1 ) .: f , -" .......... "'" ............ N'", ." -----------.. ." .... , .... ,.-, •. _. -.. -....... "'l--.. , .... "'_ N •• __ • _____ N .. ~ 32 . _. _. . .. ____ .. l9 ..... _ ...... _ .. to ... " ~~ .-.. --J=' .. . ..' ... .. ... -' . , .. --.~ .. ~.'~ .. ~ ~ '--'--" \ ............... '. 20 · .. · .. · .. 3 .. ·· .. 1.. I ........ ,. / .. _ •.... ~ .. .,.......6.-. • __ • '1111,'~bP<¥o SANITARX .. ---l--"" I S£WERlI.~!.N-(1'YP) 21 ....... 30 . ·r, .. J-.~ .. ~ ~'-;9 '·~"""·1"··"-:·"·'''··22. ROPOSED WA TE:R \. '\ •. (TYPJ. __ \.\._. --\ i.-· \ .... N. \ 28 in. /"23· , ~/ .. q> , .. ' /... . : ,/ I .L-... __ ,'. __ ,, __ . ). 27/ //1' \. ~4""'''''''··-- I / / ?~ : ! ./~/., . 'r-r-r' I' ._\_ . i ~6:' 25 I I /1 . ,A\-__ _ . I I·. ,I "'" ~ ; 10 / / ---.--....-. / "" / . "''-~)' 9 .~ //. ......... ,.- 8 ':'~ ... ~ .. 7 .. ... ·· .... ·· .. -1 ~."~.-~~; .. -.-.----. 6 _ ....... _- 5 -_ .. _- ... '" ...,;-- II I . ·l;;':lh·.ijJ II) I ···r~ < .. : p-'. t. • . • ---+f-+---___ ,,,.~ _._- I , ,I It I \11 , ~I In ---- I :e ~ Q ). ... ... :::: ... ... ... ). ct ~ ~ ~ Ii: g • ~ to I r; ... d :..;< Ntac PROl .J!§! PROl PROJ FIRS SCAL - ---.. J ~ ~' '1m. -. II .. ~ll.I!l.!m ~ !FID:! ~(;RIMg reJ!l}1lU§GIII\W§J'.:fuiJiJiiJ • November 18; 2004 Kim Claussen, Planning King County Department of Development & Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale. Avenue SW Renton, WA98055-1219 • RE: East Renton Property: L,Jl2POOOS Preliminal-yPlat ResubmittaI#6 Dear Kim, • . Enclosed is the revised preliminary phlt for the East Renton Property which now consolidates the entrance ~with Northward's Rosemonte proposal. We recently' received traffic variance approval on a proposed resolution to correct the sight distance deficiency along 148 th Avenue SE. The combined access for the two sites occUrred as a result of working through a variance proposal with the Roads division over the past months. The following is enclosed for your review: I) Twenty five (25) copies of the revised preliminary plat. . 2) Eiliht (8) copies cifthe WATrout report dated October 15, 2004. The report waS requested by Nick Gillen for review. " 3) ,;Eit1t (8) copies of the revisedJevel I downstream analysis-by Triad & . 1. . ASsocIates . .f A storm variance application has been submitted to Mark Bergam concurrently with this resubmittal. The variance is in request for a combined storm dr~inage facility. PleaSe call me with any questions or if you need any additional copies of anything (425) 825-1955. ' . Sincerely, . "~.4~ O· Sara Slatten Cam West Development, Inc. enclosures -~--------- ® • KIng County Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use SelVlces Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 (208) 296-6600 TIY (206) 296-7217 Alternative formats available . upon request Drop-Off Cover Sheet for Land Use Services Division *u******************u***** IMPORTANT *********************11'*11'11'**** PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME IS NECESSARY FOR ALL DROP-OFFS Project No.: LD2.P()OOS FROM: Company Name / Contact Pers n Telephone No.: -- K.C. DD .. C.S TO: /LIM s.CI",wSSEN I (....AND USF- PLkNNlNcr ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY KING COUNTY STAFF (please print) Short Plat I Plats Righi of Way Permit Please specify item(s) dropped-off: Clearing I Grading Permit AddHional information requested; please specify item(s) dropped-off: Other: ______________________________ ~ ___________________________ _ PLEASE NOTE: All drop-off item(s) will be logged into the computer under the project number, therefore, it is important that the top portion of this form is completed property before you drop-off anything. Assistance in finding a project number can be provided by speaking to a Land Use Services Division Person of the Day (POD) or the Zoning/Land Use Technician. Your cooperation is important. Thank you. LUSD Drop-Off Cover Sheet Ig-cvs-dropoff.pdl 05-30-2002 Page 1 011 i , . , ~ .... • ITransmittal I TO: AnN: I Phone: Fax Phone: I Subject I REMARKS: Nick, King County DOES Nick Gillen East Renton Property Urgent For your review • I Date 1111812004 I Number of pages including cover sheet FROM: Sara Slatten Cam West Development 9720 NE 12dh Place #100 Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone (425) 825-1955 Fax Phone Reply ASAP Please Comment Enclosed are eight copies of the report from WA Trout that you requested when you met with Gary Schulz for your review. Please let us know if there is anything else that you need for review in this matter. S~incereIY' ~., ara Slatten K.C. D.D.E.S. ~l~ ,-()2,,~ ." ® King County Road Sernces Division Department of Transportation 201 SouthJack.'>on Street Seattle, WA 98104-3856 October 20, 2004 CamWest Development CIO Chris Bicket, P.E. P.O. Box 65254 Seattle, WA 98155 • • RE: Road Variance L03V0049 -East Renton Property Plat -Related File L02P0005 Dear SirlMadam: Thank you for submitting your application for a road variance from the King County Road Standards (KCRS). You requested a variance from Section 2.12 of the KCRS concerning the stopping sight distance (SSD) along the plat frontage on 148th Avenue SE. 148 th Avenue SE is a collector arterial with posted speed limit of3 5 MPH. The original proposal to match the curb and sidewalk section to the existing vertical alignment has been revised to a 620-foot vertical crest curve that will lower the alignment by up to 3.5 feet and improve SSD. The revised design will utilize the two-foot target criteria in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's (AASHTO) manual. The proposal will provide 455 feet of SSD along the crest curve that will meet KCRS with a downgrade correction for the average 6% grade. I approve a variance to allow the 620-foot vertical curve with 455 feet of SSD, utilizing a two-foot target. The slight grade break (under 1%) at the north end of the vertical curve is also acceptable. No variance is required for the vertical crest curve 400 feet to the west of the site because the SSD meets KCRS approaching the west property line. A copy of the staff's analysis, findings and conclusions is enclosed. If you have any questions, please call Craig Comfort, Road Variance Engineer, Traffic Engineering Section, at 206-263-6109. ~. ··fr~ ... ---, <-....'ff.u.ez;lW/Ue>wT-~ . Paulette Norman, P.E. County Road Engineer PN:CC:kc .~. . " CamWest Development .• October 20,2004 • Page 2 cc: James Sanders, P.E., Development Engineer, Land Use Services Division (LUSD), Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) Pete Dye, P.E., Senior Engineer, LUSD, DDES Linda Dougherty, Division Director, Road Services Division (RSD), Department of Transportation (DOT) Matthew Nolan, P.E., County Traffic Engineer, Traffic Engineering Section, RSD,DOT Fatin Kara, P.E., Supervising Engineer, Traffic Engineering Section, RSD, DOT Kris Langley, Senior Engineer, Traffic Engineering Section, RSD, DOT .. ® King County Road Services Division Department of Transportation Traffic Engineering Section MS KSC·TR·0222 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 October 20, 2004 TO: Variance File • • FM: Craig Comfort, P.E., Road Variance Engineer, Traffic Engineering Section RE: Road Variance L03V0049 -East Renton Property Plat -Related File L02P0005 Applicant's Presentation: 1. The proposed 66-lot plat is on the west side of 148th Avenue SE at SE 120th Street. 148th Avenue SE is a collector arterial with a 35 MPH posted speed limit. The existing vertical alignment along the plat frontage is a long crest vertical curve that extends for hundreds of feet beyond the site in both directions. The crest curve has more severe curvature changes beyond the site frontage that restrict the stopping sight distance (SSD) sightlines. 2. King County Department of Transportation (KCDOT) staff made a decision subsequent to a pre-design meeting on 4/19/01, and a memo dated 8/8/01, that the developer, CamWest would not be required to reconstruct 148th Avenue SE, and a variance would not be required. The decision was not in writing and the County subsequently changed their position and requests a road variance to leave the vertical alignment and be allowed to match to the alignment with the curb and sidewalk improvements. The applicant's opinion is that this variance is unnecessary because the SSD deficiency is pre-existing and unrelated to impacts of the proposed plat. The cost of installing frontage and off site improvements to correct the condition is unreasonably high and unrelated to impacts of the East Renton Property Plat. The proposed plat did not create, or will not exacerbate the SSD condition on its frontage. Changing the grade of 148th Avenue SE to provide 400 to 425 feet of SSD. along the entire frontage would require lowering the profile of 148th Avenue SE for at least 700 feet. Cuts of2.5 to 4 feet would be necessary for over 300 feet. Several hundred feet of 12-ittch water main would need to excavated and lowered. Two power poles would need to be relocated and water meters, utilities, ditches, culverts and driveways adjusted and reconstructed. Retaining walls and rockeries would probably be necessary for the deeper road cut sections. Easements would be necessary from the adjoining property owners. 3. There are pre-existing substandard SSD conditions at both the north and south ends of the East Renton Property. There is a grade break in the vertical alignment of 148th Avenue SE, 120 feet north of the site and the grade increases from 5 to 9 percent. As a result ofthe grade break, SSD at the north property line for north and southbound traffic is below King County Road Standards (KCRS). The SSD is 75 feet below KCRS for the northbound .. Variance File October 20, 2004 Page 2 • • • direction, and 160 feet below KCRS for the southbound direction. At the south property line, there is adequate SSD that meets the KCRS minimum of 400 feet for a design speed of 45 MPH (10 over posted). 4. There are not any known traffic related safety issues associated with the present roadway. There have been any accidents on 148th Avenue SE between SE 117th Street and SE I 24th Street during the latest three-year period, for which accident data is available. 5. The applicant revised the proposed design to a 620 foot crest curve that would result in a maximum of three foot of cut on 148th Avenue SR just to the north of the site. The proposed vertical curve would provide 455 foot of SSD utilizing a two-foot target. 455 feet ofSSD is the minimum KCRS downgrade. adjusted SSD for a design speed of 45 MPH (10 over posted). 6. The access point of the subdivision was also moved approximately 480 feet to the north where KCRS requisite 620 feet of entering sight distance (ESD) can be provided. 7. A speed study was performed Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. on 5/8/01. The 85 th percentile speed northbound was 43.6 MPH and the southbound was 40.4 MPH. Staffs Findings .and Conclusions: 1. The proposed entering sight distance in both directions for the new revised intersection location onto 148th Avenue SE meets KCRS minimum of620 feet for the design speed of 45 MPH (10 over posted speed limit). 2. The SSD along the frontage is limited by the sharper curvature of the horizontal curves to the west and east of the site. The SSD southbound as one approaches the south property line is around 400 feet, which meets KCRS. There is sufficient SSD at the south end of the 650-footfrontage. There is KCRS compliant SSD along the middle portion of the frontage. However, the northbound SSD is not adeql,late through the northerly 250 feet of frontage. The measured SSD northbound at the north property line is 230 feet and the KCRSrequires a minimum of 455 feet ofSSD for the design speed of 45 MPH (with a downgrade correction): Even with a 2-foot target, the SSD only increases to 290 feet. The applicant's proposed re-grade with the 620-foot vertical curve should be acceptable. The entering sight distance (ESD) for the existing driveways along the road would meet a minimum of 545 feet, which exceeds American Association of State Highway and Transportation (AASHTO) minimums for the 45 MPH design speed. The SSD (6 inch target), approaching the new access from the south, would exceed 500 feet and from the north exceed 360 feet. The 360 feet meets AASHTO SSD criteria for the 45 MPH design speed. The SSD beyond the new access intersection would meet a minimum of 455 feet utilizing a 2-foot target. ;'1 " • ;o-:l* me_if> z.,.x* -"-m* 0", ., z 0., -0" ;r:.e-Z'N' :xa. .... z* "'""1m * "':rr-a> r-("') o>-<~ ""< '" ",m , , '" -"." ... "'m -"" r- 0) ... WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER "E" I r.J r i I : i I I -.. "--.--~ L/)"<P~0 IR ~YlA bDB LtJd.f~ iLl \\ \ 1 ~ l()~ t2 3;; tJcJ IF 12, 2003 ~ .Y ~ ..JI ib 2: :tit ~ YO-LU='IT': ]04, NU1\IBEH 4() lv·,"r'1-~_JSSPR";SS.COl\l • 75 CENTS •• " * .Etii • \ -,-listIe-blowers take on King County B\-AUTll-:'oIN' K()j':I'P I I Five King County employees med a whistle-blower complaint p.ariier this year, allegtng that a "fatally ,flawed" computer model approved ia l.!iOO-home development east of :Rcdmond -and possibly others- without ensuring that roads and Pro-developer bias alleged in transportation model team "may be in violation of coun- ty, state and/or federal laws. H Amv Calderw'ood, director of the Office' of Citizen Complaints- Ombudsman, said she couldn't comment on the specific com- plaint. other transportation infrastructure can handle the growth. They also allege that the county Department of Transportation (DOT) deliherately misled the King County Council when it updated its ordinances. Two of the employees have received layoff notices effective Jan. 1. 2004, and the group has filed several retaliation complaints. "Retaliation? Absolutely noC said linda Dougherty, director of the DOT's road services division. ~The work is simply diminishing." The whistle-blower complaint was filed with the King County Ombudsman's oflice March 3. The five men are all transporta- ti(m planners with five to 20 years as county employees. They want an investigation into the program's team and management. and said in documents that the concurrency see WHISTLE·BLOWERS, page A6 I:xhlblt No. ~?-:3:-:-__ :-- Item No. Lc:::.2.e~oc>S' Received ~. Z 2. • ~::}. King County Hearing Examiner , r • • Whistle-blowers "'Hill\! 1',\(;1-; A I "Yes. It is an ongoing investiga- tion that is still open," Calderwood said. The Whistle blower Protection Code is an avenue for count\' employees to report what they believe is improper governmental action and retaliation. The employees -Hossein llarahimi, Jim Ishimaru, Sean Wellander, Jim Davis and their supervisor, Ho-Chuan Chen -all work for the county's Travel Forecasting and Data Management group (TFDM) and helped develop the underlying model used to process concurren- cy applications. They allege DOT has used "arbi- trary and inaccurate" data that favor development. The allega- tions are spelled out in e-lOaiis between the employees, the Ombudsman's OlTice and the Countv Council. Whim contacted by The Press, none of the live employees wanted to be quoted for this story. A King County employee who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, however, said the TFDM group was formed several years ago specifically to address existing prob- lems within the concurrency pro- gram, which is supposed to work to ensure that roads and other trans- pOl'tation inli'astructure keep pace with development. Dougherty disputed the reason the group was formed. "Their job is to develop and keep updating the underlying model," she said. "If they thought something was not done correctly, they could raise concerns to their manager, but they do not audit the program or have oversight responsibility." Complaint surfaces In Sammamish The complaint surfaced recently as possible new evidence in an appeal of the 132-home Crossings at Pine Lake development in Sammamish. "The whistle-blowers' complaint fits closely with the information we would have liked to have had," said appellant Vic Heller, "This could very well explain the anom- alies and a passing score for the test." . His attorneys h. asked a Superior Court jud send the appeal back to a hearing examiner, in light of the employees' complaints, Heller said he never dreamed such a complaint would surface, "We were not pursuin~ an inves- tigation of the county,' he said, "We didn't assume they were doing the things alleged in the complaint. I expected to find people just didn't care or made a mistake. But it could be far beyond that, and that's very disturbing." If true, the employees' allega- tions could highlight why the area has so many traffic problems, Heller said, "I think this could be a major contribution," he said. "If there is a systemic problem with actua!ly having infrastructure in place in an appropriate time for development, that could be one of the main prob- lems facing this area." This isn't the first time the coun- ty's concurrency program has been questioned. Sammamish resident Scott Hamilton said that in the late 1990s, he appealed two develop- ments in Sammamish: the Greens and BordealLx neighborhoods (part of the Beaver Crest subdivisions) and Cedar Cove. Both develop- ments ultimately were downsized. Following such appeals, the five employees say, the King County Auditor performed an audit of the concurrency model, and subse- quently made a series of recom- mendations that have not been implemented. Hamilton said he thinks the county is "pro-developer and pro-growth." County 'pro-growth' "They like the permit fees, and theoretically the new tax base," Hamilton said, "And neither the state or the county will provide concurrent infrastructure, which is why we have the traffic problems like we do. It's now catching up," The cost to build one mile of road can be mind-boggling, Hamilton said. "So they take the easy way out: he added. "And what you get is gridlock. " Dougherty disagreed. "We have absolutely no interest in trying to manipulate the outcome of traffic impacts from development," she said. "The county is the public, and we work for tile taxpayers." But a county source said the county has made it a practice to randomly change its standard, allow double or triple the am THE ISSAQU of traffic on certain congested roads -which is neither compli- ant with national standards or within American Planning Association Guidelines. "We don't know how widespread it is," the source said. In an e-mail sent to Countv Council members June 19, the employees say they've been work- ing to correct the problems from the bottom up for two years -try- ing to convince their managers that the way in which the county processes transportation applica- tions would be vulnerable in court. They said they had hoped the Ombudsman's Office would investi- gate any "unethical, unprofession- al or potentially illegal actions." The complaint was forwarded to Executive Ron Sims' office before it was handed off to the DOT \0 man- age. Dougherty said the DOT asked the prosecutor's office to find someone to investigate the com- plaint. David Evans & Associates, a consulting firm, was hired to con- duct the investigation. County has two models The county, a source said, has a transportation concurrency model that originally was a copy of a countywide model used for other applications such as the Comprehensive Plan. The concur- rency model has since been altered with flawed information, and the county is slowly basing all future planning on that "corrupt" model, the source said. The employees first noticed inconsistencies between those two models two years ago. The upcoming update of the Comprehensive Plan, for example, wil! be based on the flawed model, the source said. And last year, when the County Council revised its concurrency rules, the DOT may have deliberately pro- vided false information to the council, and the council adopted ordinances that were created in part to act as a protection from challenges to the data used for Redmond Ridge East. the complaint says. The employees also claim that the county may have used those ordinances adopted based on false information to fight against citizens in hearing and appeal processes, and that they suspect that "crucial e-mails and documents have not been disclosed to citizens when asked for information and e-mails related to the Transportation :\H PHF:SS BY OIU:O li'AUHAIt MIDNIGHT BRIDGE REPAIR liretek USA engineers pump resin last Friday night under the Northwest Sammamish Road Bridge. which settled and cracked during the 2001 earthquake. Concurrency program." Hellcr said he tried to request morc information concerning COIl- currenev tests. "And' they said, 'This is all the information' \,,"'e have available,' " he said_ "But the whistle-blowers' eOlJJp!aint seems to indicate the cnlltrary." Dougherty confident in program Dougherty said she has strong con- tiden,c in the concurrency program. "If anything, we tend to lean toward assuming a slightly higher trame impact rather than erring on the wrong side," she said. "J just simply don't agree with their per- spective that somehow their model thai the)' have been responsible for has been negatively manipnlated for concurrency." The employees say that certain assumptions used by the concur- renc), prugram to process Redmond Bidge East are so unusual that if they won, to be applied to similar roadways countywide, it is likely that feirecast models would show ttlat then! is no tramc cullge;;lI'-l expected within King County or within the Puget Sound area_ "This simply defies common sense," they wrote. When a concurrency certificate was issued for Redmond Ridge East, a county source said, the pro- posal was for about 1,500 homes. Developers might, however, only build 800 homes. The county source also said it's unclear how many developments could have been approved using the concurrency model that's altered by "flaws" including random roadway speed changes and the inclusion of several unfunded road projects. County Councilman David Irons Jr .. R-Sammamish, said the council plans to refine the concurrency model again early next year. "And I will be looking into get- ting some feedback from the department sooner, not later, about this," he said. In their e-mail to the County Council, the employees expressed concerns that "the investigation was given to DOT to manage, and appears unlikely that it will e!Tee- , , tively consider the questions we have raised." Dougherty said she doesn't . believe the investigation raises a conflict of interest. "The world of transportation concurrency and traffic modeling is fairly small," she said. "And peo- ple have to maintain a high level of integrity to maintain a professional reputation. " The employees also have filed three retaliation complaints, a grievance with their union, a civil- rights complaint and a profession- al-engineer complaint. "On May 4, we filed a retaliation complaint because we believe our working conditions have been detrimentally impacted by our whistle-blowing actions. Our job responsibilities have been reas- signed," they wrote. They added that their supervi- sor, Ho-Chuan Chen, was given an "unwarranted written reprimand from our Division Manager." Stary contributed to this report. \-, .. . r REcr.nr~D 20DH/OV I 9 P~l'1: 37 :::; -:: .-:: == 1"4 ~ ~ l ~ _.-= ~~ ~ ~ 3 ~ () -\-. ::::: £0 ~ ~ '.'.! ,,~ 0 I,J-A< .; .. , -L. \. ~' ( •. J .:"-1 • .j .. 10';' U.l .. ) :jJ 1.1' • May 3, 2004 Kim Claussen, Senior Planner • CAM·WEST D!.VELOPMf.NT·IN( King County Department of Development & Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA980SS-1219 RE: Rosemont (L03P0018) & East Rento~ reliminary Plats Boundary Line Adjustment proposa~~ . Dear Kim, The following is in response to our March 1 S'h meeting with you, Pete Dye, Patrick Gilroy, Dave Halinen and Sara Slatten. This letter sets forth· a joint request by Northward Hoines, Inc. (Rosemonte applicant) and Cam West Development (East Renton applicant) for consideration of a boundary line adjustment proposal. The following summarizes our proposals, followed by our justification of the boundary line adjustment proposal and why it should not affect vesting for either property . . Background The Rosemonte and East Renton sites are adjacent to each another on 148 lh Avenue SEjust south of SE 116lh Street. Both proposals are currently working toward their respective SEPA determinations and plat approvals, which have yet to be issued. Northward and CamWest have entered into an agreement to each purchase a portion of the other's project site. CamWest plans to purchase the' eastern portion of the Rosemonte site (the area labeled Lot I on attached Exhibit A). Northward plans to purchase the western portion of the East Renton site (the area labeled Lot 3 on attached Exhibit A). (This will allow Northward to facilitate access between its properties to the northwest of the Rosemonte site and to the southwest of the East Renton site.) Because no property lines are in place to allow these transactions to be closed and becailSe neither party wi$Iestoput off the closing of these. '. transactions until each final plat has been recorded, both applicants wish to proceed with a boundary line adjustment application. This BLA will facilitate the transactions while simultaneously allowing us to continue processing both preliminary plats. The proposed lot line adjustments are reflected in the attached preliminary plat from CORE Design. As we discussed at our meeting, the proposed boundary line adjustments will resolve a significant sight distance issue that both the Rosemonteand East Renton preliminary plat applications are required to address. This existing sight distance deficiency affects both property frontages along l48'h Avenue SE. Since 2001, CamWest and King County have been discussing, how to resolve this issue. Cam West currently has a road standards variance application in review. Currently, Cam West and King County Roads are working towards a proposed 'correction which will result in the lowering of a significant portion of 148'h Avenue SE along Exilibit No. >7 .... I::;~:W-___ - Itern No, L\)Z~'S> S RGcaivod ~. 2z· 9'!t MAIN ~llE COPY Kill~ ! ;nunty Hearing Examiner May 3, 2004 Page 2 • • both project's frontages. ModifYing both plat applications in conjunction with the proposed boundary line adjnstrnent will elimiriate Rosemonte's access to 148 th Avenue SE. Removing the Rosemonte access to 148 th will reduce the impact of the sight distance deficiency, as one access will be removed. Reasons Why Vesting Should Be Unaffected The vesting for both applications will be unaffected by the proposed modifications due to the following; (I) No new property is being added to either of the Rosemonte or East Renton applications (2) No new lots are proposed to either of the projects; and (3) The lot and street patterns of the remaining portions of both projects will be largely unaffected. At our recentrneeting, you referred us to King County Code Section 19A.12.030, a section that addresses revisions to already-approved preliminary subdivisions. That section states: § 19A.12.030 Revisions of preliminary subdivisions. Applications to revise subdivisions that have received preliminary approval shall comply with the following: A. Revisions that result in any substantial changes as determined by the department shall be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting and shall he reviewed as Type 3 land use decision pursuant to K.C.C. 20.20.020. For the purpose of this section, substantial change includes the creation of additional lots, the elimination of open space or changes to conditions of approval on an approved preliminary subdivision. B. Approval of the following modifications by the department shall not be considered revisions: I. Engineering design, unless the proposed design alters or eliminates . features specifically required as a condition of preliminary subdivision approval; 2. . Changes in lot dimensions that are consistent with K.C.C. Title 2lA; 3. A decrease in the number of lots to be created so long as the decrease allows for future compliance with the minimum density provisions of K.C.C. Title 21 A, if applicable. According to Subsection A, only revisions that qualify as "substantial" are to be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting. In our case, none of the plat alterations shown on the attached Exhibit A drawing would qualify as "substantial" under Subsection A becanse: (a) No additional lots are proposed for either project (overall, the number of proposed lots are reduced); I I May 3, 2004 Page 3 • • (b) Open space will remain largely unaffected -the scaled back proposals from Northward and Camwest will meet each of their respective open space requirements; and (c) No conditions of approval exist as neither subdivision has received preliminary approval Furthermore, both (J) the proposed changes in lot dimensions (changes that in all cases will be consistent with K.C.C. Title 21A) and (2) the decrease in the number oflots to be created would conform with items listed in Subsection B as modifications that cannot be considered "revisions" at all for purposes of Subsection A. Using King County Code Section 19A.l2.030 as a guide reinforces our conclusion that our proposed modifications will not alter the vesting of our preliminary plat applications. Boundary Line Adjustment Proposal We propose to submit a boundary line adjustment application for concurrent review with the preliminary plat applications. The boundary line adjustment application will address the following: (a) Depiction of the existing site boundary and the adjusted site boundary that will exist once the BLA has been recorded; (b) Indicate that, upon the recording of the BLA, the site boundary shall be limited to the adjusted boundary as set forth on the BLA. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response back on the BLA request and proposed procedure. Should you have any questions or need any additional information please contact either Patrick Gilroy at Northward at (425) 747-1726, ext. 102, or Sara Slatten at CamWest at (425) 825-1955. Sincerely, ARD HOMES, INC. CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC. Enclosure (Exhibit A Drawing) . -. --.... --_._' --_. , ,I; ~------. , • EXHIBIT "A" • ,-.,-,{---- ~):~ -~ ------ I~~~~~?I' --~ ----------(--. • November 17, 2003 Kim Claussen, Planning King County Department of Development & Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 RE: East Renton properttl; L02P0005 PreliminaryJ'lat Resu mittal #5 Dear Kim, CamWest has modified the preli!llinary plat proposal for the East Renton property. The proposal is still for 66 single-family homes. However; lot lines and lot placement along the with park proposal have changed as follows: 1) The park proposal is for two on-site park locations; one is on top of the vault and the'second is at the south side of the entrance. The total square footage' totals 29,758 square feet which exceeds the park requirement by approximately 4,000 square feet. The proposal is to place active reqeation' facilities in both park areas which will be accessible to all future residents. The park adjacent to 148'h Avenue SE will be screened from the street and fencing will be provid'ed. 2) A lot was added in the vicinity of lots 48-57 while a lot was removed from the area where 44-47 are now shown. . , 3) Lots 1-9 have been increased back to 50 feet wide lots. A landscape tract is now propped next to lot 1 for future common ownership. These revisions are shown in the following information which is enclosed for your review: 1) Thirty-five.(35) copies of the revised preliminary plat. 2) Thirty-five (35) copies of the revised prelimiI1-ar y utility layout. 3) One (1) copy of the reduced preliminary plat and utility layout. 4) Four (4) copies Of the revised preliminary storm drainage report. . . . . Should you have any questions or need any additional co~ please call me at (425) 8~5~1955. ~ & © & D w & s~~ NOV 17 200l @ skiaSlatten K.C. D.D,E.S. CamWest Development, Inc. enclosures MADN filE COpy /1 .. ----. _., e· • . --" King County DDES . LMu USE SERVICES DMSION 900 Oakesdale Avenue South west Renton, WA 9305j DROP-OFF POR LUSD ONLY '. Cover Sheet .... "'."'.'" >1: ... "" .... "" ..... ", "" ""IlYfPORT . .:\NT"''''' "' ... "" .. "" .... "". """" .. ~ PROJECT NlJi'lfBER &'<1) ".\.i'rfE IS NECESSARY FOR ALL DROP-OFF Project N o. _-!::L-~D~2:::..LP-,:O~O~O~5~. ~_--,-__ Lot Line Ad;ustment Permit . Please specify item(s) drop-off Rif!ht or Way Permit Please specifY item(s) drop-off Grading/Gearin!! Permit Additional Inf. requested, ple= 3peafy item(3) drop-off . Date Received by LUSD ~~:v7!