Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA-08-141 - Report 01
Harry Blencoe 112 Monterey Drive NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 255-7376 (pa rty of record) FFP Inc. PO Box 2215 Everett, WA 98213 (owner) Updated: 01/06/09 PARTIES OF RECORD Frontier Bank LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A Roxanne Hanson c/o Freddie's Club Casino 111 S 3rd Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Deric Von Schlieder Bothesch Nash and Hall P.S. 2727 Oakes Avenue Everett, WA 98201 tel: (425) 259-0868 eml: deric@bnharch.com (applicant / contact) (Page 1 of 1) IU\.... ---~ -;0 "' I" TDC I ,",OA Z '" \.Y"'::::-:~1't.. o\1.~-::''''~t..,..\) \",,,. .. ,.I'"n 0119 T.D,.~. ~,D.~. ~ ..... ' .. ~'<:,.. ,,," c" rA ,nc 0199 40 '" , "O.1H) UI,l{ f' L'J ,0- 1;-- ,,\ \\ 3 0 \\ JO ',,;)0 670 D.C. 26 \ \'-C> \'" '\~ T.D.C. 0149 ........ ~:;:~,-"~j RELUA 99 089-LLA j; . :,":', ,-,=".,"w.12 '-.' " ~. --. ----. hOOOOl11900006 944.17 N 88-40-50 W (P.) ---'234 .-05 -.. -" ----_. ~~_.-. -:f3:1~{7~~-------------' ----------- ---__ (~ _8~:~:-~3_ ~). _. ___ . . --' " ..... - ,_'-'';955.31 S. THIRD ST (3RD AVE.) R .. 925.64 '" IJ '; ro ~ ",n'''' 15000 SF; o ~ -.H;' ~'."'. '-N 88-40-50 w., ':1:0.. ','" .~ ," \'.--.... .;,~ 4 ~,~ ','" ',~ y' , ~'.'<> p,O , ., ~,~ <>,0 20212 ',--1- 5 <I. X\>; . , ~, '-..) ,.~ o :-:i 64S n ~ ',~ 19.48 .~ ~.~ 0' 1 >D O'~ '" • '<.D 6 ~ ".l!834 U1 ;0025 o ~ - ·~-.:I ,;;, 12G' 1 ~Ul'rI ~t:> -r ¢ &~~9fo SF 58 58 59 f"'-;"] ,".1 o N .;r;. 6000 SF 16000 SF ,0 ,'p: .ri.., "' Aii 20 26 0 [; ~A-013-88 . S. 3RD PLACE ~~, o lj ~ ~ ',23,191! .""':.-.~~ (5,£. 13BTH ST.) (j) ~ W~ 394.13 > ~ '< NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP '" o ::J ~ I (fJ o M o M o N d " 6 44 0 N~ .N O~ ~~ 7 8 9 Ie; 11 12 13 14 GRAPHIC SCALE 100 a 50 100 200 ~?!! ! 30 30 I~ 15 \,.R,,012 .~ ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 100 ft. (THIl 4 ' 5 4 ' 120 128 _ :1; 1. HB 120 " I ~ " H-, W W :::::;i ct f-i-, T u~ ~t , it " , _ ,I ~~ i , , , , J;:: f-i- T -. , cp , (1) I ~, .'fJ -" I 'I I " " L 19Oge v M 'uO~tlaH IQQIIS PJI4.L LllnoS W~ uOl!5U!46BM 'UOlU6H -)jU6S l&!lUOJ.:I '" z <, "', o! w' <n' 01 0..' 01 a: 0.. I I i , : ,~" ____ .,--j-e -- ,.' ... , .. ,' I J @ 0··· 0 @ C'} I ! I: II ~ I ;':'!II, " 1"1: I i , I , G·· G· 0 @--- o o I I , ~ (0---I . °1 ~ I, l Gl J • ~ , 1 I, i 1'1' (0 0~ (y ~ 0> I , 0~ I ~d) il , ~ " (o)~~ @ 0 o 0--- L9088 VAA 'uo\U91::1 l.iJlS Pl!Ill WlOS 10< ~ • ~ • I I , I , 0~~~~ 0 0~ 0 • > .. • • i I i cr.! ~i ~I <c'! ~: ~I _ 1 ____ . __________ _ I I I , I I I I I I I I >: I z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I )0 I I I I I .. ,"<~- 7""'-', -' E-t ~ :~I , f>: '-' , ,'" , : C( i ,~: i::1 .~: ~: ·0; "', '--'i ~ .,,' -.:, "- LiOH YM '110_ 1M4G p..u IAJIOG ~ UO~M 'UOtueU -.-& 1tAIJO.l~ I I I I I r I !;.:;" I I ~- I D I I , ".~ -- ..3.:: l~l i~ ! .~ .. ~-'~ ',' ~ o i t I I 9' .; J. ", , I I '1 I, I ' I· I' I, I·- I I J.QOH VIA ""_ '''48 P«.L \Af'IOS U)l: UO~M 'I.tOaueti -lptII .-uoj~ .~ -, H ~ --. ~ --, ------~-; , ~'" ':;': b I '" I ~ I --:.-:---~! ::: I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -, I I I I ,- I I I I I I I I I I I , r··· I I I I I I I I I , -- I I I -'I I ., I I I I I I I I _ I II I j I I I I I I -I I I , .b , ... ~ L~oe6 "1M 'llOlll~~ \aOi.l\S pJ\\U lJ.,no$ Wl llOl511!4S0M, 'llollla};l -)jU08 J;)!\llO.l,;l , ! <ov~",-," 0°000" ~'.,., ",,., ~ o 01< 0 @ 00 '" z w 0 "" ~ ! i ~'! " • :8 ~: ~~ >;<~ g "-,,\I.. 0>., LSOS6 ItM 'UOiU&1:l l,(l"Ji$ PJ!t11 Y,r10S lO;:- L:O,6U!YSDM 'UOjUClCl -~~'o8 )<IqUOJ.:l , 0 c g § § ! > 0/ .0 D • STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT m' PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on January 9, 2009. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the su~ $91.00.· '. a~ ;/?;? ;?~~ ,,:<\.\\,,\, ., ................... ' -I, Linda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworIJ..to me this 12th day of January, 2009. ~ -::.0;"S:;\~ S~' = L.J. ..:-,_"c:,'S\ON e~~11 0 " _ "" -=~ ".10 1 / / ;: =~ aiAI? ~\ 1/ ~ 30 ~ ~ ~I, ~ ~:;;u (J\~ ~ i lL[Cj·) atny Dalseli Mitary Public ftl the State of Washington, Residing in Covingtdtl. Washington P. O. Number: -;; ~ ;: ::; '/ V\ II/ ...oU6\...,0 f 0 2 ;; / /' I. 7 ,,_.- II, ""9 )..·/IIJI 0 ~ 1 g. '\ ~ ... .:.:: I-...... ~ , /L:-. 11\ ........ (::)-1/ < .. : \\\\\\"~,,,,,, ,.;;;f .:: IIIII~F Wf".S0 ,.:::: "\\\\\\'"" ..... NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE REN'fON, WASHlNG'fON The Envirorunental Review Commiuee has issued a Detennination of Non- Significance-Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Frontier Bank LUA08·141, ECF, SA.A Location: 20 I South 3m Street. The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and SEPA Review of a 4,500 SF Frontier Bank with 2 drive-up banking lane." and 15 parking slalls, located at 201 S. 3rd St. The 19,920 SF lot is zoned CA and is within the Rainier Ave. Business District. Appeals of the environmental detennination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 23, 2009. Appeals mu."t be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton MuniCipal Code Section 4-8-110. H. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430·6510. Published in the Renton ReIXn1er on January 9, 2009. #168238. City o'f Renton Department of Community & Economic Ueve/opment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 23, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED DECEMBER 9, 2008 APPLICANT: Deric Von Schlieder PLANNER: Vanessa Dalbee PROJECT TITLE: Frontier Bank PLAN REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 19,920 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 201 S 3'd Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 4,500 square feet I WORK ORDER NO: 77997 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) ReView of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes. The subject site is located on the south side of South 3rd Street at 201 South 3rd Street. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot, although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished prior to the subject application and the Model Toxins Control Cleanup has been performed. Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space. In addition. the applicant has requested a driveway stacking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does not contain any existing trees; although, street trees along right-of-way frontage would be retained. The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth HousinQ An AcslfIC/ICS WClter Liqht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Uti!rties Ammais ["rDilspor/a/ion ErlVlronmcnt;Jl HCiJlth Public Services Energy/ Hlstone/Cu/tural Natural Resources Preselllation Airport Envlfonment 10.000 Feet 11.000 Feet C. CODE·RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informatIOn is needed to properly assess this proposa/. ir tor or Authorized • CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: January 26, 2009 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office .",,,,,,",,,,..-,,," ; Project Name: Frontier Bank 1 LUA (file) Number: 1 LUA-08-141, ECF, SA-A I Cross-References: AKA's: ! Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee , " Acceptance Date: December 9, 2008 Applicant: Deric Von Schlieder, Bothesch Nash and Hall P.S. ; Owner: FFP Inc. , Contact: Same as applicant PID Number: 0007200003 ERC Decision Date: January 5, 2009 ERC Appeal Date: January 23, 2009 Administrative Approval: January 6, 2009 1 Appeal Period Ends: January 23, 2009 , Public Hearing Date: :' Date Appealed to HEX: ; By Whom: t HEX Decision: " Date: • ! Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: \ Mylar Recording Number: ! Project Description: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental Reviow of a ! 4,500 sq ft Frontier Bank with 2 drive-up bank lanes. The 19,920 sq ft site is locateed with the ! Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. Access to i the site is propsed along S 3'd Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking stalls on-Site and 1 loading/unloading space The applicant requested a parking modification to allow room for 3 car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes.The subject site is located with a seismic hazard area' as such the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. Location: 201 S 3rd Street Comments: January 26, 2009 Deric Von Schlieder Bothesch Nash and Hall P.S. 2727 Oakes Avenue Everett, W A 9820 I SUBJECT: Frontier Bank LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A Dear Mr. Von Schlieder: CIT ,T OF RENTON Economic Llevelopment, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch, Administrator This letter is (0 inform you that the appeal period ended January 23, 2009 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated and the Administrative Site Plan approval for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination and Administrative Site Plan therefore, this decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures and Site Plan Conditions of Approval. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosure cc: FFP Inc. /Owner(s) Harry Blencoe, Roxanne Hanson -c/o Freddiefs Club Casino / Party(ies) of Record --------------IO-S-S-s-o-ut-h-G-r-ad-y-w-·-a,-'--R-e-n-to-n-.-w-·a-sh-j-ng-rt-on--9-g0-S-7--------------~ ® This pClpercontalns 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer "HEAD OF THE CURVF , • Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Friday, January 23,200912:17 PM 'deric@bnharch,com' Subject: Attachments: FW: Re: Frontier Bank LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A Frontier Bank,pdf Please find attached to this e-mail, additional comments received from the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation, as we discussed over the phone, At this time the SEPA determination has been made and the project is within the appeal period therefore, these comments will not change SEPA mitigation measures and/or Site Plan Review conditions of approval. Although, DAHP can appeal the project and/or ask for a reconsideration as the appeal period is still running, If you have any questions regarding these comments and/or your project please feel free to ask, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Pia nner City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-7314 From: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) [mailto:Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP,wa,govl Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12: 56 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: FW: Re: Frontier Bank LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A From: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) Sent: Thursday, January 22,2009 12:32 PM To: 'vdolbee@ci.renton.wa.us' Cc: 'Laura Murphy'; 'dlewarch@suquamish,nsn,us'j 'dts@eskimo.com' Subject: Re: Frontier Bank LUA08-Hl, ECF, SA-A Vanessa, Please see attached comment letter, Thank you, Gretchen Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia 1 · , , Ph:360-586-3088 Gretchen.Kaehler@dahp.wa.gov Please note that DAHP hours will change as of September 22, 2008 New hours: 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM Monday to Thursday, closed Fridays «Frontier Bank.pdf» 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, WaShington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586·3067' Website: www.dahp.wa.gov January 22, 2009 Ms. Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner CED 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 012209·18·KI Property: Frontier Bank, LUA08·141, ECF, SA-A Re: Archaeology -Review/Assessment andlor Archaeological Monitor Requested Dear Ms. Dolbee: We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the proposed project referenced above. The area has a high potential for archaeological resources. The project area is within approximately 200 feet of a the Renton High School Indian Site 45KlO050 I, 600 feet of 45KIO0587, and 2,000 feel of Lhree additional archaeological sites including one that contained a burial. The project area is also in proximity to an ethnographic village. We realize the area has been previously developed, but intact archaeological deposits from Site 45KlO057 were identified up to 8 feet below surface under fill soils during the Renton High School work. Therefore, we request that a professional archaeologist assess the potential of the site to contain intact archaeological deposits by preparing an archaeological review using background research, construction plans, and the geotechnical survey that has been conducted. Using the results of this review, the archaeologist can make recommendations as to whether archaeological monitoring is necessary during construction and prepare a monitoring plan. We also recommend consultation with the concerned Tribes' cultural committees and staff regarding cultural resource issues. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and we look forward to receiving the survey report. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (360) 586·3088 or Gretchen.Kaehler@dahp.wa.gov. Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist Cc. Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Cecile Hansen, Duwamish Tribe Dennis Lewarch, THPO, Suquamish Tribe City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: U~rl1J COMMENTS DUE DECEMBER 23, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED DECEMBER 9, 2008 APPLICANT: Deric Von Schlieder PLANNER: Vanessa Dol PROJECT TITLE: Frontier Bank SITE AREA: 19,920 square feet I " ",,- LOCATION: 201 S 3,j Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (qross) 4,500 square feet I V" WORK ORDER NO: 77997 PLEASE RETURN TO VANESSA DOLBEE IN CURRENT PLANNING 6TH FLOOR SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes, The subject site is located on the south side of South 3rd Street at 201 South 3rd Street The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot, although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished prior to the subject application and the Model Toxins Control Cleanup has been performed, Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space. In addition, the applicant has requested a driveway stacking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does not contain any existing trees; although, street trees along right-of-way frontage would be retained, The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e,g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of tile Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Hou,iu" Air Water , , Plants Land/Shoreline Use ~ Ammals , ,..- Envl"ronrnental Health Public Su,vi",s if' Energy/ , Natural Resources ":~ , 14:000 Feet 8, POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C, CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information eded to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Date , . CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 6th day of January, 2009, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination & Site Plan approval documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Deric Von Schlieder Contact FFP Inc. Owner Harry Blencoe Party of Record Roxanne Hanson Party of Record (Signature of Sender): . ~~ .. d '7?J-t~~ } STATE OF WASHINGTON ) V ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. "'\\\\\\\\"! II ,.,..", "tiN 11".1.1/ .:::-;:~ ". ,,\'C "I"II~": '1/ Dated: I Liplo" Notary (Print): My appointment expires: Project Name: Frontier Bank IA rci? 9. (" Iv..( CD til> ggyWll.0 G ~\'\.. ~\O Project Number: LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A template -affidavit of service by mailing .;:-( '". _ .. ll~ ... 111, 1# . . . ~. ~ Dept. of Ecology' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region' Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers' Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers ' Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olyml'ia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. ' 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 _172c , Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program' 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172cd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division 1< Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology Real Estate Services NW Regional Office Attn: SEPA Coordinator 3190 160th Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 PO Box 34018 I Seattle, WA 98124-4018 'Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template -affidavit of service by mailing ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (ONS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY NTER,ES~ED PE:RSO~3 OF !l,N ENVIRONMENT/II !,(;TlON PROJECT NAME Frontier Ban._ PROJECT NUMBER LUM8-141. ECF, SA-A LOCATION 201 S 1rd Street DESCRIPTION . The applic~llt i~ ,equestlng Site Plan R~,,"w and Env"Q_~mental :SEPA) R .. view of a 4,5QO s<;uar~ /Dot Frontier B~nk with two dri~a.up banking lanes. The subiect sit" is locatH<.l on th,' sOLlth ~Id@ of Soulh 3r<.l Str .. .,t ~l 201 Snuth 3rd Street The 19,920 s<ru~,e toot site is IOGdted within th~ Commercial Arte,,,,1 (CA) loning deSignation and the R~lnicr Avenue Business DislricL The ~il~ flH,sl recently has been us~d as 3 used C3r s31cs lot, although previously th~ ~itH w~s Llsed far a gas slallon The old g~s station was demolished prior to the subject applicdlion ~nd the Model Tox.cs Control Att CI~anup has been parf",,,,eu_ Accru;s 10 the site is propo~8d "long South 3rd 5treet. ThiO a"pllc~nt has "'o,,osed 15 parki"\! spac",s an-site and 1 loadlngh'rlloarling spac~_ In add.tLon, the "ppllcan1 h~s requegl~U d park;"y mod,\i"atian to allow room tor thre .. car stacking inste~rl of the required 5 car stacking jor the two u,ive.up banklrlg I"n,,~ The sit", does not conta,,' ~ny H'stmg trees: although, on" existing street tree aiorl9 riyht.of.w~y frorll~g~ would be retained. The subl",ct site i~ loc3\ed within a $Ciomie h""ard area; as "u~h, the applicant has submitted ., Geotechnical Report THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONr,1EN:Al RE\/IEW COlv1,\I,ITT[[ (ERe:, h\S f)FTFRr,1INE[J THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A ::;IGr~lrICANr ADVERSE IrvlPACT 0,\ Till': EN"/IRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental det",mi"~tlon must be filed in writing 0" or IIBlore 5-(10 PM on Janu3ry lJ 2009 Appeals must b", fd",d rn .... "tlng together wilh the requir~d ,15_00 d"l'li~~lioll I~e v.'Ith· H<'arlng eXaminer Cit,' ot Renton. 1055 50uth Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appedls t" th~ E~~Il,iner are governed I>y Cit,' 01 Renton ~\un'';lpal Cod~ Section 4-6·110.B. Additional mlonnation regarding the "ppe~1 ~IOCCS; m~y be obt~lncd fron1 the Renton City Clerk's Office. 1425) 430-6510 r TH[ ENVIRONMnJT/·.l DETERr,11~J,nIO,\' IS APPE".U:::u. A PUBLIC f-<Ep.RI~jG V .... _l 3E SET AND All PA.RTIES FOR FURTHER INr'ORWITION, PlE!\SF CO,\jTACT THE CITY OF REiHmj DCP .. \RTI·,'IErH 0F cor\WUNITY & EC()!~OMIC DEVElOPMnn AT (42~) 430-72,-:U DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling lor proper file identification. CERTIFICA TION I, ~iftt.5IC{ VI I be.e hereby certify that ~ copies of the above document were posted by me in l.-conspicuous places or nea~b e deSCribemp ert n,,"'''.'.'.II'.'\iJ 8 ' . .;:", .' ·~,IN.'";Id'lll I -ra 'r'J/V'dJ;J}eL -, .. . "'" it:'~111 DATE: .-. U I SIGNED: Lt • . ... ·'f.:'.J,!'" 'l -..... h t.4J"1\r. 1-:=~.,.. , -:{"0c",_,·'/~ ';" .? A TIEST: Suhscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in -:-1" ~ ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Frontier Bank PROJECT NUMBER: LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A LOCATION: 201 S 3rd Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot F-rontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes. The subject site is located on the south side of South 3rd Street at 201 South 3rd Street. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot, although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished prior to the subject application and the Model Taxies Control Act Cleanup has been performed. Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space. In addition, the applicant has requested a parking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does not contain any existing trees; although, one existing street tree along right-of-way frontage would be retained. The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 23, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. F THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT 430-7200. January 6, 2009 Deric Von Schlieder Bothesch Nash and Hall P.S. 2727 Oakes Avenue Everett, W A 98201 CIT' OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator SUBJECT: Environmental (SEPA) Determination/Site Plan Approval Frontier Bank LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A Dear Mr. Von Schlieder: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures and Part 3, Section G for the Site Plan conditions of approval. Appeals of the environmental determination and site plan approval must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 23, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination and Site Plan approval are appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. The preceding infonnation will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosure cc: FFP Inc. ! Owner(s) Harry Blencoe, Roxanne Hanson! Party(ies) of Record --------------IO-S-S-So-u-th-G-·r-a-dy-W--ay-·--R-e-n-to-n-,W--as-h-m-g-to-n-9-8-0S-7-------------~ ® This paper =ntains 50% recycled material, 3Cl% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CF!{';/E CIT Denis Law, Mayor OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator January 6, 2009 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, W A 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determination Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on January 5, 2009: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Frontier Bank LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A 201 S 3" Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes. The subject site is located on the south side of Sa nth 3rd Street at 201 South 3rd Street. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot, although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished prior to the subject application and the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup bas been performed. Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space. In addition, the applicant has requested a parking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does not contain any existing treesj although, one existing street tree along right-of-way frontage would be retained. The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 23, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources ____ w_s_'D_O_T_, N-I-::-:-':-:-:-:h-R-:-::-:-~-\\-'-aJ-' -_ R-en-t-on-,-W-as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-g0-S-7-------~ *' ThiS paper contaln~ 50% recycled matenal. 30°/, post consurner AHEAD OF TH~. CLRVE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE·MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S) LUA08-141, ECF. SA-A APPLICANT Deric Von Schlieder PROJECT NAME: Frontier Bank DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes, The subject site is located on the south side of South 3rd Street at 201 South 3rd Street. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Artenal (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business Distnct. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot. although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished pnor to the subject application and the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup has been performed. Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space. In addition, the applicant has requested a parking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes The site does not contain any existing trees. although, one eXisting street tree along right-of-way frontage would be retained. The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area: as such. the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL LEAD AGENCY MITIGATION MEASURES: 201 S 3rrl Street The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc., dated March 10, 2008. 2. The applicant shall install and maintain Temporary Erosion Control measures in accordance with the latest Department of Ecology Standards, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Plan Review project manager. 3. If any Native American gravels) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. 4. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed at $75 per average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $0.52 per square foot. Fire Mitigation Fees shall be paid prior to obtaining building permits. ERe J\'litigation Measures Page1of1 CITY OF RENTON- DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES & CONDITIONS APPLICATION NO(S): LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A APPLICANT Deric Von Schlieder PROJECT NAME Frontier Bank DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant IS requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank wilh Iwo drive-up banking lanes. The subjecl site is localed on Ihe south side of South 3rd Street al 201 South 3rd Streel. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business DistriCt. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot, although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished prior to the subjecl application and the Model Taxies Control Act Cleanup has been performed Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space In addition, the applicant has requested a parking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does nol conlain any existing trees: although, one existing street tree along right-of-way fronlage would be retained The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area: as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL LEAD AGENCY 201 S 3rd Streel The City of Renton Departmenl of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division, The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30)-days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90)-days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Plan Review -Water 1. In accordance with the Fire Department requirement, at a minimum, one hydrant within 300 feet of any proposed building is required. Additional fire flow and hydrants are required. (See Fire Department comments) 2. The Water System Development Charge is determined by the number and size of new water meter(s) in use. ERe Advisor; Notes Page 1 of 3 3. Additional lire service fee is applicable lor sprinkler supply connection. 4. The new water service shall be connected from the existing 12-inch water main fronting the property along S 3ed Street. 5. DCVA shall be downstream of domestic meter for buildings greater then 30 feet in height. 6. The Fire Service fee amount is based on the size of the fire service water line. 7. The Water System Development Charge lees are based on the total number and size 01 all domestic water meters. These lees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Sewer 1. The Sewer system Development Charge is determined by the water meter size. This lee is due with the construction permit. 2. Separate side sewer to each residence and/or business is required. 3. No dual side sewer is allowed. 4. Side sewer shall be a minimum of 2% slope. 5. No side sewer shall be within the right-ol-way lor the commercial space. The side sewer(s) shall be connected to the sewer within the property site. Plan Review -Transportation 1. All new electrical, phone and cable services must be underground. Construction 01 these Iranchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City 01 Renton Public Works inspector. Plan Review -Surface Water Surface Water System Development charge is based on $0405 per square loot of new impervious surface area, but not more than $1,012.00. This fee is due with the construction perrnit. 2. A Prelirninary drainage plan and drainage report is contained with site plan application. The report addresses detention and water quality requirements as outline in the 1990 King County surface Water Manual and concludes that the project is designed to meet the 1990 KCSWDM guidelines for storm water rnanagement. Fire Departrnent -Hydrant Spacing: 1. One of the two required Hydrants shall be no greater than 300 feet to the front of the structure. 2. The primary hydrant is required to be within 150 feet of the structure. 3. Hydrant spacing shall also be in accordance with Appendix C, Table C105.1 of the 2006 International Fire code. Maximum spacing is approximately 300 feet for commercial structures. Spacing ranges are based on fire flow requirements. Fire Department -Fire Apparatus Access: 1. Fire department access roadways are required to be within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. 2. Fire Lane Signage may possibly be required. 3. Aerial Apparatus Access shall meet if applicable Appendix D section D 105.1 though D 105.3. Fire Department -General: 1. Fire sprinkler system shall not be required, unless the building is not able to rneet the required fire flow requirements of 2,250 gallons per rninute for2 hours. ERe AdViSOry Notes Page2uf3 2. Ladder access for a 35-foot ladder at 70-degree angle shall be provided on all 4 sides of a building 2 stories or grater. 3. An addressable fire alarm system will be required. SITE PLAN CONDTIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The applicant shall provide a final street tree-planting plan. including one 2-inch caliper 'Steeple' sugar maple (Acer saccharum) at a minimum distance of 30 feet from the street light and specific construction details. for the review and approval of the City's Forester prior to building permit approval 2. Pedestrian walkways shall be defined with pavers, change in texture, or changes in composition of the paving to define their location. A site plan indicating the change in texture and proposed materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division project manager prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. A lighting plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Current Planning Division project manager prior to building permit approval 4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted, to the attention of the Department of Community & Economic Development, Current Planning Division project manager prior to issuance of a building permit, indicating the final landscaping, including the irrigation plan for the project site. 5. Access to the subject site shall be limited to South 3,d Street. 6. A Parking Lot lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division project manager prior to issuance of a building permit. ERe Advisory Nules P?ge 3 of "3 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A APPLICANT: Deric Von Schlieder PROJECT NAME: Frontier Bank DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes. The subject site is located on the south side of South 3rd Street at 201 South 3rd Street. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot, although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished prior to the subject application and the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup has been performed. Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space. In addition, the applicant has requested a parking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does not contain any existing trees; although, one existing street tree along right-of-way frontage would be retained. The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 201 S 3rd Street The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 23, 2009. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: j- Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services January 9, 2009 January 5, 2009 ~~~¥;:;:-;=-=-~ ()I-OS"~ t:!l . David Daniels, Administrator Date Fire & Emer ency Services cc: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE January 5, 2009 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire & Emergency Services, Administrator Alex Pietsch, CEO Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, CEO Planning Manager Meeting Date: Monday, January 5, 2009 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. McCormick Preliminary Plat (Do/bee) LUAOS-06S, ECF, PP (KC FILE #LOSP0003) Location: 16405 SE Renton-Maple Valley Road. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat and an Environmental Review for a 34-lot subdivision located on the east side of Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) at 16405 SE Renton-Maple Valley Road (parcel #2323059029). The subject site Is 11.59 acres and is vested to King County ReSidential, 12 DU per acres (R-12) and Rural Area, one DU per acre (RA-5) zoning. The lots sizes rang from 2,551 square feet to 3,992 square feet resulting In a gross density of 2.90 units per gross acre. The site is currently developed as the Valley View Mobile Home Park, containing two permanent structures, which are to be removed. Access to all lots is proposed via a new road off of Maple Valley Highway. The subject site contains landslide hazards, seismic hazards, erosion hazards, wetlands, and a stream; as such, the applicant provided a Critical Areas Report and a Geotechnical Report. As proposed, the subject subdivision WOuld also include eight tracts for critical areas, utilities, open space, and drainage. The subject application is vested to King County Code. Frontier Bank (Do/bee) LUAOS-141, ECF, SA-A Location: 201 South 3'" Street. The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes. The subject site is located on the south side of South 3'" Street at 201 South 3'· Street. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot, although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished prior to the subject application and the Model Toxins Control Cleanup has been performed. Access to the site is proposed along South 3'" Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space. In addition, the applicant has requested a driveway stacking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does not contain any existing trees; although, street trees along right-of-way frontage would be retained. The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. Barker Building (Timmons) LUAOS-142, ECF, SA-A Location: Raymond Ave SW & SW 16th Street. The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a one-story 4,500 square foot building containing five commercial spaces. The commercial spaces are intended for contractor office uses. A total of 17 parking stalls are proposed; of which 11 would be used as commercial vehicle parking/storage. Access to the site would be provided via two curb cuts; one from SW 16th Street and one from Raymond Avenue SW. The SUbject property is located on the north side of SW 16th Street, at the intersection of SW 16th Street and Raymond Avenue SW. The project site totals 19,120 square feet in area and is zoned Medium Industrial (1M). D. Law, Mayor J. COVington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CEO Director ® D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshall N. Watts, Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal ® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, Transportation Systems Director C. Vincent, CEO Planning Director ® L. Warren, City Attorney ® ERC & SITE PLAN REPORT & DECISION ERC il1t:El1NG DATE: Prnjecf /"'ome: ()lI'l1el': A pp I i co n !/e() tl! a ct.' City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN January 5, 2009 ------------------------------ Frontier Bank ITP Inc. 332 SW Everett Mall Way 1'.0. Box 2215 Everett, W A n213 Deric Von Sclllicdcr Botheseh Nash and Han P.S. 2727 Oakes Avenue Everett, WA 98201 ---------------------------------------------------- rile iVIIII/her: Proicc/ AlaJ1ager: LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A Vanessa Dolbec, Associate Planner The appliC<lll1 is rcquesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes. The subject site is located on the south side of South 3'" Street at 201 South 3"1 Street. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Cotllmercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation ,mel the Rainier Avenue Business District. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot. although previously the site \vas used for a gas station. The old gas station \vas demolished prior to the subject application and the f\.1odel T oxics Control Act Cleanup has been performed. Access to the site IS proposed along SOllth 3 rt! Street. Thc applicant has proposed 15 parking sp8ces 011- site and 1 loading/unloading space. In additioll, the applicant has requested a parking modification to alloy\! room for three car stacking instead urthe required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does 110t contnin any existing trees; although, one existing street tree along right-of.-\vay trontage would be retained. The subject site is loc<lted within a seismic hazard area; 3S slIch, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. ------------------------------------~------------------ Predecl Location: 201 South 3,,1 Street Lyisl. Bldg. Area SF: N/A l'mposull'icw Bldg. A rea (!i)()IIlrinl)' Proposed :VI.!H-' Bldg. ArUI (g}"(}.\.\): ------------------~-- 4,548 SF 4,548 SF .\'ite Area: STAFF RECOMMENDA nON: 19,920 SF Toral Building /lr('(/ GSF: 4,548 SF ---------------------------- Stalf Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-:VI). ------------------------ --;c-c-c--c-:=-cc-:c. - SA-A & LRC Reporl OH-14! Project Lucatiun /I..,fap Citl" of /?cni(J1l Ikp .. dlilOli orc I!IIIIJIIIIII( FRONTIER flASK Report uf January 5. 2009 Page 2 of lR PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION I BACKGROUND The applicant, Deric Von Schliedcr, is requesting Environmental (SEP A) Review and Site Plan Review i"r the constructIOn of a Frontier Bank with two banking drive-up lanes. The proposed development would be located along the south sidc of South 3'" Strect at 201 South 3'" Strect (parcel ii0007200003) and is cUlTcnlly vacanl. All propCl1ies surroundillg the subject sile arc zOllcd COIllIllercial Arterial (CA) as \-vell as the subjcct sitc. Across South 3 rd Streel is (j Snk\vay grocery store, to the south, east (md west there are multiple commercial retail businesses. The property has beell designnted as Cornmerci;::ll Corridor on the Comprehensive Plan Land Lse Hl<lp and 70ned Commercial Arterial (CA). Oil-site scrvices (banks) \'-,'ith an acccssory drivc-in/drive-through service is a permitted use \\'ithi11 the CA lone. The property is also located \\'ithin the Rainier Avenue f3usiness District and is. therci')]'e. subject to Development Standards specitle to this overlay district. The proposed Frontier Bank would be 4,548 square feet and cont8in two banking elrive up hnes. Frontier Bank is proposed to be one-story \\.'ith a second level for mechanical space under the roof line. The building is rroposed to be constructed \vith wood framing, brick veneer and cement fiber siding. The architectural detail. paned windows, multi-Iayercd modulation of facades, and differing surf<lcc materials, textures, and colors would result ill visually inkrestillg structures at a more human scale than viould othenvise seem apparent. fo'urthermore, located on the west side of the building would be a night bank deposit and a walk up ATM banking machine. The highest point on the proposed bank would be 33 feet and 7 inches, which IS the lop o(the two-story lower located above the bank's cntrc:lIlcc. The building is proposed to be set back sevcn feet Crom the front property line and pcdestri<lll v/<-llkwilYs \vould surround the huilding on all sides except the south where the banking drive up-Iane~ are located. The applicant has proposed to provided 15 parking spaces and one loading space. In addition, the applicant has requested <:1 parking mmlification from RMC 4-4-0BOF, \.vhich requires 5 staking Sp<:1CCS per drive-thru lane, to allow 3 stacking spaces per drive-thru bIlc. The site \.vould be accessed off of South 3rd Street at two points; to the west of the proposed building the access \.vould be for ingress and egress, to the east of the proposed bank the access \\/Ould he egress only. Currently the site does not contain any existing trees and minimal vegetation as the site has been used for a gas station and a car sales lot in the past. The applicant has provided a conceptual landscape plan vvith the application that idcntifies a landscape palettc that would consist of deciduous trecs (Flowering Pear), cvergreen shrubs (including: i'\llt. Vernon Laurel, Otto Luyken Laurel, Reeves Skimmia, Oregon Grape, Heavenly Bamhoo and Fmerald Pyramidalis). deciduous shruhs (including; (,lossy Aheli3 and Sweet Box), perennials (including: Tassesl Fern. Forest Grass, Blue Oat Grass and Bergenia) and groundcover of Beach Strawberry and Kinnikinnick. The total impervious sur!"ce arca would be 17,266 square feet or 87.90 pereenl o['the site. The proposcd building woule! have a il)otprinl of 4, 100 square feet, which results in 21 .00 percent building coverage. All pervious areas of the project site would be landscaped. The subject site is located within a Seismic Hazard area as such; the applic(mt submitted a geotechnical report \vith the application materials. There are no other critical areas associated \vith this project. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the tl11lowing environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impaels from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeall'eriod. SA-A & ERe Report 08·141 (il .... i)f H,·ilhm /)("/)/11·'11111.'1 oj"( OlilmUllill· J:II,·ir(;IIIIIClllui /('I{, 1!l!!lIillCe Ulld ,1,/minis/rilll' ,. S·lle 1'/(/11 1\("[)01"{ FRONTfFOR BAS!( Ui,08-141 SA-""l, ECF Report of January S. 2000 Page 3 of 18 B. Mitigation Measures I. The applicant shall he required to comply with thc reeomlllendations included in the Geotechnic<ll Engincering Investig<ltion prepared by Kraz<ln & Associates. Inc., dated I\.'1arch 10. 2008. 2. The applic,nlt shall install and maintain Temporary Erosion Control measurcs ill accordallce with the I"test Department of Ecology Standards, which shall be reviewcd and approved by the Ikpat1mcnt of Community & Economic Development, Plan Review project manager. 3. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop [md the owner/developer shall immcdiately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the \Vashington State Department of Archeological and Ilistoric Preservation. 4. A Transportation rvlitigation Fce shall bc assessed at $75 per average \veekday peak hour trips generated [J'om the project. The fce shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The applicant shall pay the appropriJte fire Mitigation fee based on a mte 01"$0.52 per sgumc foot. Fire Mitlgatiol1 Fees shall be paid prior to obtaining building permits. C, Exhibits Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 hhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit g Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Projc:ct file (··yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff COlllments, ,md other material pertinent to the review orthe project. Neighborhood Detail Map Architectural Site Plan. AO.O rionr Plan, A 1.0 Lxterior Elevations. A4.0 Exterior J:levatlons, A4.1 Grading Plan, ('2.0 Drainage Plan. C4.0 Utility Plan, C6.0 Landscape Plan, L I 0" Environmental Impacts The Proposal \V([S circulated and revie~\"ed b)! various CitJ' Departmenrs and Divisions 10 rIefermine H'lIefher flil.! applicant has adeqllufcfv identified and addressed environmental impacts [lnlicipated to occur in cOJ"!jlll1ctiol1 H·itli the proposed devc/opment. Sta{f"revieH'ers have identj!ied that the propo.",al is likefv fo have tilc./C)/Ioyving prohah!e imjHlcts: 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant submitted a (;eotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by KraLan & Associates, Inc., dated Mareh 10, 2008. Pursuant to the provided report, the site is generally level and the anticipated cuts and tills should be 4 feet or less. The applicant has cstimatcd that 200 cubic yards of cut would be removed and 50 cubic yards of fill would he impol1ed to the site. The Geologic Illap of King County indicated that the subject property is located in an area that is predominately underlain by Modified Land (reworked by man to modify topography). Two exploratory borings wcre perfonned on February 20, 2008 by Gergory Drilling, Inc. (a subcontractor of Krazan & Associates, Inc.). Both borings indicated that approximately the top 20 feet of soil on site consisted of interbedded, very loose to loose, silty tine grained sand which were underlain by interbedded, medium dense to very dense fine to coarse grained sand \vith variable amounts of silt and gravel. Ground watcr was encountered in both borings at approximately 13 and 15 feet below the surface. The report indicated that groundwater flow may become heavier during construction, which takes place during the wet SA-A & ERe Reporl 08-141 ('ilr o{R(,lIIo!l J )<))(ll'lIIlCiI/ ott 'Oml!lWW\ '!lIII!I/Ile" 1\·, ( llif.'I!i(·llI !lIIlliille(' cilid .. ldmi!!'/IIi'ulil'l' S,le 1'11I1i NlPOI"! FRONTIER BANK UJ/lOk-141 .1',1-,1, H'F Report of January 5. 2009 Page 4 of 18 weather seaSOJl. The grolllld\vater may cause difficulties with the grading and excavation \vork, therefore certain remedial anu/or dewatering measures may be required. Due to the erosion potential of the subject site l stall recommends a mitigation measure that TemporJry Frosinn Control measures be installed and maintained in accordance \vith the latest Department of ECOltlgy Standards, which shall be reviewed and <lpproved by the DepaJ1ment of Community & Economic Development, Plan Rcvie\v project manager. The provided Geotechnical report indicated that the upper soils arc susceptible to liquet"ction and are classified as Class F by the International Building Code (!BC) of 2006. Krazan & Associatcs, Inc, recommend that a site-specific seismic study be pcrConncd to evaluate seismic parameters. The rep0\1 concludes that the subsurface conditions m~ oIlly considered suit<lble with some ground improvement for conventional shallow foundations support for the proposed huilding. for ::;tatic loading conditions. The subsurface conditions are considered less favorable for suppOli of the structure with typical spread footing from the standpoint of potential liquefaction induced settlements, w'hich could result from a large seismic event. Do to the potential risk of liquefactioo induced settlement on the subject site, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant comply \vith the recolllmendations found in the geotechnical report prcparcd by Krazan & Associates, Inc., dated :Vlarch 10, 200K. The Cjeotechnical report provides further recommendations that the applicant shall comply with, for the subject projects development, w'hich include site preparation, temporary excavations, structural fill, erosion and sediment control, groundw3ter influence on structures and construction, drainage and landscaping, utility trench backfill, floor slabs and exterior tlatwork. shallow foundations, ran foundation, pavement design, and testing and inspection, Mitigation Measures: I. The applicant shall be required to comply with the rccollllllcndations included in the geotecimiccd f.ngineering Investigation prepared by KrazJn & Associates, Inc., dated '\1arch 10, 200R. 2. The applicant shall install and maintain Temporary Erosion Controimeaslires in accordance with the latest ])epartment of Ecology Standards, which shall bc rC\'iewed and approved by the Department or Community & Economic Development, Plan Revic\v project manager Nexus: SEllA Environmental Regulations. RJ\.·lC 4-4-060. ·'Grading, Excavation and J\;lining Reglilat ions'- 2, Historic and Cuitural Preservation Impacts: The subject site is located in part on lands that wcre historically ncar the shore of Lake Washington and could possibly be near the location of the historical (OnnUencc of the Black River and Cedar River. The Black River no longcr nows li'oItl Lake Washington to the Green River due to the l.ake·s historic water level chcmge, C otlsequently, this area is a prime location for possible cultural resources: site of archeological signiticance. Because the subject development is within the vicinity ofpossiblc cultural resources, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant and/or developer shall be required to stop \vork and immediately notify the City oCRentoll planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State ])epartment of Archeological and Historic Preservation if any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (lndian arti1~lcts) are found. Mitigation Measures: If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning depm1ment, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Al-cheological and Historic PrcscrvatiotL Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 3, Transportation Impacts: The proj ect would be accessed trom South 3'd Street at two locations. The lirst aeccss point is 24 feet wide and would be located on the west site of the proposed building, which would provide tl)r both ingress and egress [rom the subject site. The second access point is 13.5 feet wide and would be located on thc cast side oftlle proposed building, which would provide for egress only. SA-A & ERe Report (}8141 ( ;r.' iJi H,'il/l)1I I li'lhI.-lliil'iI! or( 'Oi1!I1IIi1JiII' OIIOIIIU' f)"1'(-/{Jf)l}/t'!l/ FlWNTILR BASA /'(/Aox-141 SA-A, UF Report uf January 5. 2009 Page 5 of lR The applicant submitted a Trat'lic Impact AmIysis from Gibson Trai'lic Consuitants. dated November 7, 2008. Pursuant to the Gibson Trat1ic Consultants (GTC), the 1'l'ip CCllCrulio/l, 7'" Editiun (lTE) trip generation estimates, rex drive-in bank locations, are based 011 relatively oldcr studies that do not include variation in banking style due to thc increase in online banking and installation of off-site A Tf'vI (lnd grocery store/cash back banking facilities; which in recent years have reduced the number of trips to the bank. Thtrdc)]"e. (jTC conducted their own trip generation studies to estimate average daily traffic (AnT) and PM peRk-hoUl-trip generation rates for Frontier Banks \vith drive-in facilities. Frontier Bank location in Snohomish County and King County were studied to determine the trip generation rates for Frontier Banks. [lased on GTes studies the subject 4.1 (JO net squme Coot Frontier Bank with 2 drive-in banking lanes would generate a total of 308.78 average daily trips vvith 52.50 Pl\1 peak-hour trips. The average daily trips antiClpated to be generated by the subject development would translate to approximately 155 vehicles to the site Cor the average day and approximately 27 vehicles during the P\1 peak-hour. Comments received from the City of Renton Development Services Division Plan Revic\ver estimate the increased average daily trips to be 265.55. The project \vould result in an increase in tratlic trips; thereil)fe, starC recommends that the applicant pay a Tranic Impact Fee based on a rate or $75.00 per new tnp. For the proposal, Ihe Traffic Impact Fee is estimated al S 19.916.25. 1\'1itigation ::\'1easurcs: A Transp011ation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed 8t 575 per average \veekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee sil<lll be paid prior to issuance of building permils. Nexus: SEPA, TranspOliation Mitigation Fee Ordinance No. 3100. 4. Fire & Police Impacts: Based on the information provided the minimum required lire now shall be 2.250 gallons per minute for 2 hours for the subject project. In addition, a water availahility cC11iiicate ~hall be required. Furthermore, in accordance \vith Renton Fire Department standards, structure over 3.600 square feet and having a minimum fire tlow· requirement of 1,500 gallons per minLlte or more shall require a minimum oC two hydrnllts. The Ilumber of hydrants for structure over 3.600 square feet shall also be based on spacing. \vhich shall be in accordance v.;ith sound engineering practices. Comments received from the Assistant .Fire Marshal indicated that there arc two hydrants currently equipped with 5-inch Storz tittings. that arc within ISO feet of the structure. The proposed development is anticipated to have future demands oCthe City tire prevention services. Therefore, stalTrecommends that the applicant be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fec based on $0.52 per square foot. !\litigation !\Ieasures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire \1itigation Fee based on a rate of $0.52 per square toot. Fire \litigation Fees shall be paid prior to obtaining building permits. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 2913, Ordinance 4527. E. Comlnents of Reviewing Departnlcnts The proposal has been circulated to City Dcpmiment and Div'ision Reviewers_ \-Vhere applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applieant." -/ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report, SA-A & ERe Rcport 08-!4! ( -11\' 0/ N.( '111011 J),-.f!Orillll'II/IJ/ ('Ii'lIlIllInin ( IIlIIillt', (ll1d .-Jdlllillilimlin' .')1'1,' IJ/ull He/Jli!'! FRONTIER B/ISK LL/j()8-J41 SA-,1, H'F Report of January). 200Sl Page 6 of]?-i PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN -REPORT & DECISION This decisioll on the administrative land use action is made concurrently \vith thc environmental determination. A. General Information 1. OWIlCl'S of Record: rrr Inc. 2. Zoning Designation: 332 SW Everett Mall Way r.o. Box 2215 Everett. W A 98213 Commercial Arterial (CA) 3. Comprehell."ive Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial Corridor (CC) 4. H"(isting Site U .. ;e: The site is currently vacant land, 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Safcway Shopping Center (CA zone) East: Commerci,,1 Development (CA Lone) South: Commercial Development (CA ZOIlC) West: Commercial [)evelopment (CA zone) 6. Access: Access to the proposed lots would be provided directly off of South 3'" Street via one illgress/egress point and one egress point. 7. Site Area: 19.920 square teet B. Historical Background Comprchcnsi ve Plan Zoning Annexation C. Public Services Land Use rile No. NIA N!A N!A Utilities -Existing Conditions Ordinance No. 5099 5100 1225 Date 11/1!2004 11!1/20U4 9!1 8!1 945 1. Water: There is a 12-ineh water main within South 3'" Street. The project site is located in the 190 \vater pressure zone and is located outside of the Aquifer Protection Area. 2. Sewer: There is an existing 1 O-inch sc\ver main within <111 e<1semcnt along the south propc11y line, 3. Surf~lce Vv'ater<StQlJIL\Vater:_ There are existing storm drainage facilities along the roadway \vithin South 3rd Street. Surface water would drain to South Renton Basin, 4. fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department. Fire Flo\\' available to the site is approximately 1.950 grm and static water pressure is approximately 73 psi, D. Applicable Sections of Renton City Code 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent or Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Tahle Section 4-2-120: Commercial [)evelopment Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations SA-A & ERe Report OS-141 ('iry (Ii HelllOll I JiPU! rllll'l1l oj ('UI!II!IIII1I FRONTIER BANK Report or Jalluary 5. 2009 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 8 Permits -G{'neral and Appeals 6. Chapter 9 Permits Specific Section 4-9-200 Site Development Plan Review 7. Chapter II Definitions /;lIlirolli!lCiJiUi Nc E. Applicable Sections of Renton's Comprehensive Plan I. Land Use Element -Commerei,,1 F. Department Analysis 1. Staff Review Comments U/;WO-!4! SA-,,J, roCF Pagc7orll<. Representatives from various City depal1ments have reviewed the application materials to identi(y and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are eont"ined in the offici,,1 file. and the essence of the COIl1I1lL:nts has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendatioll at thc end of the repurt. 2. Consistency with Site Plan Approval Criteria In reviewing the propos,,1 with respect to thc Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-9-200.E of the Site Plan Ordinance and Development Standmds jj'OI\l RMC 4-2-120B, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers: a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan De . ..,"iglllltioll The property is loe<lted within tile Rainier Avenue Business District of the Commercial Corridor (CC) land use designation. It is the intention ofeity objectives and policies thut Commercial COlTidor areas evolve from "strip commercial"· linear busincss districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site plannillg incorporating efflcicnt parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities, and boulevard treatmcllt. Commcrcial Corridor areas lllelY include designated districts including concentrations of specialized uses such as the Auto Mall, or fcntures sllch as transit stops Hnd a combination of businesses creating a focal point of pedestrian activity and visual interest. The following comprehensive Plan policies are applicable to the proposal: Objective LU-EEE: Create opporllillities./or development and re-developmellt of land in portions o{the Commercial Corridor designation/or general business and sen'ice uses. These include a wide range o/restaurant, small-scale to big-box retail, offices, allto dealers, light industrial, and rcsidcntialuses. if Policy Objective Met Not Met Objective LL-GGG: GlIide redevelopment (~l!and in the C()mmercia! Curridor designation 't-vitll Commercial Arteria/ ~()niJ7g,f;'()m the e.Yisting strip commercia/urhanfarms into more concentrated jc)rms, in which strllctllr(!S and parking el'o/l'cjl'om fhe existing slIhllrban/orm, t() more efficient urhan c01!(igurutiol1s H'ith cohcsiFe site planfling. if Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy LU-346: Support the rcdnelupmcnt o(cummcrcial business districts located along principal arteriu/s in the CiZv. if Policy Objective Met Not Met Policy LU-347: Impleme11t development standards that encourage !i\le~v, attractive, medium to high- den .. ;iZV commercial oreas. if Policy Objective Met 1\ot Met SA~A & ERe Report ()1!-141 Cill-IJI N,'IiI()Ii f)''/Jill"!!I1(!U of Commul1il.\ il!illiilll'l' and ,lrilliillislmlil'I' Sai' [,IWI R('jIo!'l FlWNl'IER BANI( LC'iJ!io-!4! SI1-,1. tel" Report of January 5,2009 Page S of lS Policy LU-349: Suppo/'! dndopll1CI/l plans incOI]70rllling liIc/ill/())l'ingfc(/IUrcs: 1) Shared access points alldfeH-'cr cllr/) Cllts, 2) Internal circulatioll among (u(jacent paF( .. :e!\·; 3) ,),hared parkingfucilities: 4) Allm--l'anccjhr/i£lure transition to structured parking.j(lCililies: 5) Centralized signage: 6) L/nUied development concepts: and 7) Landscaping and sll'cct,lcapc tilal softens 1'is//a/ impacts . .,/ Policy Objective Met Not Mct Policy Ll.I-350: 1\;'c1v dcvelopmcnt in Commercial Corridor designated urcas should he encouraged to implement lmij(Jnn silc standards, inc/[{ding: l) Minililum/o! deprli oj20()jee!; 2) A1aximwn height oFten (10) stories H'ithiJl ojfice ::,of1ed designations; 3) Parking pn.:'/(.'rah/:t) al the I"ear (!{Iile huilding, or on the side as (f second choice; 4) Sct!mcks liIal would a/lrm incOI]7o}'({!ing a landscape hu(fi".: 5) Frunt sethack 1-vi/hout ii-oll/agc street or dril'('\vay het\\"Ccn huilding and sidewalk; and 6) Common signage and Jig/lting ,\.v.\teJJl . .,/ Policy Objective Met 1\ot J\1ct Policy Ll.I-357: Puhhc (l/n('ni~v l('a/llres (c.g p/u::,us, recreatioll areas) should he encouraged as part 0/ nn-t' d(,\,e/o/Jlllent or redel'(!/opmt.:'I1/ . .,/ Policy Objcctive Met I Not Met Policy LU-358: Parking ([rcas should he landscaped (including st}'(!et trees, hId/drs, herms), especiu/(v along ruwlirays, to reduce l'isl[a/ impocls, .,/ Policy Objcctive Met Not Met ln addition, the follo\ving objectives and policies are specific to the Ratner Avenue Business District: Rainier Avenue Corridor Disclission: T/le Rainier Avenlle Cun-idol" is onc of!/1(! most cUl11mercia/~'r' via hIe areas (!fthe Cit.v. Redevelopment (~Finfhlstrl/ctllre and husinesses in the Rainier Corridur 11'(Juld present the opportuni(1--' to strengthen the trunsition henn.:en the Corridor, a Jlll(jor trarL\!)()rtation route through the l'Ves! par! o/!he Ci~v, and the Urhan Center. Changes (?fthis nat1!re could increase the economic vitality qfRenton 's D()'r-1-'nto1t'1'I. Policy LU-403: Proper(",-' ml'ners {lnd husiness owners should he encouraged to prOl'ide (lH,nings or oiher H'cuthcr protcelion unfacades qf huilc/ingsf},oJ1ting sidevwtlks_ .,/ Policy ObjectIve Met )Jot Met h. Conformance with existing land lise regulatio/1.",; The subject site is LOncd Commercial Arterial (C;\). The purpose of the Commercial Arterial Zone (CA) is to evolve from "strip commercial" lin(;ar busin(;ss districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning, incorporating etlicient parking lot design, coordimHcd access, anlcnitiL:s and boulevard treatment The CA zone provides for a wide variety of indoor and outdoor retail sales and services along high-volume traffic corridors_ Limited residential uses may be integrated into the zone if there are permanent physical connections to commercial uses. The zone includes five designated business districts with development standards designed 10 encourage concentrated cOlrunercial activity, a focal point of pedestrian activity along the conidor. and visual interest. The CA Zone is intended to imrlement the Commercial Conidor Comprehensive Plan designation, Lot Coverage -The Ci\ zone allows a maximum building coverage of 65 percent, or 75 rercent if parking is provided \vithin a building or \vithin an on-site parking garage_ Site data submitted for the SA-A & ERe Repo!'! 08-!4! ('ily (ll Hell/Oil I ),'[h!l'llJ.'r'i/1 01 ('UI!JI!1II!1!1l" FRONTIER BANK Rl:porl of L:!llU3ry 5. 2009 Lm iFfJlli!h'J!lO/ N'T! )1}.'llIill('(' onc! ·Id!llillillmlin' .)'/1(' /J/O!) /{cj}()1'{ LU/i08-/4/ SA-A, ECF Page 9 of l8 purposed development indrcates 21 percent site coverage by the building; which is within the allowablc range for building coverage for the CA zone. Setbacks -The hont yard setback is required to be a minimum of 10 teet. The front yard setback may be reduced to zero through the Site Plan Review process. The maximum ti'ont yard setback in the Rainer Avenue Business District is 15 feet. The proposed building would have a 7-foot setback from South 3 ed Street. The n0l1h fa,ade of the proposed Frontier Bank includes both horizontal and vertical modulation in addition, to a variety of building: materials. More ~]1ceifie{llly, thiS l~l<;ade includes sted canopies over the main entrance door and two of the three front windov.'s. Building m<lterials proposed to be used to provide variety and modulation include vertical pand siding. red brick veneer. and platinum brick veneer accents .. rhe \vindO\vs proposed for this t~H;ade are asymmetrical adding a significant visual interest to the buildings aesthetics. In addition to the proposed modulation and architectural accents, thc applicant has proposed to provide a landscaped plaza entry within the 7 foot setback area: as such, staffreCOlnmends approval ora 7-foot setback along South 3rd Street. There is no minimum rear and/or side yard setback requirements. As proposed. the project complies with the required CA zoning setbacks prescribed by City Code. Landscaping -The ('A zonc requires a lO-footlandseape strip along street frontages, execpt \vhere reduced through the Site Plan Review· process. The development standards require th,H <lll pervious areas bc landscaped (RMC 4-4-070). A conceptuallandscapc plan was submitted with the application that indicatcs compliance with the landscape requiremcnts or RMC 4-4-070 and the CA zone. The 10- foot landscaping strip requirement is proposed to be reduced ,dong pOl1ions of the front<lge of South yet Street. where the stnrcture is closer to the edge of the property then 10 teet and where the entrance plan and pedestrian connections to the existing side\valk me provided. StatTrecommends approval of the landscape strip modification, \\/ithin the propo~ed surface parking lot, 15 square feet of landscaping per parking space would be required for parking lots \vith 15-50 parking st<lJls. l10sed on the propo.s,d f(x 15 surface parking stalls, a minimum of 225 square feet of landscaping \vould he required within the surhlcc pm·king 8rC<lS. The submrtted landscape analysis indicates that a total of 1,142 square teet of landscaping would bc provided. As proposcd, the lancbenping exceeds the minimum requirement. Additionally the Rainer Avenue l1usiness District requires no more than six (6) consecutively clustered parking stalls \vithout an intervening landscaped area ofa minimum of five feet (5') in \vidth and the length of the stall. As proposed the parking arca would comply with this requirement. In addition, when parking lots front public rights-ol~way or streets, street trees shall be required at a minimum rate of one tree every thirty lineal feet of street frontage. There are t\vo existing street trees along the street frontage. The applicant has proposed to remove OIl of the existing strcct trees 10 provide for vehicular vision clearance at the site's ingress/egress point. Comments received for the City of Renton Parks Depm1ment recommend removing both of the existing street trees including all roots and root barriers, The Parks Department has requcsted that the applicant then replace the two removed trees \vith one 2-inch c<lliper 'Steeple" sugar maple (Ace,-saccharllmj at a minimum distance of 30 feet from the street light. The replaced tree shall be installed using structural soils 20 teet either side of the tree. thickened concrete with rebm; and a 4-foot wiele by 8-loot long tree grate frame and grate, all designed to the approval of the City's Forester prior to construction. Based on the comments provide by the City of Renton Parks Department, stalT recommends as a conditions of approval that the applicant provide a final street tree planting plan, with specific construction detaiL for the review and approval of the City's Forester prior to building permit approval. In addition to street tree requirements, the following p<lrking lot landscaping would be required: at leasl one tree for every six parking spaces within the lot interior. and shrubs are to be planted at a rate of 5 per 100 square feet of interior landscape area. The following calculations are based on the drawing on sheet L 1. The parking lot proposed would have 15 parking stalls at a rate of one tree for every 6 stalls (15 parking stalls/6 stalls ~ 2.5) 3 parking lot trees would be required. As propos cd, the applicant has provided 4 parking lot trees, which exceeds the requirement. The subject site is relatively small; therefore, the divisions between the perimeter and interior landscaped areas are blurred. As such, the SA-A & ERe Report ()~-14/ (':Ir of Ihn/oJ) /)('/JtlI'lliIt'llil!(CUll/llllllli, 'oil/iii/lice will 1;/lIIllIil!I(I.'t1 ( ,Yilt' I'lun /lc'/iul'l FROVlJl:.R BANI( UfA()8-141 SA-.", ECF Report of Jam wry 5.2009 Page 1 (I (11' 1 R total landscaped area is 2.654 square feet at a rate of 5 shrubs per 1 II() square leet of landscape mea (2.654 sq. n.landseaping/lOO sq. 1\. * 5 ~ 132.7) 133 shrubs would be required. The conccptual landscape pl8n indicJtcd 137 shrubs v.iithin the landscaped area, w'hieh exceeds the requirement. The proposed landscapll1g \vould largely consist of deciduous trces (Flo\vering Pear). evergreen shruhs (including: Ml. Vernon LaureL Otto Luyken LaureL Reeves Skimmia. Oregon Grape, Heavenly Bamboo and Emerald Pyramidalis). decidous shrubs (including: Glossy /\bclia and Sweet Box), perennials (including; Tassel Fe111, Forest Cirass, Blue Oat Gr<lSS and Bergcllia) and groundcover of I1each StrmvbelTY and KirlIlikillI1iek. In addition, the plan indicates the use of gnmite boulders to add additional visual interest. Underground sprinklcr systems are required to be installed and maintained for all landscaped lITe,]s. The sprinkler system sl1(l1l provide full water coverage of the planted areas specified on the plan. The sprinkler systems v.;ere not identified on the conceptuallandscnpe plan as such statfrecommends as a condition of approval. that" detailed landscape plan and an irrigation plan be submitted to the Department ofComl11unity and Economic Development, Phll1tling Di\'ision~ project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. Renton :\1unicipal Code requires that 5 percent of the trees on site be retained, although, there are no trees on the subject site. As such, the proposal \vould comply \\'ith tree retention requirements. 1-lei~llt -The C;\ zone allows a maximum building height of 50 feet. The lallcst point of the proposed building would be 33 leet 7 inches to the top of the peaked roof on the corner tower. B!rKiDg/~)rcul.ati0Jl. -The parki ng regulations require a specific numher of off-street parking stalls bc provided based on the amount of square t{)ot8gC dedicated to certain uses. The following r'.ltios would be applicable to the site: ()I Use N_"_' _S_II,,"'-.II.'I"(-',-'/:..,'(_)O_I_II_"_"+ ____ I_"_II_i (_!_A_.f_il_l!_A_f_,,·_, ____ 1 I? C(! 1I i redlSsi)(/ ce~.\_ .. 1 ____ .cBc....ccal"'lk"'s'--· ____ ~_~3-'.7-'O_4_~SF MiniMax 0.4 spaces i 100 SF Based on these usc requircments, 15 parking spaces would he required to meet code. The applicant proposed to provide 15 spaccs. In the Rainer Avenue Business District, the maximum numher of p,:lrkillg spaces provided for uses within the corridor designation is limited to the minimum requirement in RMC4-4-080F 1 O. Number of Required Parking Spaces. ;\s proposed. tile project complies with parking space requirements. The minimum \\'idth for drive aisle nssociated with 90 0 head-in parking with a tWO-W8y circulation pattern is 24 feet. The minimum \vidth for drive aisle associated \vith 45° parking stalls and one-\vay circulation pattem is 12 feel. The proposed parking lot on the west side of the building is proposed to have 90" head-in parking with a t\vo-\vay circulation pattern. The pClrking proposL:d for the east side of the huilding would be 45" parking stalls and a one-way circulation pattern. The drive aisle associated with the 90" and 45 0 parking lots comply with code-requircd widths. Therefore, the proposed parking plan conforms to the minimum requirements for drive aisle and parking stall dimensions. The parking regu18tioTls specify standard stall dimensions of9 feet by 20 feet, compact dimensions of 8'1, feet by 16 feet. ADA accessible stalls must be a minimumoi' 8 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent access aisle of 8 feet in width for van accessible spaces. Compact parking spaces are not to exceed 30 pcrcent of the total provided parking. The appl ieant has proposed 15 standard parking stalls~ The proposed ratio of standard parking stalls to compact parking stalls complies with the parking requirements. The number of required ADA parking stalls is based on the number of total parking spaces proposed. For parking lots with 1 -25 parking stalls, one ADA space would be required. The applicant has proposed one ADA parking space, which would comply with the ADA parking requirements. The loading space standards require adequate permanent otl~strcct loading space, which shall he provided if the activity in such building requires deliveries to it or shipments from it oi'people or SA-it & ERe Repurl 08-141 !lm.'I:!'c <Inri fldmi!lislrillil (' Silc l'l,m Nl'f/IIJ'I FlWYTlER BANI( Ll~,()~-Nj SLJ, LCI Report of January), 2009 Page II of I R merchandise, The provided site plan indicates one loading space il)r the subject development that would be 9 feet by 20 feet. Frontier Bank would not require loading dours, Parkin~ Modification The applicant has requesed a pm"king modification from RIY1C 4-4-0~Or. \vhich requires 5 stacking spaces per drive through lane, to allow 3 stacking spaces per drive though lane. Section 4-4-080Fd allows the Devdopl11cnt Services Division to grant modifications fj"om the parking standards for individual cases provided that the modification meets the following criteri(l (pursuant to R~1C 4-9-25002): 1. \Vi1l meet the objectives and safety. function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and II. Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; and lit. Conform to the intent and purpnse of the Code; and IV. Can be shown to be justified and required for th~ usc and situation intendcd; and v. \\t'ill not create advcrsc impacts to other property(s) in the vici1Jity. Allalysis: 1) TYil/mect the o/y'ectil'cs and S({/L'(v./imction, appl!urance, environmental protection and mailltaillu/Jilin: intfnded hy thc Code rCCjuirements, hased upon sound cngillceringjudgmenf. The applicant contends Ihat the 3 provided stacking spaces 8fC located directly and entirely behind the hank building nnd are thus fully screened. Tn addition. the applicant provided a TralTic Impact and Queue Analysis prepared by (;illson Trame Consultants (GTC) dated Nuvember 7, 2008, WhlCh indented to evaluate Frontier Bank with 2 drive-in lanes, This report concludes that the proposed Frontier Bank could scrvc <lpproximstely 34 drive-in vehicles in an hour based on an average service rate of 3.5 minutes per drive-in vehicle. The trip generation data indi~aled that therc \vould be on average 2 vehicles in the systel11~ one vchicle pcr lane, during the PM peak-hour. This is equ<ll to a qucue length of 0 vehicles per lane. Based on this engineering analysis and the location of proposed drive though hanking lanes the applicant contends that this provision would meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance. environmental protection and Ill(JilltaiIl8bility intended by the Code requirements. based on sound engineeringjudgment. Staff has reviewed the proposed reqllests, based on the inllmnation submitted: it appears that the requested stacking length ofthree vehicles would be adequate to provide the indented services levels of the two banking drive Lip lanes. Therefore, the proposed modification would meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance. environmental protection and tnaintainability intended by the driveway design standards. 2) ~Yi// not he if!jlfriou." to other prop(!rty(~) in the vicinity. The applicant contends that because the 3 stacking spaces are located tight to the rear wall ufthe bank building and more than 22 feet away hom the reaL or nearest property line, This site design would therefore not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity, Staff concurs that the three stacking spaces instead of Ii ve stacking space would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity, 3) Con/iJrm to the intent and I''''pose o("the Code, The applicant contends based on the conclusiuns by GTe QueLie Analysis, that the sitc, as designed, would provided for more stacking spaces than would be required by actual usage, There!l)re, the proposcd design conionns to the intent and purpose of the code to provide sufficient on-site vehicle stacking space. Staff has reviewed the proposed modification; and concurs with the applicants conclusions that the requested modification complies with the intent of the code, SA·A & F'RC ReporlOR-141 C.'n (~f /(-'/i{fIIl /JtpUr!!liL'iII u/ CO/IIIIII/nil] olio/IIi,' /JlTe/ofl/IIOI! j!)j!iiillcc and IdllliIlISll"illll',' 5'11(' I'lt/ll Rt'!)r!1"/ FRONTfER BANI( rCA()8-141 SA-A, ECF Report of January 5, 2009 Page 1.2 nf I R 4) Can he s!u)ll'}7 to hejustftied and requin:djol' the lise ({nd situation intcndcd. The applicant contcnts that tbe GTC Quelle Analysis bas been provided to show the calculated stacking space needs for this spccilic bank Llcility at this sitc, Therefore, tbe applicant contends the site plan deslgn provides more stacking: space than the report calls for and therefore the design is sho\\'n to be justified and required t(H tbe use and situation intended, Staff concurs that the proposed three car staking would be J ostitied and more then required for the situation and subject usc, based on the GTe Queue Analysis. 5) IVi!! not create advcr."c impacts to ot/If.!r properzv(s) in the l'iciniry. ;\s stated under criteria number 2, the proposed stacking \vould not create adverse impacts to other properlies in the vicinity o[ this site, Furthermore, the applicant contends that accurate calculation o[ the stacking space needs ror this specific f<lcility minimizes the ;:lllloUllt or paved mea needed f(Jr that function and therefore, allovvs on-site space for other site amenities, including additional landscaping. As such, this is a henefit to other propel1ies in the vicinity: and the community as a \ivhole. The suhject site design v..:ould not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. Staff concurs that the proposed three car staking would not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity, Based on the infonnation provided by the applicant, the proposed three car stacking \vould provide bettcr site plan design and use of site space. Sta r1' 11<1s revinv the request and has determined that the applicant has demonstrated good cause for the requested modi fication. Therefore. staff recommends approval of the requested driveway and parking modifications. Pedestrian Connections The Rainer Avenue Business District requires a minimum of one pedestrian connection to be provided to the entry or entries of each detached building to the street in addition to sidewalks required in RMC 4-6-060F. ;\ minimum of one peuestriJn connection shall be provided fro III each parking field located on the back and/or side of a building to the entry or entries. A minimum of one pedestrian connection shall be provided from each side OLl propcl1y or development 2lbutting or adjacent to commercial and/or residential uses. The proposed site plan proposed to provide pedestrian connections from South Jill Street to the building entrance via 8 concrete sidev,:alk. The pedestrian connection proposed to connect the subject development to surrounding developments \vould be via the sicle\v31k along South 3 rd Street. The applicant has proposed a cross\-valk from the \vest parking lot to the bank, which would be created by stripLng on asphalt The proposed walkways are required to be identified wilh a change in texture, pavers, or changes in composition orthe paving. The proposed 3sphalt striping does not meet this requirement 3S such: staff recomrnends that as a condition of approval that the pedestrian walkvvay shall he defined with pavers, change in texture or changes in composition of the paving to define its location. The purposed pedestrian connection docs mect ADA req uiremellts. Refuse and Recyclable Deposit Areas -The CiLy' S refuse and recyclable standards for a rctail development require a minimum of 5 square feet per every· 1,000 square feet of huilding gross floor area for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of I () square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. ;\ total minimum area of 100 square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit areas, Besed on the proposed gross floor area of 4,548 square feet for the new building a minimum of 22.74 square feet of recyclable deposit areas would be required and a minimum of 45.48 square feet of refusc deposit areas would bc rcquircd, Because the total spacc required for refuse and recyclable deposit arces is less thenthc minimum requirement of 100 squere feet, the applicant shall provide a minimum of 100 square feet. The provided site plan indicates that 128 square feet would be provided lor refuse and recycling deposit areas and therefore, would comply with code requirements, The approximate location of the relusc and recyclable arcas arc shown on the submitted site plan, and would be located in the southcast corner of the site and screened £i·om view of the surrounding properties behind a dumpster screen that is softened with landscaping. The refuse and recyclahle area \-vould have restricted access by providing locked access gates. Signage -Signage \vill be reviewed under a separate permit. SA-A & ERC Report 08-141 ('111-(If Henil!'! l.kj!lIl'I!!.'c!!I Ii! ('oil/mill/ill ( )!li!inic I)('ll'iol'nlcni JIII1I/I(',' ,lIi11 .-Idll.'illis//"Uiil',· Sill' 1'/(111 F/.epf)/"I FRONTIER flASK LLA08 141 S,·IA. EeF Report of Jalluary 5. 2009 Page 13 of IX c. Jfitigatiol1 (~lilllpact.\" to surrounding propertie . ..,' U1uluses; City staff does not anticipate any adverse impact on sUTI"ounding properties and uses. The project is located in an area of commercial uses. All the surrounding parcels are zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). COllll1lCrCi81/servicc uses arc abutting/adj~lccnt to the subject site Il1 ,dl directions. Thc building is sited <liong South 3 rd Street, which provides visibility from the street. The building's entrance is located in a tower (It the nortll\vest corner of the building, to address South 3 1d Street and the parking area. The huilding would meet all required setbacks Irom property lines and it would provide more than the code requires for a side and rear yard setbacks. The proposed commercial usc is anticipated to be compatible with future surrounding uses as permitted in the C/\ zone. The existing site has historically been used as a commercial property. This proposal does not change the historic uses of the site. The redesign and redevelopment of the site would have positive impacts that \vol.dd l~lr outweigh the potential negative impacts. The proposed project would improve the south side of the block by providing landscaping, canopies t(X rain protection Jnd J small public plaza space. Any impacts of the building sCc-de \vould be mitig,Hed by the purposed landscaping along the street frontages and the modulations in the fa~adcs created by the \vindow and vmious fayade treatments. d. Mitigatioll olimpacts olthe proposed site plall to the site; Thc SGlle. height, and bulk of the proposed building is appropriate li)r the sitc. and is anticipated to be architecturally compatible with the ti.nure development in thc project vicinity. The Frontier Bank site is 19. no square feet and would have a building lot coverage or 21 percent or the site. The proposal provides for 2,654 square feet of landscaped area, L 142 square feet \voulcl be perimeter and p3rking lot landscaping and 1.512 square feet lc-Hldscaping is proposed for interior landscaping. The parking field is broken up \vith landscape islands no less then 5 feet wide and the length of the stalls, at a minimum or every 6 stalls. The remainder of the site \vould be impervious arcas. Parking is proposed along the cast and west sides of the building within surfnce parking lots. Pedestrian connections would be provided to connect the main entry of the huilding to the public side\v3lk along South 3'" Street and the parking lot to the west. e. CO/lservatio/l (~l area~wide property values,' The proposed development is expected to conserve and possibly increase property values in the vicinity of the site. The development of the site provides improvcments to infrastructure, landscaping and lighting, additional local service opportunities, and would provide for additional employment opportunities. f. S(~lety alld efficiency o.lvehicle and pedestrian circulation; Primmy access to the site is proposed via two curb cuts along South }'" Street. The site development would include I 5 parking stalls within the surface lot which complies with the parking requirements for the proposed use. A pedestrian walkway is proposed rrom the sidewalk, located along South 3'" Street, to the north. cast and west sides of the building. An additional, pedestrian path is proposed trom the west b,ade to the west parking lot. The subject site only has one street frontage and is surrounded by commercial properties to thc cast, \\'cst and south, as such staiI recommends as a condition of approval that aeccss to the subject site be limited to South 3 n , Street. The proposal provided for two drive up banking lanes at the rear of the building (see discussion above regarding stacking modilication). This arrangement of circulation would allow the fewest points of ingress and egress along the public streets used for accessing this site. The proposed circulation system is designed for maximum safety and clIieiency. g. Provision (~ladeqllate light and air; This single-story building would not have a significant in1pact on light access or air movement on adjacent properties. The lise of the proj ect is not inf1uenced by j;letors or light or air. According to code, parking lot lighting fixtures arc to be non-glare and mounted no more than 2S teet above the ground. This is to help minimize the impact onto adjacent propeJ1ies. StalT does not anticipate that extcrior lighting would become an issue due to the siting of the building provided code requirements SA-A & ERe Reporl 08-141 C'j(\, I!! Nt'nt/ill /)C!!(lltnkll/ 1)/ (()/I!/II11J1i/I' ( FROiVTfFR BAS!( U~.U!8I.J1 SA-ii. FeF Report of January 5. 2009 Page 140flg are met. A light111g plan was not submitted with site plan application. therefore staff recommends ,1S a condition of 'lpproval that a lighting plan be submitted with the building permit application for revicw and approval by thc Dcvelopment or Community & Economic Development. Planning Division project mallagcr. h. iHitigation ofnoi:·.;e, odor .... ' and other harn~/it! or unhealthy conditio1ls; Noise and odor impacts would occur tl)r a sllOrt period of time during building and site construction The contractor would be limited to hauling according to --Haul Hours" (RMC 4-4-030C2) and construction activities shall he restricted to the hours hetween seven o'clock (7:00) 'UlL and cight c)c1oek (8:00) p.m .• \1onday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall he restricted to the hours between nine o'c1ock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be pennitted Oil Sundays. Odors expected to be produced hom the project would consist of vehicle exhaust, whieh may be less thell \vhen the site WZlS LLsed as a gas station or car sales lot. The building is proposed to be heated. Renton Municipal Codc regulates screening ofsurt"cc-mountcd or root~top mechanical equipment (R1'.1C 4-4-(95) i. Availabilitr o.lplIhlic services allt/facilities to accol1lmodate the proposed If,''''C; Public services are currently available to the site. The project is within the City ofRenlon \Vater service boundary. There is an existing 12-i11ch Vi/ater main located in South l-ci Street. In additiolL ,ll1 existing 10- inch sanitary sewcr main is located within all casement along the south property line. Existing storm vvater conveyance is provided along the rOadway \\lithin South yd Street. No additional right-of-v.ay dedication is required for the subject site and there are existing street improvements hooting tlw site. j. Prevention (~rlleiglzborhood deterioration alld blight. The mchitcctural design and landscaping of the site would ensure that the pro]Jcrty would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual aesthetic of the mea. No deterioration or hlight is expected to occur as (! result o[this proposal. As long as design standards are maintained. the devdopment would be compatible with the existing commercial area. E. Findings, Conclusions & Decision I-laving n.:vic\vcd the writtcn record in the matter. the City now cnters the following: I. Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval (lll' construction of a Frontier Bank at 201 South 3'" Street. 2. Environmental Review: Thc City's Environmental Review Committee (ERe) has reviewcd the proposal and issued a Determination of Non-Signifieance-lVlitigated (DNS-I'vl) and imposed five mitigation measures. 3. Site Plan Review: The applicant's Site Plan Rcvicw application complies with the rcquirements for information necessary for sitc plan review. The applicant \ plans are entered as Exhibits ]\io. 1-1 n. 4. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial COITidor (CC), provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied w·ith. 5. Zoning: The Site Plan as presented complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Commercial Artcrial zone and Rainer Avenues Business District provided all conditions of approval are complied with. 6. Modification: The applicant has requested a parking modification from R1'.1C 4A-OHOF to allow 3 stacking spaces instead of the required 5 for the two drive through banking Inncs proposed. 7. Existing Land Use: The site is currently vaeanl. Land uses surrounding the subject site are Commercial AI1eriai (CA). 5A-A & tRC Report 08-141 Ci(r oj Renton /)epartment o/Community FRONI1ER BANK Report of January 5, 2009 F, Conclusions nomic Development Environmental Revie rlmiflee and Administrative Site Plan Report LUA08-141 SA-A, EeF Page IS of 17 I) The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton, provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with, 2) The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies for an on-site services development in the CA zone, provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with, 3) The City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has reviewed the proposal and issued a determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M) and imposed 5 mitigation measures, G. Decision The site plan for Frontier Bank, Project File No, LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A is approved subject to the following conditions: I, The applicant shall provide a final street tree-planting plan, including one 2-inch caliper' Steeple' sugar maple (Acer sacchanlm) at a minimum distance of 30 feet from the street light and specific construction details, for the review and approval of the City's Forester prior to building permit approval, 2, Pedestrian walkways shall be defined with pavers, change in texture, or changes in composition of the paving to define their location, A site plan indicating the change in texture and proposed materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division project manager prior to issuance of a building permit 3, A lighting plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Current Planning Division project manager prior to building permit approval. 4, A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted, to the attention of the Department of Community & Economic Development, Current Planning Division project manager prior to issuance of a building permit, indicating the final landscaping, including the irrigation plan for the project site. 5, Access to the subject site shall be limited to South 3'd Street _ J SJ C. E. Vincent, Planning Director TRAl'v'SMITrED this 5th day of January 2009 to the Applicant/Owner/Contact: FFF Inc. Deric Von Schlieder 332 SJV Everett Mall Way Botesch Nash and Hall P.s. Va. Hox2215 2727 Oakes Avenue Evel'ell, WA 98213 Everett, WA 98201 TRANSMITTED this 51h day of January 2009to the Parties of Record: /larry Blencoe rr''((\{\r"\: ~ki.lY~:.(.·~") /12 Monterey Drive NE ~Iv r(((~, i.~c h..lb(i:..~\"'\0 Relltoll, WA 98056 J II .o::~ ~ :.:.IYc~cf- kel®\, v....>A q13Cfj5 TRAiVSMITTED this 51h day of January 2009 to thefol/owing: Larry Meckling, Building Official Neil Watts, Development Services Director C. E. Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Kayren Kittrick, Development Services SA -A & ERe Report 08-141 City oj Remon Department of Communi.. FRONTIER BANK Report of January 5, 2009 Fire Marshal Renton Reporter conomic Delielopment Land Use Action Appeals & Requests for Reconsideration Environmen.tal Re ~ommjttee and Administrative Site Plan Repurt LUA08-141 SA-A. ECF Page 16 of 17 The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the effective date of decision. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.c'075(3); WAC 197-11-680). RECONSIDERATION. Within 14 days of the effective date ofthe decision, any party may request that the Administrator reopen a decision on a short plat The Administrator may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or ifhe finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the Administrator finds insufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the following appeal timeframe. APPEAL. This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on January 23.2009. City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Examiner. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. EXPIRATION DATE: Site Plan Approval will expire two (2) years from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC section 4-7-080.M. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. I Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.c'2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3 :30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m, No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30)-days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90)-days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval ofthis work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Plan Review -Water 1. In accordance with the Fire Department requirement, at a minimum, one hydrant within 300 feet of any proposed building is required. Additional fire flow and hydrants are required. (See Fire Department comments) 2. The Water System Development Charge is determined by the number and size of new water meter(s) in use. 3. Additional fire service fee is applicable for sprinkler supply connection. SA-A & ERC Report 08-141 City of Renton Department ojCommunity FRONTIER BANK Report of January 5, 2009 nomic Development Environmental Revi, nmittee and Administrative Site Plan Report LUA08-141 SA-A. ECF Page 17 of 17 4. The new water service shall be connected from the existing 12-inch water main fronting the property along S. 3'd Street. 5. DCVA shall be downstream of domestic meter for buildings greater then 30 feet in height. 6. The Fire Service fee amount is based on the size of the fire service water line. 7. The Water System Development Charge fees are based on the total number and size of all domestic water meters. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Sewer l. The Sewer system Development Charge is determined by the water meter size. This fee is due with the construction permit. 2. Separate side sewer to each residence and/or business is required. 3. No dual side sewer is allowed. 4. Side sewer shall be a minimum of 2% slope. 5. No side sewer shall be within the right-of-way for the commercial space. The side sewer(s) shall be connected to the sewer within the property site. Plan Review -Transportation I. All new electrical, phone and cable services must be underground. Construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton Public Works inspector. Plan Review -Surface Water l. Surface Water System Development charge is based on $0405 per square foot of new impervious surface area, but not more than $1,012.00. This fee is due with the construction permit. 2. A Preliminary drainage plan and drainage report is contained with site plan application. The report addresses detention and water quality requirements as outline in the 1990 King County surface Water Manual and concludes that the project is designed to meet the 1990 KCSWDM guidelines for stornl water management. Fire Department -Hydrant Spacing: l. One of the two required Hydrants shall be no greater than 300 feet to the front ofthe structure. 2. The primary hydrant is required to be within ISO feet of the structure. 3. Hydrant spacing shall also be in accordance with Appendix C, Table Cl05.! of the 2006 International Fire code. Maximum spacing is approximately 300 feet for commercial structures. Spacing ranges are based on fire flow requirements. Fire Department -Fire Apparatus Access: I. Fire department access roadways are required to be within ISO feet of all portions of the building exterior. 2. Fire Lane Signage may possibly be required. 3. Aerial Apparatus Access shall meet if applicable Appendix D section D 105.1 though D 105.3. Fire Department -General: I. Fire sprinkler system shall not be required, unless the building is not able to meet the required fire flow requirements of 2,250 gallons per minute for 2 hours. 2. Ladder access for a 35-foot ladder at 70-degree angle shall be provided on all 4 sides of a building 2 stories or grater. 3. An addressable fire alarm system will be required. SA -A & ERC Report 08-141 Z H ~, " 3 <)""":;"~?---c ,I 0 l'" :/ .' ;irf\i; 1fj_\.1.:~;al-~-_\l ~~-.... --'-11'> ~.-(,." l() t Z' /~ • ___ l.'---1:~}}---o?--;!-/ ~ \ , ... ,--.".{;. ...... 22. 4~ __ "'-_" _. \ i ./" "\-). 0_ ~ ._' .~ ~a· ;<.10 5 >, ""J'"" 0' / , 6',' . __ ~':,1' 'O\?,.4.1._:::=?~x.i\"" ;:"1.",0' 103368# TOe O~}04 65333-11 TDe OU9 ",·1 "'. 3 ot '-.\','\ ~l;:: rl rl ~ rl ~, 5280 S T.D.C. ()116 5280 1'"' \<n rl . "/' ~ ,I I, ,q y ,/ ...... -"":..... \.-"- e.G" ~Q~ 'bfj NOa-O -IE _/ 0199 .. :40 _:t;:,.5 .. "",." ... , ,.2,;1.2,~. _n, H ,_.~" .. , 12: Y Ijl~. "" • .\>"\ .... ~~\_- --_.,-,....\ , ' '& \ .1~ 011\\ " " ')G 3Cl \\ 17670 T.D.C. U.l2b 1·5-i .'2 5 ~ ..•...... 234.05 189.91 C--- ~90-. 31 - "-"r:; RELUA 99-089-LLA 20000111900006 -231--:-11- "t'.~3 6li R",92,)·6 4 . ,., .... , a ~ rl IT5~TI ~.!4_.1J __ ~~~-_4Q-_5~_~_(~~) S, THIRD ST (~_B~:3"'§:D ~) o ~ rl '.1;,'" a ." rl 'l '-"".',' Qol ~UT'~ ~!l:t> b-rR~l' SF _J_~RD. _!,y~ .}, _,0' , .. \,~.~., ~t n a N rl 6000 SF 6000 SF a ,"" ,,:' :::' 6000 Sf . , • _ft" a ~ .. a ~ 44 6 a ~ d LD.C. T.D.C. E,n.c. u., U~v' U· T.D.C. ~)14) Oln 0132 1500081 lIL':J°lr T'D'C'lT'~'C' DuO] ~,-~.~ ~~!i=~-6ti~O~~ OOk T:D.C. OLif OlL3.. . II . . c; :)'j~~·4C. 0165·' ., ~ N 88-4':~-50 W ';:: 89 0 : 39111 r-t •.. ."U5 38 .. "", .. " ",,1J ." ... ,,~1..t.:9 .. :!:RliilJr=: :1-' -; 922: : ,,01.-f') ;~~"!iL",±£..-_,,..,-tl·I~"'~" . ~5'!'1"~2 ~ @,~ 9 ~, nO' a -.ft.~ \::'5' 9 .81' ,:.L. / ""'. ......:0:> 6: I\.~ :1'j 12 rl 8557 SF fi4S A ~ .....ii n N~ N o~ ",: \" N 88-40-50 1>1,. ,UI 19. 8 • 1 ,,,,. 22139 S """'5 ' 'r"' ....... 1 o.<!J ' ~ ';,,; : _ J\. \ I~: ~:':": 19820 s ~,~ .... \, 5 'c; . .:,. /j\~,,! 7 ,..., \1\.11""'"'\''''-' ,;,'<1'" ~:..n'.Ju;.~::> cJi· .:> "v'", t-l.? I" . '<0 6 lJ1 ~:N . , ~ '.> ~ .. ~t0> 'f' ~",~834 :0, 5~9_"';'_..!":2C __ ;:"~""'':'' 42200 SF ~ -<''"' """S"!"_, 4 \-"",0 .,0025:.... <;11:' g ';'il,:'" "' ,~~" 82£ 6< W m'lm " ' ~_~ ),26 S,3RDfLACJ""y"'1'!P.!i! lB.! ~ 88-'0-50 W (P'YlL~"~. LA 013, ;;"lIiWl 'if N Ji-Wi-!! 'If .. ,,,:,~.,,~i\lv'N~~..b~~~~~ 6', '3 --::~ 1J; (s.E. 13 8T.H ST.) ~''i3 €ftF ~ "-6""0 !of:} _~4'9'~n~ 394.13 * ..~., v'.;> ..90' ~~".~ ~"', 13591 s:F;" ·i.·.'·; NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP GRAPHIC SCALE 100 a 50 100 200 UEVELoPM~ Gift OF ~~ 7 8 I" .' w 9 " u ~ OJ ~I 10 Ww ~- " 0 11 ::> ~ t 12 I (/) 13 14 o 15 -2! I II ( IN FEET) EXHIBIT 2 1 inch = 100 ft. NOV 2 6 2008 RECEIVED (THII 4' 0 " 120 128 .9' 1. 11 B 12 a ,- i-- i ,.- ~i ~i J- Lsoe6 VM 'uo~uel:f ~66JlS PJ!lIl 'llhOS ~OG UOll:iUjtlltBM 'U01U6tj -)fUBB JenUOJ~ (;;---t,e; Jk._ ~-~~~~~c-~~~=-..! L o w .:;::.. m (.) w 0:: 8 ~ - . -T, i ,~! I "" -~ ~~ :~-{3:; t'\. >0 !1Il:"~- '-'~ " .. ~.~~-?·-~-'-~t ,f k,< ' ," ,--.r----,. 19056 '" M 'uo~uel::l ~e9J~S PJllIl 1I1nos ~OG UOl6uI1IIHrM 'u0IU91::1 -lIuu8 Jel~UOJ.:I ----",-.:" -_of , -i"'-L-i'-;.;.,'" ...... --- (~) ",·,'----,F ~ ~: ", -l· .,' --,j <D ;Z ~;Z :g 20 C ~~ ~ ~ W <0 cr: -lJ.. <'-J W 0 ;:::.. u E fiE I.Li 0 cr: l ~ ~' 0 (2) (2)~~ 0 9 ,- ' , , 0~~ !t :, 0 @ @ (0) 0~~ II 1 Lsoe6 VIA 'UOIU81;1 0~ e 0~~ 0 t il " I 0~ 0~~~ 0 0~~ 0 ®~~~ @ !" t II r~ I ! :0 w :> in (.) w a: U') I-toot a:I toot :::c >< W 0~ @-- @-- 1 .' I qJ @ 0~ ® (0) 0~~ 0 0~ 0 0 0~~~~ 0~~ <> i! II > ~I I , I , I , , 1. ~ ~ :Zz 00 c ~~ g <'I w tztl! to > -WlL '" W ::;;0 :> U 0 ~ W ...J-rr wO > UJ r:J \0 I- t-t I:Il t-t :::z::: >< w : • c z c " ~! .' -, ., ~" I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .L908eVM~ "'48 p.u. WI08 LOZ UOJt5uNUM ~ ~ ..... ",,,,,U:I i I <h: ! ~I -~ 'I ,~- o N <.) Q ~ jjj (.) w a:: c z " z u ,~: ~I .... , '" '" !?$, is ';>:: S III , , i , , , , . , , ! 0 ir • I I 1 1 'I 1 1 1 1 I I ! ~-' ~"] L908e VM 'UO~I:I ...... 8 p...u. 'IIfIOS l(2 UO""""M 'UolU8ti ...... .....,.,,;1 , N ~ ! ~"" l -J c=-:-J ~I =. R' '''i:,'._ Ii, I I. I [BIT] >'j , S • 'I i I ~ • , I I i, i~ ~ i (.) • ~ 'I I . ~. -__ J c g! -W (,) W tr 00 I- M al M :::t: >< W , I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,- I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , , .. ~-~ ~ I I I I , "I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , L~O~6 'YM 'U01U~~ 1"~J1S PJ!4J. Lnnos LOl' U01DU!4SDM 'U01U"~ -)IUDS J9!lUOJ.:I ,,---. , "~ 0 ~ <D U ~ Zz 00 0 ~~ ~ w >-w <c > zc:: -WLL '" W ::;;0 :> (.) §~ ~ W ..J-Q:' UJU > W i') ~;-; g:;;:o; ~ "-.. ~ ;.,,..,-,,, '" ~! ! f'~+---,!~:"§,,,§,,~,":-;,,~ !,... _---"O~ __ .:':_';'i. ~~S5~'z .,":~, ~ .,;..-, , o @ '" 0 o 0 ..-,.:., . L<;096 VM 'uolU;;Il:j l;;l;;lJ1S PJ!41 41nos ~OG uo~6u!4S0M 'uOlu"tJ -~UDE.I .J~!lUDJ.:l ~ ~ > .• ~ 0 z , ~ i a. '" u '" ~ 0 z < -, 00 "-.., § .... LU ...... >-... -"" u..~ :> (.) ~ W cr PLANNINGIBUILDINGI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: December 24, 2008 Vanessa Dolbee Rick Moreno TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Frontier Bank, LUA08-141 The following Utility and Transportation comments concern the Environmental and Development Application review for the subject project EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER -The site is within the City of Renton water service area, There is a 12-inch water main within with in South 3rd Street The project site is located in the 196-water pressure zone, The site is outside of the Aquifer Protection Area, Fire Flow available to the site is approximately 1,950 gpm. Static water pressure is approx.imentally73 psi. SEWER -There is a lO-inch sewer main within an easement along the south property line. STORM -Existing storm water conveyances along the roadway within S. 3'd Street The sUlface water drains to the South Renton Basin. STREET -Concrete walkway fronts the existing lot CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER I. In accordance with the Fire Department requirement, at a minimum, one hydrant within 300 feet of any proposed is required. Additional fire flow and hydrants are required. (See Fire Department comments) 2. The Water System Development Charge is determined by the number and size of new water meter(s) in use. See attached meter fee sheet 3. Additional fire service fee is applicable for sprinkler supply connection. 4. The new water service shall be connected from the existing 12-inch water main fronting the property along S. 3'd Street 5. DCV A shall be downstream of domestic meter for buildings greater than 30 ft in height li :\Oi vi s ion. s\Develop. ser\Pian.rev\Rick\LU A -08\Frontier Bank. doc Page 20f2 SANITARY SEWER 1. The Sewer System Development Charge is determined by the water meter size. This fee is due with the construction permit. 2. Separate side sewer to each residence and/or business prior to recording. 3. No dual side sewer is allowed. 4. Side sewer shall be a minimum of 2% slope. 5. No side sewer shall be within the right-of-way for the commercial space. The side sewer(s) shall be connected to the sewer within the property site. SURFACE WATER 1. Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area, but not more than $1,012.00. This fee is due with the construction permit. . 2. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report is contained with site plan application. The report addresses detention and water quality requirements as outlined in the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual and concludes that the project is designed to meet the 1990 KCSWDM guidelines for storm water management. TRANSPORT A TION 1. All new electrical, phone and cable services must be underground. Construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to recording. CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards and staff review. 2. Access will be limited to S. 3rd Street 3. The traffic mitigation fee based on the TIA, submitted by Heath & Associated, Inc. will be $19,916.25. This is based on 265.55 trips x $75.00. See attached mitigation fee report. Payment of fees will be required prior to issuance of building permit. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Plan.rev\Rick\LUA-OS\Frontier Bank.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Picl1l -\i:::V I ()vj COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 23, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 9, 2008 APPLICANT: Deric Von Schlieder PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Frontier Bank PLAN REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 19,920 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (oross): N/A DEC U l:I 200tl LOCATION: 201 S 3" Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (qros I WORK ORDER NO: 77997 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes. The subject site is located on the south side of South 3rd Street at 201 South 3rd Street. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot, although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished prior to the subject application and the Model Toxins Control Cleanup has been performed. Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space. In addition, the applicant has requested a driveway stacking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does not contain any existing trees; although, street trees along right-af-way frontage would be retained. The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LiqhtlGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans ortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Histooc/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS ular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or t properly ~ss this proposal. --"\ I' (). -J-. V -() 55' Date i , Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number: Project Description: Land Use Type: o Residential o Retail ~ Non-retail Calculation: S# B~ LV~ Of?-\4\ 1110D I Method of Calculation: o ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition I8J. Traffic Study o Other ~\e,':>otu T~f'"~\L Lot$.,U .... -n:\1A> 1lj7/dvO€> \LI % VfA.':i> ~ eval.:-\ )( • B\Q::. 'Z..~S. S5 At:>.::, I).DT" -{. II IS.17tl '" 6\ ql q \lp. ).5 Transportation Mitigation Fee: _rr~.:...,q.!;ILql.!\~~!:..:·-'~~:;'=:""' ____________________ _ Calculated by: ;/,.;;L.;¥'r'""V:,ptIf'""" ........... 1£~sktnOQ· ....... (i\""I'--________ Date: --j 0 Date of Payment: ___________________________ ___ City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'Tr~~(\SDt.y*d1 a (, COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 23, 2008 . APPLICATION NO: LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 9, 2008 APPLICANT: Deric Von Schlieder PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee n gn;:..ot=,Rre~ n PROJECT TITLE: Frontier Bank PLAN REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 19,920 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (qross): N/A Ut.l. V" £UUO LOCATION: 201 S 3,d Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (qross) 4,50SUU.tllNG DIVISION I WORK ORDER NO: 77997 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes, The subject site is located on the south side of South 3rd Street at 201 South 3rd Street The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot, although previously the site was used for a gas station, The old gas station was demolished prior to the subject application and the Model Toxins Control Cleanup has been performed, Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space, In addition, the applicant has requested a driveway stacking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does not contain any existing trees; although, street trees along right-of-way frontage would be retained. The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report, A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Environment Minor Major Impacts Impacts Earlh Air Wafer Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have review 'd this application areas where I informaUon . More Information Nec.essary Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics U ht/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural PreservatIOn Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Date Washington State Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation December 15,2008 Ms, Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner City of Renton, CED Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 RE: SR-900 MP 10.03 CS 1754 Frontier Bank 201 S 3'" Street Dear Ms, Dolbee: Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 206-440-4000 ny: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov Thank you for the notice of the above project and the proposed DNS-M_ At this time we will not be expecting mitigation from the developer to mitigate the development's impacts to state highways. We do, however, wish to call your attention to the state law regulating access connections to state highways, 468-52-040 WAC. Particularly 468-52-040 (4) (b) (ii) (B). This section provides the spacing requirements for access to an Access Class 4 (SR-900 at MP 10.03) highway_ If you have any questions please contact John Sutherland, SutherJ(iiJ,wsdoLwa,gov, or 206-440-4712, my King Area Local Agency and Developer Services Engineer. ~~~ Ramin Pazooki ~ Local Agency and Development Services Manager, SnoKing Area • Recommend removing both existing red maple trees including all roots and root barriers (corrugated culverts). Replace one tree in newly poured sidewalk location at a minimum distance of 30 feet from the street light. Exact location to be determined by City Forester in the field prior to constuction (at bottom or top of parking stall). Install using structural soils 20 feet either side of tree, thickened concrete with rebar; specifications provided by City Forester prior to construction. Use a 4-foot wide by 8-foot long tree grate frame and grate, design style to be provided by City Forester prior to construction. Tree replacement shall be a 2-inch caliper 'Steeple' sugar maple, Acer saccharum 'Steeple'. Property trees along public sidewalk -Change species to 2-inch caliper 'Steeple' sugar maple, Acer saccharum 'Steeple'. Planters shall have a minimum of 24 inches of topsoil, 36 inches preferred. City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: APPLICATION NO: ECF, SA-A APPLICANT: Deric Von Schlieder SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes. The subject site is located on the south side of South 3rd Street at South 3rd Street. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot, although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished prior to the subject application and the Model Toxins Control Cleanup has been performed. Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space. In addition, the applicant has requested a driveway stacking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does not contain any existing trees; although, street trees along right-of-way frontage would be retained. The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e,g, Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth HousilJQ Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Anlmal.~ Transportation EnVf{onmental Health Public Services Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport EnVIronment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informatio needed to properly assess this proposal. o.-IJ-OY----- Date • • DATE: TO: CC: FROM: SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM 12110/08 Jan Illian, Plan Reviewer Vanessa Dolbee, Planner Bill Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal 6 r LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A Frontier Bank Review of current plans and material, previous pre-application material and on site review have disclosed additional Fire Code and Policy related issues and concerns that need to be addressed for approval to be granted. Renton Fire & Emergency Services comments: I. Fire Alarm Requirements: An addressable fire alarm system will be required. All other comments from the pre-application review still pertain to the project. Please feel free to contact the Fire Marshal or Assistant Fire Marshal if you have any further questions or comments regarding this project. i:\erc\#2 enviro dey app rev standardmemo _ cc.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'F I rc. COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 23, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 9, 2008 APPLICANT: Deric Von Schlieder PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Frontier Bank PLAN REVIEWER: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 19,920 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (qross): N/A LOCATION: 201 S 3,d Street PROPOSED BLDG AREA (qross) 4,500 square feet WORK ORDER NO: 77997 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes. The subject site is located on the south side of South 3rd Street at 201 South 3rd Street. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning deSignation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot, although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished prior to the subject application and the Model Toxins Control Cleanup has been performed. Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space. In addition, the applicant has requested a driveway stacking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does not contain any existing trees; although, street trees along right-of-way frontage would be retained. The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area; as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housin Air AesthetiCS Water U hi/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utihries Animals TransportatIOn Environmental Health Public Services Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feel B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or area~zeded to properly assess this proposal. / 2--/ / d /t1' 1r Signature of Director or Aut orized RePresentative Date • '~~ ~~~i '"N'ro NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-MJ DATE: December 9, 200B LAND USE NUMBER lUAOi!-141, ECF, SA-A PROJECT NAME: Frontier Bank PROJECT DESCRIPTION; Th~ appllC<l1l1 " req"~"llng SIte PI~n Review and Env"onmental (SEPA) Revjew of a 4,500 ~QIJ~re loot Fron\ler Bank with 1wo dri·,e-.up blinking I~nes. The subjeci site IS locaje<J on the south $',de 01 Soulh 3rd Street at 201 South 3m Street Th" 19,920 s'luare 1001 site .. located 'Mthln the Ce>mmer<:;,al Arterial (CAi lon,ng designation and the Rainier Aveflue Business Dislrl<:l The slle mOst re""ntly has been u.ed a~ a used car 5al9, 101, allhough p<eviO<Jsly 1he site was used for a gas slat,on The old g~s stalion w~s demoloshed pnor to) lhe subject <lpplicaliOrl an\! the MadAI Toxins Control Cleanup ha. ccen performed Ac~e$S (0 the site IS propos!)d atollO SOLJth 3rd Sireet The apptlcanl t.as proposed 15 P<lrkmg spaces on.silA ""d 1 IC"dlngiunloading space (n addition, the ap~licanl h~s requested a driveway st~cklnQ moM,cal,on (0 allow room for three CJr st;;cki,~g ,ns~e",d of (he reouired 5 car stacking for the two drive-up bank,ng lanes Th", Site doeS not I)(ml~", any exis(i19 t,ees, aflhOJgr, stceef tr€€; alony ngnt-olJuay frontage would be retaln~d The s\Jbject site i~ localed within" seismiC hazard ~rea, as sucl1, the applicant ~as subn'itled a G~o~e~hn,cal Report PROJECT LOCATION OPTIONAL OETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITtGATEO (DNS-M): As II,,, Le<,d Agen,,', th~ City of Rerton has determined that slgnlfOCJnt enVironmentJI Impact; ~re unli~elY (0 rcsult irom 1l1~ propo5ed proJeC1 TI'ere1orc. as pe'mltled ~nder the RCW 4;,!,21C 110, the CII, ot Renton IS us,ng the Oph"nal DNS_M l"uGess 10 give nol'G~ th3t a ONS- M is t'kety 10 be Issued Commenl pe"(Jds for the ;:>rojer.1 3nd the proposcd DNS_M a'~ ''':egrJleo Int" a "nule comment period TIle;e will be no ~Q"t1mer,1 p~"od lollowlnq the ,S~UH"~e 01 Ihe Th<Qshold Del~rmJ~"llor, of NCrl-Sr~JnJll~~nc,, MlIlg~led (DN$·M] A 14--::Jay ~ppeal iOerlod Will loltow ·.be ISSU~Il"" 01 the ON$-M PERMIT APPLICAnON DATE NO'lembw :!lj, 200e NOTiCE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: Der.~mber g, 200a APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON, Oeric Von Schlieder, BotHell Nash and Hall P S_: Tel: (425) 259-0865: Eml: deric@bnharch,com PermilsiReview Requested: Environmental (SEPAl ReviBw. AdmlnistrJtlve Site Plan approv~1 Other Permits which may be required: Construction and Building P<!rmits Location wh<!r .. apptrcation may be re~iew"d PUBLIC HEARING· CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW' ZoninglLand Use En~;ronmental Documents that EvalUllte the Propos .. d Project: Oevelopm"nt Regulations Used For Proje~t Mitigation: Oepartment ot Community & EconomiC Devolopment (CEO) -Planning Di"i~'on, Sixth Floor R.mlon C~y Hall. 1 055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 96057 NiA Tne ~ubJecl ,ile IS de5lgn:>ted Comme(cr~1 CUrndQf ',ee! Or Ihe C,ly of Renlun Comprehens"'e Land Use ~1ap ami :::ornrr'~fCla A-le,,:>1 (CAl 01' 'h~ 2.lly'5 Zoning Maf. E"'oron"t1ertal iSEI'A) Creckllsl The WOject ",II be 5uoJ"GI 10 Ire City's SEPA ordln~tlr;e, RMC 4-::1-070 EliwonmentJI RGYJew Proc~~Jr~S, r,I.1C 4 D 200 Sile P,~n ReView, RMC 4-2- 120A Development SI~n~~cds for Cemme'c.'al Zoning D~s'gn~llons, RMC 4_J_ 040 COMmercial CorrKJOr Busmess Oeslgnatlon and ot~ler appllc~tle c()d",~ an~ regula'.Ions as anp,o~"ate Proposed Mi!iga1ion Measures The follOWing M'tigation MeJsure" will likely be 'mposed on lhe propos.,o prOject These recommended MiligatLon Me~sures ~ddress project Imp~cts not covered by eXisting {odes and regulatfons as Clted above The Jppl,;;an( will be req"ir~d (0 pay I,~e approprlale TransPortallOn MirigallOf! FGe The appl<ranl wiil he reqUirea to pay IIJe appropr,Jla Fife MilrgalKJIt Fee, and The applic~nl $hall be reqlJlfsri to comply w~i1 tile rGcommenriallOfls im;/ud&d 'rr the geotechnical repocl proviried With (he <>pplicJoorr. Comments on the above application musl be submitted in wnting to Vanessa DoJb .... , As$oclate Planner, CED- Planning DiviSion, 1aSS South Grady Way, Renton. WA 9Sa57, by S:OO PM on December 23, 2aCB, If you have qUf'sllons about this propo;JI Or WIsh 10 be made a parlY 01 reco(d and receJve additional not~icatlo" by maiJ. cOnla~lthe PrOJ~ct M~nager Anyone who sLlbrnrts wrotlen oommenl; ",II aUiomatlCally become a parlyo! record "nd wrll be nOllfJed 01 ~ny decisron on Ihis project CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) -430-7314; Eml: vdolbee@rentonwa,gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you WOUld Irke 10 be made a party of record 10 recerve Iurther jnfDrmatiQ~ on thiS proposed proj,",ct, complete tlli~ form and return 10: Clly 01 Renton CEO -Planning DiVision, 1055 So, Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 N«rnelFlle No Frontier 8~rrkILUA08-141 ECF, SA-II NAME -_ .. __ ._-- r,~AIUNG ADDRESS; TELEPHONE NO, CERTIFICATION I J(),fiI?SSCc Do I (,;,ee , hereby certify that:3 copies of the above docume:~'''''\''\\1I1 , db: t2 conspicuous places or nearby the descnbed property on""" I.. Y. NN 11r1,~11 were paste y me III ~ ~.#2 7£.'::-~. ' .. " .,,':'\\1\,'"'' :-w.1, -'Il = e·:;;;"",,-,O/IJ .. .Ii,,/ ~~ >1 Cl /1 r) SIGNED' 'tJuIU/lA{.:;Y.,. iii! '" ': r',,,Cf~,, ~ DATE: I A -(-uO '---;: " c,.J>~,~ " .. ~ Z~~, y.,~ AITEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Puhlie, in and for the State of Was rung ton residing ir%.~..., --, t ;..: ~. .,J~"'m1.,:": ~:~E , on the I b 't" day ofl)~ 4 t~1iM~'~'1Ii1~9~-" ,) .,<, ... 0.:: l,~ .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "'::~,,~ . WASI"I':;",' 11\\\\\\\"" · . CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 9th day of December, 2008, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist, & Site Plan PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies -NOA, Env. Checklist, PMT See Attached Surrounding Property Owners -NOA only See Attached Deric Von Schlieder -Accpt Ltr Applicant/Contact FFP Inc. -Accpt Ltr & NOA Owner WSDOT -NOA only State Agency (Signature of Sender): xI:t4t~ 177 4uJiJ/l./ // 0 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/herltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ISlh loS Notary (Print):.....1.!.!!~.s.J:~~.D..I.)...J=cD<:..D~!....!....:!4s~~~~d My appointment expires: Project Namet Frontier Bank Project Number: LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A template· affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology" Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region" Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS·240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers" Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C·3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers" Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher" Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. " 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 _172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office" Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program" 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106·1514 39015172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division" Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC·NR·050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104·3855 Olympia, WA 98504·8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC·TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD·01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104·3856 Bellevue, WA 98009·0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology Real Estate Services NW Regional Office Attn: SEPA Coordinator 3190 160'h Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008·5452 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124·4018 "Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template -affidavit of service by mailing .' 922890004505 BISHOP OF CH JESUS CHRIST SOCIAL SERVIS CTR 50 E NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 00072001-3705 BRICK MANAGEMENT LLC 11130 SE 208TH ST #D203 KENT WA 98031 000720000306 FFP INC PO BOX 2215 EVERETT WA 98213 000720011600 LEM80 SALVATORE CORBETT RICK 212 S 3RD ST RENTON WA 98055 000720015700 SCI MANAGEMENT CORP 8TH FL #2920 PROP TAX DEPT 1929 ALLEN PARKWAY HOUSTON TX 77019 000720012400 WELLS FARGO BANK CIO DELOITTE TAX LLP PO BOX 2609 CARLSBAD CA 92018 922890002509 BLENCOE HARRY A & JANET 112 MONTEREY DR NE RENTON WA 98056 784130003501 CCAS PROPERTY & CONST 710 9TH AVE SEATTLE WA 98104 922890001501 J J J INC 5641 PLEASU RE PT BELLEVUE WA 98006 000720017300 MCDONALD RONNIE A+ROBERTA K 216 NW 5TH ST RENTON WA 98055 000720017201 STEEL ICON LLC 1401 DOVE ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 000720014208 ZERBATO ALDO L 205 S 3RD ST RENTON WA 98055 000720012301 BRICK MANAGEMENT LLC 11130 SE 208TH ST #0203 KENT WA 98031 784130002008 CONNOLE ALBERT 232 EVANS AVE MISSOULE MT 59801 000720016500 JJJ INC 5641 PLEASURE POINT LN BELLEVUE WA 98006 000720019900 SAFEWAY INC STORE 1563 CIO COMPREHENSIVE PROP TAX 1371 OAKLAND BLVD STE 200 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 182305911808 TENNESSEE GROUP LLC 715 LIND AVE S RENTON WA 98055 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: Decem ber 9, 2008 LAND USE NUMBER: LUAOB-141, ECF, SA-A PROJECT NAME: Frontier Bank PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review of a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with tvvo drive-up banking lanes. The subject site is located on the south side of South 3rd Street at 201 South 3rd Street. The 19,920 square foot site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. The site most recently has been used as a used car sales lot. although previously the site was used for a gas station. The old gas station was demolished prior to the subject application and the Model Toxins Control Cleanup has been performed. Access to the site is proposed along South 3rd Street. The applicant has proposed 15 parking spaces on-site and 1 loading/unloading space. In addition, the applicant has requested a driveway stacking modification to allow room for three car stacking instead of the required 5 car stacking for the two drive-up banking lanes. The site does not contain any existing trees; although, street trees along right-of-way frontage would be retained. The subject site is located within a seismic hazard area: as such, the applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Report. PROJECT LOCATION: 201 S 3rd Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS·M): As Ihe Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS-M PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: November 26, 2008 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December g, 2008 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Deric Von Schlieder, Botesch Nash and Hall P.S.; Tel: (425) 259-0868; Eml: deric@bnharch.com PermitslReview Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Site Plan approval Other F'ermits which may be required: Construction and Building F'ermits Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed F'roject: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Department of Community & Economic Development (CEO) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 N/A The subject site is designated Commercial Corridor (CC) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial Arterial (CA) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-9-070 Environmental Review Procedures. RMC 4-9-200 Site Plan Review, RMC 4-2- 120A Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations. RMC 4-3- 040 Commercial Corridor Business Designation and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; and The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report provided with the application. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, CED - Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on December 23, 2008. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7314; Eml: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CEO -Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Frontier Bank/LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: C1Tli OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator December 9, 2008 Deric Von Schlieder Botesch Nash and Hall P.S. 2727 Oakes Avenue Everett, WA 98201 Subject: Frontier Bank LUA08-141, ECF, SA-A Dear Mr. Von Schlieder: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on January 5, 2008. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~-DJb.eJL Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner cc: FFP Inc. /Owner(s) -------IO-5-5-S-0u-th-G-r-ad-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-,-w-a-sh-in-gt-o-n-9-g0-5-7------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer !\HEAD OF THE CURVE City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: Ff'-F INC: ADDRESS: ~:n ~W IW~rr MAJ..t,. WAY PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: fl<t'l'-l~ ~f< r. o. ~ -z.~tl? PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY ~~~,.,. ZIP:q~Z.I~ tOI bPunt 1lilfieP bT!q;~T ~NTPN tWA "ff,Orn TELEPHONE NUMBER: 4~f? ~ t?14 ~ n;z. v KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): APPLICANT (if other than owner) PP()7W -PO'? NAME ~v VON ~ttr..I~W~ EXISTING LAND USE(S): VAc/rNT C tJ/::1!JP ~ VO'T) COMPANY (if applicable): ~Ii ~fl' IlNP It/tVV r·? . PROPOSED LAND USE(S): e>IIN~ !!>('I:;\Nt-t! ADDRESS: '1.."1"2-1 &'A~Pb ~NUe. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: U7M,....,~RvIAJ.. ~F.Ipe1~ CITY ~vpl(prr , wA ZIP: Jf~1 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): TELEPHONE NUMBER .(oz.1? _ ~ -peN!? EXISTING ZONING: vA 1f,AINI~~ Irvt>NU~ CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NAME: pt:;RI V W7N ~t.-[E:>P~~ SITE AREA (in square feet): t '1, '1zp bF COMPANY (if applicable): ~~ tJ~tt Id-JD ttA\..-v P.b· SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: t:? SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADDRESS: '/...., 'Z 7 t7A e<:t:n Avl:;.NUb p PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY p~r::.~T ZIP~~t'l ACRE (if applicable): 0 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): (l TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 4'lG' 'Z~ -&,&r;./!:I deri~ ~\.:-}I1~"'t.h. tom NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): CJ S:\06-1046 Frontier Bank Renton\Permitting\City of Renton\Land Use Permit Master Application.doc -I - t'!:'· ~ •. "-"'; ." , , • • •· ... !.t·~ ',' • • If' • •• , ' .c ' "";'~I e' " 1 ., . .,." -• . ,'.. .. " .. . . ' .. " , "., . '" ..... ' . .. 1 ,4' " ' ,"" ~ ,I .... .. " " . " •. :'.,' I.·t -'" ',' ... • ,I ... .. . , " .. l' • .. . , . , " • . " " • • · , • '" JO, •• . , · .. , , ..... ... ' .. , . . ., " 'f :;.",.\"'; I. ~. •. , • .. " i. " " ' '"'," .. , . ,' . I· .. ·~'·· ' .• . :', ' \. I., ... '. . .... ,\, .. .\:e' .• ;"',(" ," .. ' " ." , ' •• :"w" ........ ,. ill' i .. ,:~. '-.",,'; , . .. ..... ' . : /. ," . '" , . . ·It._ .• ~ •. ,<--.I " '. .,' .. ..It. 't '. __ . ..... .. ~' ~'''''' ' ... . ·~"",;t ... ,,~ .' " 0 ..... I , ,). ~ . " ••• t • t .... • ; • ~ I .... • , , .. ...... J' ... t, , ,,'... it .'.~;' ," r ... ~ .-: " ;'.: r , .-",,'s' '.. ;, • ,;, , ' ... ..... • ••• .... -.. -.. .. .' .... ''', \ l: :,' . , • ., ~ .J~' .. "!~. ,t, •• ~" " ., .. ". .' \ . . . '. I •.•• _'" ~ • '. , ' , " "t '" ., .' . " . " . '. •• ... -. ,'~ ....... :' : ~ .. ' " '. .... I ." ... , ... " -. ..... ,,0", ,! ", ; ....... • .. , ." " ~ ',,' ..... , . • J ,f .. el • " .' . . ' .... I ,. , .. < ~. • I. , .. ~ I ' , ., ", ". • :.It • .. " • . . • " .' . , . .:. ," I )JECT INFORMATION (con u::...:e=-c;dL--) ______ ---, NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): tJ SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): t? SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): t? SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 4,~e>~ SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): CJ NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 4-, tn.l ~ NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): /P -l'2-f;W.f'\.Qt~ PROJECT VALUE: I, tlt't'l ClJtJ. ~ IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO o FLOOD HAZARD AREA o GEOLOGIC HAZARD [J HABITAT CONSERVATION [J SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES [J WETLANDS ___ sq. ft. ___ sq. ft. ___ sq. ft. ___ sq. ft. ___ sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE fh QUARTER OF SECTION 18>, TOWNSHIP~, RANGE J?, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. ~lr~ !<~Vll'W 3. f'«1J...PIN6r ~mrr 2. I?WA 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and 'postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) ... 44v .' !( ~ 10 , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or ~ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge an~ belief. (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) (Signature of Owner/Representative) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that fJri,....,A..J) MJ fY\./ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) My appointment eXPires:--,5=1/f-'Z=~f-'-lI....:D,-~-,-___ _ , S:\06·1046 Frontier Bank Renton\Permitting\City of Rcnton\Land Usc Permit Master Application.doc -2· " " . ,. >, • '" • '.'i., # • o ••••• v .... ' .. , . ", •. .-. ·····1 .. .i".~'., ~. . . . ' , . • "J • " .. , '! '. ,''; • ", . ' . DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR NOV 262008 Frontier Bank 201 S. 3 rd Street PRE 06-144 (#2) CITY OF RENTON Planning Division -Current Planning February 27, 2008 Contact Information: Planner: Andrea Petzel, 425.430.7270 Public Works Plan Reviewer: Jan lilian, 425.430.7216 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas, 425.430.7023 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425.430.7290 RECEIVED Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: 2/26/08 TO: Jan IlIian, Plan Reviewer CC: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: Andrea Petzel, Associate Planner David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal David Pargas -425-430-7023 SUBJECT: PRE-APP06-144 (#2) FRONTIER BANK REVISIONS Pre Application Meeting #2 Review of the plans and material regarding the Frontier Bank revisions has been conducted and completed. As a result of this review I have determined that the following Fire Department comments and concerns need to be addressed. In addition the following Fire Codes and Standards shall need to be met. The Fire comments, concerns, codes and standards are as follows: L FIRE FLOW: Based on the information provided the minimum required fire flow shall be 2250 gallons per minute for 2 hours. A water availability certi fi cat" shall be required. 2. REQUIRED HYDRANTS: As in accordance with Renton Fire Department star>dards, Structures over 3600 square feet and having a minimum fire' flow requirement of 1500 gallons per minute or more shall require a minimum of two (2) hydrants. The number of hydrants for structures over 3600 square feet shall also be based on spacing, which shall be in accordance with sound engineering practices. Ba,sed on the size ofthis building and the required fire flow 2 hydrants shaH be required. The on site inspection disclosed that there are two (2) hydrants currently equipped with 5 inch Storz fittings that are within 150 feet of the structure. 3. HYDRANT SPACING: Commercial spacing- A) One (I) of the two (2) required Hydrants shall be no greater than JOe· feet to the front of the structure. B) The primary hydrant is required to be within 150 feet of the structure. C) Hydrant spacing shall also be in accordance with Appendix C, Table C1(l5,! of the 2006 International Fire Code. Maximum spacing is approximately JOO feet for commercial structures. Spacing ranges are based on fire flow requirements. i:\City memos\08 pTC app reviews\pre-app06-J44 frontier bank revisions .. doc 4. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: A) The minimum Fire AMara/us Road Access -Fire department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. B) Fire Lane Signage may possibly be required C) Aerial AMara/us Access shall meet i(applicable Appendix D sec/ion D 105.1 throughD 105.3 5. FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS: As of to date a Fire sprinkler system shall not be required, unless the building is not able to meet the required fire flow requirements of2250 gallons per minute for 2 hours. 6. FIRE ALARM REQUIREMENTS: An addressable fire alann system may be required if the proposed 2006 local fire code amendments are adopted. 7. LADDER ACCESS: Ladder access for a 35"foot ladder at 70-degree angle shall be provided on all 4 sides of a building 2 stories or greater. 8. FIRE MITIGATION FEES: Fire mitigation fees shall be $.52 per square footage ofthe building. The mitigation fee shall be paid at time of securing the building permits. 9. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Please feel free to contact the Assistant Fire Marshal if you have any further questions or comments regarding the pre- application review comments for this project. i:\city memos\08 pre app reviews\pre-app06-!44 frontier bank revisions .. doc TO: FROM: DATE: Andrea Petzel lanIllian x 7216 February 25, 2008 CITY OF RENTON MEMO UTILITY PLAN REVIEW SUBJECT: PREAPPLICA ~N REVIEW COMMENTS FRONTIER BANK PREAPP NO. 06-144 201 -S. 3" Street NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN TIDS REPORT: The following comments on development and permitting issnes are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cantioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes reqUired by the City or made by the applicant. WATER I. There is an existing 12-inch water main fronting the site in S. 3'" Street. There was an existing I-inch domestic water meter serving the existing building. 2. Preliminary fire flow required by the fire department is 2,250 gpm. Available fire flow at the 12-inch water main is approximately 5,000 gpm. One hydrant is required for each 1,000 gpm of reqUIred fire flow. Three hydrants are required to serve the site. One within ISO feet and two within 300 feet "_~L~~ ____ ' __ ,~~~ __ "W_~. __ "_~,_ 3. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within the required distance to the nearest comer of the building. Any existing hydrants counted as tIre protection will be required to retrofitted with a 5-inch storz fitting if not already installed. ,,'.,----.. ,-- 4. The proposed project is located in the 196 water pressure zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Pressure available is approximately 70 psi. 5. Water System Development Charges will be based on the size of new water meter(s). See Fee Sheet. This is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Credit will be given for existing water meters. 6. If the building exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow device will be required on the domestic water meter. A separate plumbing permit will be required. 7 _ Landscape irrigation meters will require an approved backflow device to be installed. A separate plumbing permit is required. Frontier Bank February 25, 2008 Page 2 of 2 SANITARY SEWER I. There is an 8-inch sewer main in an casement south of the building. 2. There is an existing side sewer servmg the building. See sewer card. 3. Sewer System Development Charges win be based on the size of new water meter(s). See Fee Sheet. This is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Credit will be given for existing water meters serving the site. SURFACE WATER 1. There are storm drainage improvements (conveyance system) fronting the site in S. 3'" Street. 2. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report shall address detention and water quality requirements as outlined in the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual. All core and any spec tal requirements shall be contained in the report. If preliminary calculations show detention will be required under the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual, staff will recommend a SEPA condition that will reqUlre the project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -Level 2) and water quality improvements. 3. Roof downspouts shall be tightlined to the storm system 4. No Surface Water Fees are owed on this site. 5. Erosion control shall comply with Dept of Ecology's current edition of the Storrnwater Management Manual. TRANSPORTATION/STREET I. There is existing sidewalk, curb. and gutter fronting the property in S. 3'" Street. 2. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. 3. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed as determined from the ITE trip generation manual. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. A permit to cut and cap existing utilities on site will be required as part of the demolition permit. 2. Separate permits and fees for water meters. side sewers, and storm drainage connections are required. 3. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. When approval is granted and utility plans are complete, please submit permit application, three (3) copies of drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425-430- 7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 6% of the first $150,000 of the estimated construction costs; $9,000 plus 5% of costs over $150,000 but less than $300,000, and $16,500 plus 4% of costs $300,000 and over. Half the fee must be paid upon utility construction permit application. CC: Kayren Kittrick DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM February 28, 2008 Pre-Application File No. 06-144 Andrea Petzel, Associate Planner Frontier Bank General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. TI,e applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modillcation and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Admil1lstrator. Development Services Director. Planning/Building/Public Works Administration, and City Cotmcil). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for S50.00 plus tax. from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall. Project Proposal: The subject property is located on the south side ofS. 3'" Street at 201 S. 3'" Street. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the Rainier Avenue Business District. The proposal is to construct a 4,500 square foot Frontier Bank with two drive-up banking lanes and a pass lane. The eXisting gas station has been removed and the site has undergone a fuJI environmental cleanup. Fiiicen parking spaces would be provided on-site within a surface parking lot. Access would be provided off of S. 3,d Street. Consistency with the Comprebensive Plan: The Commercial Conidor (cq district is characterized by concentrated, pre-existing commercial activity, primarily in a linear urban form, that provides necessary goods and services for daily living, accessible to near-by neighborhoods, serving a sub-regional market and accommodating large volumes of traffic. Zoning: The proposal for an on-site service with an accessory drive-inldrive-through service is a permitted use within the CA zone. Development Standards: Minimum Lot Size. Width and Dcpth -There is no minimum lot size, width, or depth required in the CA zone unless the project is located within the Sunset, NE 4'" Street, or Puget corridor. The subject site is not located within any of these con'idors; therefore no minimum lot size, width, or depth requirements apply to the subject site. Building Standards -The CA zone allows a maximum building coverage of 65% of the lot area or 75% of the lot area if parking is provided within the building or within an on-site parking garage. Building height is restricted to 50 feet; however the maximum building height may be exceeded provided the City's Hearing Examiner grants a Conditional Use Permit. As proposed it appears the proposed building would have a maximum building lot coverage of 18 percent and a height of less than 50 feet. It appears that the proposed building would comply with the lot coverage and height requirements. Setbacks -Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line and any private access easement. The minimum required sethacks in the CA zone are 10 feet in front and along side yards along a street (including access easements), which may be reduced to 0 feet through the Site Plan Review process, and none will be required for the interior side and rear yards as the site does FrlJnti~r Bank Pre~Applicalion Meeting #_ February 28, 200S Page 2 0(3 not abut a residential zone. A maximum IS-foot front yard setback is pemlitted. The proposed location of the proposed bank building would comply with all of the required setbacks for the CA zone. Pedestrian Connectivity -A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street, in order to provide direct. clear and separate pedestrian walks from sidewalks to building entries and illlernally hom buildings to abutting retail properties. unless the Reviewing Official detemlines that the requirement would unduly endanger the pedestrian. Access/Parking: Access to the subject site would be provIded via commercial driveways onto S. 3'" Street. The proposal is required to accommodate a minimum number of off street parking spaces for the proposed use. The parking requirements for the proposed bank with a drive thru are 0.4 spaces per 100 square feet of net floor area. Five stacking spaces are required for each drive-through: the current site plan shows room for onlv three. The stacking spaces may not obstruct required parking or ingress/egress. The pruposallor the 4,500 square toot bank with 4,705 square feet of net Hoar area would require 15 parking spaces on the subject site. No more than six stalls may be clustered without an intervening landscaped area a minimum of jive feet wide and the length of the stall. The proposed site plan indicates that a total of 15 parking spaces would be provided, which complies with this requirement. In addition, it appears that adequate area has been provided for 5 stacking spaces behind each drive-through window. Driveway Grades: The maximum driveway slopes cannot exceed 15%, provided that driveways exceeding 8% are to provide slotted drains at the lower end of the driveway. If the grade exceeds 15%, a variance fi;om the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator is required. It appears that the driveway grade would meet this requirement. Landscaping and Opel! Space: A 10-foot wide land~cape strip is the minimum amount oflandscaping necessary along the street fruntage, except where reduced through the site plan re\1ew process. All landscape areas are to include an underground sprinkling system unless drought tolerant plantings are used. Please refer to RMC 4-4-070 for general and specific landscape requirements. Several of the specific landscape requirements include: the type and location uf trees; soils to be used; drainage; plants; and berms (a copy of the code is included in your packet). A conceptual landscape plan and landscape analysis meeting the requirements in RMC 4-S-120D shall be submitted at the time of Site Plan Review application. Screening/Refuse and Recvclables -Screening must be provided for all outside storage areas, as well as lor surface-mounted and roof top utility and mechanical equipment. In addition, garbage dumpsters and recyclable areas must be screened pursuant to RMC section 4-4-090C7 (fence, landscaping, or combination of both). Approval of the proposed locations of dumpster areas by Rainier Waste Management is recommended prior to the subnuttal for land use permits. The drawings submitted for building permit application will need to include elevations and details on the proposed metbods of screening, if applicable. A total minimum area of 1 00 square feet shall be provided for the refuse and recyclable deposit areas. The proposed site plan indicates tbat 144 square feet would be provided, which complies with this requirement. Slgnage -One freestanding monument sign is permitted per street frontage. Each sign shall not exceed an area greater than one and one-half square feet for each lineal loot of property frontage that is uccupied by the business. In no case shall the sign exceed a total of300 square feet (150 square feet per face). In addition to the permitted freestanding sign, wall signs with a copy area not exceeding 20% of the fapde to which it is applied is also permitted. The sign permit(s) will need to clearly identify square footages of the wall face and the sign to which it is applied, in order to determine compliance. Pre06~ 144#2 (CA Fromil!r Ban").doc Frvnti~r Bank Prt:-!