The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReport 04ti King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98057-5212 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 www.kingi:ounty.gov May 12, 2008 Jennifer Toth Henning · Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: .Engineering Plan Approval Recommendation to the City of Renton Singh Short Subdivision (Files LOSS0009 and L06SR010) Dear Ms. Henning: The Department of Development and Environmental Services (DOES) has completed our review of engineering plans for the Singh short subdivision. The short plat received preliminary approval by King County on Octo),er 28, 2005 and the property is now located in the recent annexation area of Renion along SE 192nd Street. Our review of the project was completed prior to anriexation but is now being processed by King County under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement (IA) between DOES and the.City. Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, we are forwarding the engineering plans to your office. We are recommending the City concur with our approval of the plans because they are consistent with the applicable standards and regulations for which the development is conditioned. Once we receive your recommendation and the applicant submits the required inspection fees and bonding, we will approve the engineering plans for construction. For your convenience, we are including key project file information that may assist in your review of these plans. A Site and.Restoration Bond will be posted with the County to guarantee the work is completed according to permit conditions. It is our understanding subsequent reviews and inspections related to this project will be continued by the County, on be-half of the City of Renton. The staff contact for our Land Use Inspection section is Jody Conyers, Project Manager, via email at jody.conyers@kingcounty.gov. If you have questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 296- 7178 or via email at jim.sanders@kingcounty.gov. ames Sanders, P .E. Development Engineer cc: Jody Conyers, Project Manager Peter Dye, Senior Engineer • ® King county Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest • Web date: 09/09/2005 CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT STATUS Renton, Washington 98055--1219 206-296-6600 TIY 206-296-7217 For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600. Pennit Number: Activity Number: /.....0{,pS RQ/Q Permit Name: FOR INDIVIDUALS: I, ', Ii/,./} (print name), hereby certify that I am the/an owner of he property which is the subject of this permit. If I am not the sole owner of the property, I certify that I am authorized to represent all other owners of the· property. My mailing address is: .,;l_./Cf/oo ·-/0 tf /2 ~& ~ii@, Iv Y-) c1S·"S'5•- 2_ ________________________ _ -../.. I further certify that I am the "Applicant" for this permit and as such am financially responsible for all fees and will receive any refunds paid. I shall remain the "Applicant" for the duration of this permit unless I transfer .,-1 licant" status in writin on a form provided by DOES. * ..1)/ e . .,.._ :,a,., --3 o ·-0 b Signature of Applicant r Date Signed -OR- FOR CORPORATIONS/BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS: I,--· (print name), hereby certify that I am an autl'.orized agent of , a corporation or other busine~.s association authorized to do business in the State of Washington, which is the sole owner of the property that is the subject of this permit. If this corporation or business association is not the sole owner of . the property, I certify that this corporation/business association is authorized to represent all other owners of the property. The mailing address of this corporation/business association is: I further certify that the above named corporation/business association is the "Applicant" for this permit and as such is financially responsible for all fees and will receive any refunds paid. This corporation/business association shall remain the "Applicant" for the duration of this permit unless it transfer, : _; applicant status in writing on a form provided by ODES. * --------------------Signature of Applicant's Agent * By signing as the Applicant or the Applicant's Agent, I certify under penalty of perju Washington that the information provided above is true and correct. CertApplicantStatusFORM Jo-cer-apstalpdf 09/09/2005 ~ .• ,.., ,---, ~~i~ned,; I?, 0 n er \t1E ~"{s pt-th~tate of K.C. D.D.E.S.Page1of2 " • • • NOTICE TO APPLICANTS: By law, this department returns all engineering and other plans to the applicant. If, however, you wish to authorize the department to return engineering and other plans directly to the engineer, architect, or other consultant for the limited purpose of making corrections, please designate below: [j I authorize this department to return plans directly to my consultant(s) for the limited purpose of making corrections as designated on this form. CONSULTANTS: Check out the DDES Web site at www.metrokc.gov/ddes CertApplicant3tatusFORM le>eer-apstat.pdf 09/09/2005 Page 2 of2 Engineering Plan Approval Checklist Pro~e~t Name ,~ 0/Y/~ 4 Act1v1ty No. };a§f(i . /~e U/0 vsi&'Plah for engineering matches the approved preliminary plat with the same number of lots. All Hearing Examiner conditions related to engineering have been satisfied --- ~ distance requirements comply with KCRS for all roadways __ · ~idth minimum I' behind curb/sidewalk. Crown centered in ROW centerline. ~urves ( check curb inlets ) will not overflow towards houses, structures, or steep slopes __ ~tion pond overflow is located to prevent significant downstream damage __ · R ~ries and Retaining