~n~\f] K.C. D.D.E.S. Other. ________ ~------------------------------------------------- ••••• ~ •• "" .... "' ....... "' ....... ,. ......................... NOTE ................... ,. .. _ •• "' •• '" "' ..... "". "".", ",···· .. ··06103198 All drop-off item(j) Will be logged into the computer under the project number, therefore, iu importInt that the tap portion of thi' fonn j, compleUd pro~rly before you drop-off anything. A13irtance in finding a project number c..:m ~ pruvided by jpe.2kiag to a: Land Use Semce.3 Division Penoa of the Day (POD), or the ZoningILand U", Technici:rn.. Your cooperatioa i3 importmt, thank you. l •• EST • • NT' INC July 25,,2003 Laura Casey King County Department of Development & Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW . Renton; WA 98055-1219 RE: East Renton Property: . L02POOOS Vault proposal within hawks nest buffer. Dear Laura, K.C.D.D.E.S. . Back in November 2002 CamWest met with you and Lanny Henoch to discuss the hawk nest locations and huffers with respect to the East Renton plat'proposal. At that . time we were proposing to locate the storm detention vault and park within the outer limits of the hawk nest buffer. At that meeting you stated that park facilities would- not be permitted within the hawk buffer. The site plan is now modified and the park facilities have bee'n relocated to the plat entrance. However, there wa~ discussion about the possibility of locating a portion of the vault within the buffer if significant strands of trees could be ,preserved and an effort made to pull the vault into the street further. Triad reevaluated the vault location and relocated it further into the street as far as possible while still providing adequate utility line clearances. . , Enclosed are five (5) copies of the new vault exhibit which depicts the new location as w~ll as the trees in the surrounding area. The highlighted trees are those which would need.to be removed. Our proposal is to locate the vault in this location and once constructed place a fence along the street to detour people from accessing, the top of the vault. Additiomilly, we wbuld propose to landscape the top of the vault and could provide additional screening if that is something you would like to see .. ' If y~u have any questions or would like to see any additional inforination about this proposal, please call me at (425) 825-1955. Sara Slatten CamWest Development, Inc. enclosures I ~i 0' i'!iI I , I ~I "". gl '" '" "" :2' ~I ... '" .. ... ... .. '" '" .. .. @:J t-... .. -< ... o "- '" .. "-t-o "I I J I I / / I ;' I I / ,/ I /" /' /1'(-j J It I I I I I I I I I Y I / ' ::::: ~"_I' HJ"A ~/ " 12'/4 /1 /' ,/ " / / ,/ ,/ ,1 " I 7'9' 'I:g"w/ --,. --~ I Y' • I I I I / lJ r,'" '" V' I.. !iA 17 ' ,"""" ,--_.- \ 'f. I 8"A~ ,/ ,'} "1<' /' /'0 / 7---_-_r_-_-~----~= \ / / 10"A 0 {r / ,,' , "I£) I , '/. I 2,.4 "COT /.'" I \wlf/ 12"Af'!I, V / I I Iji' / / r~--r-I '1:) ')'-.1/. J D /~ , ~ , , LU:irE:R OF , ~J , '. J' / / W:24 " / ( " " I HRt£ B'tA " ~_----~ I %'A ,'. I, "/'," / I I /,', ~ ...... / I· ""1,1 "/ \) ~OT .,JI'/(.)/(.:;;i4"cji: / /' " -mA,tTIC/I' , / /18/ /. /-l-7: -" -r '0' 'l ij I lJETlNT)ON , J , '1' ,-OT Y w ill. 12/'A12}" ·f / / /25.288 t)" ,/ I / / ,/ / I' / .~-, Q 'D ., "/' , " I(Sva . / ---~ . / .-I I I I , / r ,t 'W 1 I" • // I I I I I I 'II. '-.1/ ( I/~'~O! !~OlA ,bWf /If.Ar1\ / . F~l(; " / / I'SE ti I . I . &4 "I/Q-'I / / / V / j w .r"A I I .-' I,. / I 'tA' " 110 I/'A 3i&l }O A, /TWiN/'B" I / '-.1/ w" I I:~',' :14"F"'. I 1,' I' 4"A,:. I 1:j"A' ! ~ ""Mr;)'I.:~·,::>J 21 Ig'! WN 3~"F I ! o"'l"".U...-.;,',;.'-I- '" ,1f6~' . ,'1" r tWIN fB"A J! ~~'r' " " i f I / / / I // 14 "A \'l A I/Z" ;. , , I J 0" , I , , I I \ ()2)14f'A ." B/'A I B/' I , ' 2 ' /,' / ; / . / / / / ' ,. ." ( /0 I I I J ~ J I I I I}' J I I , A I Q) . 01 /' 7 I I I I....,' J I I I I " I" • 'Ii' "II" , I Id"A I I, rli I _,I I I I I J , / IO"('AO 1 d"A If,' I !, ,"6tl !, J I , / ' / ' M / I " , I 10 '"'' ' 'I'I, r / I 3"" I 'I / /35/ I .... I I J A, t 8,' J /It I / P / I I I I -AREA "f I 10"tOft.jJ f / I . J / / I 'I ' , " I /. / / / I \..:' / I , I 'IO't I !. / I f / / / , t' , I I ,A 'I I " / I , / . 14 "I{ I I /' " / Ii! f I I )'7.00 \ '\ / ; 0" 24"f I 2~"<;f/'! J-:!' :,' L-I-/ ! , ! / I ! I I' I I 'I , , 0" I I A--_.J_. \ I -. \/ 1 I ,n' Q ~ ~ , , r--' ~O:O;Ot/j:A)! / I li:~! 12'f :, "i' I! " ~ ~@"A !/ ' f2"tQ Ab 112" " l.t'r -J M ,I I " I' ' I I I ~ I '7 I CO , '~"',' 'l" '1 .... ' .. / ~' ~ ~ \ \8" 1 " r ""1~r~ L!."1 -'" '., \, a,' , 8 ", I r"---. i· ~ --"'..... l'l"A I: : 1 I lC): I , " 12 1' f\\ II I,' K.C. d 1< ,. 1. ! I r I. I I~~ .. I , I ,,, '-.1/ -J:.-' : I: \ Lu'f C~T"h~"~~T..),... ~ ,t , I ©2003 mlAD ASSOOATE' h. 1'!~~ctAra$ p' nml __ Nf. -.--. us»..,,. .. -_ .. -""""'---- ~ I i :;:: 0 '" 1-' ~ liia:i l!l Ia: ... s ~I-~ CI) ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii 1WWlKR: GERRY BUCK -. ENGJNm. UlIIlSCIl'E IIClI< 1ST MIIlTlAL DATE: SC.IlJ! OORIZ.: '-.40' mT .• JOB NO. 01-047 SlIEST NO. i 1. or 1 f'\ .3 t 8 ~ i&: z ~ • : July 25,,2003 Kim Claussen, Planning King County Department of ,Development & Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 RE: East Renton Property: L02POOOS PreliminaryPJat ResuhmittaJ #4, 2nd portion Dear Kim, • K.C. D.D.E.S. On July 11, 2003 J submittedthe corrections for the East Renton Property in response to Lanny Henoch' s March II, 2003 comment letter. The following additional information is a follow up to that submittal and includes further information on the . park and vault proposals. . . 1) Park Proposal:· Currently, our proposal is for two separate parks, located on either side of the plat entrance, which totals 22,899 square feet. A copy of the. conceptual' park proposal including provisions for two active recreation . features on one,side 'and an open pl!ly field area on the other side is included. While we are 2841 square feet short of the required square.footage (25,740), it is our hope to be able (0 install a larger play structure with more features to offset this deficiency.· The sport court proposed is similar to the one we constructed for the Sweetbriar plat. Given the proximity to 148th Ave SE, our fencing proposal. is a 3-rail split rail wi the wire mesh backing. , 2) Detention Vault Relocation: Back in November when CamWest met with you; Lanny Henoch, and Laura Casey to discuss the hawk nest locations and buffers, it was stated thai park facilities would not be permitted within the hawk's nest buffer. It was discussed thitt the 'vault could be considered within the buffer if sign,ificant strands of trees could be preserved and an effort made' to pull thevault.'into the. street. Triad has reevaluated the vault location and relocated it further into the street in order to preserve trees and minimize impacts to the buffer. The few impacted trees are highlighted in the enclosed exhibit. . . Enclosed are the following for your review: 1) Five (5) copies of the c~nceptu~1 p'ark I~yout by Triad & Associates, dated 7/21/03. \\IiIAIIM 1F!1l.1E COpy • 2) Five (5) copies of the vault inset plan which depicts the hawk's nest buffer and the surrounding trees .. 3) Five (5) copies of my July 25, 2003 letter to Laura Casey regarding the new vault proposal. 'pe this information adequately addresses both issues. Should you have any :stions or need any additional informati9I1, please call me at (425) 825-1955; 'I1~. I .. a Slatten mWest Development, Inc .. :losures I King County DDES . LM"D USE SERVICES DMSION 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055 DROP-OFF POR LUSD ONLY '. Cover Sheet " .............. '" lit. "' ... '" ill .... "'IiYfPORT . .:\.NT-............ ftll" .............. '" PROJECT 1'!1RtfBER. Al'iD 1'f ...... ME IS NECESSARY FOR ALL DROP-OFF Project No.. U?2PCOOS FROM: ~ S,LklTGN I Q.ArylWESf Company 1'1 arne/Coot3ct Penon TO: ~eunoe~@;;X:;NIVJ Date Received by LUSD ~C~~\i1~ru JUL 2 9 2003 lh!J K.C. D.D.E.S. FORil1AITON RE UESTED BY KC STAFF(pIe:ue print) Lot Llne Adjustment Permit . Please specify item(s) drop-off Rif!ht of Way Permit Please specify item(s) drop-ofT Gradinf!IGearinr; Permit Additional Inf. requested, ple= lpedfy item(,) drop-<Jff . Other. ________ ~------------------------------------------------- " ...... " ~ lit"" .......... "' .. '" "' .... '" * "' ............... Ift .. "'NOTE ..... ,. ............. ,_ ......................... "' ............... ·0610:3/98 All drop-<Jff item(,) will be logged iota the computer under the 'project number, therefore, ill imp0rUnt that the top portioo of thi' form i.< completed properly before. you drop-<Jff anything. ,u,inance in finding a project numb<r c.m he provided by ,paking to ~ Land U.<e Servicc.< Division Penon o( the Day (POD), or tbe ZonioglLand U:!e Technician.. Your cooperation i.< important. thank you. • "C:rW·WEST t I. I DEVEI.OPMENr· INC July 11, 2003 Kim Claussen, Planning King County Department of . Development & Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 9.8055-1219 RE: East RentonPrQpert Preliminary Plat Resubml al #4 '. Dear Kim, Ia Q Q Hi 88f-. The following resubmittal is in response to Lanny Henoch's last request for additional . information fo"r the East Renton Property application dated March 11,2003. The letter is enclosed. I have paraphrased each of the comments and our responses are below . and bolded as follows: 1. Entering Sight Distance: Add the correct sight distance numbers to the plat. Previous submittal indicated a discrepancy. . . . . . . " Response: The correct entering sight di~tance numbers are added to the plat; there is 629 feet to the north and 620 feet to the south. Please refer to the revised plat dated July 10,2003.. ' ,2. Intersection Spacing: Realign the East Renton entrance to match up with SE 120th Street.' , Response: Please refer to the revised plat by Triad dated July 10,2003 to refer to the shifted entrance location, per the request. 3. Stopping Sight Distance: Stopping sight distance is not met along the site's. frontage. Either submit a plan indicating how frontage improvements will be designed to correct the "issue or submit a variance. Response: Enclosed is a copy of the traffic variance which was submitted to Craig Comfort concurre~t1y with this application. ' Additionally, we were able to juggle the lot widths in order to pick up additional park area. Currently, our proposal is for two separate parks, located on either side of the plat entrance, which totals 22,899 square feet. We are now 2841 square feet short of the required square footage (25,740). Triad is in the process ofpuiting together a conceptual park layout for your review. I will have this.'submitted to you by the end of· L03VO . , [5) rE ~ rE ~ W ~rnlf[)l .' "q" MAiNFIUico.mr~ 1 2003 ",lW /~, -()\M·WEST , '. ( J I DE;:VELOPMENT • INC next week for review. Our hope is that we .can provide larger park amenities to compensate for the 2841 square foot shortage. I will include park specifications in the .. upcoming park submittal as well. Also, Triad was able to shift the vault further to the east in order to avoid the removal of fewer sigriificant trees. Next week I will submit a better exhibit showing the existing trees and a memo to Laura on thiS iSsue .. Enclosed are the following for your review: 1) Twenty five (25) copies of the revised plat and conceptual utility layout. 2) One (1) copy of the traffic variance which was submitted-to Craig Comfort , for review. . I hope this information adequately addresses the issues that have been raised.' Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please call me at (425) 825-1955. "'," Sincerely, ~ Sara Slatten CamWest. Development, I~c. enclosures ,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , . • ® Kirig County Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services DIvision 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 2!J6.296-66DD TTY 206-296-7217 Alternative formats available upon request Prolect Name: DOES AI. No. East Renton Pronertv L02Pono" Prolect Address ard Parcel Number S.~ CrJzr'ii.:!..ate: 7/1 () / 03 "'3 0 5'011 'Da.!>'!>'1'~J 12013 148th Ave SE 7'\" ApplleanVDeslgn Engineer Name: E~erlng FImI Name: ~amWe~t Development Garry Struthers Associates Ad'il'ies'fi! . Telephone: (425) 519-0300 x.228 3150 Richards Road, #100 ~. fA"." .,." ""''''' City. State Zip: DiSl~~f~ngfneer1nftials: Bellevue, WA 98005 o Route Aoolleation to LUIS Q Check here if nroiect ennineerlnn nlans are annroved and construction has beaun. INSTRUCTIONS TO APPUCANT/DESIGN ENGINEER: Please be sure to include all plans, sketches, photos and maps which may assist in complete review and consideration of your variance request. For a complete list of road variance submittal requirements, refer to separate list from DOES. Failure to provide all pertinent Information may result In delayed processing or denial of request. Please submit this request and applicable fee to the Department of Development and Environmental Services, Building or Land Use Services Intake Counters, at 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest. Renton. WA 98055-1219. To make an appointment for permit submittal. please eall 206-296-6797. For more information see http://www,metrokc gov/dde.'. !ilm:1f'hMiA~!£m~.tmllW&"bEm!'iJ!aRG'@I@!.lm.@W$!'D~1f§!t'VNt1l\l¢!$iAMMJ DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST: Please see attached APPLICAaLE SECTION(S) OF STANDARDS: see attached JUSTIFICATION (see attachments. pages ____ to ___ ): see attached DEPARTMENT OF AUTHORIZATION L 0 3 \l {} 1'\ A neCk out the DDES Web site et www·melrokc,Qoylddes oa ndU.=:tRa.,·to the County Road Engineer le-fqu-rdvar.pdt' 05129103 , ' RE; CamWest • Sara Slatten From: Gary, Norris [garyn@gsassoc-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 20034:15 PM To: Sara Slatten Subject: FW: CamWest fyi -----Original Message----- . From: Langley, Kristen [mailto:Kristen.Langley@METROKC.GOVj Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:55 AM To: 'Gary, Norris' Subject: RE: camWest Any challenges with this? Mr. Norris: • Page 1 of2 We have reviewed the documentation that you have provided, re: the extent of off-site reconstruction required by the provision of a vertical alignment built to continuously achieve stopping sight distance along the plat frontage of 148th Avenue SE. You have suggested that a proportionality issue may be at hand in this inStance, due to the proximity of the crest vertical curve in question, relative to the currently proposed plat boundary. The grade differential at this crest curve results in a lengthy reconstruction of the roadway, much of which would be off-site to the plat. Historically, the County has required both options available: (1) require the developer to reconstruct the entire frontage of the roadway as required to provide the design speed based alignment --even if the reconstruction extends beyond the frontage, and beyond the limits required merely to provide sight distance for the plat intersection(s), and (2) Reconstruct only that portion of the frontage as required to achieve sight distance at any plat intersection(s), and retain e'fisting non-engineered alignments outside of those limits. Reconstruct the alignment at the time of other development in the area, as necessitated by the need for adequate sight distance for that (future) project's intersections. 11 would appear that in the case under consideration, that --absent new information or a revision in this plat that might alter' our opinion -we agree that the extent of off-frontage improvements could be disproportionate. The Applicant shall provide the full sight distance requirements from the King County Road Standards [KCRS] at the plat entrance(s), or apply for a Variance to the KCRS as provided for in KCRS 1.08. J expect, however, and will request of DDES, that appropriate provisions will be made in the design of the frontage improvements to facilitate the future recOnstruction of this crest curve by others: developers, King County, successor agencies, etc .. It is a reasonable exercise of our discretion to make provisions for the eventual reconstruction of this roadway -even if the actual requirement to reconstruct the roadway is Dot placed upon your client. Please contact me at 206 263-6121 if you have any questions; Kris Langley Supervising Engineer Development Review Ul)it, King County DOT 206/263-6121 •. "\' \. -'.~ 7/11/2003 RE: CamWest I. • • ----·Original Message ----- From: Gary, Norris [mailto:garyn(wgsassoc-inc.coml Sent: Tuesday, March 12,20029:40 AM To: kristen.Langley@metrokc.gov Cc: michael.romano@gte.net; Joan, Smelser Subject: Aster Park Hi Kristen, We have obtained the additional information necessary to respond to your comments dated January 18, 2002. First, we found the 85th percentile speed to exceed 40 mph thereby justifying the 70 percent volume reduction in the signal warrant analysis. This condition may however chaoge as improvements are installed and development occurs. At any rate, for the purposes of this analysis a signal would be warranted. This mitigation would be consistent with the request of the WSDOT. In regards to the pipeline project volume information, the difference between the two is simply what was requested. The Stone Ridge analysis requested all development proposals in the Newcastle Plaooing area. Aster Park used all projects in the vicinity of the subject intersection. There are several issues in regards to using the various sources. Pipeline projects are limited to projects that have an application date prior to the subject proposal and also projects that are expected to proceed. Use of all projects within a concurrency planning area does not meet this criteria. Therefore to rectify the difference between the two lists in an appropriate manner will take a considerable amount of additional time. The question is it really worth it when we are willing to concede a traffic signal is now warranted with the application of the 85th percentile speed on SR 900. ptease advise. Thanks, Gary 7/11/2003 Page 2of2 .,. .. , Date: Subject: • , ;. October 16, 2001 East Renton Property Concerning Sight Distance Voice Mail Message To: Gary Norris, Garry Struthers Associates From: Aileen McManus, King County Traffic ----------- Hi Gary this is Aileen McManus umm I got a answer back it looks like no we will not be requiring the stopping sight distance through that north section. We will require umm meet entering and stopping sight distance and the access point but not at the frontage umm as you I believe it was the north part of the frontage so umm if you have any further questions. I guess that means no variance required either so give me a call a (206) 263-6102. Thanks bye ---------------c • Craig Comfort, P.E. Road Variance Engineer King County Roads Division 210 South Jackson Seattle, W A 98104 RE: Traffic Variance Request • GARRY STRUTHERS ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES East Renton Property: L02P0005 Dear Craig: Enclosed is a road standards variance request for the frontage improvements associated with the proposed East Renton Property plat application. The East Renton proposal consists of 66 single-family lots situated on 19.57 acres and is located at 12013 148th A venue SE in the Renton area of King County. The variance request is submitted in an attempt to expedite a decision in regards to required frontage improvements. The applicant, Cam West Development, has pursued resolution of this issue for approximately two years. At one point a decision was reached only to find that due to staff changes and insufficient documentation, the issue remained. The history is summarized below: History • On April 19,2001 representatives from CamWest and its design team attended the pre- application meeting with King County staff. At this meeting, County staff stated that CamWest would be required to reconstruct 148 th Avenue SE to the extent necessary to provide Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) across the entire plat frontage. Staff based this request upon the SSD requirements of the King County Road Standards ("KCRS") as implemented bylhe application of administrative policy which uses the posted speed plus 10 mph as the design speed for calculating SSD. Alternatively, staff indicated Cam West could apply for a variance to this requirement. • On August 8, 2001 CamWest submitted a memorandum to Bruce Whittaker, King County ODES, summarizing critical policy, technical, and legal issues pertinent to the County's request to reconstruct 148 th Avenue SE in order to correct the pre-existing sight distance deficiency. The memorandum analyzed applicable KCRS SSD requirements. It explained why reconstruction of 148 th Avenue SE as proposed was not required by the KCRS and why there were no impacts from the proposed plat that warranted improvements of the magnitude and cost associated with the reconstruction. It concluded that a variance was unnecessary since the County did not have the legal authority to require frontage and off-site improvements of the scope diSCUSliE~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ memo. ThIS memo IS enclosed for your revIew. . . JUL11Z003 I I July II, 2003 Page 2 • • • In response to the August 8, 2001 memorandum, we were informed that King County staff including the County Road Engineer visited 148 th Avenue SE adjacent to the plat and considered the various issues presented in the memorandum. Aileen McManus, (then King County Development Review Engineer) left a voicemail on October 16, 200 I with Gary Norris indicating that staff had considered all of the issues and determined that CamWest would not be required to reconstruct 148 th Avenue SE and a variance would not be required. A copy of this transcribed voice mail is included for your review. • Subsequently, CamWest and I tried on numerous occasions to get formal documentation of Aileen's telephone message without success. A formal response was promised but never received. Subsequently, Aileen McManus moved to a new position in King County and was no longer involved in .the process. After m'onths of requesting this decision in writing, Kristen Langley emaih,d;a decision cinbehalf of the County which differed significantly from Ms. McManus's voice mail as she only indicated a conditional acceptance of CamWest's request. • On February 27,2003, as a part of the SEPA review process for the East Renton proposal, James Sanders, DDES Engineer, wrote to Paulette Norman, King County Road Engineer, requesting written documentation that this area of 148'h Avenue SE met the criteria set out in KCC 2 I A.28.120.A. I '. The County Road Engineer was unwilling to provide such documentation. In a recent telephone conversation, Gary Samek, Acting Development Review Engineer asked CamWest to submit a formal variance request. Although we still contend that a variance is not necessary, it is our expectation that through this process we can reach an expeditious and satisfactory conclusion. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of this variance request. Should you have any questions, please call me at (425) 519-0300 ext. 228 Si01~Sn.uV~ 'GM~ /U?m:s Gary A. Norris, P.E. Garry Struthers Associates Enclosures I KCC 21A.28.120 Adequate vehicular access. All new development shall be served by adequate vehicular access as follows: A. The property upon which the development proposed is '0 be located has direct access to: I. A public or private street that meets county road standards or is fonnally declared acceptable by the county road engineer; ... \\gsamain_O\eng\2001 projects\01-002.04 east renton\camwest east renton variance final.doc 7/11/03 (j) July II, 2003 Page 3 • Description of Variance Request • As part of the development review process of the East Renton plat, King County has taken the position that existing SSD deficiency on 148 th Avenue SE along the plat frontage shall be eliminated as part of the required frontage improvements for the plat. The pre-existing SSD is deficiency is based upon an administrative policy that calculates SSD based upon a design speed of the posted speed plus 10 mph. Because of the existing topography, utility locations and probable impacts beyond the site, CamWest seeks a variance to eliminate the condition to reconstruct 148 th Avenue SE to meet County SSD standards. The pre-existing substandard SSD condition exists at the north end of the East Renton property. 148 th Avenue SE has an increasing downgrade from the site's south property line to the north property line. The percent grade at the south property line is 2.4 percent increasing to 4.6 percent at the north property line. At approximately 120 feet north of the north property line there is a grade break where the percent grade increases to 9 percent. As a result of the grade break, SSD at the north property line for north bound and south bound traffic is below the KCRS standard with application of the administrative policy to use the posted speed plus 10 mph as the design speed. At the south property line, where the site access will be provided, there is adequate stopping and entering sight distance per the KCRS requirements. Based on the application of the administrative policy governing the calculation of SSD, SSD is approximately 160 feet below the standard for the southbound direction and 75 feet below the standard for the northbound direction measured at the north property line. Granting the variance request would allow frontage improvements to be installed without changing the vertical alignment of 148 th Avenue SE. . Applicable Section of Standards The variance request is subject to the following sections of the KCRS, 1993 I) KCRS Section· 1.03: Responsibility to Provide Roadway Improvements: A. Any land development which will impact the service level, safety, or operational efficiency of serving roads or is required by other County code or ordinance to improve such roads shall improve those roads in accordance with these Standards. The extent of off-site improvements to serving roads shall be based on an assessment of the impacts of the proposed land development by the Reviewing Agency. B. Any land development abutting and impacting existing roads shall improve the frontage of those roads in accordance with these Standards. The extent of improvements shall be based on an assessment of the impacts of the proposed land development by the Reviewing Agency. 2) KCRS Section 2.05: Horizontal Curvature and Sight Distance Design Values- Table 2.1 Stopping Sight Distance. \\gsamain_O\eng\2001 projects\01-002.04 east renton\camw8st east renton variance final.doc 7/11/03 (j) July II, 2003 Page 4 • Justification of Variance Request • Our contention remains that a variance is unnecessary because the SSD deficiency is pre- existing, unrelated to the impacts of the proposed plat, and the cost of installing frontage and off-site improvements to correct this condition is unreasonably high and unrelated to impacts of the East Renton plat. Additionally, there are no safety concerns with this existing condition based on past and recent accident data. However, in order to expedite this process, there are several pertinent factors that justify a variance request. The legal issues associated with requiring reconstructing 148 th Avenue SE and the basis for this variance request are discussed below: 1) The 1993 King County Road Standards addressing frontage and off-site road improvements require these improvements to be based upon the impacts of the proposed development. Section 1.03 Responsibility to Provide Roadway Improvements provides as follows: A. Any land development which will impact the service level, safety, or operational efficiency of serving roads or is required by other County code or ordinance to improve such roads shall improve those roads in accordance with these Standards. The extent of off-site improvements to serving roads shall be based on an assessment of the impacts of the proposed land development by the Reviewing Agency. B. Any land development abutting and impacting existing roads shall improve the frontage of those roads in accordance with these Standards. The extent of improvements shall be based on an assessment of the impacts of the proposed land development by the Reviewing Agency. CamWest's attorney has advised them that the bolded language set out in these two provisions reflect State and Federal law regarding governmental authority to require roadway improvements as a condition of approving development proposals. Washington statutes, as well as State and Federal constitutional requirements limit the extent of required improvements to those that are directly related to the impact of proposed development. Even if the impact test is met, any required improvements must be proportional to the impacts of the development. A detailed legal analysis was provided in the August 8, 2001 memo included for your review. Even assuming it is appropriate to use a 45-mph design speed per the administrati ve policy, the substandard SSD on 14Sth Avenue SE across the plat frontage is a preexisting condition and unrelated to the impacts of the proposed plat. Reconstructing 14s'h Avenue SE to meet SSD would be extremely burdensome and cost prohibitive, as is discussed below. The KCRS provides that the extent of frontage and off-site improvements must be tied to the impacts of the proposed development, as required by Washington law. The proposed plat did not create and will not exacerbate the SSD condition on its frontage. Therefore, any requirement to regrade this roadway to improve the SSD would not be consistent with the KCRS and Washington law. A variance is unnecessary because requiring these improvements would exceed the County's authority. \\gsamain_O\eng\2001 projects\01·002.04 east renton\camwest east renton variance final.doc 7/11/03 0) July 11,2003 Page 5 • • 2) Changing the grade of 148 th Avenue SE to provide 400 to 425 feet of stopping sight distance along the entire frontage of the proposed plat would require lowering the profile of 148 th Avenue SE for at least 700 feet and possibly much more. This improvement would necessarily extend beyond the plat frontage. Cuts of 2 liz to nearly 4 feet would be necessary for over 300 feet. Several hundred feet of a 12-inch water main would need to be excavated and lowered. At least two power poles would need to be relocated and water meters, dry utilities, ditches and culverts along this road which serve adjacent property owners would need to be reconstructed and several neighboring driveway approaches to 148 th Avenue SE rebuilt. The areas where the cuts would be greatest would probably need low retaining walls or rockeries at the edge of the right-of-way in order to accommodate the drainage ditch on the side of the street opposite the proposed project. Portions of this work would require easements from the abutting property owners. Furthermore, although limited survey data is currently available to make a definitive assessment, it appears that it may be necessary to reconstruct the SE I 16 th Placell48th Avenue SE intersection to meet the reconstructed 148 th Avenue SE centerline profile. These improvements would be extremely costly and burdensome if required for the proposed plat. 3) The most important aspect of a variance is the maintenance of a safe roadway environment for vehicles and pedestrians. Currently, there are no known traffic related safety issues associated with the present roadway. According to King County Transportation staff, there have been no accidents on 148 th Avenue SE between SE 1 17th Street and SE 124th Street during the latest three-year period for which accident data is available 2 Access to the proposed plat will be located at the south property line . approximately 500 feet from the location of the substandard stopping sight distance. Therefore, site generated traffic should not create any additional impacts in terms of SSD. 4) A substandard SSD condition exists under the KCRS only because of an administrative decision to use a design speed equal to the posted speed plus 10 miles per hour (mph). This definition of design speed is not required by the KCRS or documented in AASHTO and is contrary to WSDOT Design Manual which specifies the use of the posted speed for this application. (See Figure 440-1, WSDOT Design Manual, May 200 I). 1 The most pertinent factor applicable to the SSD standard would be impact on safety. To address this issue, the latest available three-year accident histoty was obtained from Jodi Scanlon King County Department of Transportation which included the period between January I, 1999 and December 31, 2001. According to the data provided. there is no record of any accidents on 148'h Avenue SE between SE 117'h Street and SE 124'h Street. J The most pertinent factor applicable to the SSD standard would be impact on safety. To address this issue. the latest available three-year accident history was obtained from Jodi Scanlon King County Depal1ment of Transportation which included the period between January I. 1999 and December 31. 2001. According to the data provided, there is no record ofany accidents on 148,h Avenue SE between SE 117" Street and SE 124'h Street. \\gsamain_O\eng\2001 projects\01-002.04 east renton\camwest east renton variance final.doc 7/11/03 m c-------------------------------- July 11,2003 Page 6 • • 5) Application of the posted speed as the design speed, which is 35 MPH, results in a required SSD of 250 feet rather than 400 feet as outlined in Table 2.1 of the KCRS. Currently, 240 feet of SSD exists in the southbound direction at the north property line and 318 feet of available SSD in the southbound direction measured at a point 100 feet south of the north property line that increases heading south as the percent grade decreases. In the northbound direction, 425 feet of SSD exists at the south property line. At the north property line there is 350 feet of SSD. Please refer to the following table: Stopping Sight Distance KCRS KCRS KCRS AASHTO Location (35 mph) (40 mph) (45 mph) (33.7 mph)' Observed North Property Line Southbound 250" 325" 400" 212,41188,5 240" / 275" Northbound 265" 345' 425" 272,5 350" /272' +' 100' south of North Property Line Southbound 250" 325" 400" 212,4/188.' 