\pplKulion 1\'lecllIlg ;;_ Fcbrual) 28,2008 Pag~ 3 or 3 Environmental Review: The proposed structure exceeds 4,000 square feet and requires Environmental (SEPA) Review per WAC 197-11-800. The area has the potential to have archaeological/cultural resources onsite. Permit Requirements: Because Environmental Review is required Administrative Site Plan Review is also required. A copy of the permit submittal requirements is included in the preapplication packet. The estimated time frame is 6-8 weeks. The proposal would also require a building pennit. Fees: A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. CC: Jennifer Benning Prc{\6-J-l.41;2 (CA Frontier Bank).doc DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVlSI"~ WA :R OF SUBMITTAL REQ ___ tEMENTS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS PROJECT NAME: _..L~.:..:..:..!!.h.!...:t:::..:v-=&nY!f:!:.t;~ __ /Q C.b· ...Pf:VELoPMENT PlAN DATE: ___ ~-=-.!..fV...::...:~c.e:J-==-_CJ_TY..:....::O,,-,F FlENTONNlNG NOV 2 6 2008 RECEIVED Q;IWE8IPWlDEVSERVlFoonslPlanninglwalverofsubmiltalreqs_9-06.xlS 09106 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIV t OF SUBMITTALREQUI :MENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft of Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2 , This requirement may be waive'l:! by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: --Jr;l..!.I311!~...:.:hc...:c..!..v~&.:..:.:.-k-=<... __ _ 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section ---DATE:_~'28~..L~=-b=:::.....:o:...:e=..c..... __ _ 4. Development Planning Section Q:lWEBIPWlDEVSERVlFormslPlanninglwalverolsubmlltalreqs_9-00.x1s 09/06 PROJECT NARRATIVE FRONTIER BANK PROTOTYPE BANK BRANCH 201 SOUTH THIRD STREET RENTON, WA 98057 21 November 2008 Frontier Bank Branch of 4,500 square feet located at 201 South 3'" Street, Renton WA. The building will consist of a one story bank branch with a second level mechanical space under the roof line. The building will be constructed of wood framing with steel special framing elements, brick veneer and cement fiber siding exterior, metal roof. The branch will also have two drive through banking lanes. Land Use permits include Building Permit, Site Plan Review submittal, SEPA, Master Application form. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and is located in the Rainer Avenue Business District. Properties around the subject property are also zoned CA. The site was most recently used as a used car lot. The site was paved over and had an old gas station structure in middle of site. The structure has been demolished and a Model Toxins Control Cleanup has been performed. Soils on the site consisted of 17-20 feet of interbedded, very loose to loose, silty fine grained sand to medium stiff, very fine grained sandy silt (Recent Alluvium). The site is currently 99% impervious surfaces and drainage is handled with catch basins to the public storm system in the public right a way. The property will be used for a 4,500 SF bank branch with two drive through banking lanes. There will be 15 parking spaces on-site and one loading/unloading space. Access to the site will be from South 3'" Street, with a two way ingress/egress access and a one way egress access. South 3'" street is a one-way street headed in the East direction. There are currently no plans for any off-site improvements. There are 3 fire hydrants within the approved distance of the site, the frontage is already improved with sidewalks and the street already has a sewer main available. The total estimated construction budget is around $1.1M. Approximately 200 Cu. Yd. of cut and 50 Cu. Yd. of fill. There are no existing trees on the site at this time. No trees or vegetation will be altered. No land will be dedicated to the city. There is no proposal for job shacks, sales trailers and/or model homes. No trees or vegetation will be altered. City of Renton TREE RETENTIO WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter 1 on project site: 1. ----=-N-=.a-'N:.........:.~_ trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 Trees in proposed public streets Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 2. 3. ____ trees ____ trees ____ trees ____ trees ______ trees ______ trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4 , multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RG, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. ______ trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain4 : 6. Subtract line Sfrom line 4 for trees to be replaced: (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 5. _____ trees 6. ______ trees 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. ______ inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. _______ inches 9. Divide line 7by line Bfor number of replacement trees6 : (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 1. Measured at chest height. 9. per tree ______ trees 2. Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist. and approved by the City. 3. Critical Areas, such as wetlands. streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 4. Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. s. The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4·130H7a 6. Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. H:DivisionIForms/freeRetentiunWorksheel 11/07 LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS, LOT COVERAGE, PARKING ANALYSIS FRONTIER BANK PROTOTYPE BANK BRANCH 201 SOUTH THIRD STREET RENTON, WA 98057 The site is 19,920 square feet and the proposed bank branch will have a footprint of 4,100 square feet. The existing impervious surfaces on the site are 19,642 square feet and the proposed impervious surface area will be 17,266 square feet. The proposed bank branch building will have 4,100 square feet on the first floor with an additional 448 square feet of mechanical space above the employee only area of the branch. The proposed building will cover 21 % of the lot which is less than the 65% allowed in the Commercial Arterial zone. City of Renton code allows for 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Based on a net floor area of 3,704 square feet, we would be allowed to have 15 parking spaces. There are eight 90-degree parking spaces at 9'-0" wide by 20'-0" long. There is one van accessible parking space that is 9'-0" wide by 20'-0" long with an 8'-0" wide by 20'-0" long loading area adjacent There are six 45-degree parking spaces that are 9'-0" wide by 20'-8" long. A 15 minute load/unload space is also provided. Parking lot landscaping is required at 15 square feet of landscaping per parking space. 225 square feet of landscaping would be required per RMC 4-4-080F7vi. 2,654 square feet of landscape is provided, with 1,142 square feet provided as internal and perimeter around the parking lot, and 763 square feet of that is at least 5'-0" in width. The size and location of each particular landscape area is shown on drawing number L 1 Landscape Plan. p\J'J'lNING 'lE'J~~~~~f;NTON NOV 7. Ii 2\l\l8 ~ECf.N'EO CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION FRONTIER BANK PROTOTYPE BANK BRANCH 201 SOUTH THIRD STREET RENTON, WA 98057 Anticipated construction timeline is March 2009 to September 2009. Hours of construction will be consistent with City of Renton's approved working hour requirements. Any deviation of these hours will be done with prior approval from the City of Renton on-site building official. Anticipated hours will be M-F 7 am to 5 pm. General contractor will finalize proposed hauling routes, but assume they will go east on South 3'd Street and take the shortest direct route to the interstate or to the off load facility. Erosion control will be controlled with silt fences and other approved techniques through the City of Renton. Since site is already paved over, we anticipate the site to be fairly clean until the new parking lot is ready to be installed. Methods will be implemented by general contractor to keep City of Renton streets clean from mud and debris. No special hours proposed at this time for construction of hauling of materials. General contractor will be responsible for providing traffic control when needed (blocking one lane of 3'd Ave, flaggers, etc.) for the shortest time possible to achieve the task at hand. '. .. Botesch, Nash & Hall ................. Arch~ects, P.S. November 10, 200B Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 9B059 ~~ tmY Vtt 'lOOt \ttBtI.\VEO Subject: PARKING MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR STACKING Frontier Bank Site Info: 201 South Third Street Renton, WA 9B057 BN&H Project No. 07-1012 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Implementing Zone: Land Use Restriction: Reference Code No.: Urban Center Design Overlay: Dear Ms Dolbee: Commercial Corridor (CC) Commercial Arterial (CA) Rainier Avenue Business District RMC 4-3-040 District A This letter is to request approval for the provision of 3 stacking spaces per drive-through lane for this new banking facility. Please see the attached Traffic Impact and Queue Analysis -GTC #OB-179, dated November 7, 200B, prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC). In their report, GTC has determined that this banking facility will generate a need for stacking space for one vehicle per lane at both lanes during the PM peak-hour. The site plan design provides for 3 stacking spaces per drive-through lane. This design therefore complies with the RMC 4-4-0B F 10 e requirement that "The drive-through facility shall be so located that sufficient on-site vehicle stacking space is provided for the handling of motor vehicles using such facility during peak business hours." The design provides more stacking space than the GTC Queue Analysis has determined is needed. a. This site design therefore substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. 2727 Oakes Avenue. Everett. WA 98201 • 425-259-0868 • 877-857-8972 • Fax 425-252-4334 • email bnh@bnharch.com I '" • 07-1012 Frontier Bank -Renton November 10, 2008 Page 2 012 b. The 3 stacking spaces are located directly and entirely behind the bank building proper and are thus fully screened from view from South Third Street. This provision will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based on sound engineering judgment. c. The 3 stacking spaces are located tight to the rear wall of the bank building and more than 22 ft. away from the rear, or nearest, property line. This site design will therefore not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity. d. Based on the determination in the GTC Queue Analysis, the site design provides for more stacking spaces than will be required by actual usage. This design conforms to the intent and purpose of the code to provide sufficient on-site vehicle stacking space. e. The GTC Queue Analysis has been provided to show the calculated stacking space needs for this specific bank facility at this site. The site plan design provides more stacking space than the report calls for. This design is shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended. f. Accurate calculation of the stacking space needs for this specific facility minimizes the amount of paved area needed for that function and therefore allows on-site space for other site amenities, including additional landscaping. This is a benefit to other properties in the vicinity and to the community as a whole. This site design will not create adverse impacts to other property(s) in the vicinity. Please advise if you require additional information or documentation in support of this request. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, BOTESCH, NASH & HALL ARCHITECTS, P.S. Deric Von Schlieder, AlA Associate 1 atch.: Gibson Traffic Consultants, Traffic Impact and Queue Analysis -GTC #08-179 2915 HewitlAvenue • Everett. WA 98201 • 425-259-0868 • 877-857-8972. Fax425-252-4334 • email bnh@bnharch.com PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057· Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: <Jt;: VELOPMENT CITY OF F!Ekr~N/NG NOV 262008 RECEIVED The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non project actions (actions involving decisions on pOlicies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. S:\06-1046 Frontier Bank Renton\Oocumentation\Pennit Submittal\SEPA Checklist.doc • 1 • 02/08 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: FRONTIER BANK 2. Name of applicant: BOTESCH, NASH AND HALL ARCHITECTS 2727 OAKES AVENUE, SUITE 100 EVERETT, WA 98201 425.259.0868 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: DERIC VON SCHLIEDER, AlA (SEE ABOVE) 4. Date checklist prepared: Nov. 21, 2008 5. Agency requesting checklist: CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): SITE DEMOLITION AND CLEAN-UP COMPLETE NEW CONSTRUCTION TO START MARCH 2009 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes. explain. NO PLANS FOR FUTURE ADDITIONS, EXPANSIONS OR FURTHER ACTIVITY 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared. directly related to this proposal. SITE CLOSURE REPORT WAS PREPARED BY FALLON CONSULTING LLC FOR A STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE 1 CLEAN UP. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes. explain. NO APPLICATIONS PENDING. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. CITY OF RENTON BUILDING PERMIT SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. CONSTRUCT A 4,500 SF FRONTIER BANK PROTOTYPE BRANCH BUILDING WITH 15 PARKING SPACES ON A 120' X 166' LOT LOCATED AT 201 S. THIRD STREET. 8:106-1046 Frontier Bank RentonlDocumentationlPennit 8ubmittallSEPA Checklist.doc -2-02108 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 201 S. THIRD STREET, RENTON WA. 98055. SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one);FLAT, rolling. hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) LESS THAN 1% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. INTERBEDDED LOOSE SIL TV FINE GRAINED SAND (RECENT ALLUVIUM) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NOT THAT WE ARE AWARE OF AT THIS TIME. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. APPROX. 200 CY OF CUT WILL BE REMOVED AND 50 CY FILL WILL BE IMPORTED. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. SITE IS ASPHALT PAVING CURRENTLY. EROSION COULD OCCUR DURING CONSTRUCTION DEPENDANT ON WEATHER CONDITIONS. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 86.6% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: EROSION CONTROL WILL COMPLY WITH DOE'S CURRENT EDITION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (I.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. AUTOMOBILE ODORS b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NONE AT THIS TIME. 5:\06-1046 Frontier Bank Renton\Oocumentation\Permit Submittal\SEPA Checklist.doc -3-02108 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wellands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. NONE 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. NO 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NO AMOUNT OF FILL AND DREDGE MATERIALWOULD BE PLACED IN OR REMOVED FROM SURFACE WATER OR WETLANDS. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. SURFACE WATER WILL BE DIRECTED TO CONVEYENCE SYSTEM IN S. 3RD STREET. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 ~O-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. NO 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NO b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NO 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. DOMESTIC SEWAGE FROM 2 WATER CLOSETS, 3 SINKS SERVING APPROX. 10- 12 EMPLOYEES c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. RAIN IS MAJOR SOURCE OF RUNOFF INTO STORM WATER SYSTEM. COLLECTION WITH CATCH BASINS AND DOWNSPOUTS TO CONVEYANCE SYSTEM IN S. 3RD STREET. S:I()6..1046 Frontier Bank Renton\DocumentationlPerrnit SubmittanSEPA Checktist.doc -4-02/08 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NOT NORMALLY UNLESS SOMETHING IS DELIBERATLY POURED INTO STORM WATER SYSTEM. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: NONE AT THIS TIME. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ~ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ~ SHRUBS __ grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other __ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 278 SF OF WEEDS AND GRASSES WILL BE REMOVED FROM SITE. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 2,797 SF OF LANDSCAPE (LAWN, GROUNDCOVER, SHRUBS, TREES) WILL BE ADDED TO SITE. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other NONE NONE NONE b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain NO d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: PLANTING TREES THAT COULD END UP AS HOMES FOR BIRDS. 5:\06-1046 Frontier Bank Renton\Documentation\Pennit Submittal\SEPA Checklist.doc ·5· 02108 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating. manufacturing, etc. NATURAL GAS IELECTRICITY WILL BE USED FOR HEATING/COOLING. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. PROJECT SHOULD NOT AFFECT POTENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY OFF SITE. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts. if any: HIGH EFFICIENT HVAC UNITS, INSULATED WALLS/ROOF, LOW-E TINTED WINDOW GLAZING. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. 1) 2) b. 1) 2) 3) Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NONE Describe special emergency services that might be required. NONE Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NONE Noise What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? NONE What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-temn basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. CONSTRUCTION NOISE DURING AHJ REQUIRED WORKING HOURS DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: WORK WILL TAKE PLACE DURING AHJ APPROVED WORKING HOURS. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT. PREVIOUS BUSINESSES INCLUDED CAR DEALERSHIP AND GAS STATION. b. Has the sije been used for agriculture? If so, describe. NOT THAT WE ARE AWARE AT THIS TIME. 5:106-1046 Frontier Bank Renton\DocumentationlPermit 5ubmittailSEPA Checklist.doc -6-02108 c. Describe any structures on the site. EXISTING 1-STORY STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? EXISTING STRUCTURE HAS ALREADY BEEN DEMOLISHED. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL (CA), RAINIER AVENUE BUSINESS DISTRICT f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (CC) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? THE SITE HAS NO CURRENT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DESIGNATION. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. NO. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 10-12 EMPLOYEES WILL WORK IN COMPLETED PROJECT j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NOT SURE OF NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES AT PREVIOUS USED CAR LOT. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NONE AT THIS TIME. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: PRE-APPLICATION MEETING WITH CITY OF RENTON 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NONE. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NONE. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NONE AT THIS TIME. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. 33'-6" IS THE HEIGHT OF ROOF PEAK. PRINCIPAL EXTERIOR MATERIAL IS BRICK, CEMENT FIBER SIDING, GLAZING AND METAL ROOF. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NONE AWARE OF AT THIS TIME. 5:\06-1046 Frontier Bank Renton\Oocumentation\Permit Submittal\SEPA Checklist.doc -7-02108 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: BUILDING CONSISTS OF SETBACKS, HEIGHT VARIATIONS AND MODULATIONS. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? LIGHTS IN PARKING LOT AT NIGHT TIME. LIGHTS FROM BUILDING SIGNAGE, b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NOT AWARE OF AT THIS TIME. c, What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NOT AWARE OF ANY AT THIS TIME. d, Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: PARKING LIGHTS WILL BE SHIELDED TO PREVENT LIGHT POLLUTION SPILLING ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 12. RECREATION a, What deSignated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? NOT AWARE OF ANY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. b, Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NO. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: NONE AT THIS TIME 13, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe, NOT AWARE OF ANY AT THIS TIME. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NOT AWARE OF ANY AT THIS TIME. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: NO PROPOSALS AT THIS TIME, 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. SOUTH 3RD STREET. SITE WILL HAVE ONE INGRESS AND TWO EGRESS POINTS OFF OF SOUTH 3RD STREET. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest tranSit stop? NO. TRANSIT STOP .2 MILES TO THE SW. TRANSIT STOP .3 MILES EAST. 8:106-1046 Frontier Bank Renton\Documentation\PermH SubmittallSEPA Checklist.doc -8-02108 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 15 PARKING SPACES. 9 PARKING SPACES ELIMINATED d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? NO e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. NO f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 270 DAILY TRIPS. PEAK VOLUMES BETWEEN 12-1 PM g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: NONE AT THIS TIME 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. NO INCREASE IN PUBLIC SERVICE REQUIRED. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. NONE AT THIS TIME 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: City of Renton SEWER: City of Renton ELECTRIC: Puget Sound Energy NATURAL GAS: Puget Sound Energy REFUSE SERVICE: Rainer Waste Management TELEPHONE: Qwest Communications C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understOOd that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Date: S:1()6..1046 Frontier Bank RentonlDOctJmentationlPermit SubmittallSEPA Checklist.doc -9-02108 ~~~(Ql~ T[gjt%[P[P~~ C(QllNl~llil[L Ut%[N]u~ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2802 WETMORE AVE .• SUITE 220 • EVERETI, WA 98201 • PH: (425) 339-8266 • FAX: (425) 258-2922 November 7, 2008 Ms. Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineer Supervisor City of Renton, Public Works Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Re: 4,100 SF Frontier Bank at Renton with 2 Drive-In Lanes Traffic Impact and Queue Analysis -GTC #08-179 Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) has been retained by Boetsch, Nash & Hall Architects to provide a traffic study for the proposed 4,100 SF Frontier Bank with 2 drive-in lanes located at 201 South Third Street in the City of Renton. This technical memorandum is intended to provide the City of Renton with the necessary traffic generation and queue length analysis at the bank drive-in lanes to facilitate their review of the development. SITE DEVELOPMENT The Renton Frontier Bank development is proposed to consist of a 4, I 00 SF bank with 2 drive- in lanes. The proposed Frontier Bank would be located at 201 South Third Street in the City of Renton. The development proposes two access connections on South Third Street. The proposed Frontier Bank is anticipated to be fully constructed and functional by the year 2010. TRIP GENERATION The Institute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) Trip Generation, 7'h Edition is the nationally accepted source for trip generation estimates for specific land uses. The trip generation estimates include trip generation rates and equations for time periods such as average daily traffic, morning and evening peak-hours for typical weekday, Saturday and Sunday. The ITE rates represent the national averages and may vary from area to area as demonstrated by the range of rates included in ITE Trip Generation, 7'h Edition for specific land uses. The ITE trip generation estimates for the drive-in bank locations are based on relatively older studies that do not include variations in banking style due to the increase in online banking and installation of off-site ATM and grocery store/cash back banking facilities in recent years that have reduced the number of trips to the bank. In addition, banks located in central business COUNTS/SURVEYS. SITE IMPACTS· LOS ANALYSIS. EIS • HEARINGS· SAFETY· SIGNALS· PARKING Ms. Kayren Kittrick November 7, 2008 Page 2 district (CBD) areas have different trip generation patterns, as compared to banks located in urban or sub-urban areas, which is not reflected in the ITE data. Therefore, GTC conducted trip generation studies to estimate average daily traffic (ADT) and PM peak-hour trip generation rates for Frontier Banks with drive-in facilities. Frontier Bank locations in Snohomish County and King County were studied to determine the trip generation rates for Frontier Banks. The trip generation studies performed by GTC are included as attachments to this report. The trip generation studies performed by GTC identified the following ADT and PM peak-hour trip generation rates: • 133.38 Daily trips per Drive-In Lane • 85.56 Daily trips per SF • 22.77 PM peak-hour trips per Drive-In Lane • 14.50 PM peak-hour trips per SF An average of the trip generation per drive-in lane and square footage has been used for the daily and PM peak-hour trip generation calculations. The proposed 4,100 SF Frontier Bank with 2 drive-in lanes, based on the above rates, would generate a total 0(308.78 average daily trips with 52.50 PM peak-hour trips. This trip generation respresents the total trips that would be generated at the proposed Frontier Bank and does not include a credit for any pass-by trips. A summary of the proposed development's total trip generation has been included in Table 1. The trip generation calculations have been included in the attachments. It is important to note that the trip generation is based on trips and is not the total number of vehicles that will visit the site. The trip generation is double the number of vehicles that will visit the site since each vehicle generates an inbound and outbound trip. The number of vehicles that will visit the site is therefore approximately 155 for the average day and approximately 27 vehicles during the PM peak-hour. QUEUING ANALYSIS GTC contacted Frontier Bank staff to obtain the percentage of customers utilizing the drive-in lanes as well as the walk-in visits at the existing Frontier Bank facilities. Based on the discussion with the bank staff, it was determined that 32.40% of bank customers utilize drive-in lanes while the remaining 67.60% of customers prefer to park and then walk-in to the bank. The bank staff further indicated the average service time per customer utilizing drive-in lane is in between 3 and 4 minutes. A summary of the percentage of customers utilizing drive-in lanes versus walk-in visits has been included in Table 2. The number of customers that would utilize the drive-in lanes, based on the estimated 32.40% split, is estimated to be 9 vehicles during the typical weekday PM peak-hour. Ms. Kayren Kittrick November 7, 2008 Page 3 The queuing analysis for the proposed Frontier Bank has been performed utilizing the average service rate of 3.S minutes per drive-in vehicle. The proposed 2 drive-in lanes, with a service rate of 3.S minutes per vehicle, could serve approximately 34 drive-in vehicles in an hour. The queuing analysis indicates a maximum of two vehicles, or one vehicle per drive-in lane, on average at the proposed Frontier Bank. This is based on a 99% confidence interval of the number of vehicles in the drive-in lanes. GTC also performed queuing analysis based using ITE PM peak-hour trip generation rates, which are higher than the rates determined from the study of existing Frontier Bank locations. The ITE trip generation rates for the PM peak-hour are: • SI.08 PM peak-hour trips per Drive-In Lane • 4S.74 PM peak-hour trips per SF Utilizing the average of the above ITE PM peak-hour trip generation rates, the proposed 4,100 SF Frontier Bank would generate total 144.8S PM peak-hour trips with an even split, SO% inbound and SO% outbound. This trip generation equates to approximately 73 vehicles during the PM peak-hour. The number of customers utilizing the drive-in lanes, based on the estimated 32.40% split, is estimated to be 25 vehicles during the typical weekday PM peak-hour. The queuing analysis with the ITE trip generation indicates a maximum of four vehicles, or two vehicles per drive-in lane, based on a 99% confidence interval of the number of vehicles in the drive-in lanes. CONCLUSION GTC performed queuing analysis for the proposed Frontier Bank utilizing the average service rate of 3.5 minutes per drive-in vehicle and trip generation data from existing Frontier Bank locations and from ITE. The proposed 2 drive-in lanes, at a service rate of 3.5 minutes per vehicle, could serve approximately 34 drive-in vehicles in an hour. The existing Frontier Bank trip generation data showed that there would only be an average of 2 vehicles in the system, one vehicle per lane, during the PM peak-hour. This is equal to a queue length of 0 vehicles per lane The higher ITE trip generation data showed that there would only be an average of 4 vehicles in the system, two vehicles per lane, during the PM peak-hour. This is equal to a queue length of 1 vehicle per lane. The development is proposing to provided adequate spacing to hold 6 total vehicles, equivalent to 3 vehicles per drive-in lane. Therefore, the provided capacity of 3 vehicles exceeds the projected maximum demand of two vehicles based on ITE's PM peak-hour trip generation rates, the highest trip generation scenario. Ms. Kayren Kittrick November 7, 2008 Page 4 GTC trusts that this report adequately addresses the traffic analysis and queuing impacts of the proposed Frontier Bank. This report should allow the City of Renton to complete their review of the development. GTC can be contacted at (425) 339-8266 if there are any questions or comments regarding the information documented herein. Sincerely, GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradly J. Lincoln, PE Traffic Engineer CC: Deric Von Schlieder, Boetsch, Nash & Hall Architects, P.S. Proposed Land Use Variable 2 Drive-In Lanes Drive-In Bank 4,100 SF Frontier Bank at Renton GTC#08-179 TABLE! TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Rate Daily PM Peak 133.38 Per Drive-In Lane 22.77 Per Drive-In Lane 85.56 Per SF 14.50 Per SF -~-- Total Trips Daily PM Peak 266.76 45.54 350.80 59.45 ------ , Average I Daily PM Peak 308.78 52.50 I I ~mID@@[K!J RAFFle @u::!l ~ [UJ IL 'jf' & ~'jf'~ Frontier Bank Location Everett Mall Way Branch Lake Stevens Branch Frontier Bank at Renton GTC#08-179 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF CUSTOMER TRIPS AT EXISTING FRONTIER BANK SITES Total Customers Drive-In Lane Walk-In Total 31 84 115 28 46 74 Percentage (%) Drive-In Lane Walk-In 26.96% 73.04% 37.84% 62.16% Average Percentage (%) Drive-In Lane Walk-In 32.40% 67.60% ~O@@@[NJ RAFFle - ©1J\fI ~ Illlll.lf L!\ IJ\fIlf~ Proposed Land Use Variable 2 Drive-In Lanes Drive-In Bank 4,100 SF -------- Frontier Bank at Renton GTe #08-179 TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY -BASED ON ITE Trip Rate Total Trips Daily PM Peak Daily PM Peak 246.40 Per Drive-In Lane 22.77 Per Drive-In Lane 822.34 102.16 246.49 Per SF 14.50 Per SF 1,010.61 187.53 Average Daily PM Peak 916.48 144.85 . ~ OIID~@[l\!l RAFFle @[i:!]@(!J)IL'IT'&'[i:!] 'IT' ~ .I. .lVllU. .... .LJUJ.J..l'\. (.n .l'\.\,o.lUVll GTC#08-179 Queuiug Analysis -Bsed on GTe's Trip Generation Study Inbound Trips (veblhr): Time at station (min): Time at station (hr): A (arrival rate in vehlbr): 11 (service rate in vehlbr): Service Positions (8) p =)J1l 9 3.5 0.058333 8.51 34.29 2 0.248208 Probability of V ebicles in System: p{O} 0.779195 p{3} p{4} 0.999948 p{5} 0.999993 p{6} 0.999999 p{7} I p{8} p(9} 1 p{IO} I p{ll} 1 Average Queue Length (veh): 0.003883 Average Vebicles in System: 0.252091 Average Time in System (min): 1.777375 Time in Queue (min): 0.027375 };( (p )"s )lsi 0 1 I 0.248208 2 0.030804 3 0.002549 4 0.000158 5 7.85E-06 6 3.25E-07 7 U5E-08 8 3.57E-1O 9 9.85E-12 10 2.45E-13 11 5.52E-15 p"(s+l) 0.015291 p"s 0.061607 sIs 4 s !(I-pls) 1.751791667 I/(I-pls )"2 1.303452109 GTC#08-179 Queuing Analysis -Bsed on !TE' Trip Genemtion Rates Inbound Trips (veblhr): Time at station (min): Time at station (hr): A (arrival rate in veblhr): J.l (service rate in veblhr): Service Positions (s) p=IJJ.l 25 3.5 0.058333 24.77 34.29 2 0.722458 Probability of Vebicles in System: p{O} 0.46926 p{l} 0.808281 p{2} 0.930746 p{5} 0.996736 p{6} 0.998821 p{7} 0.999574 p{8} 0.999846 p{9} 0.999944 p{IO} 0.99998 p{ll} 0.999993 Average Queue Length (veh): ·0.108418 Average Vehicles in System: 0.830877 Average Time in System (min): 2.01262 Time in Queue (min): 0.26262 LeCp)"s )Is! 0 1 1 0.722458 2 0.260973 3 0.062847 4 0.011351 5 0.00164 6 0.000197 7 2.04E-05 8 1.84E-06 9 1.48B-07 10 1.07E-08 11 7.0IE-IO p"(s+l) sIs 0.377084 4 s !(I-pls) 1.277541667· I/(l-pls )"2 2.450811133 Appendix A ~ ~ ® @ ~ T [RL% ~ ~ ~ © c @ ~ ~ ~ [L u ~ [NJ U~ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2802WETMOREAVE.· SUITE220' EVERETI,WA98201 • PH: (425)339-8266 • FAX.: (425)258-2922 I -INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 1" Edition is the nationally accepted source for trip generation estimates for specific land uses. The trip generation estimates include trip generation rates and equations for time periods such as average daily traffic, morning and evening peak-hours for typical weekday, Saturday and Sunday. The ITE rates represent national averages and may vary from area to area as demonstrated by the range of rates included in ITE Trip Generation, 1h Edition for specific land uses. The ITE trip generation estimates for drive-in bank locations are based on relatively older studies that do not include variations in banking style due to the increase in online banking and installation of off-site ATM and grocery store/cash back banking facilities in recent years that have reduced the number of trips to the bank. In addition, banks located in central bnsiness district (CBD) areas have different trip generation patterns, as compared to banks located in urban or sub-urban areas, which is not reflected in the ITE data. Frontier Bank has therefore retained Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) to conduct a trip generation study for their banks with drive-in facilities. The purpose of this study is to develop Daily and PM peak-hour trip generation rates for the standard sized drive-in Frontier Bank facilities. These trip generation rates are based on extensive trip surveys, questionnaires and customer transaction details obtained from the bank staff plus Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and PM peak-hour traffic counts obtained from two independent traffic count firms. This study also compares the new trip generation rates obtained from the data to the ITE trip generation rates. Definitions A listing of terms used in this report is included below. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is the total volume passing a roadway segment in both directions during a 24-hour period. Peak-Hour is the morning and evening one hour period when the highest number of trips for a given land-use occurs on the adjacent street. The AM peak-hour typically occurs between 7:00 and 9;00 AM and the PM peak-hour typically occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. COUNTSISURVEYS • SITE IMPACTS· LOS ANALYSIS· EIS • HEARINGS· SAFETY· SIGNALS· PARKING Mr. Michael Mertins November 6, 2008 Page 2 Trip refers to a single vehicle movement With the study site being either the origin or destinatipn. Trip Ratio is the total number of trips per unit of a specific .variable, such as square feet (SF) or drive-in lanes. Pass-by Trips are defined as trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a . primary destination Without route diversion. Pass-by trips are attracted from existing traffic passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to the generator. II -METHODOLOGY Site Selection GTC followed trip generation study procedures outlined in Chapter 4 of the 1TE Trip Generation Handbook r Edition. ITE recommends surveying at least three sites to establish a local trip generation rate or validate ITE's trip generation rate. In addition, ITE also outlines the following main criteria for identifying the sites for collection of trip generation data: .• The site should have reasonably full occupancy and should have good economic standing. • The development should be located in urban or commercial district areas and should be in business for at least 2 years. . • There should be minimal to no on-site construction or adjacent roadway construction near the site. • The site should be. selected on the ability to obtain accurate trip generation and development characteristics. • The data needed to describe the independent variables should be available. Based on these criteria, GTC selected the following four drive-in Frontier Bank locations: • Smokey Point branch -3,600 SF • Snohomish branch -3,600 SF • Lynnwood branch -2,700 SF • Redmond branch -2,77 5 SF All four locations have two drive-in lanes. The typical bank hours for all locations are 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM from Monday to Thursday and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Fridays. Mr. Michael Mertins November 6, 2008 Page 3 Procedure GTe obtained manual trip survey and vehicle count results at the four bank sites to estimate the Daily and PM peak-hour trip generation rates. The trip generation rates were determined for square feet (SF) and drive-in variables. The pass-by trip/count surveys (Figure 5.17 in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2"'1 Edition) were conducted for three consecutive days by bank staff to estimate the total new, pass-by and diverted link trips (including both customers and . employees) during the nonnal banking hours. GTe had surveys conducted between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM to ensure both employees and customers were captured during the typical weekday bank hours. In addition, GTe also contracted the independent traffic count firms of All Traffic Data and Traffic Plus to conduct three consecutive days of PM peak-hour and 24-hour ADT tube counts. Note: The trip count surveys (bank staff) and traffic counts (traffic count firms) were conducted on different days to account for variability in the number of customers. The total new trip results obtained from the trip count survey conducted by bank staff and traffic counts conducted by independent traffic count firms were averaged to estimate daily and PM peak-hour trip generation rates for each bank. The trip generation rates were analyzed in terms of square-feet (SF) and drive-in lane variables to be consistent with the ITE methodology. The derived trip generation rates for 4 different bank locations were then averaged to obtain Daily and PM peak-hour trip generation rates. ill-DATA ANALYSIS Smokey Point Branch The Smokey Point location is a 3,600 SF drive-in bank facility with 9 full-time employees. It has two drive.-in lanes and is located at 3506 168 th Street NE in Arlington, Washington. GTe obtained 3-day extensive trip count survey data from bank staff from September 18 to September 20,2007. The trip count survey was conducted from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM to capture both employee and customer trips. In addition, GTe also obtained 3-day PM peak-hour traffic counts plus 24-hour ADT tube counts from Traffic Plus. The ADT and PM peak traffic counts were conducted from July 24 to July 26,2007. Average Daily Trips (ADT) The average of trip count survey from bank staff yields rates of 83.15 daily trips per 1,000 SF and 148.33 daily trips per drive-in lane. The average of 24-hour tube counts from Traffic Plus yields rates of 82.41 daily trips per 1,000 SF and 149.67 daily trips per drive-in lane. The average of daily trip generation rates from the trip count surveys and the 24-hour tube counts yields daily trip generation rates of 82.78 daily trips per 1,000 SF and 149.00 daily trips per drive-in lane at this location. Mr. Michael Mertins November 6, 2008 Page 4 PM Peak-Hour The average of trip count survey from bank staff yields rates of 9.72 PM peak-hour trips per 1,000 SF and 17.50 PM peak-hour trips per drive-in lane. The average of PM peak-hour traffic counts from Traffic Plus yields rates of 14.81 PM peak-hour trips per 1,000 SF and 26:67 PM peak-hour trips per drive-in lane. The average of the PM peak-hour trip generation rates from the trip count surveys and the PM peak-hour traffic counts yield peak trip generation rates of· 12.27 PM peak-hour trips per 1,000 SF and 22.08 PM peak-hour trips per drive-in lane at this location. Snohomish Branch The Snohomish location is a 3,600 SF drive-in bank facility with 9 full-time employees. It is located at 818 Avenue D in Snohomish, Washington. GTe obtained 3-day 24-hour tube counts and PM peak-hour traffic counts from Traffic Plus at this location. The PM peak-hour traffic counts were conducted on July 24 to July 26, 2007 and the 24-hour tube counts were conducted on August 14 to August 16,2007. Average Daily Trips (ADI) The average ·of the 3-day 24-hour ADT coUnts yields rates of 72.31 daily trips per 1,000 SF and 130.17 daily trips per drive-in lane at this location. PM Peak-Hour The average of the 3-day PM peak-hour traffic counts yields rates of 15.00 PM peak trips per 1,000 SF and 27.00 PM peak-hour trips per drive-in lane at this location. Lynnwood Branch The Lynnwood location is a 2,700 SF drive-in bank facility with 12 full-time employees. It is located at 21111 Hwy 99 in Lynnwood, Washington. GTe obtained 3-day PM peak-hour trip counts from All Traffic Data (AID). The PM peak-hour traffic counts were conducted between July 31 and August 2, 2007. The bank has one site driveway on 212th Street SW and one on Hwy 99, which represents significant potential for cut-through traffic from 212th Street SW to Hwy 99. GTe therefore requested Frontier bank staff to provide customer transaction details from September 18 to September 20,2007, which provides a more accurate estimate of customer trips. The bank staff provided the following transaction details: Mr. Michael Mertins November 6, 2008 PageS • 175 transactions (117 lobby + 58 drive-in) on September 18th • 1.75 transactions (124 lobby + 51 drive-in) on September 19 th • 228 transactions (147 lobby + 81 drive-in) on September 20th Average Daily Trips (ADT) Based on discussions with bank staff, drive-in transactions accounted for singular customer . trips. Each drive-in transaction is therefore equivalent to two customer trips (1 inbound and I outbound). However, the lobby transactions did include a few multiple transactions per customer plus internal bank transactions. For daily trip generation estimates, GTe has assumed that evety bank transaction is equivalent to two daily trips which is vety conservative since it does not account for multiple transactions by a single customer. The average of the 3-day bank transactions therefore yields trip generation rates of 142.72 daily trips per 1,000 SF and 192.67 daily trips per drive-in lane at this location. PM Peak-Hour The average of the 3-day PM peak-hour traffic counts yields rates of 17.65 PM peak-hour trips per 1,000 SF and 23.83 PM peak-hour trips per drive-in lane at this location. Redmond Branch The Redmond location is a 2,775 SF drive-in bank facility with 12 full-time employees. It is located at 17000 Avondale Way NE in Redmond, Washington. GTe obtained 2-day extensive trip count survey data from bank staff. The trip. count surveys were conducted between September 18 and September 19,2007. In addition, GTe also obtained PM peak-hour traffic coUnts from All Traffic Data. The PM peak-hour traffic counts were conducted between August 1 and August 2, 2007. The bank has four site access connections, two on Avondale Way NE and two on NE 79th Street. Bank staff noted that there is moderate cut-through traffic along bank driveways from NE 79th Street to Avondale Way NE and vice-versa. Therefore, GTe only utilized trip count survey data from bank staff to determine trip generation estimates for average daily traffic, rather than data from bank staff and tube counts. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) The average of the 3-day trip count survey from bank staff yields rates of 44.44 daily trips per 1,000 SF and 61.67 daily trips per drive-in lane at this location. Mr. Michael Mertins November 6, 2008 Page 6 PM Peak-Hour The average of trip count survey from bank staff yields rates of 8.53 PM peak-trips per 1,000 SF and 11.83 PM peak-trips per drive-in lane at this location. The average of PM peak traffic counts from All Traffic Data yields 17.66 PM peak-trips per 1,000 SF and 24.50 PM peak-trips per drive-in lane. The average of PM peak-hour trip generation rates from trip count survey and PM peak traffic counts yields 13.10 PM peak-trips per 1,000 SF and 18.17 PM peak-trips per· drive-in lane at this location. Summary The Daily and PM peak-trip generation estimates for the above 4 bank locations are included in Table 1 and Table 2 for square-feet (SF) and drive-in variables, respectively. The trip generation calculations are included in the attachments. IV -CONCLUSION Summary GTC utilized trip count surveys (bank sta£t) 'plus 24-hour ADT and PM peak-hour traffic counts (independent traffic count firms) to estimate Daily and PM peak-hour trip generation rates at the four Frontier Bank drive-in bank locations. All the four banks are located in urban or business district areas in close proximity to major highways or arterials. GTC utilized an average of trip generation estimates at the four bank locations to t$mate final Daily and PM peak-hour trip generation rates for Frontier Banks with drive-in facilities which are summarized below: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for aU Banks Surveyed (before pass-by reduction) The average of the daily trip generation rates at the four bank locations yields rates of: • 85.56 Daily trips per 1,000 SF • 133.38 Daily trips per drive-in lane These rates are for drive-in Frontier Bank locations. A snmmary of Daily trip generation nites is included in Table 1 for the 1,000 SF variable and Table 2 for the drive-in lane variable. Mr. Michael Mertins November 6, 2008 Page 7 PM Peak-Hour for All banks surveys (before pass-by reduction) The average of the PM peak-hour trip generation rates at the four bank locations yields rates of: • 14.50 PM peak trips per 1,000 SF • 22.77 PM peak trips per drive-in lane These rates are for drive-in Frontier Bank locations. A summary of the PM peak-hour trip generation rates is included in Table 1 for the 1,000 SF variable and Table 2 for the drive-in lane variable. The data in this report should allow walk-in Frontier Bank locations to use the trip generation rates in this report, as compared to data contained in the ITE Trip Generation, 7'h Edition. Comparison GTC made a quantitative comparison of the locally developed trip generation rates with the ITE trip generation rates. The lTE Trip Generation Manual fh Edition specifies trip generation rates of246.49 Daily and 45.74 PM peak-hour trips per 1,000 SF. The trip generation rates per drive- in lane are 411.17 Daily and 51.08 PM peak-hour trips. The Daily arid PM peak-hour trip generation rates from ITE are higher than the rates in this trip generation study. The ITE trip generation estimates are based on relatively older studies that do not account for recent advancements of online banking, cash back options at retailers, grocery store and credit union banking options as well as a significant growth in off-site ATM facilities; all of which significantly reduce trips to standard banks In addition, ITE rates represent national averages and may vary from area to area, as demonstrated by the range of rates presented in ITE's Trip Generation, fh Edition. GTC trusts that this trip generation study and attachments adequateJ y present data to establish trip generation rates for Frontier Bank locations with drive-in facilites. If there are any questions concerning the analysis in this report, please call GTC at (425) 339-8266. Sincerely, GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradly J. Lincoln, PE Traffic Engineer Attachments Drive-In Frontier Bank GTC#07-171 PM P""k-Hour Traffic Counts (Traffic Plus) -Smokey Point D at at Total Hourly Hourly Volumes PM PM Peak Time 7am-8am 8am-9am 9am-lOam 10am-llam 11 am-12pm 12 pm -1 pm 1 pm-2pm 2pm-3pm 3pm-4pm 4pm-5pm 5pm-6pm Total Time 7am-8am 8am-9am 9am-l0am lOam-II am II am-12pm 12pm-1 pm lpm-2pm 2om-3pm 3om-4pm 4pm-5pm 5mn-6pm Total Time 7am-8am 8am-9am 9am-IOam 10am-llam II am -12 pm 12 pm-I pm I pm-2pm 2pm-3pm 3 pm -4pm 4pm-5pm 5pm-6prn Total Drive-In Frontier Bank GTe #07-171 Pass-bY Survev -Frontier Bank at Smol<ev Point Tuesday, 09118/07 Employee Customer Trips Total Trips Ne", Pass-by Diverted Daily Trips Trips Link Trips Trip. 2 0 0 0 2 6 8 0 0 14 I 8 12 6 27 0 18 22 6 46 0 18 12 2 32 0 24 8 8 40 0 16 16 4 36 0 14 6 8 28 0 10 10 8 28 I 14 10 6 31 8 0 0 2 10 18 130 96 50 292 Wednesday, 09119107 Employee Customer Trips Total New Pass-by Diverted Daily Trip' Trip. Trip, Linl' TriP' Trips 2 0 0 0 2 6 4 0 8 18 I 22 20 4 47 0 16 JO 8 34 0 22 6 8 36 0 32 12 2 46 0 10 12 2 24 0 18 16 8 42 0 12 10 6 28 I 10 24 0 35 8 0 0 0 8 18 146 110 46 318 Thunday, 09120/07 Employee Customer Trips Total New Pass-by Diverted Dally Trips Trip. Trip. Link Trip. Trips 2 0 0 0 2 6 4 0 0 10 I 16 6 o. 23 0 12 8 2 22 0 10 20 4 34 0 12 2 0 14 0 14 12 ]0 36 0 26 8 6 40 0 24 22 16 62 1 14 22 2 39 8 0 0 0 g 18 132 100 40 288 PM Peal< Hour Trip. 31 PM Peak HOllr Trips 35 PM Peak Hour Trips 39 Drjve~ln Frontier Bank GTe #07-171 PM Peak-Hour Traffic Counts (Traffic Plus) -Snohomish Tuesday, 07/24/07 Total Totnl Hourly Volumes Hourly Volume, ~~~~~-4~I!nb~O~U~n~d~~~~~ __ ~~h: at ~==~;=j~~~~~~~~~T:o:tn~ll~H:ourIY ~ Volumes PM Peak PM Peak Hour PM Peal< Drive~ln Frontier Bank GTe #07-171 PM Peak-Houl' Traffic Counts (All Tramc Dat.l -Lynnwood Tuesday, 07131/07 at Total Hourly Volumes ~~~1i~I~m~e~ __ fln~b~o~u~n~d~O~u~tb~o~u~n~d~I~n~b~o~u~n~d~~~~~~~-f 08101107 Total ~~~T~i~m~e~ __ fI~n~b~o~u~n~d~~~~~I~n~b~o~un~d~~~~~ __ ~--f Hourly Volumes 212th Street SW at at 2 Time Total Hourly Volumes PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Drive·ln Frontier Bank GTe #()7-171 PM Peak-Hour Traffic Counts (All Traffic Dabl) -Redmond Southwest Drwy at NE 79th Street Total Hourll' PM Peak PM Peak Drive-In Frontier Bank GTe #07-171 Pass-bv Interview Sun'ev -Frontier Bank at Redmond Tuesday, 09118107 Employee Customer Trips Total Trips New Pass-by Diverted Daily Time Trips Trips Link Trips Trips 7am·8am 2 0 0 0 0 Sam-9am 9 0 0 0 9 9am-lOam 0 2 0 4 6 10 am -nam I 2 2 4 9 Ilam-12pm 0 4 6 0 10 12 pm -I pm 0 4 10 0 14 IJ'_m-2 om 0 2 4 2 8 2 pm-3pm_ 0 12 0 4 16 30m-4om 0 2 2 8 12 4pm-5pm 5 6 4 4 19 5mn-6pm 7 0 0 0 7 Total 24 34 28 26 110 Wednesday, 09119107 Employee Customer Trips Total New Pass-by Diverted Daily Time Trip. Trip. Trips Link Trips Trips 7nm-8am 2 0 0 0 0 8am-9arn 9 0 0 0 9 9 am -10 am 0 4 0 8 12 10 am-llam I 4 10 4 19 lIam-12mn 0 6 4 2 12 120m-10m 0 10 2 4 16 Ipm-2pm 0 4 2 0 6 20m-3pm 0 10 2 4 16 3pm-4p01 0 4 2 8 14 4om-5pm 5 6 6 10 27 5~-6pm 7 0 0 0 7 Total 24 48 28 40 138 Thursday, 09120107 . Employee Customer Trips Total New Pass-by Diverted Daily Time Trips Trios Trips Linlt Trips Trips 7am-8am 2 0 0 0 8am-9am 9 0 0 0 9 9am-IOam 0 2 0 8 10 10 am -110m 1 4 4 4 13 II am -12 pm 0 8 0 4 12 12p01-J pm 0 8 4 4 16 lpm-2pm 0 6 4 4 14 2pm-3pm 0 4 0 0 4 Jpm-40m 0 2 6 2 10 40m-5pm 5 2 8 10 25 5pm-6om 7 0 2 0 9 TotaJ 24 36 28 36 122 PM Pcak Hour Trips , 19 PM Peak Hour Trips 27 PM Peak Hour Trips 25 AppendixB ~ @ ~ @ [M T IRl ~ [p [p ~ © C @ [M ~ (U)[l, IF ~ [M U~ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 2802 WETMORE AVE. • SUITE 220 • EVERETT, WA98201 • PH: (425) 33908266 • FAX: (425) 258-2922 I -INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, r Edition is the nationally accepted source for pass-by trip percentage estimates for specific land uses. The pass-by trip percentages are reported for Daily, AM and PM peak-hour traffic for specific land uses. The ITE pass-by trip percentages represent national averages and may vary from area to area. The ITE pass-by trip generation estimates for drive-in bank locations are based on older studies that do not account for recent advancements in on-line banking, off-site ATM use and couriers that have reduced the number of bank trips. In addition, banks located in central business district (CBD) areas have different trip generation patterns, as compared to banks located in urban or sub-urban areas, which is not reflected in the ITE data. Gibson Traffic Consultants prepared a trip generation study for Frontier Bank that identified Daily and PM peak-hour trip generation rates for drive-in Frontier Bank locations based on square-feet (SF) and drive-in lane variables. The trip generation study analyzed trip count surveys obtained from bank staff and 24-hour tube and PM peak-hour traffic counts obtained by independent traffic count firms at four drive-in Frontier Bank locations. The purpose of this study is to determine pass-by trip generation for Frontier Bank locations based on trip count survey, which will serve as an addendum to the previous trip generation study. Definitions A listing of terms used in this report is included below Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is the total volume passing a roadway segment in both directions during a 24-hour period. Peak-Hour is the moming and evening one hour period when the highest number of trips for a given land-use occurs on the adjacent street. The AM peak-hour typically occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and the PM peak-hour typically occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. Trip refers to a single vehicle movement with the study site being either the origin or destination. COUNTSISURVEYS • SITE IMPACTS. LOS ANALYSIS· EIS • HEARINGS· SAFETY· SIGNALS· PARKING ~.~chael11ertins November 6, 2008 Page 2 Trip Ratio is the total number of trips per unit of a specific variable, such as square feet (SF) or drive-in lanes. Pass-by Trips are defined as trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary destination without route diversion. Pass-by trips are attracted from existing traffic passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to the generator. II -METHODOLOGY Site Selection GTC followed trip generation study procedures outlined in Chapter 4 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, zut Edition. ITE recommends at least three sites be surveyed to establish a local trip generation rates and pass-by percentages or validate ITE trip generation rates and pass-by percentages. In addition, lTE also outlines the following main criteria for identifying the sites for collection of trip generation data: • The site should have reasonably full occupancy and should have good economic standing. • The development should be located in urban or co=ercial district areas and should be in business for at least 2 years. • There should be minimal to no on-site construction or adjacent roadway construction near the site. • The site should be selected on the ability to obtain accurate trip generation and development characteristics. • The data needed to describe the independent variables should be available. Based on the above mentioned criteria, GTC selected the following four drive-in Frontier Bank locations to study: • Smokey Point branch -3,600 SF • Snohomish branch -3,600 SF • Lynnwood branch -2,700 SF • Redmond branch -2,775 SF The pass-by percentage estimates in this study are based on trip count survey obtained at the above four banks. The typical bank hours for all locations are 9:00 AM: to 5:00 P11 from Monday to Thursday and 9:00 AM: to 6:00 P11 on Fridays. All four locations have two drive-in lanes. Mr. Michael Mertins November 6, 200S Page 3 Procedure GTe obtained manual pass-by/trip survey counts from Frontier Bank staff. The pass-by/trip count surveys (Figure 5.17 in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition) were conducted for three consecutive days by the Frontier Bank staff to estimate the total new, pass-by and diverted link trips (including both customers and employees) during the normal banking hours. GTe had surveys conducted between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM to ensure both employees and . customers were captured during the typical weekday bank hours. The derived pass-by trip percentage for 4 different bank locations were then averaged to obtain an average pass-by trip percentage. Note: The pass-by survey data was coordinated by GTe staff using ITE criteria but conducted at the teller by supervised bank·staff due to the sensitive nature of the business transactious. III-DATA ANALYSIS Smokey Point Branch The Smokey Point location is a 3,600 SF drive-in bank facility with 9 full-time employees. It is located at 3506 J6Sth Street NE in Arlington, Washington. GTe obtained 3-day extensive trip count survey data from bank staff from September 18, 2007 to September 20, 2007. The pass- by survey wils conducted from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM to capture both employee and customer trips. The average of the 3-day trip count surveys yields pass-by percentages of 34 % for Daily and 42% for PM peak-hour traffic at this location. Snohomish Branch The Snohomish location is a 3,600 SF drive-in bank facility with 9 full-time employees. It is located at 818 Avenue D in Snohomish, Washington. GTe obtained 3-day extensive trip count survey data from bank staff from September 18, 2007 to September 20, 2007. The pass-by survey was conducted from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM to capture both employee and customer trips. The average of the 3-day trip count surveys yields pass-by percentages of 13% for Daily and 19% for PM peak-hour traffic at this location. Lynnwood Branch The Lynnwood location is a 2,700 SF drive-in bank facility with 12 full-time employees. It is located at 21111 Hwy 99 in Lynnwood, Washington. GTe obtained 3-day extensive trip count survey data from bank staff frOm September 18, 2007 to September 20, 2007. The pass-by survey was conducted from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM to capture both employee and customer trips. The average of the 3-day trip count surveys yields pass-by percentages of 23% for Daily and 17% for PM peak-hour traffic at this location. Mr. Michael Mertins November 6, 2008 Page 4 Redmond Branch The Redmond location is a 2,775 SF drive-in bank facility with 12 full-time employees. It is located at 17000 Avondale Way NE in Redmond, Washington. GTe obtained 3-day extensive trip count survey data from bank staff from September 18, 2007 to September 20, 200'7. The pass-by survey was conducted from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM to capture both employee and customer trips. The average of the 3-day trip count surveys yields pass-by percentages of 23% . for Daily and 21 % for PM peak-hour traffic at this location. The pass-by trip rate estimates for the above 4 bank locations have been included in Table 1 and Table 2 for Daily and PM peak -hour traffic, respectively. The trip generation calculations have been included in the attachments. IV -CONCLUSION Summary As described above, GTe utilized pass-by/trip count surveys conducted by Frontier Bank staff to estimate pass-by trip percentages for Daily and PM peak-hour traffic. All four banks are located in urban or business district areas ·in close proximity to major highways or arterials. GTe utilized the average of the pass-by percentages at the four bank locations to estimate the average pass-by percentages for Daily and PM peak-hour trip generation for Frontier Banks with drive-in facilities, which is summarized below. . Average Daily Traffic (ADT) The average Daily pass-by trip generation percentages at the four bank locations yield a pass- percentage of23% for Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on a typical weekday. A summary of the Daily pass-by trip percentage is included in Table 1. PM Peak-Hour The average PM peak-hour pass-by trip generation percentages at the four bank locations yield a pass-by percentage of 25% for PM peak-hour trips on a typical weekday. A sununary of ·the PM peak-hour pass-by trip percentage is included in Table 2. Comparison GTe performed a qualitative comparison of the locally developed pass-by trip percentages to the ITE pass-by trip percentages. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook, r Edition specifies ~mID®©~ RAFFle @~~l\D!!" 'ii'~ ~'ii'~ Mr. Michael Mertins November 6, 2008 PageS pass-by trip rate of 47% for the PM peak-hour. It does not specify a pass-by trip rate for Daily traffic. The PM peak pass-by trip percentage from ITE is significantly higher than GTe's pass-by trip percentage. It should be noted that the ITE pass-by trip percentage is based on older studies (around the 1990's) and do not include recent advancements of online-banking, couriers and off- site ATM facilities that have reduced the number of trips to bank locations. In addition, the ITE . percentages represent national averages and may vary from area to area. The pass-by trip generation percentages presented in this study are based on locally collected data and also account for fewer bank trips due to added advantage of online bank and off-site ATMfacilities. Therefore, GTe believes that Frontier Bank should utilize pass-by trip percentages identified in this study as an addendum to the Daily and PM peak-hour trip generation study. GTe trnsts that the pass-by percentage study and attachments adequately address the percentage of trips at Frontier Bank locations with drive-in lanes. If there are any questions concerning the analysis or findings in this report, please call GTe at (425) 339-8266. Sincerely, GmSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, INC. Bradly J. Lincoln, P,E. Traffic Engineer .. . Attachments Drive-In Fron1ier Bank GTe #07-171 Pass-by lnten,jew Survey -Frontier Bank :At Redmond Tuesday,09l1SllI7 Employee Custom er Trips Total New Pass-b)' Diverted Dally Time Trips Lini{ Trips Trips Trips Trips 7am-8am 2 0 0 0 0 8arn-9am 9 0 0 0 9 9am-1Oam 0 2 0 4 6 10 am -llam I 2 2 4 9 II am -12 pm 0 4 6 0 10 12pm-1 pm 0 4 10 0 14 Ipm-2pm 0 2 4 2 8 2pm-3pm 0 12 0 4 16 3pm-4pm 0 2 2 8 12 4pm-5pm 5 6 4 4 19 5pm-6pm 7 0 0 0 7 Total 24 34 2ll 26 110 Wednesday,09/191l17 Employee Customer Trips Total New Pass-by Diverted Daily Time Trips Trip. Trips Link Trins Trips 7am-8am 2 0 0 0 0 8am-9am 9 0 0 0 9 9am-IOam 0 4 0 8 12 10 am-Ham I 4 10 4 19 IJam-12pm 0 6 4 2 12 121'ID -10m 0 10 2 4 16 I pm-2 om 0 4 2 0 6 2 pm - 3 om 0 10 2 4 16 3om-4pm 0 4 2 8 14 4pm-5pm 5 6 6 10 27 5pm-6 pm 7 0 0 0 7 Total 24 48 2ll 40 138 Thursday, 09120/07 Employee Customer Trips Total New Pass-by Diverted Daily Time Trips Trips Trips Link Trips Trips 7am-8am 2 0 0 0 8am-9am 9 0 0 0 9 9am-lOam 0 2 0 8 10 JOam-IJam I 4 4 4 13 II am -12 pm 0 8 0 4 12 12 ]lIll-1 pm 0 ·8 4 4 16 10m-20m 0 6 4 4 14 2 pm-3 om 0 4 0 0 4 3pm-4pm 0 2 6 2 10 4J>.m - 5 om 5 2 8 10 25 5pm-6pm 7 0 2 0 9 Total 24 36 28 36 122 PM Peal< Hour Trips 19 PM Peak Hour Trips 27 PM Peak Hour Trips 25 Drive-In Frontier 8'ank. GTe #07-171 Pass-by Interview Surve,' -Frontier' Bank at Lynnwood Tuesday, 09/18107 Employee Customer Trjps Total PM Peak Trips New Pass-by Diverted Daily Hour Time Trips Trips Link Trips Trips Trips 8.m-9am 12 0 0 0 12 9am-IOam 0 2 0 0 2 IO.m-l1am 0 4 0 0 4 II am-12pm 0 2 2 0 4 12 pm -I pm 0 2 2 2 6 Ipm-2pm 0 4 6 0 10 2pm-3pm 0 2 2 0 4 3pm-4pm 0 0 2 0 2 4pm-Spm 0 2 0 0 2 Spm-6pm 12 0 0 0 12 12 Total 24 18 J4 2 58 Wednesday, 09/19/07 Employee Customer Trips Total PM Peak New Pass-by Diverted Daily Hour Time Trips Trips Trins Link Trips Trips Trips 8am-9am 12 0 0 0 12 9am-lam 0 6 8 0 14 lOam-II am 0 2 0 4 6 II am -12 pm 0 4 2 2 8 12 pm -I pm 0 6 0 2 8 Ipm-2pm 0 12 0 4 16 2pm-3pm 0 16 2 0 18 3pm-4pITI 0 6 8 4 18 4pm-Spm 0 2 4 0 6 Spm-6pm 12 2 0 0 14 14 Total 24 56 24 16 120 Thursday, 09120/07 Employee Customer Trips Total PMPe.k New Pass-by Diverted Daily Hour Time Trips Trips Trips Link Trips Trips Trips 8am-9am 12 0 0 0 12 9am-IOam 0 6 2 0 8 lOam-110m 0 10 4 0 14 11 am -12pm 0 4 2 0 6 12pm-1 pm 0 4 2 2 8 I pm-2pm 0 10 2 2 14 2pm-3pm 0 4 2 0 6 3 pm -4pm 0 0 2 2 4 4pm-5prn 0 2 8 4 14 14 5pm-6prn 12 0 0 0 12 Total 24 40 24 10 98 Drive-In Frontier Bank GTe #07-171 Pass-by Interview Survey -Frontier Banl< at Snohomish Tuesday, 09/18107 Employee Customer Trips Total Trips New Pass-by Diverted Daily Time Trips Trips Link Trips Trips Sam-9am 9 0 0 0 9 9am-IOam 0 2 2 2 6 lOam-II am 0 10 2 0 12 I I am -12 pm 0 0 0 0 0 12 pm -I pm 0 10 0 0 10 Ipm-2pm 0 4 2 0 6 2pm-3pm 0 6 6 2 14 3pm-4pm 0 4 0 0 4 4pm-5pm 0 2 4 0 6 5pm-6om 9 0 0 0 9 Total 18 38 16 4 76 Wednesday, 09/19/07 Employee Customer Trips Total New Pass-by Diverted Daily Time Trips Trips Trips Link Trips Trips 8am-9am 9 0 0 0 9 9am-lOam 0 4 2 0 6 lOam-II am 0 8 0 0 8 11 am -12 pm 0 0 0 0 0 12 pm -I pm 0 6 2 0 8 Ipm-2pm 0 4 0 0 4 2pm-3pm 0 0 2 0 2 3pm-4pm 0 2 0 0 2 4om-5pm 0 0 4 0 4 5pm-6pm 9 0 0 0 9 Total 18 24 10 0 52 Thursday, O9nO/O7 Employee Customer Trips Total New Pass-by Diverted Daily Time Trips Trips Trips Link Trips Trips 8am-9am 9 0 0 0 9 9am-IOam 0 6 0 0 6 10am-I1am 0 4 0 0 4 II am-120m 0 0 0 0 0 12 pm -I pm 0 6 0 0 6 1 pm-20m 0 0 0 0 0 2pm-3pm 0 0 0 0 0 3pm-4pm 0 0 0 0 0 4pm-50m 0 0 0 0 0 5pm-6pm 9 0 0 0 9 Total 18 16 0 0 34 PM Peak Hour Trips 9 PM Peak Hour Trips 9 PMP.ak Hour Trips 9 I" CIO , . Time 7am·8arn 8am-9am 9am-JOam lOan-II am Ilam-12pm 12 pm -I pm Iprn-2pm 2pm-3pm 3prn-4Dm 4pm-50m 5pm-6pm Total nme 7am-8am 8am-9am 9am-lOam 10am-Ilam 11 am-12pm 12 pm -I pm lym-2pm 20m-30m 3pm-4om 4pm-5Dm 5pm-6pm Total TilDe 78m-8am 8am-9am 9am-lOarn lOam-llam II am-120m 12 pol· I pm I pm-2pm 2 pm-3 pm 3pm-4om 4pm-5Dm 5pm-6Dm Tota' Drive·ln Frontier Bank GTe #07-171 Pass·b,' Survey· Frontier Dank at Smoke,' Point Tuesday, 09/18/07 Employee Customer Trips Total Trips New Pass-by Diverted nail)' Trips Trips Linlt Trip' Trips 2 0 0 0 2 6 8 0 0 14 I 8 12 6 27 0 18 22 6 46 0 18 12 2 32 0 24 8 8 40 0 16 16 4 36 0 14 6 8 28 0 10 10 8 28 I 14 10 6 31 8 0 0 2 10 18 130 96 50 292 Wednesday, 09119/07 Employee Customer Trips Total New P .... by Diverted Dally Trips Trips Trips Link Trips Trips 2 0 0 0 2 6 4 0 8 18 I 22 20 4 47 0 16 10 8 34 0 22 6 8 36 0 32 12 2 46 0 10 12 2 24 0 18 16 8 42 0 12 10 6 28 I 10 24 0 35 8 0 0 0 8 18 146 110 46 318 Thursday, 09120/07 Employee Customer Trips Total New Pass-by Diverted nail)' Trips Trios Trios Link Trip, Trips 2 0 0 0 2 6 4 0 0 10 1 16 6 0 23 0 12 8 2 22 0 10 20 4 34 0 12 2 0 14 0 14 12 10 36 0 26 8 6 40 0 24 22 16 62 I 14 22 2 39 8 0 0 0 8 18 132 100 40 288 I'M Peak Hour Trips 31 PM Peak Hour Trip' 35 PM Peak Hou)' Trips 39 I'lAI'!NltIG pE'I~~~f~£""()\'I t-lO'J 1 \i ?J)\.\?! RECE\\IEO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RENTON FRONTIER BANK 201 SOUTH 3'· STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. 092-08017 MARCH 10,2008 PREPARED FOR: FRONTIER BANK C/O BOTESCH, NASH & HALL ARCHITECTS, P.S. ATTN: MR. CHRIS THOME 2915 HEWITT AVENUE EVERETT, WA 98201 Prepared by: KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION 11715 N. CREEK PARKWAY S., C-106 BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98011 (425) 485-5519 G J(ra ZaIl & ASSOCIATES, INC. SITE DEVElOPMENT ENGINEERS @Krazan & ASS 0 C I ATE S, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION March 10, 2008 RENTON FRONTIER BANK C/O BOTESCH, NASH & HALLARCHlTECTS, P.S. Attn: Mr. Chris Thome 2915 Hewitt Avenue Everett, Washington 9820 I RE: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report Proposed Renton Frontier Bank 20 I South 3'" Street Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Thome: KA Project No. 092-08017 In accordance with your request, we have completed a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the referenced site. The results of our investigation are presented in the attached report. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, {j2?e:r:rnc~ Chris Behrens, L.G., L.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist CB/gs EleveD Offi ... Serviag The Westeru UDited States U7l5 N. Creek Partway S .• C-I06. Bothell. Washington 98011 • (425) 4SS·5519 • Pax: (425) 4SS·6837 QilKraZarl & ASS 0 C I ATE S, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................... I PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 2 GEOLOGIC SETTING ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................................................ 3 SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 3 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Seismic Hazard ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Soil Liquefaction .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 6 Site Preparation ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Temporary Excavations .................................................................................................................................................... g Structural FiU ................................................................................................................................................................... g Erosion and Sediment Control ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction ....................................................................................................... 10 Drainage and Landscaping ............................................................................................................................................. 10 Utility Trench Backfill ................................................................................................................................................... 10 Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork ................................................................................................................................. 11 Shallow Foundations ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Raft Foundations ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Pavement VC!lign ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 Testing and Inspection ................................................................................................................................................... 14 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 VICINITY MAP ..................................................................................................................................................... Figure I SITE PLAN ............................................................................................................................................................. Figure 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................................. Appendix A EARTIIWORK SPECIFICATIONS .............................................................................................................. Appendix B PAVEMENT SPECIFICA TIONS .................................................................................................................. Appendix C Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States 11715 N. Creek Parkway S .• C·I06. Bothell. WashingtOl198011 • (425) 485-5519. Fax: (425) 485-6837 092·0BOll.d<x Cil<.razaIl & ASS 0 C I ATE S, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION March 10, 2008 INTRODUCTION KA Project No. 092-08017 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RENTON FRONTIER BANK 201 SOUTH 3'· STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineeriug Investigation for the proposed Renton Frontier Bauk located at 201 South 3rd Street in Renton, Washington. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, structural fill, utility trench backfill, drainage aud landscaping, erosion control, foundations, concrete floor slabs and exterior f1atwork. A site plan showing the approximate exploratory boring locations is presented following the text of this report in Figure 2. A description of the field investigation and the exploratory boring and hand excavation logs are presented in Appendix A. Appendices B and C contain guides to aid in the development of earthwork and pavement specifications. If conflicts in the text of the report occur with the general specifications in the appendices, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This investigation was conducted to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions at the site, to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for use in design of specific construction elements, and to provide criteria for site preparation and structural fill construction. We have also prepared this report to address the applicable elements of the City of Renton Municipal Code -Chapter 3 -Environmental Regulations & Overly Districts. Our scope of services was performed in general accordance with our revised proposal for this project, dated January 21, 2008 (Krazan & Associates Proposal No. G08-007W AB) and included the following: • A field investigation consisting of drilling and sampling two exploratory borings that provided general coverage of the property to be developed. One exploratory boriug reached a depth of approximately 51 feet below the existing site grade and the other exploratory boring reached a depth of approximately 26.5 feet below the existing site grades. E1eveo om.e. Serviog The Western Uolted States 11715 N. Creek Parkway S., C-I06. Bothell. Washington 98011 • (425)485·5519. Fox: (425) 485·6837 092.()8011.dot' KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No.2 of 16 • Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and completion of engineering analyses to develop recommendations for use in the project design and preparation of construction specifications. • Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, the results of our analyses and our conclusions and recommendations for this investigation. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We have not received infonnation regarding specific structural details for the proj ect; however we anticipate that the structure will consist of a single storey. slab-an-grade wood and/or steel framed construction. Structural loads are expected to be light to moderate. We have not yet received a grading plan for the project. However. based on the existing site conditions and the planned construction, we anticipate that cuts and fills may be on the order of 4 feet or less. In the event the proposed structures, paving or grading information detailed in this report are inconsistent with the final design criteria, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified so that we may update this writing as applicable. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site of the proposed Renton Frontier Bank is located at 201 South 3rd Street in Renton, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure I). The site consists of an approximate 19,220 square foot (0.46 acre) parcel (parcel No. 0007200003). In general, the site is relatively level and currently cleared of older commercial structures. The subject property is located in Section 18, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The site is bordered to the north by South 3,d Street and to the east, south, and west by commercial property. GEOLOGIC SETTING The site lies within the central Puget Lowland. The lowland is part of a regional north-south trending trougb that extends from southwestern British Columbia to near Eugene, Oregon. North of Olympia, Washington, this lowland is glacially carved, with a depositional and erosional history including at least four separate glacial advances/retreats. The Puget Lowland is bounded to the west by the Olympic Mountains, and to the east by the Cascade Range. The lowland is filled with glacial and nonglacial sediments consisting of interbedded gravel, sand, silt, till, and peat lenses. The Geologic map of King County, Washington indicates that the subject property is located in an area that is predominately is underlain by Modified Land (reworked by man to modify topography). The modified land material is most likely underlain by Recent Alluvium. The recent alluvium consists of interbedded, silt, sandy silt, silty sand, sand, gravel, local areas of peat, and clay. The fmer material represents overbank material, and local lacustrian deposits, while the coarser materials most likely represent abandoned channel deposits along major river and streams. Krazan & As_lat •• , In •• Eleven Offu:es Serving The Western United States 092..08017.doc FIELD INVESTIGATION KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page NO.3 of 16 A field investigation consisted of drilling and sampling two exploratory borings that provided general coverage of the property to be developed. One exploratory boring reached a depth of approximately 51 feet below the existing site grade and the other exploratory boring reached a depth of approximately 26.5 feet below the existing site grades. Gregory Drilling, Inc. (a Krazan subcontractor) performed the drilling work on February 20,2008. Representative samples of the subsurface soils, encountered in the borings were collected and sealed in plastic bags. These samples were transported to our laboratory for further examination and verification of the field classifications. The soils encountered in the exploratory boring and hand auger excavations were continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A more detailed description of the field investigation is presented in Appendix A. Laboratory tests were perfonned on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory testing program was formulated with an emphasis on the evaluation of natural moisture content and gradation of the materials encountered. Details of the laboratory testing program and results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Appendix A. This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final exploratory boring logs, which are presented in Appendix A. SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The soils encountered in the exploratory borings were generally found in the described geologic units. The soils encountered in Exploratory Boring B-1, below the parking lot paving, consisted of approximately 17 feet of interbedded, very loose to loose, silty fine grained sand to medium stiff, very fine grained sandy silt (Recent Alluvium). The above soils are underlain by interbedded, medium dense to very dense fme to coarse grained sand with variable amounts of silt and grave! (Recent Alluvium) down to the termination depth of Exploratory Boring B-1 (approximately 51 feet below the existing site grades). The soils encountered in Exploratory Boring B-2, below the parking lot paving, consisted of approximately 20 feet of interbedded, very loose to loose, silty, fine grained sand (Recent Alluvium). The above soils are underlain by interbedded, dense, fme to coarse grained sand with variable amounts of silt and gravel (Recent Alluvium) down to the termination depth of Exploratory Boring B-2 (approximately 26.5 feet below the existing site grades). For additional infonnation about the soils encountered, please refer to the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A. Krazan & AsI.elates, Inc. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States 092..(11017.dor. GROUNDWATER KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No.4 of 16 The exploratory borings were checked for the presence of groundwater during and immediately following the drilling operations. Groundwater was encountered in Exploratory Borings B-1 and B-2 at approximately 15 and 13 feet, respectively, below the existing site grades at the date and time of our field exploration work. It should be recognized that water table elevations might fluctuate with time. The groundwater level will be dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as well as other factors. Therefore, water levels at the time of the field investigation may be different from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. Groundwater flow may become heavier during construction, which takes place during the wet weather season. This may cause difficulties with the grading and excavation work. Certain remedial and/or de- watering measures may be required. Sejsmic Hazard The soils encountered in Exploratory Boring B-1, primarily below a depth of approximately 24 feet, were generally medium dense to very dense. Since the upper soils are susceptible to liquefaction, the 2006 IBC recommends that the site be classified as Class F and a site specific seismic study be performed to evaluate seismic parameters, which is beyond our scope. However, if the proposed structures are relatively smaller with natural period less than 0.5 sec, the overall soil profile may be approximated as site class soil profile of E as defined by Table 1613.1.2 of the 2003 International Building Code (2003 IBe) for the purpose of evaluating seismic parameters, particularly FA and Fr. A site class soil profile of E applies to a profile consisting primarily of a soft soil more than 10 feet in depth. We referenced the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program website to obtain values for Ss, Sf, FA, and Fr. The USGS website includes the most updated published data on seismic conditions. The site specific seismic design parameters and adjusted maximum spectral response acceleration parameters are as follows: PGA (peak Ground Acceleration, in percent of g) 32.44 (10% Probability of Exceedence in 50 years) 63.47 (2% Probability of Exceedence in 50 years) Ss 143.0% of g S/ 49.0% ofg KrIlZBO & Associates, loc. Eleveo Offices Serving The Western United States 092.(13{111.dox KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No.5 of 16 FA 0.9 (USGS Earthquakes Hazard Program Seismic Design Value for Buildings) F. 2.4 (USGS Earthquakes Hazard Program Seismic Design Value for Buildings) Soil Liquefaetion Soil liquefaction is a state where soil particles lose contact with each other and become suspended in a viscous fluid. This suspension of the soil grains results in a complete loss of strength as the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than clean sand. Liquefaction usually occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by seismic events. To evaluate the liquefaction potential of the site, we analyzed the following factors: I) Soil type 2) Groundwater depth 3) Relative soil density 4) Initial confming pressure 5) Maximum anticipated intensity and duration of ground shaking The commercially available liquefaction analysis software, LiquefyPro from CivilTech was used to evaluate the liquefaction potential and the possible liquefaction induced settlement for the existing, site soil conditions. Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) was selected in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code (2006 mC) Chapter 16 and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program website. The probabilistic maximum considered earthquake is a 2,500 year event which has a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. For this area, the one in 2,500 year event has a peak horizontal ground acceleration ofO.6347g (per U.S. Geological Survey). For the liquefaction analysis, we used two different seismic events, the one in 475 year event and the one in 2500 year event. The one in 475 year event has a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The one in 2,500 year event has a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. For the one in 475 year event, the analyses reveal that there is a low potential for liquefaction potential, within the upper 24 feet of the sites underlying soils (dependent on existing groundwater elevations at the time of the earthquake). The soils encountered below the upper 24 feet are not considered liquefiable under this seismic event due to the relatively dense nature of the soils, for the analyzed event. The maximum liquefaction induced settlements for this type of seismic event are estimated to be on the order of 112 inch. The differential settlements with the one in 475 year event are estimated to be on the order of 0.3 to 0.4 inch. KrazaD & Assoclatea, I"". Eleven Offices Serving The We'tern United States 092..01(1) J.dot KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No.6 of 16 For the one in 2,500 year event, the analyses reveal that there is a moderate potential for liquefaction potential, within the upper 24 feet of the sites underlying soils (dependent on existing groundwater elevations at the time of the earthquake). The soils encountered below the upper 24 feet are not considered liquefiable under this seismic event due to the relatively dense nature of the soils, for the analyzed event. The maximum liquefaction induced settlements for this type of seismic event are estimated to be on the order of 5 inches. The differential settlements with the one in 2,500 year event are estimated to be on the order of 2.4 to 3.2 inches. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The subsurface conditions are only considered suitable with some ground improvement for conventional shallow foundation support for the proposed building, for static loading conditions. The subsurface conditions are considered less favorable for support of the structure with typical spread footings from the standpoint of potential liquefaction induced settlements, which could result from a large seismic event. Conventional shallow strip or pad footings are technically feasible with deep in-situ vibro- floation ground improvement method but it may not be cost-effective for the type of structure planned. Various deep foundation options are available, which may be incorporated into the planned construction, to reduce possible structural damage, which could result from liquefaction induced total and differential settlements. The best option for reducing potential structural damage resulting from liquefaction induced movements includes completely penetrating the liquefiable zones with a deep foundation system designed with a combination of friction below the liquefiable zones and end bearing capabilities. This type of system may consist of auger-cast piles, driven piles, drilled shafts, or geopiers. These deep foundation systems are typically very expensive and may not be cost effective for relatively light structures. Another option for reducing the possible liquefaction damage would include a stiffened structural slab foundation (raft foundation) which may be utilized to help reduce the possible effects of liquefaction on the proposed structure. This type of shallow foundation system is designed to be sufficiently rigid to withstand the potentially high total and differential settlements. The raft foundation will need to be used in combination with onsite soil improvement. With this type of foundation system, a higher inherent risk of structural damage is present and this should be understood and accepted by the owner. With proper design and construction, in accordance with the geotechnical parameters and recommendations presented in subsequent sections of this report, the raft type foundation can be designed to meet minimum code requirements, and preserve the basic integrity of the structure during the selected design seismic event. The structure may incur damage that will require repair prior to re- occupying the building, however the properly designed structure is likely to offer safe exit following the seismic event. Krazan & Assoeiates, Inc. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States 092-08017.doc Site Preparation KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No.7 of 16 General site clearing should include removal of vegetation; trees and associated root systems; wood; existing utilities; structures including foundations, basement walls and floors; pavement sections, rubble; and rubbish. These materials will not be suitable for use as structural fill. After stripping operations and removal of any loose soils or undocumented fill that may impact the development of the site, the building pad areas should be visually inspected to identify any loose areas. Any remaining loose soils should be overexcavated to the level of the medium dense/stiff, or firmer native soils. The resulting excavations should be filled with approved on site material, or imported structural fill. Structural fill material should be within ± 2 percent of the optimum moisture content, and the soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. During wet weather conditions, typically October through May, subgrade stability problems and grading difficulties may develop due to excess moisture, disturbance of sensitive soils and/or the presence of perched groundwater. Construction during the extended wet weather periods could create the need to overexcavate exposed soils if they become disturbed and cannot be recompacted due to elevated moisture contents. The on-site soils have variable silt contents and are considered moisture sensitive and easily disturbed. If overexcavation is necessary, it should be confirmed through continuous monitoring and testing by a qualified geotechnical engineer or senior geologist. Soils that have become unstable may require drying and recompaction. Selective drying may be accomplished by scarifying or windrowing surficial material during extended periods of dry, warm weather (typically during the summer months). If the soils cannot be dried back to a workable moisture condition, remedial measures may be required. General project site winterization should consist of the placement of aggregate base and the protection of exposed soils during the construction phase. It should be understood that even if Best Mansgement Practices (BMP's) for wintertime soil protection are implemented and followed there is a significant chance that moisture disturbed soil mitigation work will still be required. Any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and backfilled. Excavations, depressions, or soft and pliant areas extending below the planned finish subgrade levels should be cleaned to firm undisturbed soil, and backfilled with structural fill. In general, any septic tanks, underground storage tanks, debris pits, cesspools, or similar structures should be completely removed. Concrete footings should be removed to an equivalent depth of at least 3 feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The resul!ing excavations should be backfilled with structural fill. A representative of our firm should be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and observe earthwork construction. This testing and observation is an integral part of our service, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction and stability of the material. The geotechnical engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements. Further recommendations, contained in this report, are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to the recommendations set forth in this section and in the Structural Fill Section. Krazan & Alsotlat .. , Inc. Eleven Offtces Serving The W .. tern United States 092-03011.doc Temporary Excavations KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No.8 of 16 The on site native soils have variable cohesion strengths, therefore the safe angles to which these materials may be cut for temporary excavations is limited, as the soils may be prone to caving and slope failures in temporary excavations deeper than 4 feet. Temporary excavations in the loose to medium dense native soils should be sloped no steeper than 1.5H:l V (horizontal to vertical) where room permits. lfthe soil in the excavation is subject to vibration from heavy traffic, the temporary excavation should be sloped no steeper than 2H: IV. All temporary cuts should be in accordance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Part N, Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring. The temporary slope cuts should be visually inspected daily by a qualified person during construction work activities and the results of the inspections should be included in daily reports. The contractor is responsible for maintaining the stability of the temporary cut slopes and minimizing slope erosion during construction. The temporary cut slopes should be covered with visqueen to help minimize erosion during wet weather and the slopes should be closely monitored until the permanent retaining systems are complete. Materials should not be stored and equipment operated within 10 feet of the top of any temporary cut slope. A Krazan & Associates geologist or geotechnical engineer should observe, at least periodically, the temporary cut slopes during the excavation work. The reasoning for this is that all soil conditions may not be fully delineated during the previous geotechnical exploratory work. In the case of temporary slope cuts, the existing soil conditions may not be fully revealed until the excavation work exposes the soil. Typically, as excavation work progresses the maximum inclination of the temporary slope will need to be reevaluated by the geotechnical engineer so that supplemental recommendations can be made. Soil and groundwater conditions can be highly variable. Scheduling for soil work will need to be adjustable, to deal with unanticipated conditions, so that the project can proceed smoothly and required deadlines can be met. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction Krazan & Associates should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. Structural Fill Best Management Practices (BMP's) should be followed when considering the suitability of the site soils for use as structural fill. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe the condition of existing soils if proposed for use as structural fill. The feasibility of using these materials will depend on the condition of the soils (grain sizes and moisture content) as they are excavated, the time of year and weather during earthwork and allowances in the schedule for drying and re-compaction if considered. If these soils are deemed unsuitable a plan should be in place for importing structural fill material and exporting unsuitable soils. It should not be taken for granted that the onslte native soUs may be used as the sole sour(e for structural fill (especiaDy during winter construction activities). During wet weather conditions the native soUs with bigber silt contents will be moisture sensitive, easily disturbed, and most likely will not meet compaction requirements. Furthermore, during tbe winter the native soUs typically have elevated natural moisture contents, wbich will limit the use of these materials as Krazan & A.ood.tes, Inc. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States 09l-08011,ctoc KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No.9 of 16 structural fill without proper mitigatiou measures. The contractor should use Best Management Practices to protect the soils during construction activities. An allowance for importing structural fill should be Incorporated into the construction cost of the project. Imported structural fiIl material should consist of weIl-grsded gravel or a sand and gravel mixture with a maximum grain size of 2 inches and less than 10 percent fines (material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve). All structural fill material should be submitted for approval to the geotechnical engineer at least 72 hours prior to delivery to the site. Fill soils should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 12 inches loose thickness, moisture- conditioned as necessary, (moisture content of soil shall not vary by more than ±2 percent of optimum moisture) and the material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method 01557. In place density tests should be performed on all structural fill to verify proper moisture content and adequate compaction. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the compaction requirements or if soil conditions are not considered stable. Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sediment control (ESC) is used to minimize the transportation of sediment to wetlands, streams, lakes, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. Erosion and sediment control measures should be taken and these measures should be in general accordance with local regulations. As a minimum, the following basic recommendations should be incorporated into the design of the erosion and sediment control features of the site: I) Phase the soil, foundation, utility, and other work, requiring excavation or the disturbance of the site soils, to take place during the dry season (generally May through September). However, provided precautions are taken using Best Management Practices (BMP's), grsding activities can be undertaken during the wet season (generally October through April), but it should also be known that this may increase the overall cost of the project. 2) All site work should be completed and stabilized as quickly as possible. 3) Additional perimeter erosion and sediment control features may be required to reduce the possibility of sediment entering the surface water. This may include additional silt fences, silt fences with a higher Apparent Opening Size (AOS), construction of a berm, or other filtration systems. 4) Any runoff generated by dewatering discharge should be treated through construction of a sediment trap if there is sufficient space. If space is limited other filtration methods will need to be incorporated. Krazan & Associatel, Inc. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United State. 092..(1SOt1.dGe Groundwater Influence on Structures/Construction KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No. 10 of 16 Groundwater was encountered in Exploratory Borings B-1 and B-2 at approximately 15 and 13 feet, respectively, below the existing site grades at the date and time of our field exploration work. If groundwater is encountered during construction, we should observe the conditions to determine if de- watering will be needed. Design of temporary dewatering systems to remove groundwater should be the responsibility of the contractor. If earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become saturated. These soils may "pump," and the materials may not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures include: discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with drier materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material. A qualified geotechnical engineering firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. Drainage and Landscaping The ground surface should slope away from building pads and pavement aress, toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. It is recommended that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Roof drains should be tightlined away from foundations. Subgrade soils in pavement areas should be sloped a minimum of I percent and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities and off-site. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trenches should be excavated according to accepted engineering practices following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards, by a contractor experienced in such work. The responsibility for the safety of open trenches should be borne by the contractor. Traffic and vibration adjacent to trench walls should be minimized; cyclic wetting and drying of excavation side slopes should be avoided. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, groundwater flow into open excavations could be experienced, especially during or shortly following periods of precipitation. Sandy soil conditions were encountered at shallow depths in the exploratory boring and hand auger excavations at this site. These soils have variable cohesion, and can cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these soils. All utility trench backfill should consist of imported structural fill or suitable on-site material. Utility trench backfill placed in or adjacent to buildings and exterior slabs should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method Dl557. The upper 5 feet of utility trench backfIll placed in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Below 5 feet, utility trench backfill in pavement areas Krazln & Associate" Ine. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No. 11 of 16 should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method 01557. Pipe bedding should be in accordance with the pipe manufacturer's recommendations. The contractor is responsible for removing all water-sensitive soils from the trenches regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contmctor sbould use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during fill placement and compaction. Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork If a slab on grade structure is proposed and reducing floor dampness is desired, sucb as in areas covered with moisture sensitive floor coverings, we recommend that concrete slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a water vapor retarder system. The water vapor retarder system should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification EI64-94 and Standard Specifications EI745-97. According to ASTM Guidelines, the water vapor retarder should consist of a vapor retarder sheeting underlain by a minimum of 4-inches of compacted clean (less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve), open- graded coarse rock of Yo-inch maximum size. The vapor retarder sheeting should be protected from puncture damage. The exterior floors should be placed separately in order to act independently of the waIls and foundation system. All fills required to bring the building pads to grade should be structuml fill. It is recommended that the utility trenches within the structure be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimize the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the buildings is recommended. Positive drainage should be established away from the structures and should be maintained throughout the life of the structures. Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the structures. Over-irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structures should not be performed. In addition, ventilation of the structures (i.e. ventilation fans) is recommended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture. Shallow Foundations Raft Foundations Raft or mat foundation system should consist of thickened and reinforced concrete slabs constructed on surficiaIly re-compacted existing soils or on properly compacted imported soils. Prior to construction of the raft foundation, we recommend that the underlying in-place soils be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. In place density tests should be performed to verify proper moisture content and adequate compaction. The foundation excavations should be inspected to verify suitable bearing conditions, particularly in order to minimize static settlements. Overexcavation and recompaction of the upper 2 feet in 12-inch thick lifts, below the foundation level, will be necessary to achieve adequate bearing and in order to minimize the static settlements for the structuml raft foundation in the building foot print. The raft foundation may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 750 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead-plus-live loads, provided the foundation subgrade is properly prepared and inspected, as Krazaa & Associates, In .. Eleven Offices Serving The western United States 09l-08017.40t KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No. 12 of 16 recommended. This value may be increased by 113 for short duration seismic loads. The thickness and reinforcement of the raft foundation should be determined by the structural engineer, based on our geotechnical parameters. The structural raft slab foundation should have a minimum embedment depth of 12 inches below pad subgrade or adjacent exterior grade whichever is lower. The structural engineer may also reduce the interior structural raft slab thickness between columns if structurally feasible. To prepare for construction of the shallow raft foundation systems, we recommend that the existing ground surface be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. The compaction work should cover the entire building footprints and 5 feet beyond the perimeter on each side. If any fill is placed, this material should also be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density. In general, for a raft foundation system, the differential settlement varies depending on the variability of the underlying soil deposits and the rigidity of the mat foundation and cannot be precisely quantified. The required mat rigidity is dependent on the mat dimensions, column spacing, and rigidity of the superstructure and the modulus of subgrade reaction of the supporting soils. We recommend that the foundation system be analyzed to determine if the mat rigidity assumption is valid for the design. The rigid mat foundation is preferred as far as performance is concerned. If the raft foundation system cannot be considered rigid, the soil pressure distribution should be computed using a method which models the soil-structure interaction such as the beam on an elastic foundation procedure. The following modulus of subgrade reaction value given is for a one-foot square plate and must be corrected for the foundation system shape, size, and depth. In general, we expect the raft foundation system to have a total static settlement on the order of one (I) inch that is almost immediate upon load application. The maximum liquefaction induced settlements for the one in 2,500 year earthquake is estimated to be on the order of 5 inches. The maximum liquefaction induced differential settlements for the one in 2,500 year earthquake is expected to be on the order of 2.4 to 3.2 inches. Lateral spread could be as high as a couple of feet duriog a significantly large earthquake event. The raft foundation should be designed to withstand these levels of differential and lateral movements. Slightly lower differential settlement values may be achieved if a combination of some level of soil improvement (at depth) is completed along with the raft foundation. This may include a depth of overexcavation and replacement with geogrid reinforced structural ill!. We can provide additional recommendations for this type of work, if desired. For the design of the raft foundation, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction value of k = 160 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for the sandy soils, provided our compaction recommendations for subgrade preparation are followed. Resistance to lateral displacement of foundation elements may be developed using an allowable friction factor of 0.25 between the on site soils and the concrete foundation units. Kraun & Associates, Ine. Eteven Offices Serving The Western United States O9l-O&OI7.doc Pavement Design KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No. 13 of 16 The near surface subgrade soils generally consist of fine to medium grained sand with variable amounts of silt to gravel. These soils are rated as fair for pavement subgrade material. We estimate that the wel1 compacted subgrade will have a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 10 and a modulus of subgrade reaction value of k = 200 pci, provided the subgrade is prepared in general accordance with our recommendations. We recommend that, at a minimum, 12 inches of the existing sub grade material be moisture conditioned (as necessary) and re-compacted to prepare for the construction of pavement sections. The subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method 01557. In place density tests should be performed to verifY proper moisture content and adequate compaction. However, if the subgrade soil consists of fum and unyielding native glacial soils a proof rol1 of the pavement subgrade soil may be performed in lieu of re-compacting the snbgrade and compaction tests. The recommended flexible and rigid pavement sections are based on design CBR and modulus of subgrade reaction (k) values that are achieved, ouly followiug proper subgrade preparation. It should be noted that subgrade soils that have relatively high silt or clay contents may be highly sensitive to moisture conditions. The sub grade strength and performance characteristics of a silty subgrade material may be dramatically reduced if this material becomes wet. Traffic loads were not provided, however, based on our knowledge of the proposed project, we expect the traffic to range from light duty (passenger automobiles) to heavy duty (delivery trucks). The fol1owing tables show the recommended pavement sections for light duty and heavy duty use. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (FLEXIBLE) PAVEMENT LIGHT DUTY AlIPbaltic Conerete Alleret:ate Base* Compacted SUberade* ** 2.0 in. 6.0 in. 12.0 in . • 95%compaClion ba8ed on ASTM Test Method DJ557 ** A proof roll may be peifQrmed in lieu of in place density tests HEAVY DUTY Asphaltic Concnlte AI!I!n:llate Bale* COlnpacted Suber_de· ... 3.0 in. 6.0 in. 12.0 in . • 95% compaction ba .. d on ASTM Test Method Dl557 ** A proof roll may be peiformed in lieu of 111 place denSity tests PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (RIGID) PAVEMENT LIGHT DUTY .. Mfu; PCC Depth 4.0 in. 6.0 in. 12.0 in. • 95% compaction based on ASTM Tut Method DI 557 •• A prool roll may be peifomted in lie" 01 i. place densilJl /e!/s KrazaD & Associates, Jlle. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States HEAVY DUTY KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No. 14 of 16 Min. PCC Deptb AR2RRate Base"' Compacted Subl!l1lde* ** 6.0 in. 6.0 in . 12.0 in. • 95%compaclion based on Asr M rest Met/rod DJ557 *. A proo/roll may be peifonned in lieu olin place density tests The asphaltic concrete depth in the flexible pavement tables should be a surface course type asphalt, such as Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOn Commercial Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). The rigid pavement design is based on a Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) mix that has a 28 day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi). The design is also based on a concrete flexural strength or modulus of rupture of 550 psi. Testing and Inspection A representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be present at the site during the earthwork activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the exploratory fieldwork. This activity is an integral part of our services as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent of these recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan & Associates, Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor. Furthennore, Krazan & Associates is not responsible for the contractor's procedures, methods, scheduling or management of the work site. LIMITATIONS Geotechnical engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences improves. Although your site was analyzed using the most appropriate current techniques and methods, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to improvements in the field of geotechnical engineering, physical changes in the site either due to excavation or fill placement, new agency regulations or possible changes in the proposed struclnre after the time of completion of the soils report may require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In light of this, the owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that two years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report. Krazan & Associate., Ino. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United Stales 092-08(l17.doe KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No. 15 of 16 Foundation and earthwork construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the earth. Our report, design conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. The findings and conclusions of this report can be affected by the passage of time, such as seasonal weather conditions, manmade influences, such as construction on or adjacent to the site, natural events such as earthquakes, slope instability, flooding, or groundwater fluctuations. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, the geotechnical engineer should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. The conclusions of this report are based on the infonnation provided regarding the proposed construction. If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may not be valid. The geotechnical engineer should be notified of any changes so that the recommendations can be reviewed and reevaluated. Misinterpretations of this report by other design team members can result in project delays and cost overruns. These risks can be reduced by having Krazan & Associates, Inc. involved with the design teams meetings and discussions after SUbmitting the report. Krazan & Associates, Inc. should also be retained for reviewing pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret this report. To reduce this, risk Krazan & Associates. Inc. should participate in pre-bid and preconstruction meetings, and provide construction observations during the site work. This report is a geotechnical engineering investigation with the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation design. The scope of our services did not include any environmental site assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous andlor toxic materials in the soil, groundwater or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands_ Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report or on any boring or hand auger log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous andlor toxic assessments. The geotechnical information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for this project as outlined abcve, and should not be UBed for any other site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. Krazan & Assodates, 1Dl:. Eleven Offices Serving The Western United State. 092·0s017.\toc KA No. 092-08017 March 10, 2008 Page No. 160fl6 If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (425) 485-5519. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Chris Behrens, L.G., L.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist CB/gs Krazan & Associates, Inc. Gopal A. Singam, P.E. Geotechnical Division Manager Eleven Offices Serving The Western United Slates ote: Figure generated ftom TOPO USA®. KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES 11715 North Creek Parkway South SulteC-I06 Bothell, W A 98011 425-485-5519 FIGURE 1-VICINITY MAP Location: Renton, WaohiDgton Job No. :091-08017 CJieot: Frontier Bank Date: March 10,2008 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Field Investigation Appendix A Page A.I The field investigation consisted of drilling and sampling two exploratory borings that provided general coverage of the property to be developed. The exploratory borings reached depths of approximately 26.5 and 51 feet below the existing site grades. The approximate exploratory boring locations are shown on the site plan (Figure 2). The depths shown on the attached boring logs are from the existing ground surface at the time the borings were drilled. The soils encountered were logged in the field during the exploration and, with supplementary laboratory test data, are described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The drilled exploratory boring was advanced using a truck mounted drill rig. Disturbed soil samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) as described in ASTM:D-1586. The Standard Penetration Test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside-diameter, split barrel sampler into the subsoil with a 140-pound hammer free falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The summation of hammer-blows required to drive the sampler the final 12-inches of an 18- inch sample interval is defmed as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or N-value. The blow count is presented graphically on the boring logs in this appendix. The resistance, or ''N'' value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or of the relative consistency of cohesive soils. All samples were returned to our Bothell laboratory for evaluation. The logs of the exploratory borings along with the laboratory test results are presented in this appendix. Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing program was developed primarily to determine the in situ moisture condition and grain size distribution of the soils. The sieve analysis tests were performed for the purpose of soil classification. Test results were used as criteria for determining the engineering suitability of the surface and subsurface materials encountered. The results of the moisture content tests are presented on the Logs of Borings (presented in this appendix). The sieve analysis test results are presented in this appendix. Krazan & Associates, Inc. EI •• en Offices Serving Th. Western United Slates 092.(JSOII.lIoc KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES 1171' North Creek Parkway South Suite C-106 Bothell, Washington 98011 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND (SM) LOG OF EXPL( PROJECT: Frontier Sank, Renton PROJECT NO.: 092-08017 LOGGED BY: MG CONTRACTOR: Gregory Drilling SAMPLE METHOD: SplK Spoon Very loose to loose, fine grained sand, dark brown to gray. moist. (ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS) ~N-DY-Sli;r(MLj------------------------------ Medium stiff, very flne grained sand, dark gray, wet J~~':!~~~~!'_~~'!~L _________________________ _ POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP) Medium dense, fine grained sand, dark gray, wet. (ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS) POORLY GRADEO-SANDwiTHGRAVEL.-(S-P) ----- Dense to very dense, medium to coarse grained sand, dark gray to brown, wet. (ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS) Water Level InlUal: ~ Final: ! Water QbservaUons: Groundwater encountered at approximately 15 feet Notes: None ~TORY BORING B-1 DATE: 2120/2008 PAGE: 1 012 SURFACE ELEVATION: Approx. 29' BORING TYPE: Hollow Stem Auger N·VAlUE (GRAPH) i . I I I i I I I I J • -I I , I -I [ I .. I I 1/ i I I ; I' I I I I II: I . i l ' !I II III ! I! 1 ! I I i II Natural Moistura Content and AtterbJlrg Llmlls 40 50 60 , , i I i ! i I II I I I I '! i l . I j·1 11 "j -1 -·1 ·1 ---i j II ·1 I ! I II (-1 L I l -1-- .. "._.1_._ .I .. ~tl g ~ ... (J w CI) c :> KRAZAN AND ASSOCIA: LOG OF EX 11715 North Creek Parkway South Suite C·106 PROJECT: Frontier Bank, Renton PROJECT NO.: 092·08017 LOGGED BY: MG CONTRACTOR: Gregory Drilling SAMPLE METHOD: Split Spoon .... ~ ... It: I!! ~ Bothell, Washington 98011 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP) Dense to very dense, medium to coarse grained sand. dark gray to brown. wet. (Alluvial Deposits) End of Exploratory Boring Water Level Initial: i Final: l Water Observations: Groundwater encountered at approximately 15 feet Notes: None )RATORY BORING B-1 DATE: 2/20/2008 PAGE: 2012 SURFACE ELEVATION: Approx. 29' BORING TYPE: Hollow Stem Auger N·VALUE (GRAPH) i ! II 1 1 '1' I i /, I i I ! I , ; , I i j I . , ! ' : i I I I 1 I ' I I ; I : : I i 1 I I 1 i , I I ! I Nafural Moisture Content and Alterberg Llmlta 20 30 40 .1 I I JJ. I -I I- I i j , I I , ., . I I I j .; i I 1 I . ····1 I I , I j -i 11 , ' , J I I ;1 ) I ____ .LJ '0- - 30- KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES 11715 North C",.k PBrlcway South Suite C-f06 Bothell, WashIngton 98011 LOG OF EXPLC PROJECT: Frontier Bank, Renton PROJECT NO.: 092-080'7 LOGGED BY: MG CONTRACTOR: Gregory Drilling SAMPLE METHOD: Split Spoon ~ 10 II ± 2 II ! 1 I ! I I ~ 2 III ---peaRLY G-RAD-EO-sANDwrrli -SILi"-(SPj-----------4-+.--rl'-3-4 +'1"1,..1 Medium dense, fine grained sand. dark gray. wet. -;0- (ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS) . -------------------------------------------------i-..-1---i0rr4 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP) ± 37 III Medium dense. medium to coarse grained sand. dark gray to --ir-II I \ ~~,\:::. I "'I / I End of Exploratory Boring ! : , Water Level Initial: ~ Final: 1 Water Observations: Groundwater encountered at approximately 13 feet Notes: None TORY BORING B·2 DATE: 2/2012008 PAGE:' of1 SURFACE ELEVATION: Approx. 29' BORING TYPE: Hollow Stem Auger I ; Renton. WA N-VALUE (GRAPH) Natural Moisture Content and Alterberg Llmll8 i i ..... I ... I· ..... I·', ....... . ... . .. 1 .. ....--. I· -... .... ......... , ..... -e-. ......... .. . ..--.. - ~1: I-.. ... . .... c. __ 1 __ ' . -- ·,.--·f·· .----i.. -... --_ ... --... .. 0:: W Z u::: I- Z LU <..) 0:: W Il. Krazan & Assoc. Sieve Analysis ASTM C-117/C-136 Project: Renton Frontier Bank Project No.: 09208017 Client: Botesch, Nash & Hall Architects Sample Number: 29646·A Depth: IS' LocatIon: Boring Hole I, Sample No.4 Date: 2121108 . c .5 .5 .6 ~ .5 ,I!;. o .-'" a §' i ... ., '" --:i' ;<:~ /I " ; ;;; 100 90 80 70 I II: I I Y I\JI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :~ I I I I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , 50 ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE· mm. %+3" % Graver Co ...... I Fine Coarse I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I SIEVE PERCENT SPEC" PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) #20 100.0 #40 100.0 #60 99.5 #100 89.2 #200 53.7 • (no specification envelope) % Sand Medium I Fine Sill 0.0 I 46.3 MaterIal DescriptIon Dark gray sandy SILT. PL= np Atterberg Lim Its LL-nv Coefficients 060-0.0834 °15'" Cc '" ClaSSification % Fines I 53.7 PI'" USCS= ML AASHTO= A-4(O) Remarks Sample ID: 29646-A. B.I/S4@15' Natural Moisture Content: 30.0% Clay Tested By: ..."C ... L""M'--_______ Checked By: ""C""M'--_______ _ n:: w Z ii: ~ W 0 n:: w 11. Krazan & Assoc. Sieve Analysis ASTM c-117/C-136 Project: Renton Frontier Bank Project No.: 09208017 Client: Botesch, Nash & HaIl Architects Sample Number: 29646-B Depth: 25' Location: Boring Hole 2, Sample No.6 '" 100 I 90 1 1 80 i 1 70 I 1 60 I I 50 I I 40 1 30 I 20 : 10 I a I 100 . ..5 .. £.' ~ .E .s'$, .~~ ~ ., '" ~ '" j' ~I I I 1 I 1 I I i\ I I 1 I I I I I I I 1~1 I 1 I 1 I I' I I I I I I ~ I~ I I I I! I I I I 1 Ii I I I I ; I; I I I I : I : I : : I I I I I 10 % Gravel I: I I I I P- I 1 I I I Date: 2/21108 .. '" '" .. I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I , , ......., r-..... I I I I I I I i I I I , I I I I I 1 1\ : : I I f .A I I 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm - % Sand %Flnea %+3" Coarse I Fine Coarae' Medium , Fine Slit , Clay 0.0 13.2 I SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* SIZE FINER PERCENT I.S 100.0 I 91.2 .75 86.8 .5 71.9 .375 64.8 #4 55.6 #10 44.8 #20 36.4 #40 20.9 #60 8.8 #100 5.0 #200 3.4 • (no specification envelope) 31.2 10.8 I PASS? (X=NO) 23.9 I 17.5 3.4 Material Description Dark yellowish-brown poorly graded SAND with gravel. PL= np 085= 17.9046 030= 0.6123 Cu= 25.71 Atterberg Limits LL= nv Coefficients 060-6.9156 015= 0.3379 C c= 0.20 Classification PI= 050= 3.0940 010= 0.2690 USCS= SP AASHTO= A-I-a Remarks Sample 10: 29646-B. B-21S-6 @ 25' Natural Moisture Content: 12.1 % Tested By: -'C"-'L"'M"---_______ Checked By: "'C""M'--_____ =-_=_ c:: w z u:: !z w () 0:: ~ Krazan & Assoc. Sieve Analysis ASTM C-117/C-136 Project: Renton Frontier Bank Client: Botesch, Nash & Hall Architects Sample Number: 29646·C Depth; 15' Locatron: Boring Hole 2, Sample No.4 10 9 0 0 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 a s ., I I : I , I I I I I i I I I I •• ., I I I I I I I I I II: II! I 100 .S: ~ c ._ ~1ll i '" ~ :.: ~ .. £ 'C c·s / : I : I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I : I I , I: I .1 i I I I I: I I I I I I I II , I! I I! I I I Ii I: I Ii I I I I; I I I I I I : I I I I I I I: I I I I I I I 10 Project No.: 09208017 Date; 2/21108 <> ~ ~ II i ..,. ~ " " .. 8 <> 0 : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I ! , I I I , I I I : I I I I I 11\ I I I I I I \ I I I I I I 1\: I I I I I I~ I I I I ~I I I I I I I : I I I I I 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAlN SIZE -mm. %+3" % Gravel Co .... I Fine Co .... I 0.0 0.0 I 0.6 3.1 I SIEVE PERCENT SPEC" PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) . 375 100.0 #4 99.4 #10 96.3 #20 91.2 #40 63.6 #60 27.8 #100 13.4 #200 7.5 • (no specification envelope) % Sand %Flnas Medium I Fine Slit I Clay 32.7 I 56.1 7.5 Material Description Dark yellowish-brown poorly graded SAND with silt . PL= np 085= 0.6667 030= 0.2603 C u= 3.71 Atterberg Limits LL-nv Coefficients D60-0.4028 015= 0.1664 Cc= 1.55 Classification PI= 050= 0.3499 010= 0.1087 USCS= SP·SM AASHTO= A-3 Remarks Sample 10: 29646-C. B-2/S-4 @ 15' Natural Moisture Content: 29.2% Tested By: -'C"-'L""M"---_______ ~ Checked By: ""C""M'--_______ _ a:: w z u:: I- Z W ~ w n. Krazan & Assoc. Sieve Analysis ASTM C-117/C-136 Project: Renton Frontier Bank Client: Botesch, Nash & Hall Architects Sample Number: 29646·D Depth: 20' Location: Boring Hole I, Sample No.5 10 9 0 0 8 0 7 0 60 50 40 30 20 10 o '" I I I i I I I I I I I I '" I I I I I I I I I I I 100 N _ ~";f. ;\ c;, r ! i ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I , I I I I I I~ I I I I I II I: I I I I I Ii I ; I ; I I I : I: : I I I : I I I I I I 10 Project No.: 09208017 Date: 2121108 o ;;; ;; ;; , : I I I I I 1\ I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I , I I j ; I I I I I I \, I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I , I I I I II i I I I \; ;1 I I N I I I I I : I I I I I 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE -mm %+3" %G",vel Co"",. 1 Fino Co ... el 0.0 0.0 I 2.8 0.1 I SIEVE PERCENT SPEC: PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X-NO) .5 100.0 .375 98.9 #4 97.2 #10 97.1 #20 97.0 #40 94.6 #60 54.7 #100 16.7 #200 7.4 • (no specification envelope) % Sand %Flne8 Medium 1 Fino Sill 2.5 1 87.2 7.4 Material Description Dark gray poorly graded SAND with silt PL= np Atterbero Limits LL-nv PI= 1 Clay 085= 0.3591 030= 0.1859 Cu= 2.92 Coef!Jcleots 060= 0.2652 015= 0.1318 Cc= 1.43 050= 0.2371 010= 0.0910 Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= A-3 Remarks Sample 1D: 29646-D. B-I/S-5 @ 20' Natural Moisture Content: 27.5% Tested By: -,C~L=M,,----______ ~ Checked By: ""'C""M'---_____ =-__ APPENDIXB EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL Appendix B Page B.! When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence. SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including but not limited to the furnishing of all labor, tools, and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans, and disposal of excess materials. PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthworks in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Inc., hereinafter known as the Geotechnical Engineer andlor Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades when achieved shall be certified to by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary readjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Geotechnical Engineer, Civil Engineer or project Architect. No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Geotechnical Engineer. The Contra<;tor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner of the Engineers. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be compacted to a density not less than 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method Dl557 as specified in the technical portion of the Geotechnical Engineering Report. The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Geotechnical Engineer. SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the soil report. Krazan and Associates, Inc. Eleven OffICeS Serving The Western United States 09'2·080ll.doc Appendix B Page B.2 The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in said report, and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the contractor for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work. DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance On or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including Court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or windblown materials attributable to his work. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grabbing and preparations of foundation materials for receiving fill. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish andlor remove from the area of designated project, earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter, and all other matter determined by the Geotechnical Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site. Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of I foot and to such an extent, which would permit removal of all roots larger than I inch. Backfill or tree root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Geotechnical Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas, which are to receive fill materials, shall not be permitted. SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Structural fill shall be prepared as outlined above, excavatedlscarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and compacted to 95 percent compaction. Loose andlor areas of disturbed soils shall be moisture conditioned and compacted to 95 percent compaction. All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill material. All areas scheduled to receive fill materials shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of any of the fill material. EXCAVATION: All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. Allover excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements. FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills provided prior approval is given by the Geotechnical Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetable or other deleterious matter as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. KrazaR 8lId A •• odates, I.c. Bleven Offices Serving The western United States 092-01101 Ldoc: Appendix B Page 8.3 PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Geotechnical Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface compacted to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer prior to final acceptance. SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Geotechnical Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill are as specified. Krazao aod Alsoclate., loe. Eleven Offices Serving ne Western United States 092·011011.401;: APPENDIXC PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS Appendix C Page C.l 1. DEFINITIONS -The term "pavement" shall inclnde asphalt concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. 2. SCOPE OF WORK -This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for and reasonable incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the plans and as herein specified, except work specifically notes as "Work Not Included." 3. PREPARATION OF THE SUB GRADE -The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum compaction of 95% of maximum dry density as determined by test method ASTM 01557. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement of additional pavement courses. 4. AGGREGATE BASE -The aggregate base shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base should conform to WSDOT Standard Specification for Crushed Surfacing Base Course or Top Course (Item 9-03.9(3». The baae material shall be compacted to a minimum compaction of 95% as determined by ASTM D1557. Each layer of subbase shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. S. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING -Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be PG-58-22. The mineral aggregate shall be WSDOT Commercial lIMA. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to WSDOT Specifications. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to WSDOT Specifications, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with combination steel- wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in WSDOT Specifications. The surface course shall be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine. 6. TACK COAT -The tack (mixing type asphaltic emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in accordance with the requirements of WSDOT Specifications KrazaD aDd Associate" Inc. Eleven Office8 Serving The Western United States 091-o&oII.4oc N Graphic Scale (Approximate) 10 0 10 20 --.--- (In Feel) 1 inch = 20 feel Legend Proposed Parking Area 4 B-1 4 B-1: Exploratory Test Boring Location Site Plan South 3rd Street Proposed Frontier Bank Proposed Parking Area ~ B-2 / .. Frontier Bank -Renton, Washington Date: Februa 25, 2008 Based on drawings by Botesch, Nash and Hall Figure 2 Project Number: 092-08017 Technical Memorandum Stonnwater Narrative TO: Michael Mertins, Frontier Bank FROM: Erik Emerson PE DATE: June 10, 2008 RE: Renton Branch Stormwater Narrative Project Description J{f pLJ\l'!N\tIG ~c~e.OI'''''~ f\\OJ{fON U'-crt'! 0 t-lQ'J 'I. I) 'I.\)\)~ !:!J RECENeO ~ Perteet, Inc. Civil and Transportation Consultants 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900, Everett, WA 98201 (425) 252-7700 I FAX (425)339-6018 The proposed construction of a downtown Renton branch of Frontier Bank will be constructed on the site of a former gas station and convenience store. The new bank will consist of a single story building with improvements throughout the site, including parking, drive up banking aisles, pedestrian access walks and landscaping. Improvements will also be made to the street frontage and utility supply. The previous gas station has been torn down and it's fuel tanks removed in preparation for the current project. From a stormwater perspective there will be little change in the project runoff due to the new construction. In it's previous as a filling station the site was built out to nearly 100% impervious area and likely generated moderately high levels of pollutants, especially hydrocarbons. There appears to have been no stormwater quantity or quality controls on the site. Construction of the bank building will marginally reduce the impervious coverage on the site, as the new construction will be required to meet newer, more stringent, landscaping requirements. The site will continue to be primarily covered in pavement and building. Stormwater runoff in both situations is collected conveyed to the City of Renton's storm sewer located on the southern side of South Third Street. Stormwater Analysis Very little change in stormwater runoff characteristic due to the proposed project. Only minimal stormwater facilities are necessary. The City of Renton currently reviews projects under the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM). However, the City has indicated that if the project is required to provide flow control or water quality treatment facilities those facilities will be required to meet the 2005 SWDM , . standards under SEP A rules. This narrative addresses the project's stormwater requirements under the standards described. As the project will require a number of permits it is assumed that the project will require stormwater review as described in the 1990 SWDM. The manual describes seven core requirements which apply to all projects and twelve special requirements that mayor may not apply to the project. These requirements are addressed below. Core Requirement #1. Discharge at the Natural Location. The entire site is collected by an onsite storm sewer system and conveyed to the municipal stormsewer system located in South Third Street under both the existing condition and the proposed development. Core Requirement #2. Off Site Analysis The site is bounded on all sides, except the road frontage, by a short wall that isolates it from the surrounding properties. There is no off site flow onto the site. An analysis of the downstream has not been performed. The project is expected to reduce the runoff from the site and no capacity issues have been identified. The downstream route is through municipal sewer that is believed to be identified and catalogued by the city. Core Requirement #3. Runoff Control Projects are required to limit developed runoff to predevelopment rates. Since the project will reduce the amount of impervious area on the site there will be a corresponding reduction in stormwater runoff. No detention is needed to meet the standard. Projects are also required to provide biofiltration measures. As defined in Section 1.2.3 ofthe SWDM projects which create more than 5000 square feet of new impervious surface subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals are required to provide treatment using biofiltration facilities. The proposed project will reduce the amount of area on the site subject to vehicular use not only by reducing the amount of impervious area on site, but also by replacing parking are with building and pedestrian walkways. The result should be a net reduction in pollutants leaving the site. No water quality treatment facilities are needed. Core Requirement #4. Conveyance System The relatively small catchment area of the site, and the lack of any offsite inflow, mean that site runoff will be relatively minor. The proposed stormwater collection system will be adequate to quickly remove stormwater runoff from the site. No detailed analysis is warranted. Core Requirement #5. Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control The project will install appropriate measures to control erosion and prevent sediment from entering the storm sewer system. Due to the nature of the site theses measures willlike\y be minor. The site is bound on 3 sides by a wall that extends more than a foot above grade. It will be impossible for sediment to leave • . . the site in any direction except north onto the roadway. In addition the site is very flat, so the risk of erosion due to flow across exposed ground will be minimized. With these factors in mind the erosion control measures will be concentrated on preventing track out from the site with a rocked construction entrance and maintaining existing pavement as long as feasible. Onsite storm sewer collection points will be protected using industry standard inlet protection measures. Core Requirement #6. Maintenance and Operation Since no detention or water quality systems will be required for the project the maintenance needs will be limited to occasional cleaning ofthe on site storm system. It is anticipated that the owner will likely address maintenance issues as problems occur. No O&M materials are needed as the storm system cleaning is common practice. Core Requirement #7. Bonds and Liability Stormwater facilities are limited to catch basins and pipes. As such it is not anticipated that any bonding will be required. Ifbonding and for these items is required as determined by the city they will be provided by the owner as part of the permitting process. Special Requirements As noted the SWDM also contains special requirements that apply to some projects. The following special requirements do not apply the project because they address a condition or regulatory requirement that does not exist on the site: • Critical Drainage Areas • Compliance with an Existing Master Drainage Plan • Conditions Requiring a Master Drainage Plan • Adopted Basin or Community Plans • Special Water Quality Controls (for projects over I acre) • Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separators (for projects over I acre) • Closed Depressions • Use of Lakes, Wetlands or Closed Depressions for Runoff Control • Delineation of the 100 Year Floodplain • Flood Protection Facilities for Type I and Type 2 Streams Also included in the list of special requirements are the preparation of Geotechnical Analysis and Reports and Soils Analysis. The project does not meet the thresholds for these requirements. However, the projects previous use as a gas station and anticipated issues with foundation design for the project necessitated geotechnical investigation. Documentation of the geotechnical work will be submitted with the project permit submittal. Standard Coverage PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. A.L.T.A. OWNER'S POLICY Order No., 624308 Policy Date: April 6, 2007 at 16,03 p.m. 1. Name of Insured: SCHEDULE A FFP, INC., a Washington corporation Policy No., 2061-003537 Amount: Premium: $1,000,000.00 $2,300.00 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this Policy is: FEE SIMPLE 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at date of Policy vested in: FFP, INC., a Washington corporation 4. The land referred to in this Policy is described as follows: As on Schedule A, page 2, attached. SCHEDULE A Page 2 Policy No., 2061-003537 The land referred to in this policy is in the State of Washington, and described as follows: That portion of H.H. Tobin Donation Claim No. 37, in SectionCounty, Commencing at a point of intersection of the centerline of 3 rd Avenue (now known as South Third Street) and Shattuch Street (now known as Shattuck Avenue South) in the City of Renton, which is 2,129.97 feet north and 1,537.93 feet west of the corner common to Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20; Thence south 0 0 13 ' east 30 feet; Thence south 89°47 ' west 180 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence south 0 0 13 ' east 120 feet; Thence south 89°47 ' west 166 feet; Thence north 0°13 ' west 120 feet; Thence north 89°47 ' east 166 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. END OF SCHEDULE A Standard Coverage PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. A.L.T.A. OWNER'S POLICY SCHEDULE 8 Policy No., 2061-003537 This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS, 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public record. 3. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate surveyor inspection of the premises. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records, or liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not shown by the public records. 5. Any title or rights asserted by anyone including but not limited to persons corporations, governments or other entities, to tide lands, or lands comprising the shores or bottoms of navigable rivers, lakes, bays, ocean or sound, or lands beyond the line of the harbor lines as established or changed by the United States Government. 6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 7. Taxes or special assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the public records. 8. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, capacity, or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage removal. 9. Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, As on Schedule B, attached. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: SCHEDULE B Page 2 Policy No.: 2061-003537 1. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any; rights of vendors and holders of security interests on personal property installed upon said property and rights of tenants to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. 2. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES: FIRST HALF DELINQUENT MAY 1, IF UNPAID: SECOND HALF DELINQUENT NOVEMBER 1, IF UNPAID: YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: LEVY CODE: 2007 000720-0003-06 2110 CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE: Land: $338,600.00 Improvements: $104,700.00 AMOUNT BILLED GENERAL TAXES: $4,868.29 SPECIAL DISTRICT: $1.50 $9.98 TOTAL BILLED: $4,879.77 PAID: $2.439.89 TOTAL DUE: $2.439.88 END OF SCHEDULE B JMB/JHC • Mark Rowley Garvey Schubert Barer 1191 Second Ave., Ste. 1800 Seattle, WA 98101 Order No.: 624308 Your Ref.: 201 S. 3rd St., Renton, WA 98055 Enclosed is your Policy for Title Insurance on the above-referenced transaction. Thank you for the opportunity of serving you. Please do not hesitate to call us locally at (206)622-1040 or statewide at 1-800-634-5544. We look forward to working with you again. LaVonne Bowman Senior Title Officer Unit No. 8 BO/BO'd BE ~ of 18-23-05 'I'~ '!' ~ .ft') ~~ ~;I ( III ~. "- !.--.....!.!U... .... _--,-:1 _+L-I --1.~..£]~",,' "..J. ... S ftr.q Tr..:ecrL $T (' ...... #~ .. ~ • .l., -------'-',+-"'------- • PACIFIC NoRI'HWEST TITLE Cotn ...... yofWaehingtoa,lnc. Order No. 624308 IMPO~TANT' This is not a Plat of survey. It 1s tu~iBhed as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. Nc liabili~y is assumed by reason of reliance hereon. N t ~I>LL 992 92~ JNL:lnN~8 1fJI1N01f:l 1I~ IS; II L002-90-1{\IIi CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ... -NI"?~~ -----------------------.... j~~'tJ~ !\cI'{TOI'I Printed: 11-26·2008 Payment Made: Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA08-141 1112612008 09:37 AM Receipt Number: Total Payment: 1,500.00 Payee: Frontier Bank Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 190216 1,500.00 Account Balances Amount 500.00 1,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE -USE 3954 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 NO'S 2 6 21l1l'a RECE-NEO R0806077