Walls meet the six foot height limit and design standards in vfo'ci~~ code 21A.12.170 __ ~mes not allowed in 15 foot BSBL from SAO buffers res and Retaining Walls have been reviewed by staff geologist __ All ctural fill within lots areas and/or outside right-of-way has been reviewed by staff ologist __ Standard notes shown on plans for lot grading. C cfwetland hydrology and bypass conveyance or design issues. Illumination plans for rontage improvements on arterials (KCRS 5.05) __ l)vement thickness complies with KCRS for each different road classification. Overlay /,/note for KCRS 4.0 I shown for any sawcuts. ~rows shown on drainage plan. All drainage easements and BSBL's shown. ~ntrol facility in KC tract or public drainage easement. ~files show matching crowns. ~ances or Drainage Adjustments noted on plans. /6nd or Vault provides 3: I flow path The following I heels are approved and included with final engineering: J?.<c9eati' on plans signed by planner __ ree tion Plan signed by site specialist __ ctural !ans signed by BSD staff __ _ · · tion plans signed by CAO staff __ Q:...J.l!JJ.milo.a11.QilLQI£h.annelization plans signed by DOT staff __ ~eePlan C Ramp Policy per memo 7/13/07 -Two at each corner .... heck fees-Add tree retention fee and structural if not done during fee estimate. Also check budget hours per function. (pl anupprov al check Ii st.doc) ti King County Road Services Division Materials Laboratory Department of Transportation RSD-TR-0100 155 Monroe Avenue Northeast, Building D Renton, WA 98056-4199 www.metrokc.gov/roads. September 28, 2007 TO: Mazen Haidar, P.E., Engineer II, Department of Development and Environmental Services, Site Engineering and Planning Section VIA: Alan D. Corwin, P.E., Materials Engineer, Materials Laboratory, Project Support Services Group FM: Douglas Walters, P.E., Engineer Ill, Materials Laboratory, Project Support Services Group RE: Singh Short Plat: 11328 SE 192"d Street: L06SR010 As requested, we have reviewed the pavement design and plans for frontage improve- ments to SE 192nd Street associated with the Singh Short Plat. The pavement section was designed by Geotech Consultants, Inc. and submitted in a report dated December 7, 2006. The proposed pavement section reviewed is as follows: • 4.5 inches minimum compacted depth Class "B" ACP • 6.0 inches minimum compacted depth Crushed Surfacing Base Course or • 4.5 inches minimum compacted depth Class "B" ACP • 4.0 inches minimum compacted depth ATB Based on our analysis, we concur the above pavement section is generally adequate for the road widening frontage improvement and recommend approval. We trust this memo meets your current request. Please call me at 296-7708 if you have any ques- tions. ~-------------------------------------------------------- Engell, Bruce From: Sent: To: Subject: Mazen: Engell, Bruce Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:31 AM Haidar, Mazen Gurdev Singh Short Plat# L06SR010 I have approved the Significant Tree Retention Plan for the above referenced Short Plat and am routing you I copy of the plan with bond quantity form retaining I for my records. I requested 4 copies of the revised plan but only received 2. ~ G \.A.A, DE. \l s lN Gt H Afr~ T"tE Pl"M 1 ~~~Sn ~( \\\~~ t\ '1 CJ-ill 8,9/2007 l:l1tla 111LE SINGH SHORT PLAT ----·-·-,-.... ~.._ ...... -~.,-ww=w-- Hydraulic Proi AnorovaL "~ G u.~£l) S(M_J ~ s .?. Loro 'f::i-f: or o Thursday, Aug 09, 2007 05:07 PM . "· . -· SIGNIFICANT TREE BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET {Planting) (Can be completed and returned electronically) Date, 6-22-07 Project Name: Gurdev Singh Short Plat ODES Project Number: L06SR010 I. Soil Preparation Topsoi~ including labor Mulch (3 inch depth X 6' rourul) including labor Fertilizer Removal of invasive species Irrigation 2. Plant Materials Deciduous Trees (Nursery Stock) Cali . 3" Evergreen Trees (Nursery Stock) Cali : 3" Other: 3. Labor & Equipment Costs Labor: (planting) *Equipment: 4. Tree Protection Measures High Visibility Fencing Lineal Feet Tree Stakes s. Monitoring Cosu 3 years monitoring with reports •Existing Significant Tree Valnes Other: Other: SUBTOTAL $2,636.00 35.00 35.00 1.00 20.00 120.00 120.00 70.00 3.00 4.00 300.00 200.00 JO% CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION $790.80 TOTAL PERFORMANCE BOND AMOUNT $3,426.80 Fust $2500.00 shall be cash RECEIVED JUN z 8 to07 4CY 2CY 8 8 5 3 8 58 16 I I 140.00 70.00 8.00 160.00 600.00 360.00 560.00 174.00 64.00 300.00 200.00 Quantity Calculations completed by: Neil Buchanan, GHA Landscape Architects, 206-522-2334 Approved by Site Developmeut SpeciaUst: • Tree valne determined by highest lumber cost times 3 (triple stumpage per WAC) Approved by Site Development Specialist: Page I of2 SIGNIFICANT TREE RETENTION PLAN BOND INFORMATION (Planting & Existing Trees) This Significant Tree Retention perfonnance and maintenance bond (for replanting and existing significant trees) is to ensure that significant tree replacements are planted and survive. It is also to ensure that the significant trees to be retained are saved in a healthy state and replaced as approved by the approved significant tree retention plan or DOES approved (documented) revisions to that plan. The planting portion of the bond is for a period of three (3) years monitoring from the date of tree planting installation acceptance in writing by DOES or until the approved Significant Tree Retention Plan has been successfully complied with. The existing bond amount can be released upon successful retention of the significant trees to be retained after the construction has been completed. At the final inspection for Significant Tree Retention by the DOES Land Use Inspection