318" Northbound 265" 345' 425" 272" 325'+' South Property Line Southbound 250" 325" 400" 212,4 325'+' Northbound 250" 325" 400" 237" 425" 1 -average running speed based on speed survey for southbound di~ection. 2 -using a 0.5-foot object 3 -using a 2.0-foot object 4 -Per 1994 AASHTO using a O.5-foot object 5 -Per 2001 AASHTO using a 2.0-foot object 6) Application of a 2.0-foot height of target as opposed to the 0.5 height of target required per KCRS Section 2.12 provides an acceptable SSD per KCRS requirements for the northbound direction across the entire plat frontage. However, application of the 2.0 height of target provides only 275 feet of SSD for southbound vehicles at the north property line. The available southbound SSD would be acceptable with application of the use of the operating speed for upgrade conditions per AASHTO policy. Recently, King County has accepted assuming a 2.0 high target, similar to AASHTO's standards, in lieu of a 0.5 high target in processing variance applications. A speed study was conducted in May 200 I on 148'h Avenue SE to identify actual vehicle speeds along this section of the 148'h Avenue SE corridor. The speed study was conducted approximately 50 feet north of the East Renton north property line. The results indicate the 85'h percentile speed (typically the posted speed) in the southbound \\gsamain_O\eng\2001 projects\01-002.04 east renton\camwest east renton variance finaLdoc 7/11/03 Q) ,------------------------------------------ " July 11,2003 Page 7 • • direction is 40 mph.4 If 40 MPH (5 MPH above the existing posted speed) was used as the design speed, an acceptable SSD per KCRS would exist in the northbound direction across the entire plat frontage and in the southbound direction across the entire plat frontage. The only exception would be for the section of the roadway adjacent to the north 100 feet of the plat (100 feet south of the north property line). The required SSD for 40 mph is 325 feet per KCRS. (The computed SSD for 40 mph is 318.7 feet and 325 feet when rounded for design.) See Table (above) for existing SSD at various noted locations. The KCRS, unlike AASHTO, does not adjust the required SSD to reflect the reduced stopping distance required for the upgrade condition (southbound approach to the plat). According to AASHTO, the average running speed should be used as the speed to calculate SSD corrections for upgrade conditions.5 Since the SSD deficiency on 148 th Avenue is a result of a grade break in the centerline profile north of the site where the grade changes to approximately 9 percent, the average running speed should be used in the SSD calculation for southbound vehicles. According to the recent speed study, the average running speed is 33.7 mph. This results in a calculated SSD of 212 feet. Therefore, application of AASHTO policy results in an acceptable sight distance across the plat's entire 148 th Avenue SE frontage in both the northbound and southbound direction. Conclusion In order to determine whether CamWest can be required to provide SSDimprovements across the entire plat frontage and beyond, the impacts of the proposed plat and the costs of such improvements must be assessed. (It should be noted that CamWest, as part of the plat development process, would provide frontage improvements on 148 th Avenue SE to include curb, gutter, and sidewalks.) The SSD issues associated with this area of 148 th Avenue SE are preexisting and completely unrelated to the impacts of the proposed Cam West plat. There is no data that suggests the SSD condition on 148 th Avenue SE has created a safety problem or has significantly affected operational conditions 6 As discussed previously, road improvements to improve the existing SSD would be extremely costly and burdensome. Requiring the plat to fix an existing SSD condition which it did not create, and when there is no safety issue associated with the condition violates State and Federal law. Therefore, there is no legal basis to require this pre- existing SSD deficiency be corrected. 'The speed slUdy was taken from 12:00 AM Tuesday May 7 to 12:00 AM Wednesday May 8. 2001. The counters were stationed 50 to 75 feet north of the north property line 5 According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Green Book (1984), page 143. "Design Speed is used in calculating downgrade corrections. average running speed in calculating upgrade corrections." \\gsamain_O\eng\2001 projects\01-002.04 east renton\camwest east renton variance final.doc 7/11/03 (j) , , . , July 11,2003 Page 8 • • Based on the foregoing information, a variance to the King County Road Standards (1993) is sought to eliminate any requirement that CamWest reconstruct 14Sth Avenue SE along the East Renton frontage to provide stopping sight distance based upon current administrative policy to use a design speed of IOmph over the speed limit standards. \\gsamain_O\eng\2001 projects\01-002.04 east renton\camwest east renton variance flnal.doc 7/11/03 ij) FOR CURRENT OWNER: LO 3 V 004~Numbe~: --- I, , (print name) hereby certify that I am an/the owner of the property which is the subject of this application for permit or approval. If I am not the sole owner of the property, I certify that I am authorized by any and all other owners of the property to make this certification and transfer any an all rights Itwe have to apply for this permit or approval to the person listed below. I, therefore certify that (print name) is the "applicanf' for this penmit or approval and shall remain the "applicanf' for the duration of this permit or approval unless "applicant" status is transferred in writing on a form provided by this department. By being the "applicant," that individual assumes financial responsibility for all fees and will receive any refunds paid. I certify under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature of Owner Date Signed FOR INDIVIDUALS: I, , (print name) hereby certify that I am the "applicant" for this permit or approval. I shall remain the "applicant" for the duration of this penmit or approval unless "applicant" status is transferred in writing on a form provided by this department. I accept financial responsibility for all fees associated with this permit or approval and will receive any refunds. My mailing address is: I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature of Applicant OR FOR CORPORATIONS/BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS: Date Signed I, , hereby certify that I aman authorized agent of M , a corporation of other business association authorized in teState of Washington a d that this business association is the "applicant" for this permit or approval and is financially responsible for all fees and will receive any refunds paid. This association shall remain the "applicant" for the duration of this permit or approval unless "applicant" status is transferred in writing on a form provided by this department. The mailing address of this business association is: <'AAW~T I certify u er penal of perjury under the laws of the State' of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Check out the DOES Web site at www.metrokc. Ll12003 o CertificatIon & Transfer of Applicant Status Ic~cer-trapstat 05121103 Page 1 012 K.C. D.D.E.S. • Ms. Kim Claussen, Planner DOES -Land Use Division 900 Oakesdale A venue SW Renton, W A 98055 • 10415 -147th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 June 13, 2003 RE: Proposed Subdivision of East Renton (L02P0005) Dear Ms. Claussen: From a previous review of documents for the proposed development of East Renton, I know that the developer plans on releasing storm water into Honey Creek. Honey Creek is a major tributary of May Creek. On June 4, the Four Creeks UAC sent King County Executive Ron Sims the enclosed letter asking for the County to fulfill its commitment to help the residents of the May Creek Basin. Also enclosed is a copy of the page from the 200 I May Creek Basin Action Plan that this letter talks about in regards to what increased development on the area above May Creek will do to residents who live in the basin. I would like to have this letter, the letter to County Executive Sims and the page from the 200 I May Creek Basin Action Plan included in the file for the proposed development of East Renton. Thank you for any consideration you give this matter. Sincerely, ~~f.Jm/~ Claudia Donnelly Enclosures: June 4 th , 2003 letter to Rim Sims Page from May Creek Action Plan MAIN rILE coPY Exhibit No . .....::,2,....2. ____ _ Item No. _..!L~C>~2~P,..,\\"-'m:s.........,"" Received _ ..... oo<......!·l""'Z.=..·....:C:l .... -__ King County Hearing Examiner June 4,2003 Ron Sims King County Executive King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue, Room 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Executive, topy unincorporated area council Four Creeks UAC P.O. Box 3501 Renton, WA 98056 As the resident citizen representatives for our May Creek Basin neighbors, we write in support of speedy and effective implementation of the May Creek Basin Action Plan 2001, which is "intended to address existing critical problems" before 2006. Since 1986, with the creation of the Department of Surface Water Management, the residents of the May Creek Basin have looked to King County with high hopes and expectations of relief from the danger and damage of persistent recurring floods. Both the County and the residents agree that a significant problem exists. Further, the third paragraph of the Basin Action Plan states that due to continued development in the area "many of these problems are anticipated to worsen unless steps are taken to address these issues." We appreciate the work of King County employees to prepare a plan of action to mitigate the flood conditions. We are encouraged to the county has been receptive to input from the affected residents and that such input has been incorporated into the May Creek Basin Action Plan 2001, but a plan without action is no more than a dream. Property continues to be destroyed by flooding and spawning habitat to be choked with vegetation and silt accumulation. We Implore King County to act with due speed to Implement at least the following five (5) of the sixteen (16) Primary Recommendations (PR). These recommendations are either "policy decisions that do not require additional public funding or programs and projects that are anticipated to be completed within the next three to five years based on the availability of funding or their relative importance": • Provide Cost Sharing and Technical Assistance for Flood Protection in May Valley (PR#4) • Remove Flow Obstructions from the Channel of May Creek in May Valley (PR#5) • Restore Flows Diverted from Tributary 0294 back into Tibbetts Creek (PR#6) • Protect Habitat at the Confluence of May Creek and Its Tributary Streams (PR#8) • Require Full Mitigation In Areas Draining to May Valley (PR#17) Several project components of these six recommendations are listed in the NPDES Inventory SWEES CIP 2002 (http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlrlstormwater/NPDESAnnuaIReports12003SWEESCIP.pdf) for construction to be started in 2003. 2003 is already half over, and we are aware of no scheduling and no real intent to make these improvements. 1--• • Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council P.O. Box 3501 Renton, WA 96056 Funding constraints are listed repeatedly as obstacles to the implementation of projects within the May Creek Basin Plan. Several state and federal programs outside the three local jurisdictions (King County, City of Renton and City of Newcastle) are cited as alternate or additional sources of funding. What actions have been undertaken to pursue these funding sources, and what Is the anticipated date of decision for each? The residents of the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area are familiar with the consequences of the difficulty of inter- jurisdictional coordination of funding and construction of capitol projects. What is the status of actions taken pursuant to the adoption of Interlocal Agreements between the three local jurisdictions? These are critical to ensure cooperation In the correction of the flooding issues as well as the prevention of further impacts, and what Is the anticipated date of decision for each? Please provide estimated schedules for implementation of the five Primary Recommendations listed above, and answers to the two questions listed in bold text above. The citizens of the May Creek Basin have tried to work with the bureaucracy for nearly twenty years. A pian exists. Fees have been paid. The citizens have worked hard to participate in this process. Now King County must live up to its obligations. The residents of the May Creek Basin are patient productive people, and they deserve to see real progress. Respectfully, David Rockabrand President, Four Creeks UAC CC: King County District 12 Representative -David Irons • I • • I • I I I • • • • , , I I I • 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 BASIN OVERVIEW May Creek is a 7-mile-Iong stream in the Lake Washington watershed. The creek originates in the steep forested slopes of Cougar and Squak Mountains and in the highlands of the Renton Plateau (Figure 1-1). As many of its tributaries converge on the flat floodplain and wetlands of May Valley, the creek broadens and slowly flows through rural pastures, small commercial areas, and suburban development until finally slicing through a deep canyon and flowing into Lake Washington. May Valley is a natural floodplain and historically has experienced periodic and sometimes extensive flooding. Through the years, this problem worsened as channe1izing of streams and development in upland areas increased stormflows to the valley, and as natural deposition of sediment in May Valley continued to reduce the conveyance capacity of the May Creek channel. May Creek canyon, through which lower May Creek flows, is an undeveloped park in the Cities of Renton and Newcastle where soft trails may be built in the future. Expansion of access to this park and the purchase of additional lands are priorities for the cities. Many residents view May Creek Park as an important community amenity. Erosion within this canyon is a natural phenomenon, but has been exacerbated by increased strearnflows, resulting in delivery of additional sediment to the May Creek Delta in Lake Washington. Although erosion and sedimentation occur as a result of natural processes in all stream systems, much of the sediment erosion and transport in May Creek is a result of development in the basin. The May Creek basin continues to provide high quality tributary habitat to the Lake Washington watershed; however, use of May Creek by salmon and other wildlife is declining due to habitat loss and deteriorating water qUality. As more development occurs throughout the basin, many of these problems are anticipated to worsen unless stq,s are taken to address these issues. For this reason, measures are needed to conserve the natural environment and maintain the quality of life for those who live ,---an<t work in the bas~. 1.2 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION LAWS It is important to note that in carrying out their jurisdictional responsibilities, the basin's Cities and King County have certain obiigations for action that are founded in federal laws. Implementation of the measures recommended in this plan should help basin jurisdictions comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, a federal. law implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Ecology. More imm~ately, implementation of the plan will be affected by the listing of wild native salmonids under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). At the time of this writing, two salmonid stoc~hinook salmon and bull trout-present in the Lake Washington watershed have beenIisted as threatened under the ESA. Additional ~stings for other Puget Sound salmonids may be. forthcoming. Although May Creek and its trj,butaries do not provide physical habitat elements that would support a large presence of chinook salmon or bull trout, there has been an historic run of chinook in May Creek, and the system does provide habitat elements which still support coho salmon and sockeye salmon in addition to sea-run cutthroat trout and rainbow trout. ESA listings bring with them the potential for additional regulation of May Creek Basin Action Plan 1·1 3/19/01 • J " ~----------------------------------------------- King County Road Services Division Department of Transportation 201 S. Jackson St. MS: KSC'TR-0231 Seattle, WA 98lO4-3856 March 25, 2003 • TO: Jim Sanders, P.E., Development Engineer FR: Paulette Norman, P.E., Acting County Road Engineer.......,nlJ~ RE: Preliminary Plat of East Renton, File L02POOO~ • In response to your' February 27,2003 written request for a formal declaration by this office on whether 148 th Avenue SE adjacent to the proposed subdivision is or is not acceptable, I offer the following. 148 th Avenue SE, adjacent to the site does not meet 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS) with respect to available stopping sight distance (SSD) for the entire length of the frontage area. The 1993 KCRS sets specific design elements for "constructing or modifying road facilities that require County approval". Variances can be granted if they provide a compensating or comparable result. In my opinion, this is a modification to an existing road facility and any construction that does not meet the latest (1993) King County Road Standards would first require an approved variance from those standards. Cc: Gary Samek, Supervising Engineer, Traffic Engineering Section, Road Services Division, Department of Transportation (DOT) Lanny Hennoch, Planner, Land Use Services Division (LUSD), Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) Pete Dye, P.E., Senior Engineer, LUSD, DDES Kristen Langley, Development Review Supervisor, Traffic Engineering Section, RSD,DOT Craig Comfort, P.E., Road Variance Engineer, Traffic Engineering Section, RSD, DOT MAIiI! FILE COpy King County Department of DcvelopDlcnt and EnvironIncntal Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Sou!hwesl Henion, VVA98055-1219 March 11, 2003 Sara Slatten Cam West Development, Inc. 9720 Northeast 120th Place, Suite 100 Kirkland, W A 98034 RE: Notice of Request for Additional Information Application No. L02P0005 -Proposed Plat of "East Renton" Dear Ms. Slatten: , We have completed our review of the ma~erials you submitted in response to our October 24, 2002 "screening" letter. Based on our review, we have determined that additional information is needed to complete our processing of the proposed plat of "East Renton." Please submit the information described on the enclosed "Plat Screening Transmittal. " When submitting the requested information, please provide a cover letter which lists how each item on the "Plat Screening Transmittal" has been addressed. Any clarification or explanation of your submittal should be included in the cover letter. Please submit the information to: King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division ATTN: Lanny Henoch, Planner II, Current Planning Section 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest . Renton, WA 98055-1219 If your submittal is hand delivered, please submit it to the Land Use Counter on the first floor at the address above. Your application has been placed "on hold" as of the date of this letter until such time as you are advised that the information you submit in the future satisfies our request, or 14 days after the date the information is received by this division. If the Division determines that the information is insufficient, we will notify you of any additional information which is needed. Please note that supplemental information required after MAIl\'! fOLIE COpy "East Renton" • March 11,2003 Page 2 of2 • the vesting of a complete application does not affect the validity of the vesting of the application. The deadline for the submittal of the requested information is July 11, 2003. In the event you feel extenuating circumstances exist which may justify an extension of this date, you may submit such request in writing for consideration by this department. Failure to meet the deadline may be cause for the Department to cancel the application. We request that you submit all of the information in one package. If you have any questions regarding the requested information or the submittal deadline, please call me at (206) 296·7168. Lanny Henoch, Planner II Current Planning Section, LUSD Enclosure cc: IGm Claussen, Planner ill, Current Planning Section, LUSD Pete Dye, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD Kris Langley, Senior Engineer, Road Services Division, KCDOT " .. • PLAT SCREENING 'IRANSMfITAL 1. Entering Sight Distance: Road profile information, which you submitted on January 24, 2003, indicates that entering sight distance (ESD) from the proposed project entrance is 626 feet and 620 feet to the north and south, respectively. On the other hand, the preliminary plat map submitted on the same date, which is stamped byyour surveyor, indicates that entering sight distance is 580 feet and 595 feet to the north and south, respectively. Assuming the 580 and 595 foot dimensions are in error, please submit a corrected plat map with the 626 and 620 foot dimensions shown. If, however, the 580 and! or the 595 foot dimensions are accurate, rather than the 626 and 620 foot dimensions, please submit either a conceptual plan showing how 148,h Ave. SE will be reconstructed as part your development proposal to meet the KCRS ESD standard, or submit a road variance application to deviate from the standard. 2. Intersection Spacing: In response to our requests concerning intersection spacing, you have revised your project entrance to more or less align with the east leg of the intersection of SE 120th St. and 148 th Ave. SE. While we appreciate your efforts in this regard, unfortunately, your proposed entrance road is still offset from the east leg of the intersection by 15 feet. Note that the east leg currently lies within a 30-foot-wide tract and we do not anticipate the tract width to be increased in the future, since the adjoining parcels do not have sUbdivision potential under the existing zoning. Therefore, please shift the proposed west leg of SE 120,h St. 15 feet to the south, or submit a road variance application to deviate from the intersection spacing requirements of the Road Standards. 3. Stopping Sight Distance: Stopping sight distance (SSD) is currently not met along the frontage of your site on 148 th Ave. SE, relative to the King County Road Standards (KCRS). Previously we requested that you either provide conceptual plans showing how 148th Ave. would be reconstructed to comply with the SSD requirement of the Road Standards, as pait of the development of your project, or that you submit a road variance application to secure the approval of the County Road Engineer for reduced SSD for your development proposal. In response, you expressed the opinion that no variance is necessary, because a staff engineer from KCDOT verbally indicated in a voice mail message that the current roadway would not have to meet SSD along your frontage, as part of the development of your project. . Regarding this issue, King County Code 21A.28.120 reads, in part, as follows: "Adequate vehicular access. All new development shall be served by adequate vehicular access as follows: "A. The property upon which the development proposed is to be located has direct access to: "1. A public or private street that meets county road standards or is formally declared acceptable by the rounty m.td engj.rrer ... » (emphasis added) • • In light of this Code requirement, we have concluded that the above-noted voice mail message is insufficient to address the SSD deficiency. Consequently, we have written to the County Road Engineer (see enclosure), and have asked her to either indicate, in writing, that the current substandard condition of 148tb Ave. is acceptable relative to SSD and the development of your plat, or that a variance application must be considered to evaluate this matter. We have forwarded to the Road Engineer the materials you provided to us so that she may consider them in making her decision. If she concludes that the review of a variance is needed, we will consider the review of the "East Renton" subdivision "on-hold" until a variance application is submitted and acted on by the Road Engineer. Conversely, if sht: concludes in a letter that no variance is necessary and declares that the existing 148,h Ave. SSD is acceptable for your project, we can consider KCC 21A.28.120 met and can proceed with the review of your plat. H proposed, please submit 25 copies of a revised plat design, and eight copies of all other submittals. /.. ® King County Department of Development and Environmental Services . 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 February' 27, 2003 ) •. . TO: Paulette Nonnan, P.E., Acting County Road Engineer . FR:~ers, P.E., DevelopmentEngineer ' .. RE: Preliminary Plat of East Renton, File L02P0005 OUf office is currently reviewing the preliminary &Iat of East Renton located on the west· side of 1 481h Avenue SE in the vicinity ofSE 120 Street. During the evaluation of . required road improvements for l48th, it was determined by DDES that the existing vertical alignment along the plat frontage does not meet King County Road Standards and existing stopping sight distances are below desired minimums because of a substandard crest curve. We have infonned the applicant that urban road improvements are required along the plat frontage, which would involve reconstruction of the existing alignment to meet County standards. However, the applicant indicates they are not required to perfonn the improvements nor are they required to seek approval of a road v;¢ance application based on discussions they had with a County Traffic Engineer prior to making application. To assist in -resolving this matter, I would like to receive your comments regarding the applicable code requirements and variance procedures. As shown in the attached letters from the applicant's traffic engineer, Mr. Gary Norris indicates that County staff from the Department of Transportation evaluated this matter during the pre-application process and detennined that the applicant would not need to reconstruct the road alignment and a road variance application would noibe required .. The road profile and sight distance analysis prepared by Mr. Norris shows that the entrance to the project is located along the southern portion of the crest curve to allow compliance with sight distance standards. A note shown on the plat map indicates that the entering sight distance is less than the required 620 feet; but this note may be . incorrect. King County designates l48th Avenue SE as a collector arterial with a design speed of 45 mph. The enclosed road profile shows the existing road alignment and the notable change in grade along the northern portion of the plat frontage.' Several existing driveways are located on the east side of l48th Averiue SE which may be affected by our decision for ! Paulette NorIlllllA February 27, 200Y Page 2 -' \ • -./ . .. '. . - the frontage improvem~ts. !should alsonot~ th;lt adeveloperrecentlymet withour - office to discuss a new subdivision on the northerly parcel adjacent to East Renton and - the frontage improvements for this project involve the same substaridaid vertical curve on - 148th Avenue SE. -_. As outlined in King County Code 21A.28.120A1, all new development shall be served by a public or private street that meets County road standards, or is founally declared acceptable by the County Road Engineer. Thave attached a copy of this code citation for your convenience. Also, would you consider the adoption of the County's arterial road map constitUte a 'formal' declaration? To proceed with our review of the East Renton . plat, I would appreciate receiving either your written conclusion on the acceptability of . this roadway or a statement indicating a road variance is required to evaluate the design requirements. . . I appreciate your help in resolving this matter and if you desire to meet or discuss these issues further, please contact me at 296-7178 ... Enclosure CC: Lanny Henoch Pete Dye Kristen Langley Craig Comfort .-..... '. • Henoch, Lanny From: Sent: To: Subject: SR 900 Mitigation Anal ------------------- • Sara Slatten [sslatten@camwesl.com] Wednesday, January 29, 2003 1 :01 PM Lanny.Henoch@METROKC.GOV; kimberly.claussen@metrokc.gov SR 900 SEPA mitigation condition Propos... La nn y & Kim I Attached is a proposed SEPA mitigation condition which Mike Ramano and I have reviewed and believe that it works for both parties. I am not sure if Mike has submitted this to you yet for Aster Park. If not, here it is. Please let me know if you see any issue or have any questions. Kim, The last time we met you mentioned meeting with Mike Ramano to reach a resolution on this condition. I'm assuming if you and Lanny are ok with this condition then we should not necessarily need to meet. If you would like to please let me know. Thanks, Sara Slatten CamWest Development, Inc. (425) 825-1955 www.camwest.com «SR 900 Mitigation Final Proposal to KC 1-29-03.doc» 1 MAIN FIlii: COPW • • PROPOSED SR 900/148TH AVE. SE TRAFFIC MITIGATION CONDITIONS To mitigate the significant impact the plat of Project will have on the intersection of SR 900/148th Ave. SE, the applicant shall, either individually or in conjunction with other applicants for development projects in the area, install prior to final plat approval: • a traffic signal, and • eastbound and westbound left turn lanes at the intersection, or • alternative intersection improvements determined acceptable by WSDOT The Washington State Department of Transportation shall approve the design for the intersection improvements. In addition the existing "sight distance" for the north and south legs of the intersection shall not be reduced as a result of the intersection improvements. Documentation shall be submitted to show this requirement is met. All construction work associated with the intersection improvements shall be completed between April 1st and September 30th • This seasonal restriction shall be clearly shown on the final engineering plans. In lieu of installation of the above intersection improvements prior to final plat approval, the applicant may post a financial guarantee that assures installation of the above intersection improvements within two years of recording of the final plat of Project. In this event, intersection improvement design must be approved by WSDOT prior to Project final plat recording. If, prior to Project final plat recording, other applicants have installed the required intersection improvements, or posted a financial guarantee which assures the installation of these improvements then the Project applicant shall pay a pro-rata share dollar amount to those applicant(s), in an amount proportional to the impacts of Project The pro-rata share dollar amount to be paid shall be based on the approved traffic study trip generations and the final Project lot count. as they relate to the total trips contributed to the intersection by those land use applications pending with King County, for which compliance with the King County Intersection Standards (KCC 14.80) has not yet been completed including but not limited to the plats of Aster Park, LOOP0024; Stone Ridge, L99P3008; East Renton, L02P0005; and Shamrock, L02P0014. The Project applicant shall provide documentation to the King County Land Use Services Division to show this payment has been made prior to final plat recording. In the event that either King County or WSDOT adopts a "latecomers" system prior to construction of the improvements, that system may be followed in lieu of the approach described above at the applicants discretion provided that the applicant's obligation to bond and construct the improvements within the time frame established above shall not be waived. In the event that the applicants for Aster Park, Stone Ridge, East Renton, Shamrock and/or any other land use applicant enter into a private agreement to install the required improvements then: • • a. The pro-rata dollar amounts to be paid shall be as determined between the parties to that agreement. Documentation establishing that the developer of Aster Park has met its' financial obligation under that agreement will be required prior to final plat recording, and b. In the event King County or WSDOT adopts a formal "latecomer's" system, future reimbursement shall be distributed to the parties to that agreement as determined by that agreement. • LI:0~ 'P aoa 5 GARRY STRUTHERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Date: January 23. 2003 To: Bruce Whitaker King County DOES. From: Gary A. Norris. P.E. Subject: Response to East Renton Transportation Comments MCI110nllldlll11 3'150 Richards Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, W A 98005-4446 (425) 519-0300 (phone) (425) 519-0309 (fax) Project Name: East Renton Property Project No.: __ P: __ T: __ The following memorandum was prepared to provide additional information relating to the traffic issues stated in the October 24, 2002 request for additional Information from King County DOES. 1. Intersection Spacing Originally, CamWest proposed the plat entrance location at the south end of the property, adjacent to SE 1201h Street. Upon review, King County Roads requested intersection alignment with the SE 120lh Street centerline. Subsequently, an affected property owner who resides directly south of 120lh Street requested relocation of the plat entrance further north, away from their home. The applicant's proposal to relocate the entrance to the center of the plat did not provide adequate Entering Stopping Sight Distance or Intersection Spacing requirements per the King County Road Standards. After discussing the likelihood of receiving variance approval for this deviation with Craig Comfort, King County Roads, it was determined that a variance would likely not be granted given the fact an alternative access proposal exists which complies with the KCRS. As a result, the plat entrance is revised and now aligns with the centerline of SE 120lh Street. 2. Sight Distance Previously, King County requested a road profile for 1481h Avenue SE across the entire property frontage and beyond to determine if the plat proposal complies with the entering and stopping sight distance requirements per KCRS (Sections 2.12 and 2.13). It was stated that the applicant shall comply with entering and stopping sight distance at the site access intersection as well as provide adequate stopping sight distance across the entire plat frontage. The . stopping and entering sight distance was measured at the new entrance location. Below are the results of the field measurements, presented in Table 1 for the plat entrance llftltion. ECEIVED MAIN FILE COpy " ,..... JAN 24 200') Exhibit No. ,--.:;:~:=:.....::v~___ J Item i10. ~2 eooSlS L KING Co . AND USE UIV;y Recpi,,?d g .??-D9.: SERVICES Kin, .Gunty Hearing Examiner , , ' ., "1 . Memorandum January 24, 2003JaRtiaFY 23, 2993 Page 2 Table 1. Sight Distance for Ibe proposed plat entrance for East Renton Plat entrance alignment with SE 120'h St centerline FromfI'o North FromfI'o South Req.' 400 425 Stopping Obs. 425+ 425+ • Req.' 620 620 Entering Obs. 635+ 620 I) Required Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) -Based on KCRS, 1993 Section 2.12. and Table 2.1 using a Design Speed of 45-mph (Posted Speed of 35 mph plus 10). SSD from the south is adjusted to account for the 3 percent downgrade per Section 2.12. 2) Required Entering Sightpistance (ESD) -Based on KCRS, 1993 Section 2.13 and Table 2.1 using a Design Speed of 45 mph (Posted Speed of 35 mph plus to). As shown in Table 1, the sight distance at the new plat entrance meets or exceeds the current King County Road Standards. These values are confirmed in Attachment 1 and 2 that depicts the topography of 1481h Avenue SE across the site frontage. Also, please refer to the revised preliminary plat by Triad & Associates for the revised entrance location. Secondly, it was stated that the applicant shall as part of the frontage improvements provide stopping sight distance across the entire plat frontage consistent with the King County Road Standards or request a variance for the deviation. As noted before, this issue first came up in April 2001 when CamWest attended a pre-application conference with King County. After further analyzing the impacts of complying with the condition, a memorandum was submitted, dated August 6, 2001, outlining why the applicant is not required to provide stopping sight distance as part of the plat frontage improvements and why the King County staff is able to reach this determination outside the variance process. The August 6, 2001 memo is Attachment 5. After a few months of consideration, King County Roads members including the County Road Engineer and Variance Engineer met to discuss this issue and determined that CamWest would not be required to comply with this requirement, nor would a variance be required to deviate from the current KCRS stopping sight distance standards. On October 16, 2001 Aileen McManus left a voice mail confirming the County's new position and stated this decision. This message has been tr~nscribed for your review and is presented in Attachment 6. Upon receipt of the telephone message, Aileen McManus was contacted for a written documentation of the decision. Unfortunately, this was the time when Aileen transferred jobs and no longer was addressing these issues. For months the applicant and I requested written confirmation of this decision from King County Roads. Eventually, we did receive the attached email from Kristin Langley on March 15,2002. We took issue with Ms. Langley's email memo, as it did not completely coincide with our understanding of the department's decision conveyed by Aileen McManus. It is still our belief that this issue was addressed and decided by King County Roads in 2001. The decision that CamWest is not required to address stopping sight distance along the plat frontage and that a variance is unnecessary was relayed to us as a King County Roads Division decision and not one coming from an individual reviewer. Our contention as stated in the August 6, 2001 memo and agreed to by King County Roads is as follows: • The SSD condition is created by a dramatic vertical grade change approximately 50 to 75 feet north ofthe plat's north property line. c:\documents and settings\sslatten\locai settings\temporarv internet fileS\olk1 c\norris traffic memo 1-17- ~.:\tam~\AaFFiG I,alli. mama 1 17 031.aae ~ (£gg) " Memorandum • January 24. 2003JaRl18ry 23, 2Q(J3 Page 3 ----------------~ • • There is adequate SSD on 148'h Avenue SE across the entire site frontage if the calculations documented in AASHTO are used in conjunction with prevailing traffic operations on 148" Avenue SE • Roadway reconstruction necessary to provide 400 feet of SSD across the site frontage would extend well beyond the north boundary of the plat that is beyond the King County Code requirements for frontage improvements. • The Applicant believes and King County Roads concurred that the extent of frontage improvements required of any land development is determined by the Reviewing Agency without a variance. Subsequent to the August 6, 2001 memorandum, there have been several discussions with King County staff regarding the application of stopping sight distance standards to King County roads. One concept under consideration is the use of a two-foot target height as considered in the 2001 AASHTO standards. Conversations with Craig Comfort, King County Variance Engineer indicated the County standards did not use this concept although it was considered in variance applications. It should be noted that with the application of the two- foot target height an acceptable stopping sight distance is achieved across the entire site frontage with the exception of the north 100 to 150 feet. A graphic representation of the two foot target analysis is presented in the attached 148th Avenue SE road profile (Attachment 3) The information submitted and reviewed by King County Road members in 2001 is included for your review. Again, we request that the past decision which Ms. McManus conveyed on behalf of the Road's department stand. 3. Sight Distance at SR 9001148" Avenue SE It has been stated by King County that a sight distance deficiency exists on the east approach to the SR 900/148th Avenue SE intersection. A survey by a licensed surveyor was requested. As a result, a survey of the roadway and an analysis of stopping and entering sight distance per the WSDOT criteria were requested of the applicant. This survey has been conducted and can provide the following analysis: Stopping Sight Distance (SSDl East Approach: Entering Sight Distance (ESDl North Approach Looking East: South Approach Looking East: Available -500 feet Required -345 feet Available -551 feet Required -761 feet Available -441 feet Required -761 feet Please refer to the attached sight distance exhibit for further detail. (Attachment 4) Based on this analysis, there is sufficient stopping sight distance. The entering sight distance is inadequate if the rural level design standards are applied which takes the premise that a vehicle can enter the roadway and not require an approaching vehicle to reduce their speed more than 5 mph below the posted speed. However, recent research by the NCHRP has ·' Memorandum January 24, 2003JBRIIBFY 23, 2003 Page 4 • conducted significant studies in the area of intersection sight distance. In NCHRP report #383, intersection sight distance is measured by entering sight distance standards set at 331 feet for a 45-mph design speed, which is what exists on SR 900. Based on this criteria intersection sight distance is fully achieved as follows: Entering Sight Distance (ESDl North Approach Looking East: South Approach Looking East: Available -551 feet Required -331 feet Available -441 feet Required -331 feet It is my contention that the NCHRP criterion is the appropriate one to consider for this intersection. The intersection is in an urban area of King County. The intent of providing entering sight distance such that a driver doesn't have to slow down more than 5 mph below the posted speed is inconsistent with urban traffic operations and current operational conditions along SR 900 where existing signals require traffic to reduce the operating speed at intersections. We hope this information addresses the noted transportation comments that have been noted to date. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please let me know. c:\documents and settings\sslatten\local settings\temporarv internet files\olk1 c\norris traffic memo 1-17- ~s:\lemp\AeFFis !Fallle meme 1 17 ga1 .~es ~-1123/Q3 (!;Qg) ATTACHMENT 1 SSO PER KING COUNTY A T SITE ACCESS 1----------425. 425' -------__ -j --____ l r--- ------~----- 'MIN l=llE COPY ~ ! i I ... -----.~-.----."'C.-.--,,-",----.."--,,-_.--_. --"----t::::-1~ I ~ ---It:::::-+-- \-~ 1~ !\DlSIlillCbum-Ar~ i -__ : -------------.-.----" .. --------... -=lD-~.--- ..... ! n I ...... -....l 1 • ,............. : 3$' ,~ . .....; _ i I "'------- ", ! " " ! ............ I " " ,,- : "-. , " I I I! ! ! : i r---r---' I I I I '; i Ii' " .,.... 1 ' , . , , , I ,--· . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ r'il '] j ~ J ~ l ~ ~ 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 HOO 5+00 6+00 ---,;:00-8+00 9+00 10+00 La a.'? o<X)5 ASSUMPllONS 1) VDWCAL CURVE: DESIGN BASED ON 425 FEET SSD PER THE MEMORANDUU FROM JOAN SMELSER OA TeD 4/18/01 TO SARA Sl.ATTE:N 2) ADDmONAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURI/f:Y TO THE NORTH Mf'LL BE REQUIREO TO VERIFY SSD AUACHMENT 1 sso PER KING CO. AT 51 TE ACCESS MOO/RED SSD NORTHBOUND"" 425' REQUIRED SSO SOUTHBOUND = 400' EYE HEIGHT.." 3.5' OB,£CT HEIGHT = 0.5' OBSER!,£O SSD NORTHBOUND = 425+' OBSERVEO SSD SOUTHBOUND = 425+' DISCLAIMER EX. GRADE PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIA res ESD AND SSD CALCULA nONS PROVfllED BY GARY STRUTHERS ASSOCTA TES, INC. REceIVED JAN 242003 KING COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES ATTACHMENT 2 ESO PER KING COUNTY A T SITE ACCESS I 620' 626' -----------------1 ! -~~-. !~ . --~---I ~ T-'--l '~· : , ::---.1--! _ l----~-__ L -\+--~. -'i-_ . _____ . ___ . _____ . __ . ____ . __ .... __ ._. ___ L. __ ~~. ! __ . _~~j __ . ___ ._._ .. _ 'I . i, ~i I§ ~! I • ~---< I ;~ - . '-1.. , "~' . ...... : . ....... -l 1 --_·-·-· ... -·-·-·-·1 ]·n -----------....... : ............ : ' .................... 1 ~i " , I i 480! i-··'---~-t -1 1 l l l l l l 0+ __ ntJ 2+00 3+00 4+00 r+ __ >+00 I_w " , 10+00 ASSUMPUONS 1) IIFRnCAL CURVE DESIGN BASED rm 425 FEET SSD PER THE MEMORANDUM FROM JOAN SlJEL5ER OA 1'£0 4/18/01 TO SARA SLA TTEN 2) ADOtnONAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURYF:Y TO THE NORTH MLL BE REQUIRED TO VERIFY SSD AUACHMENT2 ESO PER KING CO. AT SITE ACCESS R£OUIRED ESO LOOKING NORTH =-620' RCOUIRED £50 LOOKING SOUTH =-620' EYE: HEIGHT = .1.5' 08.£CT HEIGHT = 4.25' 08SERVf:D ESO LOOKING NORTH = 626' OBSERVED ESO LOOKING SOUTH -620' mSCLAIMER EX. GRADE PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIA 1£S ESO ANO $SO CALCULA nONS PROVIDED BY GARY STRU THERS ASSOCIA res, INC. ATTACHMENT 3A SSD PER NEW AASHTO ACROSS ENTRANCE PROPERTY FRONTAGE (NORTH BOUND) f------425'---------l n ~ i ~ - ----'-----------. --.. -.. -.. -..... -.--~ .. 1-----------425' ---------------1 ---_'ilD~ __ . ____ .i--. _____ +-__ ._ .. t-. ___ ...J-__ .. _L_.~.J ____ 1 .----l----L ~ 425'1===+=---+--1--' 4TTACHMENT JA . SSD PER NEW AASHTO ACROSS ENTRANCE PROPERTY FRONTAGE (Ne) REOUIRED 550 NORTHBOUND = 425' REQUIRED $SO SOUTHBOUND:::: 400' E't'F HEIGHT""" 3.5' OB.ECT HE/GHT _ 2.0' OBSERV£O SSO NORTHBOUND .. 425+' OBS£R\£O SSD SOUTHBOUND .. 425+' I : I I ! j---" "1J~ ; ,-,t'" -"t(~ , ..... I ~~" , " j ~:'\ , , I------J-----t------t-----j-------I------L-----,-~------1-------: - ------L------~-------j------L----J--------l------l------l------~t "-I HORIZON" ! -i I ! -; I ! I i ;. 10' I~_ . .., : : Ii..: i " '1 -non,,,",,,,,,"! I £JI1Srwc I 1!: 1 i '\. DISCLAIMER 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+(){) 10+00: 1 i " ~ ~ Iii" \ ! EX. GRADE PROVIDED BY TRIAD A$SOCIA rES ESO AND SSD CALCULA nONS PROVIDED BY GARy STRUTHERS A550C1A 'fEs, INC I : '\. : i ! ',~,"'-!;_; __ , "- l" ATTACHMENT 38 SSD PER NEW AASHTO ACROSS ENTRANCE PROPERTY FRONTAGE (SOUTH BOUND) 1-----400'--1 400' _ 2f I 2F r -- ASSUMPUONS ') \ltH Uc;AL CUR'o£ DESiGN BASE~ ON 425 FITT SSD PER THE MEMORANDUM FROM JOAN SMELseR DA rED 4/'8/0' TO SARA Sl.A HEN 2) ADDInONAL TOPOGRAPHIC SUR,-,£Y TO THE NORTH MfLL 8£ REQUIRED TO VERIFY SSD ATTACHMENT 38 SSD PER NEW AASHTO ACROSS ENTRANCE PROP£RTY FRONTAGC (58) REQUIRED SSD NORTHBOUND = 425' REOUIRED 550 SOU THBOUND = 400' E't£ HEIGHT =-3.5' OBJECT HEIGHT = 2.0' 08S£RVf:D 550 NOR THBOUNO ... 425+' O/JSERI,£O SSD SOUTHBOUND = 425+' i~ • • ! ~ I ----; ---' , U i I j : T---+ --+ ___ 1 io-::cp,,",r;..;;;;;: i i· I ~--~'i 'I i I! i -..1 1 ~,...~ , I I ', __ 1 , ! i !.: I i --;----L ! __ 1 400' I! I , I----oo--,-~_=_-;_c---i' ....... -_+-_ 1-----··-+-_··-----+-·_-----+ -,-----oo'-t----oo---t . -'1 ---~---_L n'JOOO'lWI': r.IIAM' '" r ~ i _ _ _ ----, -J I --! U' -I : -........ I ! :......--.J I __ ! . 400' J • ~i! --rT--~-'---00 ~ ..... , i ............ i ; b __ -'~ I ... I "-_______ .J ___ . _______ '. ~-"-, "-! , ! , I " r==]t==j===l===t===I===t==j:==J'===l~~"'~+'-ooool _____ ~---_-j_--___ ~~ ~-,---__ ~--'-oo~ -! OISIIIICQuo£! i i ! ! ! i i '\. DISCLAIMER _Loo ___ • --t--_··+, --···--t------;--··-t'----r------t---i--··--r----r~,oo '/_Cf/*l ! : : ! ! : i : '\. AlftJIIDZr iii : ~ !__! __ i ~ J __ ~L __ EX GRADE PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOOA TES [SO AND 550 CALCULA nONS PROVIDED BY GARY STRUTHERS ASSOC1A TES, INC. 'M. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { ~r ~-. ~'~ { ~ ~_ m_n l_nnJ"':Loo_n~n~_oo_m 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 J i i" : , , , ,', i'i---, -'! I· ': 1'-: I~ ...... i' ....... ······u:i~00005 I+UIt{/f 'i .. , *1 ~ .~ ~ 1 j -~ ~ ,). .'l .~ Sunnyside Manor GRAPHIC SCALE: 1-=30' ;;; ; '-i , :3 ~ --------, . X;; It • I , /' :':',;} ~ :~, -! ,rr.i. <U .::1 ,1:1 j, .~ I, ~. '" , ' ':3 I , 0:> I J~ -) .' , ...... , ... .... , ,',- .,: .. cz:::: Jj.' ~.-~-- -;;,.::" ',; -J -t-_ I ....... £1-' -:-----~ :. REQ"ESD NORT~H=761': . .' L ESD NO ." q .~ ...... " .' .. , ,'-~ ... "'" ~50 ... l' .~-·-:OEiJECT '>.-' "'-. L i , ," " . /<>/?~~iJ~~~"08f:=:~:~-~' . ~ /'A/ Rm ESOSotn>;-7o,; ~ / /", f:1. . .,/,~ ~ ~ \<I.O u\'It. of .... '. Yd/ri :/0 ,:,/?"~"",H." ~ "- ~ 5\G\"\1 (5) 11 011 3O? 60 111 ., :':.~~. -----;-..IIO!.. _ ;---- ~ '~;.----'.: '. ///3" . ~./:-~ .. ~ ,. :/ /</ "< ... / .;,;"",G'/v;' ", ~O\ ../ \..\~\; . ," '" . ..-,.---Y;;:i:. O 1.."'. [ExPIRES 08128 'TJf ,:,~~?':? ENTER.NG SIGHT O.STANCE IESO) . ",/ / /' ,.... APPROACH .('/ /' .:, . :..>/ ESD eFT) 551 761 NORTH LOOKING EAST ENTERING SIGHT DISTANCE NOT MET HORIZONTAL CURVE ON SR 9DO SR 900 --r- POSTED SPEED: 40 MPH EAST OF 148TH AVE SE 35 MPH WEST OF 148TH AVE SE DESIGN SPEED: 90 N ! [)- ;-> - . --- EYE -,;;(-y '.:: REO(') AVL(2) COMMENT 761 441 ENTERING SIGHT DISTANCE NOT MET HORIZONTAL CURVE ON SR 900 SOUTH LOOKING EAST 45 MPH EAST OF 148TH AV SE 40 MPH WEST OF 148TH AVE SE (WSDOT DESIGN MANUAL 2001) PER FIGURE 440-1 ,:~C'·:c:..~ ::.\ . '; :'I..'~-~~ .~:: ,-, -", ;-'-";, ,~,- , ~..,.-: .+,-". '~.:": : .. ". ~~ .-.~::-; (1) REOUIRED (REO) ENTERING SIGHT DISTANCE PER WSDOT DESIGN MANUAL (MAY 2001). FIGURE 910-180. USING A DESIGN SPEED OF 45 MPH AND A SU DESIGN VEHICLE. DESIGN SPEED: 45 MPH PER FIGURE 440-1 .::::::.:u::: ';;i£~i ;, .. -<. , !. I -I .'-c·~,,-..;;:- ! ,::! .--;.\;:,< ,;.; -c·"·C'-· FlEC~/VED Ii"" ',' '.' '.~ . ,,' , JAN 2 f 2003 KING COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES f! ';<. ' .. -";-' ..;: ~f _~,:~,_ .. ' " ,.-:-:0 . -:-,-,' ~. ~ .. r.:'! :: '.: :.... 'v' FILE COpy .IN -.. '~ GARRY STRUTHERS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3150 Rlchard$ Road. Suite 100 Bellavue, WA 98005-4446 Phone: (425) 51g..{)300 ~iUt: (425) 519-0309 E_mail: Q$lI@gsa55OC·,nc.com http://www.gsassoc-lnc.com ,-;- • ';c"; . (2) AVAIlABLE (AVL) ENTERING· SIGHT· DISTANCE PER TANGENT WITH • 448'COUTOUR WITHIN' ROW .. SD=1.47(V)(tg) SD=1.47(45)(11.5)=761 FEET WHERE: V=45 MPH SD=SIGHT DISTANCE IN FEET tg= 11.5 SEC V=DESIGN SPEED IN MPH- FIGURE 440-1 WSDOT DESIGN MANUAL (MAY 2001) tg=TIME GAP FOR THE MINOR ROADWAY TRAFFIC TO ENTER OR CROSS THROUGH ROADWAY DESIGN VEHICLE: SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS AND BUSES (SU & BUS) VERTICAL VIEW: UNOBSCURED-CONSTANT GRADE ON SR 900 HORIZONTAL VIEW: CUTS ACROSS SHOULDER AND DITCH ALONG ROW LINE. BRUSH TO BE REMOVED . SURVEY INFORMATION FOR THIS DRAWING WAS PROVIDED BY DRYCO SURVEYING INC. (G. PHIL SARGENT P.LS. 34145 SURVEY ATIACHED) FIGURE SR 900/148TH AVENUE SE WSDOT REQUIREMENTS SIGHT DISTANCE SURVEY 1 • ~ ~~ .~ ~ , . I = ,~ /.(= Sunnyside Manor , , ':...i / .... f..\~ . '-~ JL . '4. \ ~ .i !ol tIi . ,", -'-; ~ - ,-/ / ':"~ -------------- ,., '::' "l . ., =-~ :~ 0:) ',j ----- _vI1!--- --p j~: ~ ----- - Q: .:..:..-.. L.,.! J. __ ~ ---- _·:::jlE'YE ~-/ --,"-" '" .... i /~/ ... ,'" ,. /'''.'''0'' C/' .,)EYE .' , ,..., /,: ... " '",(;," /,o,,/<"'(//<~~'f;:;':' . ''0 ss0-1""" . /,,;,'/,"'/ , '/' ./';:' ,/ ..... > c;;,,/' , /', ' l~. //<, .. ,/ >4iJ --..... ---~". ~ - :~ -.• j :~' //' "./').'0'0'\-/-'----/" , ~" ' .' .;,/'c .7, ----~:' ' /' " /'__ .' -" 0'," ----, "'-') •. ;/ ;/ /" ' .. ,-\«; -/.{\/ ~. X /., ;/x</!"" .... ;. ,'oS· .. o/.:\§of.7 ;\e'fY ' ' ;/ . .,.' ,~;;-: :;\ \.-. /' , --/' /.,' \..\ " ,. ____ .t'-" -' ,. ".: --:;., ..",./ ~ / -" ..i" ,/,,/ /'" , ,Y / /. " ./-.: V. ,:, .:-/' . OBJECT ,<;::" ' ..•... // i :,,,.~.~ .;~,_,~ - ' .. '~'~~:i STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (SSD): APPROACH EAST SSD (FT) RED(1 ) 345 ',p ::!'----' ------.-,-- AVL(2) 500 . ,~ '/" COMMENT SSD MET ...... ' ... :::'-, r,,·~"- ;:. I,' (1) REOUIRED (REO) STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE PER WSDOT DESIGN MANUAL (JUNE 1999), FIGURE 650-3, USING A DESIGN SPEED Of 45 MPH, i"i" ~.-.:-. /i ,,# ' J/ _I'" ! . ~"".~ _·.3~:" (2) AVAILABLE (AVL) STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE PER TANGENT WITH "444" CONTOUR WITHIN ROW, i ~~s-___ . ';"," .. .'" '" . ,'~- t~ ",' v .',. , ' .. ',." '-~ ': ,," .~ I,· ., ,- GARRY STRUTHERS ASSOCIATES. INC, 3150 Richards Road. Suite 100 Bellevue. WA 98005-4446 Phone: (425) 519-0300 Fax: (425) 519-0309 E-m.il: gsa@gS8ssoc-inc.com hnp11www.gs8ssoc-inc.com " ":., -:' "-': ... - , GRAPHIC SCALE 1-=30' r...o-.-----. N ?? 0?1 301 50??? 90 j -:-:--1 : ·1 I ---.,. ,--~ , --_0_,--.,-_' -c' --. ...; .'- .. ---.~-. --.,; .. Jt State l~oute 9QO ", -L: __ --~---...---":':.. . - ' .. , IEXPIRES o8iiil/r'1 , SR 900 POSTED SPEED: 40 MPH EAST OF 148TH AVE SE 35 MPH WEST OF 148TH AVE SE DESIGN SPEED: 45 MPH PER FIGURE 440-1 (WSDOT DESIGN MANUAL-MAY 2001) DESIGN VEHICLE: .. :.; - SINGLE UNIT TRUCKS AND BUSES (SU & BUS) VERTICAL VIEW: UNOBSCURED-CONSTANT GRADE ON SR 900 HORIZONTAL VIEW: CUTS ACROSS SHOULDER AND DITCH ALONG ROW LINE. BRUSH TO BE REMOVED, SURVEY INFORMATION FOR THIS DRAWING WAS PROVIDED BY DRYCO SURVEYING INC, (G, PHIL SARGENT P.LS, 34145 SURVEY ATTACHED) SR 900/148TH AVENUE SE WSDOT REQUIREMENTS SIGHT DISTANCE SURVEY FIGURE 2 I I I ! I , I , I i I I I. __ ... __ r ~ -. -.... 5 . ~ g --z ~ 5 o I I I I i I . ~ I 11 Qesign speeds for each functional class are given in Figures ±. 5.a. Qa. and la. It is desirable that the design speed and the posted speed correlate as shown in Figure 440-1 and that the design speed be not less than the operating speed. Posted Desirable Speed Design Speed 35 mph Not less than or less the posted speed. 40 mph 5 mph over t050 mph . .the posted speed '. '. 55 mph 10 mph over or higher . . the posted speed Desirable Design Speed Figure 440-1 Sdect a design speed for urban arterial streets and highw3ys with some at.:cess control and fairly long distances between intt:!rsectinns as discussed abo\'e. Ho\vever. highway arterials th:.lt have ob\'ious "s~reet-like" characteristics. operation- ally and physically. do nO[ require a design speed determination. In such instances. !..:Iosely spaced intersections and other operational constraints usually limit vehicular speeds. negating the design speed factor. 440.08 Traffic Lanes Lane width and condition has a great influence on safety and comfort. The added cost for wider lanes is offset. to some extent. by the reduction in shoulder maintenance cost due to the lessening (If wheel load concenrrations at [he edge of the lane. Lanes 12ft wide provide desirable clearance between large vehicles where traffic volumes are high and a high number of large vehicles are expected. Highway capacity is also affected by the width of the lanes. With narrow lanes. drivers must operate their vehicles closer (laterally) to each other than they normally desire. To cnmpensate for this. drivers reduce their speed and increase the headway. resulting in reuuceJ capacity. MAIN FILE COpy Figures 440-± through 440-1b give the minimum lane width for the various design classes. See Chapter 640 for guidance on width requirements on turning roadways. 440.09 Shoulders The shoulder width is controlled by the functional classification of the roadway. the traffic volume. and the function the shoulder is to serve. The more important shoulder functions are to: (I) Provide space for: . Stopping out of the traffic lanes. Escaping potential acciuents or to reduce their sevdity. Lateral clearance to roadside objects. such as guardrail (see Chapters 700 and 710). Pedestrian and bicycle ll:'c. Large \'ehicle off tracking on cun'es (see Chapter 64() and 911)). Maintenance operJtiuos. Law enforcement. Bus stops (see Chapter 1060). Slow vehicles turnouts and shoulder driving (see Chapter 1010). Ferry holding lanes. .-\. sense of openness cuntributing to driver ease and freedom from strain. For use as a lane during reconstruction of the through lanes. (2) Provide structural support for the traveled way. (3) Improve sight distance in cut sections (see Chapter 650). (4) Improve capacity. (5) Reuw:e seepage adjacent to the traveled way by Jischarging storm WJter f3rther <1\vay. Fnr minimum ()\,erall shoulder widths based on fllnctinn~li classification ami traffic volume. see Figures 440-± through lb. Full Design Level Page 440-4 English Version Design Manual May 2001 Design Stopping Design Sight Speed Distance VCLm (mph) (It) KC Ks (It) 25 165 20 28 75 30 200 30 36 90 35 260 51 52 105 40 330 82 70 120 50 460 159 105 150 . .. -60 ·655· 323 .. 159 180 . 70 855 550 215 210 80 1,050 830 271 240 Design Stopping Sight Distance Figure 550-2 Existing slOpping sight distance (Figure 650-3) is used when the vertical and horizontal align- ments are unchangeu and the sight obstruction is existing. Existing Stopping Design Sight Speed Distance (mph) (It) KC KS 25 165 20 28 30 200 30 36 35 230 40 44 40 295 65 61 50 395 117 88 60 525 207 123 70 625 294 151 80 755 429 187 Existing Stopping Sight Distance Figure 550-3 (2) Effects of Grade The grade of the highway has an effect on the stopping sight distance. The vehicle stopping distance is increased on downgrades and decreased on upgrades. Figure 650-4 gives the stopping sight distances for grades steeper than three percent. When evaluating sight distance with a changing grade. use the grade for which the longest sight distance is needed. Design Speed (mph) . 25 30 35 40 50 60 70 80 Stopping Sight Distance (It) Down Grades Up Grades -3:"5% "6--8%" .~%-3':'S'%" -6:"8%" 165 165 165 150 150 195 215 230 180 180 260 280 295 215 215 330 360 375 260 260 490 540 590 360 345 690 740 785 460 445 920 1 000 -575 540 1.130 --690 - Design Stopping Sight Distance on Grades Figure 550-4 ~% 150 165 215 245 330 425 - - (3) Crest Vertical Curves Use Figure 6jO-7 to find the minimum crest vertical curve length to provide stopping sight distance when given the algebraic difference in grades. The length can also be determined by multiplying the algebraic difference in grades by the KC value from Figure 650-2 for design or 650-3 for existing (L=KC* A). Both the figure and the equation give approximately the same length of curve. Neither the figure nor the equa- tion uses the sight distance greater than the length of curve equation. When the sight distance is greater than the length of curve and the length of curve is critical. the S>L equation given on Figure li50-7 may be used to find the minimum curve length. Design Manual June 1999 English Version Sight Distance Page 650-3 .'. .--- c==B .. v ..... .. .. · .. Sight line .......... '--" V... c-J ---- ----.. ~'.'-. - . e· ...... ··· .. · ..,----.. -5\9\1\ II n ~ ___ --Sight distance-+-"~"---Sight distance----I~ SO; 1.47Vtg Where: SO ; Sight Distance (ft) V ; Design speed of the through roadway (mph) tg ; Time gap for the minor roadway traffic to enter or cross the through roadway (s) Intersection Sight Distance Equation Table 1 Time Gap (tg) Design Vehicle in seconds Passenger car (P) 9.5 Single unit trucks and buses (SU & BUS) 11.5 Combination trucks (WB·40, WB-50, & WB-67) 13.5 I I Note: Vatues are for a stopped vehicle to turn left or right onto a two-lane two·way roadway with no median and grades 3% or less. Includes 2 sec for perception/reaction time. Intersection Sight Distance Gap Times (tg) Table 2 The tg values listed in Table 2 require the following adjustments: Crossing maneuvers: All vehicles Multilane roadways: subtract 1.0 S Left·turns. for each lane in excess of one to be crossed and for medians wider than 4 ft: Passenger cars All trucks and buses add 0.5 s add 07 s Crossing maneuvers. for each lane in excess of two to be crossed and for medians wider than 4 ft: Passenger cars All trucks and buses add 0.5 s add 0.7 s Note: Where medians are wide enough to store the design 'Jehicle. determine the sight distance as two maneuvers. Crossroad grade greater than 3%: All movements upgrade. for each percent that exceeds 3%: All vehicles add 0.2 s Sight Distance for Grade Intersection With Stop Control Figure 910-1/1a Intersections At Grade Page 910·36 English Version Design Manual May 2001 GARRY STRUTHERS ASSOCIATES, INC. Date: August 8. 2001 To: Bruce Whittaker King County DDES From: Gary A. Norris. P.E. Subject: Road Improvements CamWest Plat Mem()randum 3150 Richards Road, Suite 100 Bellevue, W A 98005-4446 (425) 519-0300 (phone) (425) 519-0309 (fax) Project Name: East RentonlIntelkofer- Shirman Property Project No.: __ P: __ T: __ CamWest is proposing the development of a 68 unit single family plat on 19.57 acres located at 12013 148th Avenue SE. The plat will have approximately 650 feet of frontage on 1481h Avenue SE. 1481h Avenue SE is a two-lane arterial with a 6-8 foot shoulder on the west side and a 3-5 foot shoulder on the east side. The roadway maintains a continually increasing downgrade from the south property line of the proposed plat to the north property line. The percent grade at the south property line is 2.4% whereas at the north property line it is 4.6 %. North of the north property line, the percent grade increases dramatically to 9 percent with a grade break 50 to 75 feet north of the site. This change in grade creates a potential substandard stopping sight distance (SSD) condition according to the King County Road Standards (KCRS, 1993) for southbound vehicles on 1481h Avenue SE approaching the site. Need for Road Improvements or Variance for Stopping Sight Distance This memorandum responds to King County's preliminary request for CamWest Development to reconstruct 1481h Avenue SE along the plat frontage and to the north of the proposed plat, or obtain a variance to meet KCRS for stopping sight distance. This issue was first raised in 1999 with Harbour Homes, the previous project applicant for the property, and was raised again in a meeting between the CamWest Development Design Team and King County staff on Thursday April 19, 2001. CamWest believes there is a question of whether there is an actual sight distance problem under the King County Road Standards. A substandard SSD condition arises under the KCRS because of an administrative decision to use a design speed of 10 mph over the posted limit, although this definition of design speed is not specified by the KCRS. Utilizing a 40-mph design speed (the 85- percentile speed on 1481h Avenue SE based upon a recent speed study) results in an acceptable SSD. Assuming it is appropriate to use a 45-mph design speed, the substandard SSD condition is Lf\. preexisting and unrelated to the impacts of the proposed plat. Reconstructing 1481h Avenue SE to v~ meet SSD would be extremely burdensome and cost prohibitive. ('~ The KCRS provide that the extent of frontage and off-site improvements must be tied to the '0/"" j'b.4'. impacts of the proposed development, as required by Washington law. The propose~tf~ not <? '() create and will not exacerbate the SSD condition on its frontage road. Additionally, the:a~E\l ~ ~ known safety issues associated with the present grade. Therefore, any requirement to regr~t~1-: t(? roadway to improve the SSD would not be consistent with the KCRS and Washington law. ~~ Q. j:\079 east retltbn u uee whittaker memo from norris a·a·OI.doe 1/24/03 (cd) ~ -------------------------------------- Memorandum January 24, 2003 Page 2 Because requiring these improvements would exceed the County's authority, a variance is unnecessary. Existing Stopping and Entering Sight Distance Conditions Garry Struthers Associates (GSA) performed a field study of stopping and entering sight distance on April 18, 2001. The proposed access to the plat at that time was approximately 120 feet south of the north property line. The SSD at that access point and its intersection with 1481h Avenue SE was observed to be 318 feet for southbound vehicles and 425+ feet for northbound vehicles. The posted speed limit on 1481h Avenue SE is 35mph. The KCRS does not stipulate the design speed to be used to calculate SSD. King County has administratively chosen to use posted speed plus 10 mph for design speed. Based upon a 45mph design speed, SSD of 425 feet would be required for northbound vehicles and 400 feet for southbound vehicles under the KCRS. (The increase of 25 feet in the SSD for the northbound direction is the result of a correction for downgrade specified in KCRS 2.12. The KCRS does not identify an adjustment to reduce SSD for the upgrade condition. 1 Adding 10 mph to the posted speed to calculate design speed increases the required SSD by 150 feet over what would be required for a 35mph design speed. If a 35-mph design speed is used then the required SSD per the KCRS is 250 feet in the southbound direction and 265 feet in the northbound direction. It should also be noted that the KCRS adopted the highest value stopping distance for a 45-mph design speed -400 feet -established by AASHTO. AASHTO is the agency that establishes national standards, including SSD, upon which the KCRS is based. According to ASHTO, the assumed speed for a 45-mph design speed ranges between 40 and 45 mph, with a calculated SSD ranging from 325 feet to 400 feet. Based on a recent speed study on 1481h Avenue SE in the vicinity of the proposed plat, the 85- percentile speed is 40 mph.' The computed SSD for 40 mph is 318.7 feet and 325 feet when rounded for design. This suggests that a SSD of 325 feet would be adequate in this section of 1481h Avenue SE. There is currently 318 feet of SSD available 100 feet south of the north property line that increases heading south as the percent grade decreases. Additionally, the KCRS, unlike ASHTO, does not adjust the required SSD to reflect the reduced stopping distance required for the upgrade condition (southbound approach to the plat). Since the SSD deficiency on 1481h Avenue is a result of the vertical curve to the north of the site with a downgrade to the north of approximately 10 percent the average running speed should be used in the SSD calculation for southbound vehicles. According to the recent speed study, the average running speed is 33.7 mph. This results in a SSD of 212 feet. Therefore, applying the upgrade correction per AASHTO analysis procedures to this situation results in more than sufficient SSD at the originally proposed site access intersection and across the remainder of the plat to the south. Adequate SSD may also exist to the north property line but has not been validated by field observation. I According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Green Book (1984), page 143, "Design Speed is used in calculating downgrade corrections, average running speed in calculating upgrade corrections." 