Unit (LUIS), the general site bond may be released if the site is in compliance with the ODES approved Engineering Site and Construction Plan and the Significant Tree Retention Plan. This Significant Tree Retention (Planting) portion of the perfonnance and maintenance bond remains in affect for three (3) years monitoring or until DOES LUIS has completed final construction inspection and supports bond release as the Significant Tree Retention Plan is in compliance. If the Tree Retention Plan is not in compliance at the end of the street tree monitoring period LUIS can forward monitoring responsibility to ODES Site Development Services. DOES Site Development Services will assign an inspection/monitoring tracking number and bill the permittee the hourly rate in effect at that time as established by the King County Council Fee Ordinance. The permittee/developer is responsible to post the Significant Tree Retention and Planting Bond with ODES (Financial Guarantee Section) prior to the LUIS pre-construction meeting and prior to starting any site work/disturbance. A private agreement may be necessary between the plat permittee/developer, the future builder and the future landowner to ensure continued access for DOES inspections to the lots for the three (3) years monitoring or until the approved Significant Tree Plan has been complied with. This may require legal documentation as requested by DOES and is the sole responsibility of the plat permittee/developer to secure this agreement. A copy of this agreement shall be submitted to ODES Site Development Services and the LUIS Inspector. The future builder/landowner on the referenced Jots that include significant trees ( existing or planted) shall not remove or damage these trees in any way without prior approval (a permit may be required) from DOES -Site Development Services. It shall be the responsibility of the bond holder to request bond release from DOES. If at the end of the three (3) year monitoring period ( or as extended) the Significant Tree Retention Plan has not been complied with the bond may be forfeit to King County. It is the responsibility of the bond holder to perform monitoring and maintenance of the plantings as stated on the DOES Significant Tree Retention Plan or as legally assigned to others as stated above. Status reports on planting success shall be submitted to DOES Site Development Services a minimum of once per year. Submittal of this bond by the permittee/designee and acceptance by ODES constitutes acceptance of the above stated conditions. Ryan Neal From: Haidar, Mazen [Mazen.Haidar@METROKC.GOV] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:51 PM To: Ryan Neal Cc: Dye, Pete Subject: RE: L06SR010 revision resubmittal Ryan, RECEIVED SFP O 4 2007 KING COUNlY LAND USE SERVICES Page 1 of2 We have received the recent re-submittal and we have completed our third review and have the following comments: 1. The applicant needs to submit a 3 sets of Channelization Plan for KC DOT Review and approval, this was requested in our previous review but was not provided, please provide. 2. Pavement design review is pending for this project full compliance with this review is necessary for the engineer review approval. 3. Please submit three sets to bounded TIR and bounded plans. The project is now on hold pending resolution of the above mentioned 3 issues. Please let me know should you have any questions. Please note, my e-mail address has changed, the new address is mazen.haidar@kingcounty.gov. You may wish to update your records as accordingly, thank you. Mazen Haidar. P. E. I Engineer II King County, DOES, LUSD 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 -1219 Office: 206.296.7133, Fax: 206.296.6613 Email: mazen.haidar@kingcounty.gov From: Ryan Neal [mailto:ryan@cramemw.com] . Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:36 AM To: Haidar, Mazen Subject: L06SR010 revision resubmitlal 9/4/2007 Page 2 of2 Mazen, Please confirm your receipt of the redlines for the Gurdev Singh project on 192nd associated with the above- referenced project number that we resubmitted on 8/22. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks. rtn RyanT.Neal Cramer Northwest, Inc. 945 N. Central, Ste. #104 Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 2S3.852.4880, Fax: 253.852.4955 ry@~ra:mem__w&QIU ()/4/?007 ® King County Department of Deve)opment and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600. Drop-Off Cover Sheet for Land Use Services Division **************************** IM PORT ANT *****************"'********* Date Received by LUSD PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME IS NECESSARY FOR ALL DROP-OFFS Project No: l.,ff /p 8& Jr/Jr Project Name: u::rUkkv 5:1 CVQh >ht114-f ~+ FROM: uwhl.ek NW/ f2.~aJ'J Ne.al Company Name / C;tact Person Telephone No 1£::, ~0'2, 4~( 0 ~lEtrEaw~ru SEP O 4 2007 /Jd./ KC. D.D.E.S. TO MtUVl H tl 1'cl1t.JZ, -- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY KING COUNTY STAFF (please print) Short Plat/ Plats Please specify item(s) dropped-off: 0 ::11 rz, {A:lPvhA\Lliu-hfu Plin l;;;) M ~1Hd ~ Lot Line Adjustment Permit Please specify item(s) dropped-off: Right of Way Permit Please specify item(s) dropped-off: Clearing/ Grading Permit -Addilional information requested.· Please specify item(s) dropped-off· PLEASE NOTE: All drop-off itern(s) will be logged into the computer under the project nurnber, therefore, ii is important that the lop portion of this forrn is completed properly before you drop-off anything. Assistance in finding a project number can be provided by speaking to a Zoning/Land Use Technician. Your cooperation is important. Thank you. Check out the DOES Web site at www.metrokc.gov/ddes Drop-Off Cover Sl1eet-LUSO Only lg-cvs-dropoff.pdf 11-03-2004 Page i of 1 ~-c,----- Ryan Neal From: Perrin, Henry (Henry.Perrin@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:29 PM To: Janet Cc: Ryan Neal; David Enger Subject RE: Gurdev Singh Short Plat Janet, I do not need to review or sign off on these plans. I have also sent an email to Mazan Haidar stating this. From: Janet [mailtD:janet@mlraiassociates.