2 The speed study was taken from 12:00 AM Tuesday May 7 to 12:00 AM Wednesday May 8, 2001. The counters were stationed 50 to 75 feet north of the north property line. j:\079 east renton~urisdictions\bruce whittaker memo from norris 8-8-0t .doc 1/24/03 (cd) Memorandum January 24, 2003 Page 3 An analysis of the entering sight distance (ESD) at the initially proposed access indicated that the project would not meet the KCRS required entering sight distance (ESD) for vehicles approaching from the north (the critical ESD movement). In the field study of sight distance discussed above, 390 feet of ESD was observed at the proposed site access compared to the KCRS requirement of 620 feet. To provide the 620 feet of ESD, CamWest will relocate the site access intersection with 14S'h Avenue SE to the south property line. At this location, acceptable ESD can be achieved. SSD is also acceptable at this location using a 45-mph design speed. Scope of Improvements Needed to Achieve SSD Based upon 4Smph Design Speed Changing the grade of SE 14S'h Avenue SE to provide 425 feet of stopping sight distance along the entire frontage of the proposed plat would require lowering the profile of 14S'h Avenue SE for at least 700 feet and possibly much more. This improvement would necessarily extend beyond the plat frontage. Cuts of 2 Y:z to nearly 4 feet would be necessary for over 300 feet. Several hundred feet of a 12-inch water main would need to be dug up and lowered. At least two power poles would need to be relocated, water meters, dry utilities, ditches and culverts along this road reconstructed and several driveway approaches to 14S'h Avenue SE rebuilt. The areas where the cuts would be greatest would probably need low retaining walls or rockeries at the edge of the right-of-way in order to accommodate the drainage ditch on the side of the street opposite the proposed project. Some of this work would require easements from the abutting property owners. These improvements would be extremely costly and burdensome for the proposed plat. Furthermore, although limited survey data is currently available to make a definitive assessment, it appears that it may be necessary to reconstruct the SE 116'h Place/14Stb Avenue SE intersection to meet the reconstructed 14S'h Avenue SE centerline profile. King County Road Standards Governing Frontage and OtT-site Improvements The 1993 King County Road Standards addressing frontage and off-site road improvements require these improvements to be based upon the impacts of the proposed development. To the extent improvements are necessitated by the development impacts, they must be done in conformance with the KCRS. These standards are set out in Section 1.03 Responsibility to Provide Roadway Improvements: A. Any land development which will impact the service level, safety, or operational efficiency of serving roads or is required by other County code or ordinance to improve such roads shall improve those roads in accordance with these Standards. The extent of off-site improvements to serving roads shall be based on an assessment of the impacts of the proposed land development by the Reviewing Agency B. Any land development abulling and impacting existing roads shall improve the frontage of those roads in accordance with these Standards. The extent of improvements shall be based on an assessment of the impacts of the proposed land development by the Reviewing Agency. CamWest's attorney has advised them that the bolded language set out in these two provisions reflect Washington law regarding governmental authority to require roadway improvements as a condition of approving development proposals. Washington law limits the extent of required improvements to those that are directly related to the impact of proposed development. Even if the impact test is met, any required improvements must be proportional to the impacts of the development. (See Benchmark Land Company v. City of Battle Ground, 94 Wash. App. 537 (1999).) j:\079 east renton\jurisdictions\bruce whittaker memo from norris 8-8-01.doc 1/24/03 (cd) Memorandum January 24, 2003 Page 4 It order to determine whether CamWest can be required to provide SSD improvements across the entire plat frontage and beyond, the impacts of the proposed plat and the costs of such improvements must be assessed. (It should be noted that CamWest, as part of the plat development process, would provide frontage improvements on 14Sth Avenue SE to include curb, gutter, and sidewalks.) The SSD issues associated with this area of 14Sth Avenue SE are preexisting and completely unrelated to the impacts of the proposed CamWest plat. There is no data that suggests the SSD condition on 14Sth Avenue SE has created a safety problem or has significantly affected operational conditions.3 As discussed previously, road improvements to improve the existing SSD would be extremely costly and burdensome. Requiring the plat to fix the existing SSD condition when it did not create the condition, and when there is no safety issue associated with the condition would violate Washington law. Therefore, there is no legal basis to require frontage and off-site improvements on 14Sth Avenue SE to improve SSD. Need for Variance A variance is unnecessary since Staff does not have the legal authority to require frontage and off- site improvements of the magnitude discussed in this memo. A variance would be needed only if the County had the authority to require the improvements for which a variance is sought. Conclusion Based on the foregoing information, we respectfully request you determine that the proposed development should not be required to reconstruct the 14Sth Avenue SE along the project frontage and off-site to correct a pre-existing SSD condition, and that a variance is not needed to meet the King County Road Standards. 3 The most pertinent factor applicable to the SSD standard would be impact on safety. To address this issue, the latest available three-year accident history was obtained from King County Department of Transportation'which included the period between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 1999. According to the data provided, three accidents have occurred in the vicinity of the plat between 1996 and 1999. South of the proposed plat, at the SE 124th Street/148th Avenue SE intersection, there was one accident in 1996 and one in 1997; both involving a vehicle striking a fixed object off the roadway. North of the plat, at the SE 116th Street/148th Avenue SE intersection, one accident occurred in 1999 involving a vehicle colliding with a bicyclist. None of the accidents were related to sight distance conditions across the plat frontage.) j:\079 east renton\jurisdictions\bruce whittaker memo from norris 8-8-01.doc 1/24/03 (cd) \ ! Date: Subject: ATIACHMENT 6 October 16, 2001 East Renton Property Concerning Sight Distance Voice Mail Message To: Gary Norris, Garry Struthers Associates From: Aileen McManus, King County Traffic Hi Gary this is Aileen McManus umm I got a answer back it looks like no we will not be requiring the stopping sight distance through that north section. We will require umm meet entering and stopping sight distance and the access point but not at the frontage umm as you I believe it was the north part of the frontage so umm if you have any further questions. I guess that means no variance required either so give me a call a (206) 263-6102. Thanks. Bye. MAIN FILE COPY RE: CamWest F. _'" Sara Slatten From: Sent: Gary, Norris [garyn@gsassoc-inc.com] Friday, January 24,200312:18 PM To: Sara Slatten Subject: FW: CamWest here you go -----Original Message----- From: Langley, Kristen [mailto:Kristen.Langley@METROKC.GOVj sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:55 AM To: 'Gary, Norris' Subject: RE: camWest Any challenges with this? Mr. Norris: We have reviewed the documentation that you have provided, re: the extent of off-site reconstruction required by the provision of a vertical alignment built to continuously achieve stopping sight distance along the plat frontage of 148th Avenue SE. You have suggested that a proportionality issue may be at hand in this instance, due to the proximity of the crest vertical curve in question, relative to the currently proposed plat boundary. The grade differential at this crest curve results in a lengthy reconstruction of the roadway, much of which would be off-site to the plat. Historically, the County has required both options available: (1) require the developer to reconstruct the entire frontage of the roadway as required to provide the design speed based alignment --even if the reconstruction extends beyond the frontage, and beyond the limits required merely to provide sight distance for the plat intersection(s), and (2) Reconstruct only that portion of the frontage as required to achieve sight distance at any plat intersection(s), and retain existing non- engineered alignments outside of those limits. Reconstruct the alignment at the time of other development in the area, as necessitated by the need for adequate sight distance for that (future) project's intersections. It would appear that in the case under consideration, that --absent new information or a revision in this plat that might alter our opinion --we agree that the extent of off-frontage improvements could be disproportionate. The Applicant shall provide the full sight distance requirements from the King County Road Standards [KCRS] at the plat entrance(s), or apply for a Variance to the KCRS as provided for in KCRS 1.08. I expect, however, and will request of DOES, that appropriate provisions will be made in the design of the frontage improvements to facilitate the future reconstruction of this crest curve by others: developers, King County, successor agencies, etc .. It is a reasonable exercise of our discretion to make provisions for the eventual reconstruction of this roadway .-even if the actual requirement to reconstruct the roadway is not placed upon your client. Please contact me at 206 263-6121 if you have any questions. Kris Langley Supervising Engineer Development Review Unit, King County DOT 206/ 263-6121 -----Original Message----- From: Gary, Norris [mailto:garyn@gsassoc-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:40 AM To: kristen.Langley@metrokc.gov Cc: michael.romano@gte.net; Joan, Smelser 1/24/2003 \AAIN FILE COpy RE: CamWest SUbject: Aster Park Hi Kristen, We have obtained the additional information necessary to respond to your comments dated January 18, 2002. First, we found the 85th percentile speed to exce~d 40 mph thereby justifying the 70 percent volume reduction in the signal warrant analysis. This condition may however change as improvements are installed and development occurs. At any rate, for the purposes of this analysis a signal would be warranted. This mitigation would be consistent with the request of the WSDOT. In regards to the pipeline project volume information, the difference between the two is simply what was requested. The Stone Ridge analysis requested all development proposals in the Newcastle Planning area. Aster Park used all projects in the vicinity of the subject intersection. There are several issues in regards to using the various sources. Pipeline projects are limited to projects that have an application date prior to the subject proposal and also projects that are expected to proceed. Use of all projects within a concurrency planning area does not meet this criteria. Therefore to rectify the difference between the two lists in an appropriate manner will take a considerable amount of additional time. The question is it really worth it when we are willing to concede a traffic signal is now warranted with the application of the 85th percentile speed on SR 900. Please advise. Thanks, Gary 1/24/2003 --------._--------_ . • UII',.,' '. ia.~ "" " • JOHNSMONROEMITSUNAp~~ Robert D. Johns Michael P. Monroe January 16,2003 Ms. Stephanie Warden Director, DDES 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Re: Cam west Development (East Renton project Plat application L02POQ005 Redtailed Hawk Issues Dear Stephanie: RECEIVED JAN 242003 LAN~t~{OSUENTY RVICES Darrell S. Mitsunaga Duana T. Kolouskova This letter is submitted on behalf of Camwest Development, the applicant for .the above- described project. The applicant has received two letters from DDES staff regarding the application, both objecting to the fact . that the application proposes a 325 foot buffer around a redtailed hawk nest but also proposes to include recreation facilities and stormwater facilities in the buffer area. I have attached copies of portions of two' letters from DDES staff to the applicant on this issue. A quick review of King County's adopted regulations on the protection of redtailed hawks is in order. First, the Comprehensive Plan, policy E-168 states: E -168: King County shall designate and protect, through measures such as regulations, incentives, capital projects or purchase, the following Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas found in King County: . a. Habitat for federal or state listed Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species. b. C. Habi tat for Raptors and Herons of Local Importance: red-tailed hawk, osprey, black-crowned night heron, and great blue heron; [emphasis add~dl At this point in time, King County has no adopted regulations regarding Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and no regulations regarding the protection of redtailed hawks inside the UGA, which is where this project is located. King County has also not adopted any incentive program, capital project or purchase program for the MAIf\1 FILE COpy T: (425) 451-2812 • F: (425) 451-2818 Cypress Building 1500. 114th Ave. SE • Suite 102 • Bellevue, WA 98004 ~ J Ms. Stephanie Warden January 16, 2003 Page 2 • • protection of redtailed hawks habitat. Since redtailed hawks are not a listed endangered or threatened species, there is no federal or state authority for requiring buffers or other protecti ve measures for this species in the UGA. What is also clear is that the Draft Critical Area Ordinance, which has not yet even completed the DDES review process, let alone been transmitted to the Executive or adopted by the County Council, proposes to create a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and adopt regulations regarding the protection of redtailed hawks. To put it mildly, the DDES staff is jumping the gun by trying to enforce a program that has not been adopted and which is not yet enforceable. There are several problems with the staff approach: First, the County's policy on wildlife habitat issues under existing regulations has been that listed endangered and threatened species are protected inside the UGA, but other species are not.t This policy has been applied regarding redtailed hawks on a number of occasions by both DDES staff and the Hearing Examiner. In the absence of an adopted ordinance changing this policy, there is no authority to impose a restriction at this time. Second, as you know, King County efforts to enforce unadopted rules and ordinances have been severely criticized and overturned by the courts on several occasions. There is no authority to impose such restrictions and an effort to do so in this case is unsupportable. Third, although the DDES and KCDNR staff who are working on the draft Critical Areas Ordinance are proposing protection for redtailed hawks, no standards have been established for either a buffer zone size or for the types of activities which will be permitted inside the buffer zone. The DDES staff position which is being imposed on Camwest is based on the most conservative draft proposal and there is no assurance whatsoever that such a proposal will pass muster with the Executive and the Council, particularly when there is already much concern about the fact that the radically increased buffers proposed for wetlands and aquatic areas, coupled with the newly proposed wildlife buffers for non-endangered and non-threatened species, will dramatically increase the amount of unbuildable land in the UGA and increase pressure to move the Urban Growth Boundary. It is premature to presume the passage of the current draft I There are some additional wildlife policies that apply in the Rural Area, but they are' not applicable to the Cam west site because it is clearly in the UGA. JOHNSMONROEMITSUNAGA PLLC Ms. Stephanie Warden January 16,2003 Page 3 • • Critical Areas Ordinance and particularly premature to try and enforce it before it has been reviewed and adopted. I must point out that Camwest has addressed the staff's concerns regarding this issue by agreeing to a 325 fOOl buffer zone that is, frankly, not required by current codes, but is an effort to compromise this issue in a positive way. We would request that you review this issue as soon as possible and re-evaluate the DDES position that recreational facilities and storm water facilities are not permitted in the buffer, recognizing that Carnwest's willingness to compromise by providing a buffer should not be considered as an admission that the County has, at this time, any authority to require any buffer for redtailed hawk at this location. Sara Slatten from Camwest and I would be glad to meet with you to discuss this issue in greater detail. Very tml y yours, Enclosure: portions of DDES letters on plat application cc: ./ Sara Slatten ltr to Warden 011503 Direct Tel: (425) 467-9960 Email: joltns@jmmlaw.com J OHNSMONHOEMITSUNAGA PLLC • • measurements shall be based upon the Washington State Department of Transportation design standards. This drawing must be stamped by both a civil engineer and land surveyor, licensed to practice in the State of Washington. 6. Uses Proposed Within the Hawk Nest Buffer: The proposed site plan shows a tract to be created within the hawk nest buffer, which will be used for both stormwater and recreation facilities (fract C). We wish to make you aware we don't expect to support the placement of recreation uses in the hawk nest buffer, and it is possible we will not support stormwater facilities in the buffer as well, due to the potential for impacts to nesting birds. We can discuss this matter further with you in the future at a tech meeting on the project. . . With regard to proposed Tract E, which is labeled "Future Development" on the site plan, our support for the creation of this tract will be contingent on the adoption of a final plat condition that only allows the development of this tract in the future,' if it is shown that the affected hawk nests have not been used by hawks for a five year period. (Also see Item 10 below.) 7. Recreation: Please address the following: a. As noted above, Tract C is proposed for both stormwater and recreation facilities. It is unclear from the application materials llow these two uses will be developed together, i.e., are recreation facilities proposed over top of a stormwater vault, or will recreation uses be developed adjacent to an above- ground stormwater pond? Please clat~fy this matter and indicate how much area will be devoted to recreation uses, as distinguished from stormwater uses. . b. If the proposed recreation facilities are not developed in conjunction with an above-ground stormwater pond, KCC 21A.14.180C4 requires that the recreation facilities "[b]e centrally located with good visibility of the [recreation] site from roads atld sidewalks." Please revise the proposed plat design to comply with this requirement .. Note that we are concerned about both the location of the proposed recreation· uses, and their visibility if they are developed at a substantially lower grade than 145"' Ave. SE. c. KCC 21A.14.18OC6 states that recreation uses must "[b]e located on one designated area, wuess the director determines that residents of large subdivisions ... would be better served by multiple areas developed with recreation or play facilities." At present, in our view, this requirement has not been met with respect to proposed Tract A. Please revise the plat design to comply with this Code requirement, or submit written justification to show how the proposed plat design complies with this regulation. 8. Addendum Wetland/Stream Study: Please prepare an addendum study to address the followin'g: a. Wetland Classification: Based on our field reconnaissance, we have determined that the areas mapped as Wetland A and Wetland B are part of one large ',' . ,,' • • we are renewing our request that you provide the information. Please note that we have not received the requested information previously from any other plat applicant .. .... ,' 4. SR 900/148,h Ave. SE: In addition to the sight distance concern noted above for the SR 900/14S th Ave. SE intersection, we previously advised you of a levei-of-service (congestion) problem that also exists at this intersection. In our July 1, 2002 letter, we noted the improvements which are needed at the intersection to mitigate adverse impacts under SEP A, and requested that you advise us as to whether or not the imposition of such improvements as a condition of development of your project is acceptable. In response, you indicated you were still considering this matter and that you expected t~ respond to us on this issue in two months time. Further, you requested that we not take a SEP A action on your project in the interim. This approach is acceptable; consequently, we will not issue a SEP A determination on "East Renton" until we hear further from you. 3. Hawk Nest Buffer: In our previous "screening" letter, we raised concerns about the improvements you have proposed within the 325-foot hawk nest buffer. We continue to have these concerns, and will be. available to discuss them with you at our meeting scheduled for November 5, 2002. Please note it is possiblewe may seek additional information from you in the future, to support your .proposed use of the buffer area. Please submit 25 copies of a revised plat map if any changes to the plat design are proposed, and eight copies of all other requested documents. -"',', ~- ~~ .. II .. ~';O • ~ M~~~ ~w4-.ofi@TOliil • January 24, 2002. Lanny Henoch, Planning King County Department of Development & Enviromnental Services, 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW , Renton, WA98055,1219 ' RE: East Renton Property: ,L02POOOS ,Preliminary Plat Resubmittal #3 Dear Mr. Henoch, • 'REcen/fD JAN 242003 L KING COUNTY . AND USE SERVICES. RECEIVED JAN 242003 - The following iesubmittal is in response to your request for additional information for the East Renton Property application dated October 24, 2002. I have listed each of your comments below ami our responses are below and bolded 'as follows: . , . " . 1: . Intersection Spacing: In our July I; 2002 "screening" letter, we request~d that you relocated the project entrance road (SE 120'h St.) to align with the ex:isting- east leg of this intersection (item 5a, July 1, 2002 letter). We made this request ~o that the proposed plat would comply with the intersection spacing . ' requirements 'of the King County Road Standards (Section 2.10). On 'your revised plat design, you chose instead to move the pr()posed plat entrance further north to the approximate center of your property. Unfortunately, the revised intersection location still conflicts with the 300-foot intersection . spacing requirements for collector arterials, specified in the road standards. , Therefore,yoJl must either submit a road variance application to 'deviate from, the Standards, or submit another revised design which meets the 300-foot spacing requirements. ' Response: The intersection is relocated to align with SE l~Oth Street as requested. Please' refer to the enclosed memorimdum from Gary Norris, -dated January 23, 2003 as well as the revised preliminary plat by Triad & , Associates in respon~e to this Issue. .' . 2. Sight Distance: In Item 5b of our July 1,2002 "screening" leiter, we requested , that you provide a ro'ad profile for 14S'h Ave. SE along the frontage ofthe subject' property and beyond, in order to,determine whether the subject plat J complies with the entering and stopping sight distance requirements of the Road Standards (Sections 2.12 and 2.13). In r,!!sponse, you noted the available entering sight distance on the revised plat map, but choose not to provide the requested road prOfile information: You indicated that discussions had' occurred between your traffic consultant, Gary Nords, and Aileen McManus, MAIN FILE COpy 3. • • KCDOT, and based on a voice mail mes~age from Ms. McManus to Mr. No~ris, you apparently concluded no further action was necessary. In order for the subject" plat to receive approv:al from the King County Hearing Examiner, ,it must'comply with applicable statutes', , including the Road Standards, or a road variance application must be approved by the King County Road Engineer to authorize a deviatioilfrom the,Standards. A voice mail message' form Ms. McManus, whatever its content, cannot obviate the. need for an approved variance application. COIlsequently, please provide the " , ,information requested in Item 5b from our July 1; 2002 letter. ' We have noted that the entering sight distance currently available, which you indicated on your revised pillt map, does not comply with the Road Standards. , Therefore, in order for the proposed intersection to be approved,' nothwithstanding the intersec\ion spacing conflict noted above, the vertical alignment of the 148th Ave. roadway must either be reconstructed as part of your plat development, or a road variance application must be, granted to deviate from the entering sight'distance standard. Note that stopping sight distance must also'be met along your entire road frontage, or a variance, granted to deviate from the standards. " Response: Please refer to the enclosed memorandum from Gary Norris dated January 23, 2003 in response to this item.' Additionally, the requested road profile information is included and referenced as , attachments 1,2, 3a & 3b. Mr. Norris's memo also addresses information related to the results of the road proflleanalysis. Sight Distance atSR 900 1 148th Avenue SE In Item 5f'of our July 1, 2002 "screening" letter, we requested that you provide detailed information ' conceni.ing the available sight distance at'the SR 900 1 148 th Avenue SE intersection, which, per your traffic stJ.\dy, wilheceive 60% ofEait Renton's traffic. In your September 27, 2002 response, you indicate you were "looking into this issue, further and will respond to this formally in the near future." T~ date we have not' received -the information requested, and thu§ we are renewing our request that you provide this information. Please note that we have not received the requested information previously from any other plat applicarit. . . ~ I Response: The survey and sight'distance analysis has been completed for ' the Sa. 900 1 14Sth Avenue SE intersection. Please refer to Attachment 4 of , the traffic' packets. Analysis of the intersection is also provided in Mr. Norris's memo dated 1123/03. - • • 3. SR 90,0, /14Sth Avenue SE: In addition to the sight distance concern noted . above for the SR 90,0, /14Sth Ave. SE intersection, we previously advised yO\! of a level of service (congestion) problem that also exists at this intersection. In our July 1, 20,0,2 letter; we noted the improvements which are needed atthe intersection to mitigate adverse impacts under ,SEPA, and requested that your advise us as to whether or not the imposition of such improvements as a " condition of development of your project is acceptable. In response you indicated you were still considering this matter and that your expected to respo~d to us on this issue in two months time. Further, you requested that we not take a SEP A action on your project in the interim. This approach is acceptable; consequently, we will not issue a SEP A determination on "East Renton" until we hear further frol]l you. Response: CamWest has met with the applicants representing the Stone Ridge and Aster Park projects both of which have or will receive a similar condition. All three parties have agreed to proportionately share in the . costs associated with the SR 900 /14Sth Ave SE mitigation solution which will require W ADOT approval. Based on the pr~mise there could potentially be an alternative mitigati~n solution and the County may . adopt a street latecomers ordimmce, we.aredo agree to a SEPA condition. Our proposed SEPA condition will be emailed to you and Kim Clausst;n . early next week for consideration. . .5. Hawk Nest Buffer: In our previous "screening" letter, we raised concerns - about the improvements you have proposed within the 325-foot hawk nest buffer. We continue to have these concerns, and will be available to discuss them with you at ou~ meeting scheduled for November 5, 20,0,2. Please note it is possible we may seek 'additional information from you in the future, to . . support your proposed use of the buffer area. , Response: Please refer to the enclosed letter from Bob Johns, dated January 16,20'03 which was submitted to Stephanie Warden last week in response to the hawk nest buffer issue. Enclosed are the following fof your review: . - 1) Twenty five (25) copies of the reyised preliminary plat dated January 22, 20,0,3 by Triad & Associlites dated January 22, 20,0,3. 2) Twenty five (25) copies of the revised preliminary utility plan dated January,22, 2003 by Triad & Associates dated January 22, 200,3. 3) . Eight (S) copies of the traffic memo from Gary Norris, Garry Struthers & Associates, dated January 23, 2003. ' , • • -I ." 4) Eight (8) copies of the 148'h Ave SE East Renton frontage topography and site distance analysis, Attachments 1,2,3a & 3b. . 5) Eight (8) copies of the 14S'h Ave sf: / SR 900 intersection topography and sight distance analysis providing by Gary Norris, Attachment #4. 6) Eight (8) copies of the Traffic memo from Gary Norris dated August 8, 2001, Attachment #5. 7). Eight (8) copies of the transcribed voice mail message from Aileen McManus dated October 16, 2001, Attachment #6. 8) Eight (8) copi~s of the March 15, 2002 email from Kristin LangJey to Gary Norris. . 9) Eight (8) copies of Bob Johns's letter to Stephanie Warden dated January 16, 2003 in response to the Red Tailed Hawks nest. J hope the provided information adequately addresses the comments that have been raised: Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please call me at (425) 825"1955. . . . CamWest Development, Inc. enclosures §R 900/148th Ave SEPA condit. • pagel0f~ Henoch,Lanny F:£I-! j...Cl,;( fPtJ05 From: Sent: Sara Slatten [sslatten@camwesl.comj Monday, January 13, 2003 3:29 PM To: Henoch, Lanny Subject: RE: SR 900/148th Ave SEPA Lanny, Based on our discussion earlier today, attached is the red-lined SEPA condition that I previously drafted. Let me know your thoughts on it. Thanks, Sara Slatten -----Original Message----- From: Henoch, Lanny [mallto:Lanny,Henoch@METROKC,GOVj Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:29 AM To: Michael Romano (E-mail); Sara Slatten Cc: John Collins (E-mail); Claussen, Kimberly; Bergam, Mark; Dye, Pete; Whittaker, Bruce; Langley, Subject: SR 900/148th Ave SEPA Condition Mike and Sara, At Mike's request, I have been working on a draft SEPA condition for improvements at the SR 900/148th Ave. intersection, which allows for a type of "Iatecome~s" arrangement for the construction of improvements at the intersection. County staff have developed the wording in the attached document for this condition. Our plan would be to adopt this condition for Aster Park, East Renton, Shamrock, and any subsequent applications (if any) which contribute traffic to this intersection and are subject to King County's Intersection Standards (i.e., the 20/30 threshold). If you have any comments or issues with the attached SEPA mitigation condition which you would like to discuss, please give me a call (206-296-7168). «AsterParkDraftSEPACondSR900.doc» 01114/2003 ""'N FILE COP1l'@ '. ;r • • To mitigate the significant fr{hff~impact the plat of Aster Park will have on the intersection of SR 900/148'h Ave. SE, the applicant shall, either individually or in conjunction with other development projects in the area, instaIl17ritw-hTl11"'l-rht--,'\ppreva!: • a traffic signal, and • eastbound and westbound left turn lanes at the intersection'-"I • alternative intersectio:, improvements detennined acceptable by WSDOT, The design for the intersection improvements shall be approved by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). In addition, at a minimum, the existing entering sight distance for the north and south legs of the intersection shall be maintained as part 0 f the intersection improvements. (Documentation shall be submitted to show this sight distance requirement has been met.) All construction work associated with the intersection improvements shall be in accordance with applicable code and construction standards set . forth by King County and WSDOT. eomj7let""l-hctweefl--Apftl-r-and SCpti.~'){)'h41t;" """~'eetftelffi,~lJ-b<o-ele~WfH3ft-the finnl-ffigineemgfll~ In lieu of installation of the above intersection improvements prior to final plat approval, the applicant may post a financial.guarantee-W+tlrl.Vc<;;DG+, which assures installation of the above intersection improvements within two years of the recording of the plat of Aster Park. +!'rlolffi.-e"en!';-iffi"""""Ii6trtmrf<'TVefflelt~mtlSt-Be-apprBTefr.hy-\\L&9fc1+;-rftt)F-!'e ~f;flh'1'hm-at¥'~)'-KifliS-(~t1ty-er:-tfle7~er-P7tt*"'ttbffi"istefr if.either-tlTc~ifttefSeetioo-tmpt't'W€t'fle1'ltS-h~eacly~e-hy-i')fhas-prieHfr-lhe reei')nli;·tg~erP'ilfk;-v~iftftm:-iftl-gttaffift!ee-l"'~>fr-\~efrhy-ethefS-whieh-a5~ttf~1e ffi~i!llatil')n of the m+erseceon imt:>ffl-vet'fleftts,tOOHtK>-l!Pf'lie<l,TH''Of-+\eterParlHl",ll-ray-a j'>ftH'frtft-share-clelIat'~te-1'ht"-devek>pt.~.~w-l~,<le-!hL"-imrft"«""'-'!tts-ftf-"ben-decl'-' l"'E-the-Ht'tJ"f0T'emt.~.,rorefli0na!-to-the--;mt.,~ts-{~et'-fflIr.-Prior to construction of the SR 900 improvements. 'f!he pro-rata dollar amount to be paid shall be determined and agreed upon by the developers for Aster Park, Stone Ridge, East Renton Property, and !he Shamrock Property. set+)~<;;DG+,-an-d-deettfncntatien-shru~e-prBT;ccJecl-fr)c4e-4stef Par-k-at>plie;mt-w-!hd~ffig-Ec_'l4j4.tal-~Stffte~ivi"ien-ffi-sl.".,w--rhis-r"")"1llim-l-l'ilS heen--fflftde;-rr-iTJH6-!'">f!l-pl<rt-reeBfc"'",,. The pro-rata share dollar amount shall be based on the total trips contributed to the intersection by those land use applications pending with King County, for which compliance with the King County Intersection Standards (KCC 14.80) has not yet been completed. In the event King County or WSDOT adopts a fonnal "latecomer's" system, future reimbursement shall be distributed to the original contributors of the SR 900 -148" Avenue SE intersection improvements based on the detennined pro-rata share as stated above. pr-im t'O-fimll-r*-'t fCeo rdffig;-th .It s1s tem may-be-fullewett-itHiett-('tf'-thce-apj",l'(,fteh-ttcs<;ribed-abeve; *tlTMli,,;efL-titllT-0f:the-a~f,Cl{l-letlg "s, at-il-fnffiifl'ltltTr,-tfleK-ts-a-timnefal-gttar'lfttee whieh-aS3tll'es-the-aoo,,-e \10 tecHnt<.f'Seet-ietrimprBTefl'lent;l-wil!-be-in:;",Hefr.'N'ithiJ,-twe-)'t'ftffl ",HlTe-date-e.ffeeereiflg-t+th"1}lat-ef-Astff-P"fk~ • Washington State Department of Transportation Douglas B. MacDonald Secretary of Transportation November 13, 2002 Lanny Henoch King County DDES 900 Oakesdale Ave SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 RE: SR 900, MP 15.05, CS 1713 • Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 206-440-4000 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov REceIVED NOV 142002 KING COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES Proposed Plat of East Renton, Your File No. L02POOOS Dear Mr. Henoch: We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed plat of East Renton and offer the following comments: WSDOT has identified a 2002 high accident corridor (HAC) on SR 900 (MP 16.0 -17.5) located east of the SR 900/148'h Ave. SE intersection, Trips generated from this developer pass through this HAC and per WSDOT and King County inter-local agreement, even a single trip passing through any HAL or HAC is considered to be significant impact. During 2002 HAC/HAL review, WSDOT recommended rebuilding the signal and constructjng eastbound and westbound left turn pockets on SR 900 at the I 64'h Ave. SE intersection, Yet no fund is available to WSDOT to develop a project at this location. Our initial recommendation is that King County require this developer and other developers in this area to participate on pro rata share basis in improving the SR 900/164'h St. SE intersection to mitigate their impact. This TIA should include a discussion describing the impact on this HAC and include the level of service (LOS) analysis for the SR 900/164'h Ave. SE intersection to assess the impact. Cl c:: ·c ro '" :r: However, as in the case of two earlier applicants (Stone Ridge and Aster Park) that impact both this intersection and the intersection ofSR 900 and 148'h Ave SE, we have agreed that the effort to signalize and provide left-turn lanes would be better applied at 148'h Ave SE and SR 900. First, the residents in the area posed a convincing argument during the SEPA hearings for one of the developments. They explained that with the . 0 E' added traffic from these developments, this intersection would soon become a ~ .g ~ 8 HAL/HAC. Second, a signal at 148'h Ave SE would help regulate traffic along the :c: E ~ .~' corridor already identified as a HAL/HAC. (The left-turn channelization addresses a tl5 2 ~ "" problem with decision sight distance, and the signal addresses each development's impacts to the Level of Service [LOS] of the intersection.) Third, the improvements at ;;i) MAIN FlllE COpy & .' : ....... • SR900, MP 15.05, CS 1713 . Proposed Plat of East Renton. Your File No. L02P0005 November 13, 2002 Page 2 • 148th Ave SE and SR 900 would directly benefit the developments; this intersection provides the primary access to/from the developments in question. Therefore, we recommend that this developer be conditioned to construct left-tum lanes on SR 900 at 148 th Ave.SE and signalize the intersection. We would ask that the developer work with the other developers that impact this intersection to satisfY this condition. (Our request would not necessarily be limited to having the developer work with the developers of Stone Ridge and Aster Park. We understand there may be other applications for development in this vicinity in the near future.) If you have any questions, please call John Collins at (253) 872-2962. Sincerely, ~~. Ramin Pazooki King Area Planning Manager RP:jc JTC cc: file Mark Bandy Sara Slatten ,. . - --------------------_._------------------------- King County Dcpartlllcnt of'Dc"cl0plnent and Envil'Olltlu..'ntal Services 900 O<lkc~(!<llc ,\\'('nul' Sourh\\'c~1 l{enlon, \\'/\ 91\055-12EJ October 24, 2002 Sara Slatten •• Cam West Development, Inc. 9720 Northeast 120th Place, Suite 100 Kirkland, W A 98034 RE: Notice of Request for Additional Information •• Application No. L02P0005 -Proposed Plat of "East Renton" Dear Ms. Slatten: We have completed our review of the materials you submitted in response to our July 1, 2002 "screening" letter. Based on our review, we have determined that additional information is needed to complete our processing of the proposed plat of "East Renton." Please submit the information described on the enclosed "Plat Screening Transmitta1." When submitting the requested information, please provide a cover letter which lists how each item on the "Plat Screening Transmittal" has been addressed. Any clarification or explanation of your submittal should be included in the cover letter. Please submit the information to: King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division ATTN: Lanny Henoch, Planner II, Current Planning Section 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 If your submittal is hand delivered, please submit it to the Land Use Counter on the first floor at the address above. Your application has been placed "on hold" as of the date of this letter until such time as you are advised that the information you submit in the future satisfies our request, or 14 days after the date the information is received by this division. If the Division determines that the information is insufficient, we will notify you of any additional information which is needed. Please note that supplemental information required after MAIN FILE COpy "East Renton" October 24, 2002 Page 2 of 2 • • the vesting of a complete application does not affect the validity of the vesting of the application. The deadline for the submittal of the requested information is January 24, 2003. In the event you feel extenuating circumstances exist which may justify an extension of this date, you may submit such request in writing for consideration by this department. Failure to meet the deadline may be cause for the Department to cancel the application. We request that you submit all of the information in one package. If you have any questions regarding the requested information or the submittal deadline, please call me at (206) 296-7168. Sincerely, Enclosure cc: John Collins, Developer Services Engineer, WSDOT Kim Claussen, Planner III, Current Planning Section, LUSD Pete Dye, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD Laura Casey, Senior Ecologist, Critical Areas Section, LUSD Kris Langley, Senior Engineer, Road Services Division, KCDOT ... • • PLAT SCREENING TRANSMITTAL 1. Intersection Spacing: In our July 1, 2002 "screening" letter, we requested that you relocate the project entrance road (SE 120,h St.) to align with the existing east leg of this intersection (Item sa,July 1, 2002 letter). We made this request so that the proposed plat would comply with the intersection spacing requirements of the King County Road Standards (Section 2.10). On your revised plat design, you chose instead to move the proposed plat entrance further north to the approximate center of the property. Unfortunately, the revised intersection location still conflicts with the 300-foot intersection spacing requirement for collector arterials, specified in the Road Standards. Therefore, you must either submit a road variance application to deviate from the Standards, or submit another revised design which meets the 300-foot spacing requirement. 2. Sight Distance: In Item sb of our July 1, 2002 "screening" letter, we requested that you provide a road prome for 148"' Ave. SE along the frontage of the subject property and beyond, in order to determine whether the subject plat complies with the entering and stopping sight distance requirements of the Road Standards (Sections 2.12 and 2.13). In response, you noted the available entering sight distance on the revised plat map, but chose not to provide the requested road profIle information. You indicated that discussions had occurred between your traffIc consultant, Gary Norris, and Ms. Aileen McManus, KCDOT, and based on a voice mail message from Ms. McManus to Mr. Norris, you apparently concluded no further action was necessary. In order for the subject plat to receive approval from the King County Hearing Examiner, it must comply with applicable statutes, including the Road Standards, or a road variance application must be approved by the King County Road Engineer to authorize a deviation from the Standards. A voice mail message from Ms. McManus; whatever its content, cannot obviate the need for an approved variance application. Consequently, please provide the information requested in Item sb from our July 1, 2002 letter. We have noted that the entering sight distance currently available, which you indicated on your revised plat map, does not comply with the Road Standards. Therefore, in order for the proposed intersection to be approved, notwithstanding the intersection spacing conflict noted above, the vertical alignment of the 148,h Ave. roadway must . either be reconstructed as part of your plat development, or a road variance application must be granted to deviate from the entering sight distance standard. Note that stopping sight distance must also be met along your entire road frontage, or a variance granted to deviate from the Standards. 3. Sight Distance at SR 900/148"' Ave. SE: In Item sf of our July 1, 2002 "screening" letter, we requested that you provide detailed information concerning the available sight distance at the SR 900/148,h Ave. SE intersection, which, per your traffIc study, will receive 60% of "East Renton's" traffIc. In your September 27, 2002 response, you indicated you were" ... looking uno this issue further and will respond to this forrnally in the near future." To date, we have not received the information requested, and thus • • we are renewing our request that you provide the information. Please note that we have not received the requested information previously from any other plat applicant. 4. SR 900/148'h Ave. SE: In addition to the sight distance concern noted above for the SR 900/148,), Ave. SE intersection, we previously advised you of a level-of-service (congestion) problem that also exists at this intersection. In our July 1, 2002 letter, we noted the improvements which are needed at the intersection to mitigate adverse impacts under SEPA, and requested that you advise US as to whether or not the imposition of such improvements as a condition of development of your project is acceptable. In response, you indicated you were still considering this matter and that you expected to respond to us on this issue in two months time. Further, you requested that we not take a SEP A action on your project in the interim. This approach is acceptable; consequently, we will not issue a SEP A determination on "East Renton" until we hear further from you. 3. Hawk Nest Buffer: In our previous "screening" letter, we raised concerns about the improvements you have proposed within the 325-foot hawk nest buffer. We continue to have these concerns, and will be available to discuss them with you at our meeting scheduled for November 5, 2002. Please note it is possible we may seek additional information from you in the future, to support your proposed use of the buffer area. Please submit 25 copies of a revised plat map if any changes to the plat design are proposed, and eight copies of all other requested documents. Real Estate Development, Inc. ITransmittal I TO: ATTN: I Phone: Fax Phone: I Subject I REMARKS: Lanny, King County DOES Lanny Henoch East Renton Urgent For your review I Date 10/2/2002 I Number of pages including cover sheet FROM: Cam West Development 9720 NE 12dh PL, suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98034 Sara Slatten Phone 425-825-1955 Fax Phone 425-825-1565 Reply ASAP Please Comment Enclosed are seven copies of the sewer distribution plan for East Renton and the Shamrock Property. I accidentally left these out of the main submittal that went into you last Friday. Look forward to hearing back from you next week once you hold the screening meeting. Please call if you need anything else. Sara Slatten REceIVED OCT 042002 KING COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES r'\ MAlIN! fllLli: COPY "l ---------------_ .. -.--------------~~----.--.. • • 15. PUBLIC SERVICES A. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection. police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Police, Fire, Ambulance B. Proposed measures to reduce or cOlltrol direct impacts on public services, if any. Impact fees may be imposed on the project as required by King County. 16. UTILITIES A. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. 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. Water provided by King County District 90, sewer provided by the City of Renton, telephone provided by Verizon. Electricity and gas provided by Puget Sound Energy. Sewer is proposed to be routed to the south to connect to the existing main line within NE 4th Street. This will require obtaining two off-site sewer easements and then running sewer through the Shamrock Property which is proposal recently submitted to King County by CamWest. The off-site sewer work will require cuts and fills in order to accommodate the future sewer line. A sewer trench will need to be excavated approximately 20-feet wide spanning the distance of the main line and will be filled once the pipe is installed. All off- site disturbances will be restored back to original or better condition. At this time there is no proposal to route sewer through any known off-site wetlands or corresponding buffers. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Date Submitted (revised): 1 /;'7 / oJ), Relationship to signer to project: ~(~vJtJ?t ' 9 RECEIVED SEP 272002 KING COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES I ® Surface Water Design Manual tUog County Requirements I Standards Department of Development and Environmental Sen-ices 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Adjustment* Request Renton, Washington 98055-1219 Project Name: DOES Projeci File No.: L02POO05 East Renton ODES Engineer/Planner Name: Pete Dye, Lanny Henoch Project Address: Design Engineer: Phone: 12013-148th Ave SE Renton 98059 Todd A. Oberg 425-821-8448 ApplicanVAgent: Phone: ~'t7/(]/~ Date: CamWest Development 425-825-1955 ~1\'\Jo'2- Signature: Date: miineering Firm Name: =1 T iad Associate Address: City, State. ~ip Code: Address: . City, State, Zip Code: 9720 NE 120th Place #100 Kirkland 9803 11814-115th Ave NE Kirkland WA 9~ INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT/DESIGN ENGINEER: Please be sure to include all plans (T.I.R.. if available). sketches, photos and maps that may assist in complete review and consideration of this adjustment request. Failure to provide all pertinent information may result in delayed processing or denial of your requesl. Please submit two complete copies of this request application fonn and applicable fee to the ODES Intake Counter, al900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, Renton, Washington 98055-1219. For additional information, phone Randall Parsons, P.E.. at (206) 296-7207. ,r---------------------------------------------------, REFER TO SBCTION 1.4 IN CHAPTER 1 OF THE SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL FOR ADJUSTMENTS :; DESCRIPTION OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST: 0 Siandard 6 Complex 0 Experimental 0 Blanket o Pre-application . Core requirement #1 Discharge at the natural location. North Basin discharge to be combined with South basin discharge. APPLICABLE VERSION KCSWDM: 01990 (11/95)· 1211998 (9/98) 0 _____ _ ... (Note: the term "variance" replaced by "adjustment") APPLICABLE SECTION(S) OF STANDARDS: 1998 KCSWDM 1.2.1 CORE Requirement #1 JUSTIFICATION PER KCSWDM SECTION 1.4.2 at. See attachments listed below. Adjustment lst!er.t TDpographlc lXII10l Level 1 down stream analysis AUTHORIZATION SIGNATURES: DETERMINATION: o Approval 0 Conditional Approval (see below) RECEIVED SEP 272002 KING COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES o Denial o DNRlWLRD Approval Signed: Date: _____ (Experimental & Blanket variances only) DOES Staff Recommendation Signed: Date: Conditions of Approval: '0 See attached Memo Dated: DOES DIRECTOR/DESIGNEE: DOES, Land Use Services Div .• Engineel"ing Review Supervisor: DOES. Bldg. Servo Div., Site Engineering & Planning Supervisor: Signed: Signed: Date: Date: F99 /ERS/SWOM-ADJ. doc MAIN fiLE COpy F96/ERS/SWDMR·S.cpy22.doc 11/17/99 clc , "_ ........ September 18, 2002 Mark Bergam King County DOES 900 Oakesdale Ave MSIB Renton, WA 98055-1219 RE: East Renton KC Project # L02P00005 Triad Job No. 01-047 Dear Mark: 1181411SthAvenueNE KirklCmd, WA 98034-6923 425.821.8448 425821.3481 fax 800.488.0756 toll free www.tnadasso(.com This request is to approve an adjustment to Core Requirement 1 to provide for a diversion of storm water discharge from the natural location. To assist in the review of the variance, please see the enclosed exhibit and Level 1 Downstream .Analysis. The site consists of two natural sheet flow discharge locations; one located on the north property line and the other located on the west property line. The topography on the southern drainage basin slopes to the west and then drains to the north into an existing wetland. ~ The topography on the north basin slopes north and then drains west into the same basin area forming a project site with multiple natural discharges that combine within one-quarter mile forming a single threshold discharge area. The project proposes to construct one detention/water quality facility to be located in the northwest comer of the site. This location is approximately 230' southeast of the point where the two basins converge. The top of the detention/water quality facility will be used as a recreation area for the families in the future homes. Benefits to the public are the provisions of a single detention/water quality facility for maintenance and a recreation area adjacent to undeveloped land. The exposed portions of the vault would not be visible to the public due to the location next to the wetland. Benefits to the neighboring property are elimination of possible nuisance sheet flows, and potential concentrated flow from a detention/water quality facility. Furthermore, the neighboring property to the north is preparing a preliminary plat and their development will not have to pipe the flows through their site if only one facility is constructed. Please review the supporting material provided to assist you in your decision and let me know if you require any further information for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, o ASSOCIA S V/CJ T. dd A. Oberg, P.E. Earth Sciences, Inc .• ~. Technical Memorandum Date To: Project Name: Subject: Dear Sara: September 24, 2002 CamWest Development, Inc. 9720 NE 120'h Place Kirkland, Washington 98034 Attention: Ms. Sara Slatten FAX: 425-825-1565 Cc: Mr. Todd Oberg Triad Associates 425-821-3481 IntlekoferlShirman Project (East Renton Property) From: Project No: Susan G. Beckham, P.E. ~ !RECEIVED SEP 27 2002 LAN~t~foSEUNTY RVICES KE01244G Erosion Mitigation at Storm Water Outfall Locations Associated Earth Sciences Inc. (AESI) has completed review of the drainage outfall detail for the subject property. The outfall structure is shown on the detail sheet faxed to us on September 24, 2002 as a rip-rap pad. We understand discharge locations with be near the SE comer of Tract D, near the east boundary of Lot 55 and between the Tract C detention vault and Wetland B. We further understand that the flow velocities being discharged will not exceed those allowing construction of a riprap pad in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design ManuaL In general, slopes exceeding 15 percent, composed of the soil types found on this site are moderately susceptible to erosion from concentrated surface flows. Based on our calculations, and information provided by Triad Associates, slopes in the areas proposed for the outfall structures range from 10 to 15 percent and are currently heavily vegetated. The area down slope from the outfall structure is located within a wetland buffer, and will therefore not be disturbed by the proposed development. Therefore, it is our opinion that the outfall structures as designed will sufficiently disperse outflow and reduce flow velocities such that existing native soils in these areas ofthe site will not be susceptible to erosIOn. We trust this information meets your current needs. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have additional questions. l J Exhibit No. :--~_*" __ _ Item No. b.s,\2.eo" Sl5 Received 3 -2.2." ~,... King County Hearing Examiner 911 FIFTH AVENUE • SUITE 100 • KIRKLAND, WA 98033 • P:425/827-7701 • F:425/827-5424 MAIN fiLE COpy I •.. ",.' I f< , SEP 20 2002 1:35PM HP LASERJET 3200 • ~. . . '" U ~ .;~ j 4J9.J . ). .. 1\ \ II 1 \\. 446.6 \ ~. ., .~ \ ~\ ~ <: I . :, ::: ! .~' i~ "-I); I' ), .~ e i~ SI I !. 11101 . . ~. " 453.9 '. I :; § , ~ <:: . ; \. i' .. , . .. \ .. ., \ ...... f~ ~. . 46.a.I . I c.' . f .... '. ~'., .. ·I~ . . . . .' L I . . I: ". . i, .' .~ Q 467.0 . ' .. - ' .. :. I ..... .' ~."'. . I· .,. . '_. '-------~ p.2 h ~ .. f . i.' . :-. . . t:-.. . ~": . . .. '" .~ :'\' . Al~'tJ$ , ~.B . &i~ (;\J l~ ' ... ' °SS' '. . ,", a:'1 ~rt: ".U .. .•.. ," .. ' . ' '.' ~'. " . . . • September 24, 2002 Laura Casey King County Department of Development & Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 RE: East Renton Property Wetland Connectivity Dear Ms. Casey, • This letter is in regards to our East Renton property application and a recent discussion I had with Lanny Henoch, Planning, regarding a recent wetland connectivity decision. In our plat comment letter dated July 1, 2002, Mr. Henoch explained that your wetland group was convening to discuss the issue of wetland. connectivity which could have implications for our East Renton proposal. Last Friday, September 24,2002, I received a phone call from Mr. Henochexplaining that your wetland group reached a decision on how to treat wetland connectivity and had an additional requirement for the East Renton property. In summary, I was told that we would need to evaluate the extent of a two-year storm event. If . the drainage associated with a,two-year storm event were to provide wetland connectivity within the East Renton property, the wetland classification would need to be re-addressed. If! have misstated your group's recent decision and requirement for our proposal, please correct me. If incorrect, it would be helpful to either meet o"r receive something in writing to clarify this decision and request for additional information. If I have understood this new requirement correctly, I will state our objection at this time. We are not aware of any currently adopted code provisions that state storm events, whether they are a two-year event or a 1QO-year event, are a factor in determining wetland classifications. Secondly, if our engineerand biologist concluded the wetlands within the prqperty were connected by a two-year storm event, it is our wetland biologist's contention they all would remain class II . wetlands. Given these parameters, we fail to see the justification for conducting . this two-year storm event analysis for the East Renton property. If you would like meet to discuss this issue further, please call me at (425) 825-1955 and we can arrange this to include our wetland biologist as well. • • Sincerely, Sara Slatten CamWest Development, Inc. CC: Lanny Henoch, Planning Gary Schulz, Wetland Biologist w~ .-~ . . ~." . ~ ~~llm • • September 27, 2002 . Lanny Henoch, Planning King County Department of Development & Environmentar Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW RE~Elveo SEP 272002 Renton, WA 98055-1219 RE: East Renton Property: L02P0005 Preliminary Plat ResubmiUal #2 L KING COUNry AND USE SERVICES Dear. Mr. Henoch, The following resubmittal is in response to your request for additional information for the East Renton Property application dated July 1, 2002. I have listed each of your comments below and our responses are below and bolded as follows: 1.' Density Calculation Worksheet: The April 3, 2001 wetland/stream study submitted with the plat application states that the on-site wetlands are " ... seasonally and semi-permanently flooded ... ," under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland classification system. USFWS defines "semipermanently flooded" as follows: "Surface water persists throughout the growing season in most years ... " (p. 22; Classification of Wetlands and ' Deepwater Habitats of the United States, December, 1979) 2. With respect to the provisions of KCC 2fA.12.080, please. determine the amount ofland on the site which is "submerged land" (KCC 21 A.06.1265), and provide an explanation of how this number was arrived at. Also, please provide a revised Plat Density and Dimension Calculations workSheet which reflects the amount of area on the site in "submerged land." (Also see KCC 21A.06.825 and 21A.06.1172.) Response: Please refer to the revised wetlltnd report by Gary Schulz, , dated September 12, 2002. The Wetland Description ~ section in the report addresses this item. The East Renton ~roperty does not contain any submerged lands per the KCC provisions listed above. Therefore, the density calculations have not been revised. ' Sewer Service/Sensitive Areas: The Certificate .of Sewer Availability from the City of Renton, whiCh was submitted with the plat application, indicates that the construction of an off-site sewer main will be required to provide sewer service to the site. A March 28, 2002 letter from Renton, submitted with the Certificate, notes that two alternative routes' are possible, one to the n~rth ~nd • • the other to the south. For both alternatives, please identify the route that the new sewer main will follow, and any wetlands, streams, or wetland or stream buffers which are proposed to be crossed. Note that KCC 21A.'24 permits the crossing of streams, stream buffers, and wetland buffers with a sewer utility line, but does not permit the crossing of a wetland itself with a sewer line unless a Public Agency and Utility Exception permit is submitted by the City to King County, and approved (see KCC 21A.24.330 and 21A.24.370). If any of the above-noted, sensitive area_features are proposed to be crossed, please provide a supplemental wetland/stream report which identifies the location and boundaries of the feature in question, evaluates the' characteristics of the feature, and classifies the feature according to King County's wetland and stream classification system. Your submittal should show in map form the location of the ;ubject property,.the location of the existing sewer main to _ which the new sewer line will connect for both alternative routes, and the location of the wetlands and streams, if any, which will be affected. _ Response: At this time CamWest is proposing to route sewer to the south through the two adjacent parcels that are located between the East Renton proposal and the Shamrock Proposal. CamWest recently submitted the Shamrock Property plat proposal as well. Currently, the Sewer line is proposed to be located east of wetland C within East Renton. Two off-site easements will need to be obtained-to route sewer in this direction. At this time the off-site sewer is proposed to be located outside of wetlands and buffers. 3. Environmental Checklist: Please submit a revised Environmental Checklist which describes the necessary Sewer line improvements referenced above. We have noted that, among other parts of the Checklist, Item 10 on page 10 of the Checklist should be modified to reflect the fact that a sewer line is not ". :.currently available at the site." Under Item l6b or elsewhere in the _ Checklist, a description should be,provided of the "general construction activities" which will be needed to extend existing sewer lines, including a description of the extent of vegetation removal and cut and filI-work, particularly in sensitjve areas. -, Response: Please refer to revised SEPA checklist dated September 27, 2003. Check list item 16.b has been revised to reflect the current sewer proposal to extend sewer to the south. • , • 4. _ Drainage: Please provide the following: a. Stormwater Diversion: The conceptual drainage plan for the proposed plat indicates that 11 diversion of surface water is proposed for the conveyance of storm water. As indicated by the topographic contou'rs shown on the site plan, a drainage subbasin lies on the ,northeast portion of the site which naturally drains to adjacent-land to the north. Core Requirement No.1 in the King County Surface Water Design Manual requires that all surface and storm water runoff be discharged at the natural location, with the development of the subject plat. In .order to evaluate the proposed conveyance of flows and deviation from Core Requirement No_ 1, please submit an application for a drainage adjustment (variance) regarding the diversion of storm water, per the requirements of Section 1-4 in the Drainage Manual. The drainage adjustment application should include a copy of the LeveLl Downstream Drainage Analysis previously submitted with the plat application. Note that application forms and submittal requirements for the adjustment application are,available online at the King County Internet site at www_metrokc_gov/ddes (select "Permit Information")., ' . ,Response: Please refer to the enclosed surface water standards adjustment request, prepared by Triad in response to surface water diversion. b. StormwaterlWetlandlErosion Concerns: To evaluate and address potential hydrologic impacts to the wetlands in Tract D, please' prepare a drainage report and conceptu'al drainage plan which identifies the methods p~oposed ' to be used to maintain hydrology to these wetlands. The current drainage plan proposes to convey storm water away from the southern portion of the wetlands, and disperse all flow at the north end of the site within Tract C. Flows currently reaching Wetland C will be diverted to Wetland B, which could affect the viability of Wetland C. ' Response: Triad Associates performed a preliminary analysis of the pre-developed flows draining to the Wetland C and determined that root: and footing drain runoff from approximately 8 homes will replicate that flow. Runoff from the roof and footing drains of these homes will be collected in a tight-line system and discharged into the wetland buffer of Wetland C. Specific engineering plans for this will be prepared during the engineering design phase of the project._ However, this bypass has been accounted for in the preliminary detention pond sizing. - ,.