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:45 PM To: Penin, Henry CC: 'Ryan Neal'; David Enger subject: Gurdev Singh Short Plat Henry, Per our phone conversation, I have removed the reference to RPMs from the Construction Notes and I have added dimensions from the face of curb to the edge line. Since you stated that you do not need to review the plan again, Ryan Neal with Cramer NW would like to have a written statement from you to that effect. This will help expedite the review process. A reply to this email would be fine. Thanks, Janet Janet Towle Hall Mirai Associates, Inc. 11410 NE 122 Way, Suite 320 Kirkland, WA 98034-6927 Phone: 425-820-0100 Fax: 425-821-1750 2/6/2008 Ryan Neal From: Paul Nilardy [Paul@CramerNW.Com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 200811:51 IWt To: 'Ryan Neal' Cc: lany@cramemw.com Subject 2004-139 GURDEV SINGH Ryan: Mazen just called and asked for paper copies (fun sets) of the latest drawings to be sent to him for the approval process. Please make sure that the 6 engineering drawings have the latest revision date of 8117/2007. Thanks, Paul Nilardy, P.E. Civil Engineer Cramer Northwest, Inc. Phone: (253) 852-4880 ,., 11:.t'll\l\Q y Cramer Northwest, Inc. Surveyors •Planners •Engineers November 2, 2005 Mazen Haidar King County DOES 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055 RE: Tien Le Short Plat (L05S0010) DearMazen, -----------------, We received a Notice of Request for Additional Information letter dated 11/07/05. ln the letter you indicated that we have not shown the existing rockery walls running along both sides of the existing road adjacent to the subject parcel's north property line. In order to clear up this matter I visited the site on 11/09/05 to try and locate the rockery. I found no existing rockery on the site except those that have already been shown on our maps from our previous submittal. As we discussed on 11/10/05, the pictures you have may have inadvertently been taken of the wrong site. I have enclosed copies of pictures that we have taken of the site for your review. Please let us know if there is anything else we can do to expedite this project. Sincerely, Terry Wilson Owner 945 N. Central, Suite #104 Kent WA 98032 -(253) 852-4880 Fax (253) 852-4955 www.cramemw.com E-m~il: cni(tiJcramemw.com ..:·,. \' I . I • ' • ~ ' ',~ , .. . I . \\ .... I • . "" . \, . t'' .._, "'·.., . •,.i, '·r .,,~·=-,,,,~'-· .. ' ... ' .... i . \ ',,, . ·~ , ' ·' ~. ,.~ 3 'i~ ~-' 'ii.' . I ~ " .of,' I ... \ > • f ,.-. \ ~ • ( ~ t ,, • I @ King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton.WA 98055-1219 November 7, 2005 Tien Le 9420 8th Avenue SW -Seattle, WA 98106 RE: Notice of Request for Additional Information or Studies Application No. L05S0010 -Le Short Subdivision Date Filed: March 2, 2005 Date of Complete Application: April 1, 2005 Dear Mr. Le: - ' I :- The purpose of this"letter is to notify you pursd~nt to King County Code Title 2.0 that theJ.a9d Use Services Division is requesting additional information and/or studies to complete the . review of your project. The information is described on the enclosed plat screening transmittal. · · ·. When submitting the requested information, include a copy of the plat screening transmittal and retain a copy for your records. Provide a cover letter, which lists how each item, .was addressed. Any clarification or explanation o_f the submittal can also be included in the cover letter. Please submit the information to: : King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division ATTN.: Chad Tibbits, Project Manager II, Current Planning Section 900 Oaksdale-Avenue-Southwest---------· ---· Renton, WA 98055-1219 If the submittal is hand delivered, submit at the address above. Your application is on "hold" from the date.of this notice, until the date you are advised that the additional information satisfies.this request or 14 days after the date the information has been provided. You will be notifieo if the Division determines that the information is insufficient. Please note that the supplemental information required after vesting of a co.mplete application shall n~t a~ect the validity of such application. The deadline for the submittal of the necessary Information Is February 6, 2006. In the event you feel extenuating circumstances exist, which may justify an extension of this date, you may supmit such request, in writing, for consideration by this Department. Failure to meet the deadline shall be cause for the Department to cancel or deny. the application. 17@ I King County Department of Development · and Enviromnental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale A venue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055·1219 Please provide ten (10) copies of the following, unless otherwise noted. Drainage: JI·:·.:•-.. ·, .-:: ·~~ . ,.r,;.:. • The plans must clearly show existing rockery wall_s running along both sides of the existing road adjacent to the subject parcel's north prop_erty line. • Existing contour lines must be revised to depict the existing rockery walls .. Revised Preliminary Short Plat: • Provide 10 copies of a revised preliminary_plat, as necessary, as a result of above-referenced requests for additional information. As a result of the review of the information, additional information (studies, revisions, etc.) may be requested at a later date. Further evaluation of these issues may result in the reconfiguration and/or Joss of Jots. ------------.. -.