~ . _SOOlD , . . ': .. • • , ! The location where collected stormwater is proposed to be released from the storniwater facilities is in an area which may have slopes susceptible to erosion. Please prepare a detailed plan'showing tile outfall design for the discharge from Tract C, and an evaluation of the methods proposed ,to be used to minimiZe impacts to the vegetation and slopes within the wetland buffer. The drainage report should also evaluate the methods fo~ storm , water management for proposed Lots 48 through 55, and address any . applicable requirements for bypass of flows as discussed on page 1-36 of ' the King County Surface Water Design Manual. ' , , I Response: Please refer to the' enclosed memo from Susan Beckham, AESI, dated September 24, 2002 in response to this item. 5. Roads: Please provide the following: . a. Intersection Spacing: The proposed entrance to the subject plat does not comply with the inJersection spacing requirements listed in Section 2.10 Of the King County Road Standards (KCRS). Please revise the location of SE 120th SI. to align with th~ centerline of the existing private""road tract on the east side of 148th Ave. SE. b. Response: The plat entrance has been relocated to'a centralized location of the site and aligns with ,a church entrance across the street on 14Sth Avenue SE. This revision is based on a request by an adjacent property owner whose home aligned with the previously proposed entrance location. Please advise if this revised entrance location is acceptable. Sight Distance:' To demonstrate compliance with the sight distance requirements of KCRS 2.l2'and 2.13, please provide a road profile for l48 th Ave. SE which extends beYOIid the north and south property lines of the subject property, to show the full extent of the vertical curve. Show the sight line measurements on the profile to demonstrate compliance with the entering sight distance requirements at the project entrance. The veitical alignment of the roadway along the property frontage should also be evaluated for compliance with the standards for stopping sight distance. ,For design purposes, l48th Ave. SE is classified as a. collector arterial, y;ith a required design speed of 45 "mph. If the existing roadway does not meet County standards for vertical alignment for entering and stopping sight distance, please provide conceptual plans showing how 148th Ave. will be regraded to .'~o~ • • , , comply wiih the Road Standards, or submit a'road variance application to deviate from ihe Standards. . Response: CamWest and our traffic consultant, Gary Norris, Garry Struthers Associates worked on this issue previously with Aileen McManus, KC Traffic after this issue was brought up at our . pre-application meeting in 2001. After extensive review and discussions; Aileen McManus left a.voicemail message with our' traffic consultant, Gary Norris, stati~g that the'KC traffic department evaluated this situation and concluded that no further. analysis or road variance would be required. c. SE 120 th ·St.: Based upon the proposed number of lots in the subject , plat and full development of the neighborhood, the design for SE 120th St. must meet the standards for a neighborhood collector street. In this regard, the preliminary plat shows a 200-foot horizontal curve for SE . -' 120th St., which does not meet the King County standards for a neighborhood collector. A right-of-way width ranging between 42 and 50 feet is also shown for SE 120th St. which does not comply with the standards for a neighborhood collector. Therefore, please revise the alignment and right-of-way width to comply with the requiremenis in KCRS Sections 2.03 and 2.05. As noted in KCRS 2.03, driveway access to a neighborhood collector is restricted with the requirement that lots front on local access streets where feasible. Please consider ,this re9uirement in your re-design of the plat layout. . th -Response: The 200·foot horizontal curve for SE 120 Street no longer exists due to the revised road proposal. It is our belief that given the new road configuration, there will not be a need for 120th Street to meet neighborhood collector standards. There is a strong likelihood that there will not be 100 or more lots accessing120th Street given the development potential of the adjacent properties to the north and south. d. 14Sth Ave. SE Horizontal Curvature: The horizontaf alignment of 14S th Ave. SE within the subject plat does not meet the standards for a . subcollector street. As a result, please revise the plat design to address this issue by providing 300-foot curve radii or better. Response: The preliminary plat has been revised to show a 300- foot curve radii for 14Sth Avenue SE within East Renton. .·~o\Wmr • • ~ M~~~ ~2tiLl1L2l:t:fttii@liij e. 14S'hAve: SE Stub Location: The topography off-site to.the north of the subject property, at the 14S'h Ave. SE road stub location, appears to constrain a northerly. extension of this road. Please provide a feasible, conceptual alignment for this road which extends a minimum of 2S0 . feet to the north, utilizing the design standards for a subcollector street. If the data ·can.be procured, please include field topography for the . affected off'site area on the conceptual road alignment plan. Response: Northward Development is' in contract to purchase the property to the north and was contacted tocoordinate'their future stub road location~ They have a preliminary site plan completed which has not been submitted for a formal application. At this time, 14Sth Avenue SE matches Northward's proposal .. A portion of their topography has been included as a base layer tl! our site plan. The slopes in this area are not so steep as to constrain 'a northerly extension of this road. As both CamWest's and Northward's proposals continue, there will be on-going collaboration to ensure that the stub roads will align. f. S.R. 900114S'h Ave. SE: The traffic report prepared for the subject plat indicates that vehicles from the project will travel north to the intersection of S.R. 900 and 14S'h Ave. SE. It is our understanding that existing sight distance at this intersection is substandard. To evaluate potential impacts at this intersection, please prepare a sight distance. evaluation which includes an intersection plan showing sight line measurements. , The intersection plan and measurements must be based upon field survey information, and show design criteria such as right- of-way widths, roadway locations, and restrictions to sight lines such as vegetation, hillside embankments, fencing, etc. Sight line measurements shall be based upon the Washington State Department of Transportation design standards. This drawing must be stamped by both a civil engineer and land surveyor, licensed to practice in the State of Washington: . , , Response: It is our understanding that similar evaluation has been asked of other applicants. Cam West is currently looking into this issue further and will respond to this formally in the near future. . . 6. Uses Proposed Within the Hawk Nest Buffer: The proposed site plan shows a tract to be created within the hawk nest buffer, which will be used for both stormwater and recreation facilities (Tract C). We wish to m.ake you aware we don't expect to support the placement of recreation uses in the hawk nest buffer, and it is possible we will not support stormwater facilities in the buffer . , '~o~ • • ~ M~~ ~iLW#lSt@SIm as well, due to the potential for impacts to nesting birds. We can discuss this matter further with you in the future at a tech meeting on the project. Response: ,CamWestwQuld like to request a meeting with all related King . County staff to discuss this issue further. . With regard to proposed Tract E, which is labeled "Future Development" on the site plan, our support for the creation.of this.tract will be contingent on the . adoption of a final plat condition that only allows the development of this tract in the future, if it is shown that the affected hawk nests have not been used by hawks for a five year period. (Also see Item 10 below.) Response: Condition is noted. 7. . Recreation: Please address the following: a. As noted above, Tract C is proposed for both stormwater and recreation facilities. It is unclear from the application materials how these two uses will be developed together, i.e.,'are recreation facilities proposed over top of a stormwater vault, or will recreation uses be developed. adjacent to an above-ground stormwater pond? Please clarify this matter and indiCate how much area will be devoted'to recreation uses; as distinguished from stormwater uses. Response: The proposal is to construct a neighborhood park including recreation facilities directly above an underground detention vault within Tract C. The storm uses will be located underground and at least 25,740 square feet will be devoted to park' space as required by King County code. Once we proceed with engineering plan and vault review, the total area devoted to recreation uses will be finalized. c. If the proposed recreation facilities are not develop'ed in conjunction with an above-ground stormwater pond, KCC 21A.14.180C4 requires that the recreation facilities "[b]e centrally located with good visibility ofthe [recreation] site from roads and sidewalks." Please revise the proposed plat design to comply with this requirement. Note that we are concerned about both the location of the proposed recreation uses, and their visibility if they are developed at a substantially lower grade than 14S'h Ave. SE. ,Response: The proposal is to construct· a neighborhood park directly above an underground detention vault within, TracfC. While 'the park is not centrally located within the developed portion of the site, it will , Wo~ I'1U;I1GHJlmlomUoOmm • • 'be both highly visible and accessible within the community., The park will span over 250 feet ~f street frontage and be linked with public , sidewalkS. Please refer to the foll~wing exhibit by Triad which shows conceptually how the park will sit relative to the surrounding street grade. d. KCC 2IA.14.180C6 states that recreation uses must "[b]e located on one designated area, unless the director determines that residents of large . subdivisions ... would be better served by multiple areas developed with recreation or play facilities." At present,.in our view, this requirement has not been met with respect to proposed Tract A Please revise the plat design to comply with this Code requirement, or submit written justification to show how the proposed plat design complies with tlii~ regulation. ,. Response: Tract A is deleted from the site plan. Our intent is to , provide all recreation amenities' within Tract Conly. 8.' Addendum Wetland/Stream Study: Please prepare an addendum study to address the following: / a. Wetland Classification: Based on our' field reconnaissance, we have , determined that the areas mapped as Wetland A and Wetland B are part of one large wetland system, with forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent . components on the subject property. We are unsure, however, whether this . large weiland system also contains an area of permanent open water offsite. ' Wetland C appears to be a separl!-te wetland, separated from the Wetland. AlB complex. Please re-evaluate the Wetland AlB complex and Wetland C to determine whether or not both wetlanos, including consideration of of~site areas, meet the criteria for a Class 1 rating (KCC 21f\.06.1415A3), versus a Class 2 rating (KCC 21A06.1415Bl andB5). Response: Please refer to the revised Wetland Report from Gary Schulz dated September 12, 2002 in response to this item. In addition to the above wetland classification questions, the existence of a hydrologic connection between Wetlands A, B ana C must also be ' considered in determining the appropriate classification for these wetlands. ' KCC 21A06.1415 states, "When the areas ofany wetlands are hydrologically connected to each other, they shall be added together to determine which of the following categories of wetlands apply ... " We are . currently reviewing our approach to this provision of the Code, and will notify 'you in the near future of our position on what types of hydrologic / • • connections constitute a connection for purposes of wetland classification. We are considering such things as groundwater connections and the intersection of floodplains. Note that we may seek additional hydrologic information from you in the future, to determine the appropriate , classification for Wetlands A, Band C. Response: Please refer to the revised Wetland Report by Gary Schulz dated September 12, 2002 in response to this discussion. b. Buffer Averaging: The proposed plat design includes a request to average the buffer widths around theon-site wetlands, to increase the size of certain lots in the plat. KCC 21A.24.320B and Public Rule' . 21A,24-0l6 contain the criteria for the review and approval of buffer averaging proposals. These sections of the Code require that a buffer averaging proposal provide additional protection to an affected . wetland, or enhance the functions of the buffer and the wetland. Please submit an analysis of and justification for the buffer averaging proposal in the subject plat, which adqresses the provisions of both KCC 21A.24.320~ and Public Rule 21A-24-0l6. The analysis should consider the fact that reducing the width of the wetland buffer in the plat will result in lots closer to the wetland, and increased human activity and pet activity nearer the wetland .. Response: Please refer to the revised Wetland Report by Gary Schulz dated September 12, 2002 in response to this discussion. c. Salmonid Use: Based on the staff field investigation, we have determined there are stream channels located in Wetlands A and B. A ditch has been dug north ofthe northern property line ofthesite, conveying the flow froIll Wetland A to the east, where it then joiJls the flow from Wetland B. This combined flow then heads north and as is considered Honey Creek. Public Rule 21A-24-013A2 provides criteria concerning a presumption of salmonid fish use in streams. Honey Creek north of the site meets , these criteria. Please provide an analysis of the on-site stream channels to determine whether these channels also meet the presumption for salmonid fish use. (Note that resident cutthroat trout are regulated salmonids, in addition to· anadromous fish.) If the on-site stream channels meet the presumption of salmonid fish use, please provide a revised site plan which includes a 100 buffer from the or&nary high ~ liID:l~lIm ~.lll!l~ ~----------------------------------------------~----------------- • • water mark, to conform with the bufferrequiJements of KCC 21A.24.360A and 21A.06.1240. 'Response:, Please refer to the revised Wetland Report by Gary Schulz dated September 12, 2002 in response to this discussion. 9. Erosion Hazard Area Delineation: ,Please identify on a copy of the proposed plat map the portions of the site that meet the definition of an erosion hazard , area, as defined in KCC 21A.06.415. Response: No portions of the site meet the erosion hazard definition outlined above. Please refer to enclosed from Associated Earth Scien<:es dated, September 24, 2002 in response to this item. 10. Additional Hawk Nest: Both County staff and the applicant's wetland/wildlife <;onsultant have observed two red-tail hawk nests on the property. The ' \-yetland Determination report prepared'by the applicant's consultant states: "The preliminary site investigations located two RTH nests. These have been surveyed and noted on the Conceptual Site Plan map," -; " , . , PI~ase submit a revised site plan which shows the surveyed location of t,he sec9nd nest, since it was not shown on the plat map submitted with the subject plat application. Therevised site plan should als9 show a 325-foot-radius hawk nest buffer around the second nest, since red-tail hawk behavior ordinarily involves switching between nearby nests, from one nesting season to the next. ' Response: The second hawk's nest wjth a corresponding 325-foot buffer is shown on the revised preliminary plat by Triad & Associates. It does not appear to afflict the current development proposal at this time. Enclosed are copies of the following'il!formation.for YO,ur review: , , 1) Eight (8) copies of the revised level 1 drainage analysis, prepared by Triad, dated September 19, 2002. 2) Eight (8) copies of the revised wetland'report, prepared by Gary Schulz, dated September 12, 2002" " l '3) Eight (8) copies of the September 24, 2002 memo by S.usan Beckman, AESl. 4) Eight (8) copies of the drainage variance request by Todd Oberg, Triad & Associates, _ 5) Eight (8) copies of the detention tract / park elevation exhibit by Triad & Associates. , :cAM·WEST • • DCVEIOPMENT INC 6) Eight (8) copies of the letter to Laura Casey regarding the recent wetland , connectivity decision. ' '7) Twenty (20) copies of the revised SEP A checklist pages. 8) Thi~ty-five (35) copies of the revised preliminary plat. 9) Thirty-five (35) copies of the revised sewer layout. 10) One (1) copy of your July 1, 2002 letter. 11) One (1) copy of your plat screening transmittal letter. , We look forward to meeting with you group in the near future to further discuss the park location in relation to the hawks nest issue. With respect to the WSDOT SR 900 and SE 148 th 'Street SEPA mitigation measure, I have noted above that we are looking into this issue further. We respectfully request that you not issue a determination of significance on this proposal given our inability atthis time to formally'nispond to this issue. We anticipate responding to this issue over the upcoming two months once we have an opportunity to review and consider this requirement further and also discussed with other 'applicants. 'Should you haye any-questions or need any additional information, please call me at (425) 825-1955. - Sani Slatten CamWest Development, Inc. enclosures King .County Departmen( of DcvelopDlent and Environmental Services 900 O'lkc!'(tale Avenue Southwest Renton, \VA 9U055-1219 July 1, 2002 Sara Slatten • Cam West Development, Inc. 9720 Northeast 120,h Place, Suite 100 Kirkland, W A 98034 RE: SEPA Review/Notice of Request for Additional Information Application No. L02POOOS -Proposed Plat of "East Renton" Dear Ms. Slatten: • The purpose of this letter is twofold: first, to advise you of the existence of a SEP A environmental issue concerning traffic impacts from the development of the proposed plat of "East Renton," and second, to notify you we have determined additional information will need to be submitted concerning other aspects of this project, in order to complete our review of the proposal. The requested information is described on the enclosed "Plat Screening Transmittal." With regard to the SEPA issue, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and County staff have both identified a problem at the intersection of SR 900/ 148,h Ave. SE. This intersection is located north of "East Renton," and the traffic study submitted with your application indicates that "East Renton" will send 60% of its traffic to the intersection. The intersection is currently functioning at Level-of-Service "F," and sight distance at the intersection is deficient, creating a safety problem for motorists and pedestrians. Both WSDOT and County staff have concluded that the installation of a traffic signal and turn lanes at the intersection will adequately 'solve the problems at the intersection, however, WSDOT has advised us that unfortunately no . State funded project currently exists which would assure the installation of the needed. improvements. It should be noted that while the installation of the intersection improvements were previously made a condition of the development of the preliminary approved plat of Stoneridge (File No. L99P3016), we have no assurance that Stoneridge will in fact be developed in the future, and if developed, we cannot assume the intersection improvements will be installed by the Stoneridge developer prior to "East Renton" being built and occupied. "East Renton» July 1, 2002 Page 2 of 3 • • WAC 197-11-660 states that SEPA mitigation measures must" ... be reasonable and capable of being accomplished." In order for us to conclude that a condition which requires the installation of the above-noted intersection improvements prior to final approval of your plat is "reasonable," whether the improvements are funded entirely by your company or the cost is shared with other developers of other pending projects (e.g., Aster Park and Stoneridge, File Nos. LOOP0024 and L99P3008), we must first receive written assurance that you agree to such a condition on your project. Barring that, pursuant to the provisions of WAC 197-11-350, we wish to notify you that the issuance of a Determination of Significance (DS) for "East Renton" is likely, which will require the preparation of an environmental impact statement prior to proceeding further with the review process. Please advise us in the future of your position on this matter. If we do not receive a response from you on this aspect of your project by September 30, 2002, we will proceed with the issuance of aDS. Regarding other aspects of your project, we have identified on the enclosed "Plat Screening Transmittal" other items we are requesting you submit, which we have determined are needed to complete our review of the proposal. The requested information is being sought pursuant to the provisions ofKCC 20.20.100 and WAC 197- 11-335. When submitting the requested information, please provide a cover letter which explains how each item requested has been addressed. The information should be submitted to: King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division ATTN: Lanny Henoch, Planner II, Current Planning Section 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 If your submittal is hand delivered, please submit it to the Lmd Use Counter on the first floor at the address above. Your application has been placed" on hold" as of the date of this letter until we receive the requested information and we determine the information submitted satisfies our request, or 14 days after the date the information is received, whichever occurs first. If the Land Use Services Division determines that the information provided is insufficient, we will notify you of any additional information which is needed. Please note that supplemental information required after the vesting of a complete application does not affect the validity of the vesting of the application. The deadline for the submittal of the requested information is September 30, 2002. In the event you feel extenuating circumstances exist which justify an extension of this date, you may submit such a written request in writing for consideration by the Division. " "East Renton" July 1, 2002 Page 3 of 3 • • Failure to meet the September 30,h deadline may be cause for the Division to cancel the application. With the exception of your response on the SEPA matter described above, we request that you submit all of the requested information in one package. Your response on the SEP A matter may be submitted separately, if desired. If you have any questions regarding the information we are seeking, or the submittal deadline, please call me at (206) 296-7168. Lanny Henoch, Planner II Current Planning Section, LUSD Enclosure cc: John Collins, Developer Services Engineer, WSDOT Kim Claussen, Planner III, Current Planning Section, LUSD Pete Dye, P.E., Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD Mark Bergam, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD Kris Langley, Senior Engineer, Road Services Division, KCDOT Laura Casey, Senior Ecologist, Critical Areas Review Section, LUSD • • PLAT SCREENING TRANSMTITAL 1. Density Calculation Worksheet: The April 3, 2001 wetland! stream study submitted with the plat application states that the on-site wetlands are " ... seasonally and semi- permanently flooded ... ," under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland classification system. USFWS defines "semipermanently flooded" as follows: "Surface water persists throughout the growing season in most years ... " (p. 22, dassification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, December, 1979) With respect to the provisions of KCC 21A.12.080, please determine the amount of land on the site which is "submerged land" (KCC 21A06.1265), and provide an explanation of how this number was arrived at. Also, please provide a revised Plat Density and Dimension Calculations worksheet which reflects the amount of area on the site in "submerged land." (Also see KCC 21A06.825 and 21A06.1172.) 2. Sewer Service/Sensitive Areas: The Certificate of Sewer Availability from the City of Renton, which was submitted with the plat application, indicates that the construction of an off-site sewer main will be required to provide sewer service to the site. A March 28, 2002 letter from Renton, submitted with the Certificate, notes that two alternative routes are possible, one to the north and the other to the south. For both alternatives, please identify the route that the new sewer main will follow, and any wetlands, streams, or wetland or stream buffers which are proposed to be crossed. Note that KCC 21A24 permits the crossing of streams, stream buffers, and wetland buffers with a sewer utility line, but does not permit the crossing of a wetland itself with a sewer line unless a Public Agency and Utility Exception permit is submitted by the City to King County, and approved (see KCC 21A24.330 and 21A24.370). If any of the above-noted, sensitive area features are proposed to be crossed, please provide a supplemental wetland/stream report which identifies the location and boundaries of the feature in question, evaluates the characteristics of the feature, and classifies the feature according to King County's wetland and streain classification system. Your submittal should show in map form the location of the subject property, the location of the existing sewer main to which the new sewer line will connect for both alternative routes, and the location of the wetlands and streams, if any, which will be affected. 3. Environmental Checklist: Please submit a revised Environmental Checklist which describes the necessary sewer line improvements referenced above. We have noted that, among other parts of the Checklist, Item 16 on page 10 of the Checklist should be modified to reflect the fact that a sewer line is not" ... currently available at the site. " Under Item 16b or elsewhere in the Checklist, a description should be provided of the "general construction activities" which will be needed to extend existing sewer lines, including a description of the extent of vegetation removal and cut and fill work, particularly in sensitive areas. • • 4. Drainage: Please provide the following: a. Stormwater Diversion: The conceptual drainage plan for the proposed plat indicates that a diversion of surface water is proposed for the conveyance of storm water. As indicated by the topographic contours shown on the site plan, a drainage subbasin lies on the northeast portion ofthe site which naturally drains to adjacent land to the north. Core Requirement No.1 in the King County Surface Water Design Manual requires that all surface and storm water runoff be discharged at the natural location, with the development of the subject plat. In order to evaluate the proposed conveyance of flows and deviation from Core Requirement No.1, please submit an application for a drainage adjustment (variance) regarding the diversion of storm water, per the requirements of Section 1.4 in the Drainage Manual. The drainage adjustment application should include a copy of the Levell Downstream Drainage Analysis previously submitted with the plat application. Note that application forms and submittal requirements for the adjustment application are available online at the King County Internet site at www.metrokc.gov/ddes (select "Permit Information"). b. StormwaterlWetland/Erosion Concerns: To evaluate and address potential hydrologic impacts to the wetlands in Tract D, please prepare a drainage report and conceptual drainage plan which identifies the methods proposed to be used to maintain hydrology to these wetlands. The current drainage plan proposes to convey storm water away from the southern portion of the wetlands, and disperse all flow at the north end of the site within Tract C. Flows currently reaching Wetland C will be diverted to Wetland B, which could affect the viability of Wetland C. The location where collected stormwater is proposed to be released from the stonnwater facilities is in an area which may have slopes susceptible to erosion. Please prepare a detailed plan showing the outfall design for the discharge from Tract C, and an evaluation of the methods proposed to be used to minimize impacts to the vegetation and slopes within the wetland buffer. The drainage report should also evaluate the methods for storm water management for proposed Lots 48 through 55, and address any applicable requirements for bypass of flows as discussed on page 1-36 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 5. . Roads: Please provide the following: a. Intersection Spacing: The proposed entrance to the subject plat does not comply with the intersection spacing requirements listed in Section 2.10 of the King County Road Standards (KCRS). Please revise the location of SE 120,h St. to align with the centerline of the existing private road tract on the east side of 148'" Ave. SE. . b. Sight Distance: To demonstrate compliance with the sight distance . requirements of KCRS 2.12 and 2.13, please provide a road profile for 148'h • • Ave. SE which extends beyond the north and south property lines of the subject property, to show the full extent of the vertical curve. Show the sight line measurements on the profile to demonstrate compliance with the entering sight distance requirements at the project entrance. The vertical alignment of the roadway along the property frontage should also be evaluated for compliance with the standards for stopping sight distance. For design purposes, 148 m Ave. SE is classified as a collector arterial, with a required design speed of 4S mph. If the existing roadway does not meet County standards for vertical alignment for entering and stopping sight distance, please provide conceptual plans showing how 148 m Ave. will be regraded to comply with the Road Standards, or submit a road variance application to deviate from the Standards. c. . SE 120m St.: Based upon the proposed number of lots in the subject plat and full development of the neighborhood, the design for SE 120,h St. must meet the standards for a neighborhood collector street. In this regard, the preliminary plat shows a 200-foot horizontal curve for SE 120,h St., which does not meet the King County standards for a neighborhood collector. A right-of- way width ranging between 42 and SO feet is also shown for SE 120,h St. which does not comply with the standards for a neighborhood" collector. Therefore, please revise the alignment and right-of-way width to comply with the requirements in KCRS Sections 2.03 and 2.0S. As noted in KCRS 2.03, driveway access to a neighborhood collector is restricted with the requirement that lots front on local access streets where feasible. Please consider this requirement in your re-design of the plat layout. d. 14S m Ave. SE Horizontal Curvature: The horizontal alignment of 14S,h Ave. SE within the subject plat does not meet the standards for a subcollector street. As a result, please revise the plat design to address this issue by providing 300- foot curve radii or better. e. 14S,h Ave. SE Stub Location: The topography off-site to the north of the subject property, at the 145 m Ave. SE road stub location, appears to constrain a northerly extension of this road. Please provide a feasible, conceptual alignment for this road which extends a minimum of 250 feet to the north, utilizing the design standards for a subcollector street. If the data can be procured, please include field topography for the affected off-site area on the conceptual road alignment plan. f. S.R. 900/148m Ave. SE: The traffic report prepared for the subject plat indicates that vehicles from the project will travel north to the intersection of S.R 900 and 148m Ave. SE. It is our understanding that existing sight distance at this intersection is substandard. To evaluate potential impacts at this intersection, please prepare a sight distance evaluation which includes an intersection plan showing sight line measurements. The intersection plan and measurements must be based upon field survey information, and show design criteria such as right-of-way widths, roadway locations, and restrictions to sight lines such as vegetation, hillside embankments, fencing, etc. Sight line • • measurements shall be based upon the Washington State Department of Transportation design standards. This drawing must be stamped by both a civil engineer and land surveyor, licensed to practice in the State of Washington. 