---·--~------·--·· ·----.------1 Le -L05S0010 08/05 I Cramer Northwest Inc. Surveyors •Planners • Engineers 945 N Central Ave., Suite I04 Kent WA 98032 www.cramernw.com r~:, //t,}'"' nu cO "' PM en _, -P JJOV ?QD~ /LtnJJ tounfiJ bDf5 CJoo Oa)i.tsd/{.Lv /1-ve. sw [arifcty) I wfl qb/J5~ -- .-· <:.·-; ~ ~-~l 1' ''' ::2 :--1 ':-' ::e 0 ·-- ~~~: ·~: C 1 --1 , r, , r-~ ( -~ . ?11, "> ~J ~; <:; <J ,:-),. ·-· r,·~ <.,n ·;:,;::;,_,:::.,;--t 1 'r-fJn : M ll uJ/'i "~!~"" II II I, I III ll11l, II/.,, ii,,, I," II SIGNIFICANT TREE BOND QUANTITY WORKSHEET (Planting) (Can be completed and ~m~el~I!.ically) Rt:iCt=BVll:U Date: 6-22-07 l!iJM ~ 6 ~eoi Project Name: Gurdev Singh Short Plat l\!Nl:l COIJNl't _" LANO USE SERVICE" ODES Project Number: L06SR010 1. Soil Preparation Topsoi~ including labor Mulch (3 inch depth X 6' round) including labor Fertili:rer Removal of invasive species Irrigation 2. Plant Materials Deciduous Trees (Nursery Stock) Cali . 3" Evergreen Trees (Nursery Stock) Cali . 3" Other: 3. Labor & Equipment Costs Labor: (planting) *Equipment: 4. Tree Protection Measures High Visibility Fencing Lineal Feet Tree Slakes 5. Monitoring Costs 3 years monitoring with reports •Existing Significant Tree Values Other: Other: SUBTOTAL $2,636.00 35.00 35.00 1.00 20.00 120.00 120.00 70.00 3.00 4.00 300.00 200.00 30% CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION $790.80 TOTAL PERFORMANCE BOND AMOUNT $3,426.80 Fim $2500.00 shall be cash 4CY 2CY 8 8 5 3 8 58 16 I I 140.00 70.00 8.00 160.00 600.00 360.00 560.00 174.00 64.00 300.00 200.00 Quantity Calculations completed by: Neil Buchanan. GHA Landscape Architects, 206-522-2334 Approved by Site Development Specia6st: • Tree value determined by highest lumber cost times 3 (triple stumpage per WAC) Approved by Site Development Specialist: Page 1 of2 SIGNIFICANT TREE RETENTION PLAN BOND INFORMATION (Planting & Existing Trees) This Significant Tree Retention performance and maintenance bond (for replanting and existing significant trees) is to ensure that significant tree replacements are planted and survive. It is also to ensure that the significant trees to be retained are saved in a healthy state and replaced as approved by the approved significant tree retention plan or DOES approved (documented) revisions to that plan. The planting portion of the bond is for a period of three (3) years monitoring from the date of tree planting installation acceptance in writing by ODES or until the approved Significant Tree Retention Plan has been successfully complied with. The existing bond amount can be released upon successful retention of the significant trees to be retained after the construction has been completed. At the final inspection for Significant Tree Retention by the DOES Land Use Inspection Unit (LUIS), the general site bond may be released if the site is in compliance with the ODES approved Engineering Site and Construction Plan and the Significant Tree Retention Plan. This Significant Tree Retention (Planting) portion of the performance and maintenance bond remains in affect for three (3) years monitoring or until DOES LUIS has completed final construction inspection and supports bond release as the Significant Tree Retention Plan is in compliance. If the Tree Retention Plan is not in compliance at the end of the street tree monitoring period LUIS can forward monitoring responsibility to DOES Site Development Services. DOES Site Development Services will assign an inspection/monitoring tracking number and bill the permittee the hourly rate in effect at that time as established by the King County Council Fee Ordinance. The permittee/developer is responsible to post the Significant Tree Retention and Planting Bond with ODES (Financial Guarantee Section) prior to the LUIS pre-construction meeting and prior to starting any site work/disturbance. A private agreement may be necessary between the plat pennittee/developer, the future builder and the future landowner to ensure continued access for DOES inspections to the lots for the three (3) years monitoring or until the approved Significant Tree Plan has been complied with. This may require legal documentation as requested by ODES and is the sole responsibility of the plat permittee/developer to secure this agreement. A copy of this agreement shall be submitted to ODES Site Development Services and the LUIS Inspector. The future buildernandowner on the referenced lots that include significant trees ( existing or planted) shall not remove or damage these trees in any way without prior approval (a permit may be required) from DOES -Site Development Services. It shall be the responsibility of the bond holder to request bond release from ODES. If at the end of the three (3) year monitoring period ( or as extended) the Significant Tree Retention Plan has not been complied with the bond may be forfeit to King County. It is the responsibility of the bond holder to perform monitoring and maintenance of the plantings as stated on the DOES Significant Tree Retention Plan or as legally assigned to others as stated above. Status reports on planting success shall be submitted to ODES Site Development Services a minimum of once per year. Submittal of this bond by the permittee/designee and acceptance by ODES constitutes acceptance of the above stated conditions. soc Page 1 of 1 Haidar, Mazen From: Perrin, Henry Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:16 PM To: Haidar, Mazen Subject: Gurdev Singh Property Mazen, I have asked the consultant (Miria Assoc) to label the width of the shoulder between the fog line and face of curb on their frontage and eliminate the RPMS on the fog line. I told them that was adequate for this project and I don't need to see plans again. As a rule of thumb I don't need to see chan plans if all they are doing is replacing what's out there with no added turn lanes etc., and if it's a two lane section-but thanks for checking. Henry M. Perrin, P.E. Sr. Safety Management Engineer King County DOT. Traffic Engineering Section 201 S. Jackson Street. KSC-TR-0222 Seal/le. WA 98104 (206) 263-6138 02/05/2008 ·m King County if)/ f.-0 wo/ to re 6-t!S:1"' r-t ~~;;!"" 6 ... to lf-b for 14 ~ fu· o r-fJ k-5 \'-qr ,.-; ~ / + I Ji:, /-'tfJ1 ··, /-,•,c ) rev:fi~ 0 .,,_5 ·1:~11;.;t0 _./ ---.:----· ____ / Vet 1/'it,v,,,...ce ~~-"'-f,/C. ri <i""'" Cl, Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TIY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov 1129 lj--JJJ r I Engineering Plans Review Comments Project Type : Four Lots Short Plat Review Date : 03-27-2007 Reviewer Name : Mazen Haidar, P.E Project Name : Singh ShortPlat Review No.: 2"" Email: mazen.haidarc@metrokc.gov Project Number : L06S0009 Phone: (206) 296 -7133 . Activity Number: L06SR010 . Fax: (206) 206 -6613 Sub Back Reference Item Review Comments Consultant Response Check Item )Sheet 4 Please show setback dimensions from property lines c.rk.. / and structures for each dispersal trench The Private Access Tract road section will be crowned section. It may appear sloping the road to one direction c{,...,-a·fr c-•J.-.·c,,._ "-' .l. / is a good design option, but it is not consistent with the 2 t,,.i-t.A 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS). The road ' d. y-e.c.f--;-c, " (re_,,_, ~C--re. : section shall be revised accordingly, unless a road variance is annroved to allow the current desion ootion. c1c-r.·t1.-Ce Please appear to show existing power pole and other utilities at the southeast property corner, please identify () k ~ ti) ~ these items and indicate on plans that these items shall ,.__ w !!!I = ~~ be relocated oer the 1993 KCRS. c:, ..... Please label on plans that existing CB's south of EOP o-k -co ::,w / w c,CO should be furnished with solid locking lids. -~ 0~ Please show curb on the east side of the PAT for Y>-.<.,J,, .[ ii :z: z=> => -o surface runoff control --,, -""z Please show curb at the north terminus of the PAT to i()~ ~ = _. -------designate end of road. Sheet 1 of 3 / t4 King County Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 ITY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov Sub Reference Item lterri Sheet 5 Sheet 6 General Review Comments Please revise note shown on this sheet to read as follows: All existing road obstacles shall be relocated at a set back from the edge of the travel lane or the face of the curb accordina to the 1993 KCRS reauirements. In the frontage road improvement profile, please show how new flow line grade will match existing grade, show property stations, on-site access centerline station, and label existina arade rm flow line & new arade rm flowline In the PAT profile, please revise to show no more than 8.33% grade slope within KC ROW for the road centerline, show existing and new ROW stations, change cut grade slope from 2: 1 to 3: 1 and check the landing design and make it is consistent with the 1993 KCRS and show station and elevations at new ROW station and at 20-feet north of the new ROW station. Please revise the PAT road section to a crowned section Please be advised that traffic review is pending for the submitted Traffic Control and Illumination Plans and full compliance with this review comments (if any) is necessarv for the enaineerina review aonroval. Please be advised that constructability review is pending for this project and full compliance with this review comments (if any) is necessary for the engineering review aooroval. Please provide Channelization plan for County review. Sheet 2 of 3 Back Consultant Response Check oK _/ ) .L::J.-1./2 / ck A , -I -,r-.-g- . oK ~7 /., r;J1,) / , rv-ctl,e,_ / '1IJ ,,,,+ t,\. t; ~ • l ' ( tL. ,, " rJ-._ . ti King County Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov Sub Reference Item . - • Item Back Review Comments Consultant Response Check / Please provide Trees Retention Plan for County review. /Mf 1..1. .s v Please submit 3 sets of revised plans and TIR along with // all County redline markups for further review. Sheet 3 of 3 (' . .,.__.~ ti King County Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov Engineering Plans Review Comments Pft:>j~c::tTyp!=) : groj~<:1: t.Jame : Four Lots:SnortPlat . Review Date : 08-09~.2007 Reviewer Name: •MazenHaidar, P.E;,· .·· - Pr<>jf'l¢fNumber : ActivityaNumber :- . --. - ,. ••Reference Item r .. ;, __ . Sheet 3 1 Sheet 4 1 2 3 General 1 2 3 · Singh $hoff Plat• Review No, : 2Q Email: L06.SOOO!:!L L06SR010'~ -=..;_ _ _, .... . Sub Review Comments Item .. . Please revise the length of the proposed construction entrance to a minimum of 50-feet. Please show on plans the length of each proposed dispersion trench Label existing CB at the southeast property corner to have solid lockinq lid, see redline markups. For existing Power Pole and Fire Hydrant, please revise your note to read Ex. PP & FH are to be relocated per the 1993 Kino Countv Road Standards. SE 1492"0 is a Principal Arterial roadway. The proposed road widening required a pavement design calculations based on actual soils conditions and CBR = 20, please submit these calculations for County review as soon as oossible. Please submit Channelization Plans for SE 192"' for County review and approval. Please refer to plans red line markups and revise accordingly. Sheet 1 of 2 .Phone,: --Fax: ... . . . .. ~ - Consultant Response -.. Back Check •••• .