6. Uses Proposed Within the Hawk Nest Buffer: The proposed site plan shows a tract to be created within the hawk nest buffer, which will be used for both stormwater and recreation facilities (Tract C). We wish to make you aware we don't expect to support the placement of recreation uses in the hawk nest buffer, and it is possible we will not support stormwater facilities in the buffer as well, due to the potential for impacts to nesting birds. We can discuss this matter further with you in the future at a tech meeting on the project. With regard to proposed Tract E, which is labeled "Future Development" on the site plan, our support for the creation of this tract will be contingent on the adoption of a fmal plat condition that only allows the development of this tract in the future, if it is shown that the affected hawk nests have not been used by hawks for a five year period. (Also see Item 10 below.) 7. Recreation: Please address the following: a. As noted above, Tract C is proposed for both stormwater and recreation facilities. It is unclear from the application materials how these two uses will be developed together, i.e., are recreation facilities proposed over top of a stormwater vault, or will recreation uses be developed adjacent to an above- ground stormwater pond? Please clarify this matter and indicate how much . area will be devoted to recreation uses, as distinguished from stormwater uses. b. If the proposed recreation facilities are not developed in conjunction with an above-ground stormwater pond, KCC 21A.14. 18OC4 requires that the recreation facilities "[b]e centrally located with good visibility of the [recreation] site from roads and sidewalks." Please revise the proposed plat design to comply with this requirement. Note that we are concerned about both the location of the proposed recreation uses, and their visibility if they are developed at a substantially lower grade than 145m Ave. SE. c. KCC 21A.14.18OC6 states that recreation uses must "[b]e located on one designated area, unless the director determines that residents of large subdivisions ... would be better served by multiple areas developed with recreation or play facilities." At present, in our view, this requirement has not been met with respect to proposed Tract A. Please revise the plat design to comply with this Code requirement, or submit written justification to show how the proposed plat design complies with this regulation. 8. Addendum Wetland/Stream StuW: Please prepare an addendum study to address the following: a. Wetland Classification: Based on our field reconnaissance, we have determined that the areas mapped as Wetland A and Wedand B are part of one large • • wetland system, with forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent components on the subject property. We are unsure, however, whether this large wetland system also contains an area of permanent open water offsite. Wetland C appears to be a separate wetland, separated from the Wetland AlB complex. Please re- evaluate the Wetland AlB complex and Wetland C to determine whether or not both wetlands, including consideration of offsite areas, meet the criteria for a dass 1 rating (KCC21A06.1415A3), versus a Class 2 rating (KCC 21A.06.141SBl and BS). In addition to the above wetland classification questions, the existence of a hydrologic connection between Wetlands A, B and C must also be considered in determining the appropriate classification for these wetlands. KCC 21A.06.1415 states, "When the areas of any wetlands are hydrologically connected to each other, they shall be added together to determine which of the following categories of wetlands apply ... " We are currently reyiewing our approach to this provision of the Code, and will notify you in the near future of our position on what types of hydrologic connections constitute a connection for purposes of wetland classification. We are considering such things as groundwater connections and the intersection of floodplains. Note that we may seek. additional hydrologic information from you in the future, to determine the appropriate classification for Wetlands A, B and C. b. Buffer Averaging: The proposed plat design includes a request to average the buffer widths around the on-site wetlands, to increase the size of certain lots in the plat. KCC 21A24.320B and Public Rule 21A-24-016 contain the criteria for the review and approval of buffer averaging proposals. These sections of the Code require that a buffer averaging proposal provide additional protection to an affected wetland, or enhance the functions of the buffer and the wetland. Please submit an analysis of and justification for the buffer averaging proposal in the subject plat, which addresses the provisions of both KCC 21A24.320B and Public Rule 21A-24-016. The analysis should consider the fact that reducing the width of the wetland buffer in the plat will result in lots closer to the.wetland, and increased human activity and pet activity nearer the wetland. c. Salmonid Use: Based on the staff field investigation, we have de1;ermined there are stream channels located in Wetlands A and B. A ditch has been dug north of the northern property line of the site, conveying the flow from Wetland A to the east, where it then joins the flow from Wetland B. This combined flow then heads north and as is considered Honey Creek.. Public Rule 21A-24-013A2 provides criteria concerning a presumption of salmonid fish use in streams. Honey Creek north of the site meets these criteria. Please provide an analysis of the on-site stream channels to determine whether these channels also meet the presumption for salmonid fish use. (Note that resident cutthroat trout are regulated salmonids, in addition to anadromous fish.) If the on-site stream channels meet the presumption of salmonid fish use, please provide a revised site plan which includes a 100 buffer r--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----------------- . ' • • from the ordinary high water mark, to conform with the buffer requirements of KCC 21A.24.360A and 21A06.1240. 9. Erosion Hazard Area Delineation: Please identify on a copy of the proposed plat map the portions of the site that meet the definition of an erosion hazard area, as defmed in KCC 21A06.415. 10. Additional Hawk Nest: Both County staff and the applicant's wetland/wildlife consultant have observed two red-tail hawk nests on the property. The Wetlmul Determinatim report prepared by the applicant's consultant states: "The preliminary site investigations located two RTH nests. These have been surveyed and noted on the Conceptual Site Plan map." Please submit a revised site plan which shows the surveyed location of the second nest, since it was not shown on the plat map submitted with the subject plat application. The revised site plan should also show a 325-foot-radius hawk nest buffer around the second nest, since red-tail hawk behavior ordinarily involves switching between nearby nests, from one nesting season to the next. Please submit 25 copies of a revised site plan, and eight copies of all other requested documents. R.Kristine & Keith Childs (CUllerS). 12004 148" AVE SE Renton WA 980511 425-226-3195 Cam West Development Inc 9720 NE 12th PL Suite 100 Kirldand WA 98034 Attn: Eric Campbell Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oaksdale Avenue Southwest Renton WA 98055-1219 Cc: Lanny Henoch RE: File # L02P0005, "East Renton Property" Dear Mr. Campbell RECEIVED JUN 06 2002 KING COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES We are writing to express and resolve concern over the land use proposal (reference File # L02P0005). We are the owners, and eight year residents of our home located at 12004 148th AVE SE. The addition of your proposed 66 new dwellings will directly affect our family's quality of life. Affected will be traffic, privacy, and our safety. • Traffic Their will undoubtedly be a large fence erected around this complex. Now add the noise of 66 new families accelerating and braking in front of our home as they come and go numerous times through out every day. This fence will reflect and amplify the already ridiculous amount of traffic noise directly into our home. Increased traffic from 66 new homes will be concentrated directly in front of our home. It is the only way in and out for these new families. This conglomeration of traffic will make entering and exiting our driveway exceptionally challenging . • :-Privacy With the sole access of 66 new homes located directly across from our home, the loss of privacy will have dramatic impact on our family's quality of life. Hundreds of headlights will flash across our living area nightly. Constant noise from accelerating and breaking vehicles 50 feet from our front door will interrupt telephone conversations, family activities, Page J of2 L02P0005 '. -------------------------------------------------- R,Kristine & Keith Childs (CUllerS). 12004 148" AVE SE Renton WA 98059-425-226-3195 and our general escape from outside interruptions. These new families will be looking into our front windows as they wait for a break in traffic . • :. Safety The safety risk involved in using our driveway with proposed traffic flow to be coming from the west adding to the existing north and southbound traffic makes entering and exiting our driveway an extreme hazard. The speed limit on 148th Ave is 35 mph, but we witness vehicles traveling well above 50 mph consistently. Any addition to this obstacle will put our family'S lives in danger. Safety concerns stemming from the increased traffic and loss of privacy are the 66 families that will have our family's patterns subconsciously memorized. Each of those 66.family members will notice as they stop in front of our home, our daily routines. They will all know when we are home, away, or what ever we are doing at practically any time of day or night. This makes our home quite a target for theft or vandalism. We are asking for your help in providing information as to the progress of this proposal and pemaps come up with some ideas to lessen the impact of your new development. Please call us at (425) 226-3195 so we may discuss resolutions further. Thank You, R Kristine & Keith Childs Page 2 of2 L02P0005 1--- Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055·1219 • Applicant: Cam West Development, Inc. 9720 NE 120th PI.. Suite 100 Kirkland, W A 98034 Phone: (425) 825-1955 . . ... Notice of Application File #: L02P0005 Application Name: "East Renton Property" DDES Planner: Lanny Henoch Planner Telephone No.: (206) 296-7168 (Type 3) Date Application Filed:' APri13,2()02. '" ' .. , . " Date of CompleteA)?plicatioll.:A:pri1:}7F;~9P21 ." . """:--': ,,-.. -', "'.: ':.--:~\":-:,:' Project Location: Lying on the west side of 148 th Ave. SE, at approximately SE 120th . . .. " ,", .. -" Project Description: Subdivision of 19.6 acres into 66 lots for the developIl1ent8rd7t~cb.ecls,ip:glt:~f~i1YI '. . residences. The subdivision includes a l.52acre"FutureD,eY~10PlIl~nt" tract, and a 6. 7'i~cre"Sensitive Area/Open Space "tract. .. .Tb.e applicant has indica.ted i1wttlle .' .' average lot size of the proposed lots is 5,000 sq. ft. (+/':').' .... . ......... , .. Permits requested in this application: "Formal Plat . . Relevant environmental documents are available atthe address below:' Development regulations to be used for project mitigation, kilown at this time: KCC 21k inCluding sensitive arearegulations,Road Standards, Surface Water Design MaTulal ' ... Consistency with applicable County plans and regulations: This proposal will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable King County codes, including those noted above.' ." Other permits not included in this application, known at this time: building perrnits' A public hearing before the King County Hearing Examiner is required for this application. Notification of the public hearing date will occur approximately 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. The Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) will issue a report and recommendation to the Hearing Examiner two (2) weeks prior to the scheduled public hearing. Following the close of the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue a written decision which may be appealed to the Metropolitan-King County Council. Details of the app.eal process will be included in the notice of recommendation. Any person wishing additional information on this proposed project should contact DDES atthe address and/or telephone number listed below. Written comments may also be submitted to DDES. You may review the. application and any environmental documents or studies in our Renton office. NOTE:-If you require this material in braille, audio cassette, or large print, please call (206) 296-6600 (voice) or for hearing impaired (206) 296-7217 (TTY). MaiiinQ Date: Mav 8, 20.02 -,~. ,_ _,.,!t::,.,.~-".: I ~ _ ,~I r __ Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 206-296-6600 : .. L~.;.~,L.t~U'jii]'iu "..: ;"." .' . ' . .,' ". . '1 . ~J 0$_ .• h o -.I .. ., ,', , ',; . " . "':, .:. :'.>:> '. .':' , ',." " ..... ~~1 r~"1 t..~~ ~~~~ a q . ~~ ~~ ~~ i'" II !oj to ~ M"'ii i1ij~ ;i~ I~ ~ .. ,' "< .... : .... , ,,~~.". , .... ~~ . "'. ,.':' . .',,': .'. '," I I "It I I:t ~ ·~;I· ~~ i ~ ~ii ---- ", ' . " , : i ,: • .-:.i" , :, . ' ... ,~. :':~~~;;( ,;: ~ ;, : ," .. "" '.:' ' .. . .. ',.-'.:':: .. '. . :'?' .... , .. _ .. ;;i2 ---------------------------- King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oak.e;clalc Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 96055-1219 May23,2002 John Collins • Washington State Department of Transportation 21851 -84th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 RE: -Proposed Subdivisions of Aster Park and "East Renton" File Nos. LOOP0024 and L02POO05, respectively pear Mr. Collins: • -As I mentioned in our recent telephone conversation, we have received subdivision applications for the tWo plat proposals noted above. I am enclosing for your review copies of the site plans for these proposals, as well as traffic studies and related correspondence. We request that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSD01) review the enclosed materials, and provide any comments you have on the projects, particularly with regard to impacts on the intersection of SR 900/148 th Ave. SE andrecommended mitigation of such impacts. We suggest, however, that prior to preparing your response, staff from WSDOT and the County meet to discuSs these proposals and the best approach to addressing each agency's concerns. I will be contacting you in this regard in the future to coordinate the timing of this joint meeting. If you have any questions in the interim, please call me at (206) 296-7168. Sincerely, - c;/~ Laruty Henoch, PlarinerII Current Planning Section, LUSD Enclosures cc: Greg Borba, Supervisor, Current Planning Section, LUSD Kim Claussen, Planner III, Current Planning Section, LUSD Pete Dye, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD Mark Bergarn, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD Kris Langley, Senior Engineer, Development Review Unit, Road Services Division, KCDOT May 14, 2002 Lanny Henoch Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Ave S Renton WA 98055-1219 Dear Mr. Henoch: • LOZJ • MAY 1 5 2002 KING CUUN ry LAND USE SERVICES I am writing to request that I be made a Party of Record on Snohomish County File Number L02P0005, known as East Renton Property. Thank you. Sincerely, LOZIER HOaO~ ~es ~~~isitions Manager cc: file LOZIER HOMES CORPORATION MAIN FILE COpy 1203 114TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST BELLEVUE,WA 98U04 425·454·8690 LOZIEHCJI5MM FAX 425·646·8695 \ .l • . ' :, " ,4. • King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale A venue Southwest Renton, WA 98055·1219 DATE: April 4, 2002 TO: Issaquah School District, ATTN: __ ~J~6L-~6S~c~~~ __ __ ,/ ' ( Tr ""'-SfOv-T-v'l< 0." Lanny Henoch, Planner, Current Planning Section 5~""-LJ l.5 D V FM: RE: Proposed Plat of Renton East (DDES File No. L02POOOS) The Land Use Services Division (LUSD) has received an application for a subdivision in your District. Enclosed is a copy of the plat map received by the Land Use Services Division on April 3, 2002 In order for us to adequately evaluate this proposal, provide the most accurate information to the public, and for LUSD to serve the School District better, please provide us with the following information: Which schools do you anticipate the students living in this subdivision would attend? Elementary /l,;?" /In Jr. will the students walk Elementary Jr. Hi9h/Middle. __ ~L?~#~s~S~£=-~O~ __________________ ~ ________________ __ S . h BItS"s.·~/) r. H1g, __________ -=~~~~~_~ ______________________________________ ___ If the students will be bussed, where do you anticipate the bus stops will be located? If that information is not available at this time, currently, where are the closest bus stops located to this site? ~ Elementary 118/'(' Ill/p. 5·£. @ 05£ 1.:2LJ 71-ST I Jr. High/Middle IL/j I--(#e S£" @ S-E /;!? "" sr ~ Sr. High /1 f ft,. &c 5£ &2 ~fo t?I2 7'< S7 ' Other Comments:..Jf.. nVJe ~/tC.~· Wi II/'o -Iv N-ve t:L. ¥ ~j-~ cd Ilft=tfv--e 5£ '>f S::G (20 S T-tn s~ -h ~f -hr ~~. A sy-e s-#-Ju"J--~ ~ Frov-----fI,.e. -h-71tC ~ liff' J1veS6 < Please complete this form and return it by April 26,2002 to the address below. If you have questions regarding this proposal, please call Lanny Henoch at (206) 296-7168. Thank you very much. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division RECEIVED ATTN: Lanny Henoc.:h, Planner 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest APR 252002 Renton, WA 98055-1_219 , KING COUNTY .. EXhibit No. • " LAND USE SERVICES Form96/SPRS/ReqSchol.lnf cle 1/6/2000 Item No. L,S)g e\)~~ Received a· Z2.. -St'iL MAIN FILE COpy King County Hearing Examiner • • .:. ' . o JOPORTER Transportation Supervisor Phone (425) 837-6335 SCHOOL DISTRICT 411 Fax (425) 837-6331 Transportation Department porterj@issaquah.wednet.edu 805-2NDAVENUESE -ISSAQUAH, WA98027-t.312 '-------------------- .. ~ iM:l~~~ ~2filIIb9?@1@§m) • April 16, 2002 Lanny' Henoch, Planning King County. Department of Development & Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, W A 98055·1219 RE: ,East Renton Property: L02P0005 Preliminary Plat Resubmittal #1 Dear Mr. Henoch, • "R'ECEIVED APR 1 7 2002 LAN~t1foUNTY , SERVICES' , Cam West received your April 9, 2002 letter requesting additional information for the East Renton Property preliminary plat submittal. The following is a list of each of your comments and our responses are .noted below each as Tollows: I. Please submit documents to demonstrate that "Parcel 2," as'identified,on the preliminary plat map, is a legally created lot. ' , Response: Transnation Title performed a title search and located two deeds from 1940 and 1955. Mae Manning owned parcel 2 along with the parcel to the south. of parcel 2 and sold both to Ralph and Lois Mulvihill in 1940. In 1955, Ralph and Lois Mulvihill deeded parcel 2 to Donald and Gladys Larsen. Parcel 2 appears to have been recognized as Ii separate tax lot prior to October 1, 1972. 2. The two tile reports submitted within the subject application, one for each of the parcels 'of the subject plat, must be updated. ,Please submit more, recent-~eports. ' Response: Updated title reports are included in accordance with this, request, dated March 27, 2002. 3. Please provide'an explicit statement on the plat map indicating that the topographic contours shown thereon are based on a field survey of the site. Also, provide a copy of the "field topographic base map" showing the field shots upon which the contours are based, Response: Based on your recent convers'ation with Bruce Knowlton, " Triad, a survey has been provided indicating the field shots that were taken and the note indicating that the drawing is based on a field survey is shown, as well. J, ' . . , , ~' m!lllJoo. .,t7JOOI!) • • °:1 ~ M~~~ \W'fllWlOt#lllb!.l;:1l.tolirm / • e. Enclos~d is the'following information fo~ your revie~: I-) Two (2) copies of the warranty deeds from 1955 and 1945 and related information for Parcel 2 of this proposal. 2) Two (2) copies of the updated title reports for each parcel dated March 27, 2002. 3) .one (I) copy of the topographic survey from Triad & Associates. 4) Two (2) copies of the revised Sewer Availability certificate to indicate the correct date of the accompanying letter for March 28~ 2002, initialed by David Christensen, Renton .. I hope this information adequately addresses your comments. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact at (425) 825- 1955. Sara Slatten Cam West Development, Inc., enclosures ; - ODES .!. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 April 9, 2002 Sara Slatten Cam West Development, Inc. 9720 Northeast 120th Place, Suite 100 Kirkland, W A 98034 RE: Notice oflncomplete Application -' File No. L02P0005 Proposed Subdivision of "East Renton" Dear Ms. Slatten: '. The purpose of this letter is to notifY you that on April 9, 2002, the Land Use Services Division (LUSD) determined that the above-referenced application is incomplete under the current requirements for a complete application, as specified in KCC 19A.08.ISO and 20.20.040. This initial determination is intended for the purposes of determining the vesting date, and for applying the time period established by KCC 20.20.100. The following information is needed for this application to be considered complete: • Please submit documents to demonstrate that "Parcel 2," as identified on the preliminary plat map, is a legally created lot. KCC 20.20.040A 7 (Also see KCC 19A.04.210 and 19A.08.070.) • The two title reports submitted with the subject application, one for each of the parcels of the subject plat, must be updated. Please submit more recent reports. KCC 19.08.ISOA '. Please provide an explicit statement on the plat map indicating that the topographic contours shown thereon are based on a field survey of the site. Also, provide a copy of the "field topographic base map" showing the field shots upon which the contours are based. KCC 19.08.lS0B2 In addition to the above items, we request that you address an apparent error conceming the Certificate of Sewer Availability from the City of Renton. The Certificate submitted with the subject plat application states on page I, "See attached letter dated March 29, 2002." The letter attached to the Certificate is dated March 28, 2002, rather than March 29 th • Please either correct this error on the Certificate, or provide the correct letter from the City. ,---------------------------------------------------~~ ~~ , East Renton April 9, 2002 Page 2 of 2 • LUSD will keep this application "on hold" pending receipt of the above infonnation, during which time no further review will take place. Pursuant to KCC 20.20.050E, if all the requested infonnation is not received within 90 days from the date of this letter, your application will be canceled. No time extensions will be granted. Should the application be canceled, you will be required to submit a new application for the proposed subdivision of the site. If you have any questions about the requested infonnation, please contact me at (206) 296-7168. Sincerely, Lanny Henoch, Planner II Current Planning Section, LUSD cc: Kim Claussen, Planner ill, Current Planning Section, LUSD Pete Dye, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD • PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EAST RENTON Permit Approval Conditions Document Fire System Review Tracking Number: L02P0005 The following conditions apply to the Fire Engineering approval of the above referenced preliminary plat: AA02 MUDD Any questions regarding the fire review of this plan should be directed to: Bill Mudd, Fire Engineer Telephone: (206) 296-6785. FHOl FIRE HYDRANT WATERMAIN PERMITS A separate permit is required for the installation of water mains and/or fire hydrants. Submit three (3) copies of drawings and specifications to DDES Building Services Division Permit Service Center for a permit application. Review and approval by Fire Engineering Section is required prior to installation. Plans shall include, but are not . limited to; pipe sizes, pipe type, valves/fittings, thrust blocks and/or rodding and material listings. Fire hydrants shall be installed per K.C.C. Title 17 Watermains shall be installed and tested per A WWA standards and/or NFPA#24 (STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS AND WATERMAINS); as applicable. Ref. 1001.4 UFC NOTE: UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED, ANY WATERMAIN OR FIRE HYDRANT DETAILS ON BUILDING PLANSIDRA WINGS HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED OR APPROVED. FH74 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL Preliminary Fire Engineering approval has been granted based upon the following information provided. To obtain final Fire Engineering approval, the following item(s) must be submitted, reviewed and approved: l. Certificate of Water Availability. (Provided by appropriate water purveyor). Valid one year from date of signature. Minimum acceptance flow shall be 1000 . gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure .• II. Three copies of plans indicating: A. Fire hydrant(s) location -measured by vehicular travel distance. (K.C.C. Title 17) Residential I. 700 ft. maximum spacing. 2. Not more than 350 ft. from each lot. B. Watermain placement (K.C.C. Title 17) I. Source (i.e.) supply connection. Fire Systems Review Approval Conditions L02P0005.doc Page I of2 • • 2. Main sizes identified. C. Fire access roads Ref. UFC 902.2 1. Minimum 20 ft. wide unobstructed -13 '6" vertical clearance, unobstructed. All-weather surface, able to withstand 25 tons. 2. Fire access roads in excess of 150 feet (dead-ends), must have a turn-around area. Required turn-arounds must be a minimum 80-foot diameter. 3. Fire access roads must provide 20-foot minimum inside turning radius and 40 outside turning radius when said roads change direction. 4. Fire access roads shall not exceed 15% grade. 5. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times. D. Marking when required, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both. Ref. UFC 902.2 FH77 FINAL PLAT APPROVAL Final plat approval requires an inspection and approval of the fire hydrant and watermain installation by a King County Fire Inspector, prior to recording. Call (206)296-6675; after a permit to install has been obtained from DDES; Fire Protection Engineering. Fire Systems Review Approval Conditions L02P0005.doc Page 2 of2 King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 April 24, 2002 Sara Slatten • Cam West Development, Inc. 9720 Northeast 120th Place, Suite 100 Kirkland, W A 98034 RE, Notice of Complete Application -Proposed Subdivision of "East Renton" Application No. L02POOOS Date Filed: April 3, 2002 Date of Complete Application: April 17 , 2002 Dear Ms. Slatten: The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Land Use Services Division (LUSD) has determined the above-referenced application is complete as of April 17, 2002, under current ' requirements for a complete application. This initial determination is intended for the purposes of determining the vesting date, and for applying the time periods for permit processing specified in KCC 20.20.100. Supplemental information may be requested by LUSD, as necessary, for the continued review of your application. Our goal is to process your application within 120 days. However, the complexity and level of analysis required to review this project and available staff resources will affect the actual review time. The timeline can also be impacted by one or more of the following: • any request made by the Division for additional information • changes or revisions requested by the applicant • mutually-agreed-upon requests to stop the time clock • preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement • failure to post the property • resolution of land use decision appeals Enclosed are instructions for posting the required notice board signs on your property. The notice boards must be posted within 14 days from the date of this letter. Please follow . the instructions and return the enclosed affidavit of posting immediately after the notice boards have been installed. MAIN FILE COpy "East Renton Prope. April 24, 2002 . Page 2 of 2 • If you have any questions about our processing of this application or the posting requirements, please contact me at (206) 296-7168. Enclosures cc: Kim Claussen, Planner III, Current Planning Section, LUSD Pete Dye, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD I' I KlngCounty Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 April 9, 2002 Sara Slatten Cam West Development, Inc. 9720 Northeast 120th Place, Suite 100 Kirkland, W A 98034 RE: Notice ofIncomplete Application -File No. L02POOOS Proposed Subdivision of "East Renton" Dear Ms. Slatten: • The purpose of this letter is to notify you that on April 9, 2002, the Land Use Services Division (LUSD) determined that the above-referenced application is incomplete under the current requirements for a complete application, as specified in KCC 19A.08.150 and 20.20.040. This initial determination is intended for the purposes of determining the vesting date, and for applying the time period established by KCC 20.20.1 00. The following information is needed for this application to be considered complete: • Please submit documents to demonstrate that "Parcel 2," as identified on the preliminary plat map, is a legally created lot. KCC 20.20.040A 7 (Also see KCC 19A.04.210 and 19A.08.D70.) • The two title reports submitted with the subject application, one for each of the parcels of the subject plat, must be updated. Please submit more recent reports. KCC 19.08.150A • Please provide an explicit statement on the plat map indicating that the topographic contours shown thereon are based on a field survey of the site. Also, provide a copy of the "field topographic base map" showing the field shots upon which the contours are based. KCC 19.08.150B2 In addition to the above items, we request that you address an apparent error concerning the Certificate of Sewer Availability from the City of Renton. The Certificate submitted with the subject plat application states on page I, "See attached letter dated March 29, 2002." The letter attached to the Certificate is dated March 28., 2002, rather than March 29th • Please either correct this error on the Certificate, or provide the correct letter from the City. MAIN FilE COP East Renton April 9, 2002 Page 2 of 2 • • LUSD will keep this application "on hold" pending receipt of the above infonnation, during which time no further review will take place. Pursuant to KCC 20.20.050E, if all the requested infonnation is not received within 90 days from the date of this letter, your application will be canceled. No time extensions will be granted. Should the application be canceled, you will be required to submit a new application for the proposed subdivision of the site. If you have any questions about the requested infonnation, please contact me at (206) 296-7168. Sincerely, Lanny Henoch, Planner II Current Planning Section, LUSD cc: Kim Claussen, Planner III, Current Planning Section, LUSD Pete Dye, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD • King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale A venue Southwest WA 98055-1219 DATE: April 4, 2002 •• TO: Issaquah School District, ATTN: __________________ __ FM: Lanny Henoch, Planner, Current Planning Section RE: Proposed Plat of Renton East (DDES File No. L02pOOOSl The Land Use Services Division (LUSD) has received an application for a subdivision in your District. Enclosed is a copy of the plat map received by the Land Use Services Division on April 3, 2002 In order for us to adequately evaluate this proposal, provide the most accurate information to the public, and for LUSD to serve the School District better, please provide us, with the following information: Which schools do you anticipate the students living in this subdivision would attend? Elementary' ______________________________________________________________ __ Jr. High/Middle: __________________________________________________ __ Sr. High, ____________________________________________________________ __ will the students walk or be bussed to these schools? Elementary ______________________________________________________________ _ Jr_ High/Middle ________________ ~ __________________________________ ___ Sr. High~, ______________________________________________________________ ___ If the students will be bussed, where do you anticipate the bus stops will be located? If that information is not available at this time, currently, where are the closest bus stops located to this site? Elementary ______________________________________________________________ __ Jr. High/Middle, ____________________________________________________ ___ Sr. HighL ____________________________________________________________ __ Other Comments: ______________________________________________________________ ___ Please complete this form and return it by April 26,2002 to the address below. If you have questions regarding this proposal, please call Lanny Henoch at (206) 296-7168. Thank you very much. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division ATTN: Lanny Henoch, ,Planner 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 Form96/SPRS/ReqSchol.lnf clc 1/6/2000 MAIN FILE COpy