· ,. v~· tQ KingCounty Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov -~ Sub Reference Item -Item ----. -.. - 4 5 . - -----_-, Bilek Review.Comments - Consultant Respon~e -... -Check_ _-_ ' ---• .· ,, ---. -_ Please be advised that Traffic review and Significant Trees plan review are pending, and full compliance with the reviews comments and conditions (if any) is necessarv for the enaineerina review annroval. Please submit 3 set of revised bounded plans and TIR along with all County review red lines for further review Sheet 2 of 2 ~ King County Department of Development And Environmental Services . 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov Engineering Plans Review Comments ProjE!ctType : Four L.otsShcirtPlat · Review Date: 08-09~2007 RevieWer Name.: MazerrHaidar, P.E. .: Pr<>ject Name : · SinghSholi Plat Review No. : · 2~ Email : 111a:zer1:haidar@rriefrokc.gov . · ProJec::tNi.Jmber : I _, A_c::tivity Number : L.06S0009, Phone : (206) 296 -71:33 L.06SR01ff . Fax : . · · (206) 206 -6613 ····· . . . .. Sub Back , Ret11rence Item Review Comments Consultant-Response Check 1,: > Item ' . Sheet 3 1 Please revise the length of the proposed construction entrance to a minimum of 50-feet. Sheet4 1 Please show on plans the length of each proposed dispersion trench 2 Label existing CB at the southeast property corner to have solid lockino lid, see redline markups. 3 For existing Power Pole and Fire Hydrant, please revise your note to read Ex. PP & FH are to be relocated per the 1993 Kinq Countv Road Standards. General 1 SE 1492"" is a Principal Arterial roadway. The proposed road widening required a pavement design calculations based on actual soils conditions and CBR = 20, please submit these calculations for County review as soon as possible. 2 Please submit Channelization Plans for SE 192"' for County review and approval. 3 Please refer to plans red line markups and revise accordingly. Sheet 1 of 2 KingCounty Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TIY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov Sub Reference Item. -Item . . . . 4 5 . . Back Review Comments Consultant Response· ··check .. . . ... . . . .... Please be advised that Traffic review and Significant Trees plan review are pending, and full compliance with the reviews comments and conditions (if any) is necessarv for the enaineerina review annroval. Please submit 3 set of revised bounded plans and TIR along with all County review redlines for further review Sheet 2 of 2 U8c 1< Uo U~:44p 11.::;: Lanoscap1ng & IVlaint. p.1 . . .;,. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. .- ~ ( __ _ !3256 N,:rtbl!a~t :!0th Stn.:ei. Sui~ i{i Belle..·ue. W~hi:1gt::1n 1180(:5 (425) 747-~618 FAX (42::5.)747-8561 r-::-·-------.... ". \ Gurdev Singh I _L-.--- ·~, < December 7, 2006 JN 06353 I 19100-~0:)41~Place Southeast 1 \ Renton, Washington 98055 ' -- Subject: Pavement Design Considerations 11328 Southeast 192nd Street King County, Washington Dear Mr. Singh: via facsimile: (253) 854-2475 Attached is our completed pavement cesign for the proposed widening of Southeast 192nd Street at the property !ccated at 11328 Southeast 192nd Street in King County. Our scope of services consisted of visiting the site to hand excavate three test holes parallel to Southeast 192nd Street, commissioning laboratory tests consisting of the ModiflEld Proctor test (ASTM Test D-1557) and the Califomia Bearing Ratio (CSR) test (ASThl Test D-1883-05). The ground surface along the north side of Southeast 192nd Street, where the widening will occur, is generally al, or above. the current street grade. As a result, this area will have to be excavated down a few feet lo reach the elevation of the road surface. Our explorations immediately north of the current curb encountered 4 to 6 inches of topsoil overlying medium-dense silty sand and gra11el that became dense near one foot below the existing grade. This dense soil has been glacially cor:,pressed, and is often referred to as glacial till. Samples of the glacial till soils were obtained and submitted to GeoEngineers, Inc. to determine Irie California Bearing Ralio (CSR) of the native soil. · · Copies of our assumptions, laboratory results, and ;iavement design computations are attached to this letter for referenc~. The CSR value of 24.0 used in our pavement design calculations assumes that the road subgrade has a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent relative !o the maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557). We were also provided with historical traffic counts of King County for Southeast 1 g2nd Street. By assuming that 10 percent of · the traffic is trucks or buses. we estimated the number of Equivalent Single Axle Loads {ESAL) per day based on the statistical truck distributions as determined by the Federal Highway Administration. The number of ESAL's were then detennined over a 20-year pavement design life assuming an annual traffic growth of 6 percent. This total was divided by 2, assuming that each of the lanes wouid carry 50 percent o1 the traffic. The other input parameters were based on the attached design parameters from King County. The design parameters were inputted into the AASHTO Design Equation for flexible pavements, which yielded a pavement section of 4.47 inches of aschalt. over E inches of crushed rock base. Therefore. we recommend using a pavement section for the new pavement consisting of ~-5-,nches ot asphalt concrete (AC) over 6 inches of crushed reek base (CRB). The crushed rock should be placed on a firm soil subgrade. If desired, 4 inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB) could be used in place of the CRB. GEOTECH CONSUc TANrn. NC. Ceo 12 06 09:45p KST Landscaping & : Maint. Gurdev Singh December 7, 2006 ' q :~ \._/~// 425-271-6728 p.2 JN 06353 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this information, or ·~ we may be of further ser1i:;e, please de not hesitate to contact us. ' ZJM/MRM: jyb Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Principal CiC:OTECH CO'iSULT-\NTS. INC. Cramer Northwest, Inc. • Surveyors •Planners •Engineers June 25, 2007 King Co. DOES Attn: Mazen Haidar, P.E. 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 RE: L05S0009, L06SR010 Gurdev Singh Short Plat Dear Mazen, This is our response to the Engineering Plans Review Comments dated 3-27-2007 regarding the above project. This response outlines point by point how each issue is resolved. Sheet 4: 1. Setback dimensions for dispersal trenches have been provided as requested. 2. We have an approved variance (L07V0032) which allows us to have the cross slope in one direction. 3. Leader lines now call out the light pole and fire hydrant and reference notes on sheet 5. 4. CB2 now has the comment in the CB Schedule 'Locking Solid Lid'. Existing CB #2, now has more information listed in the added Ex. CB's table. The table can be found on sheets 3, 4 and 5. Cb #2 has an existing solid lid, and I believe that Just the locking bolts are not installed. 5. Since we have an approved Variance (L07V0032), no curb is required on the east side of the PAT. 6. A rolled curb is now shown the end of the new access road. See sheets 4 and 5 for notes relating to this curb. Sheet 5: 1. The road side obstacle note has been revised as requested. 2. The requested information has been provided. 3. The requested information has been provided. Since SE 192"a ST is an Arterial, it is my understanding that the landing should be 30'. Please see the called out stations in the profile. The landing starts at Sta 0+42 and ends at Sta O+ 72. Please note that there is a 1 foot difference between these two stations. Sheet 6: 1. We have an approved variance (L07V0032) which allows us to have the cross slope in one direction. Details 3/6 and 4/6 have been modified to show 3 to 1 slopes leaving the edge of the road. RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2007 KING COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES 945 N. Central, Suite #104 Kent WA 98032 (253) 852-4880 Fax (253) 852-4955 www.cramernw.com E-mail: cni@cramernw.com Cramer Northwest, Inc. • Surveyors •Planners •Engineers y General: 1. We have been advised about the traffic review. 2. We have been advised about the constructabillty review. 3. Please see the 'ILLUMINATION AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLAN". 4. A Tree Retention Plan has been provided, see sheet L 1.0. 5. Requested materials have been provided. We feel that we have adequately addressed the comments that were made. We respectfully request that you approve these plans as designed. Please call our office if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, f~~~ Paul Nitardy, P.E. Cramer Northwest 945 N. Central, Suite #104 Kent WA 98032 (253) 852-4880 Fax (253) 852-4955 www.cramcmw.com E-mail: cni@cramernw.com r \ Page 1 of 2 Haidar, Mazen From: Haidar, Mazen Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:51 PM To: 'Ryan Neal' Cc: Dye, Pete Subject: RE: L06SR010 revision resubmittal Ryan, We have received the recent re-submittal and we have completed our third review and have the following comments: I. The applicant needs to submit a 3 sets of Channelization Plan for KC DOT Review and approval, this was requested in our previous review but was not provided, please provide. 2. Pavement design review is pending for this project full compliance with this review is necessary for the engineer review approval. 3. Please submit three sets to bounded TIR and bounded plans. The project is now on hold pending resolution of the above mentioned 3 issues. Please let me know should you have any questions. Please note, my e-mail address has changed, the new address is mazen.haidar@kingcounty.gov. You may wish to update your records as accordingly, thank you. Mazen Haidar. P. E. I Engineer II King County, DOES, LUSD 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055 -1219 Office: 206.296.7133, Fax: 206.296.6613 Email: mazen.haidar@kingcounty.gov From: Ryan Neal [mailto:ryan@cramernw.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:36 AM To: Haidar, Mazen Subject: L06SR010 revision resubmittal . Mazen, Please confirm your receipt of the redlines for the Gurdev Singh project on 192nd associated with the above-referenced project number that we resubmitted on 8/22. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks. 08/30/2007 Cramer Northwest, Inc. • Surveyors • Planners • Engineers August 17, 2007 King Co. DDES Attn: Mazen Haider, P.E. 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 RE: L05S0009, L06SR010 Gurdev Singh Short Plat Dear Mazen, This is our response to the Engineering Plans Review Comments dated 8-09-2007 regarding the above project. This response outlines point by point how each issue is resolved. Sheet 3: 1. The construction entrance length has been increased to the requested 50'. Sheet 4: 1. The lengths of each dispersion trench are now shown on the plan. 2. The CB number has been changed to #8, and a note has been added on the plan to provide with a solid locking lid. 3. The note has been revised as requested except that light pole was used instead of PP. General: 1. Geotech Consultants, Inc. did a pavement design. The revised Pavement Design dated December 7, 2006 is included for your review. 2. The Channelization Plan can be found on sheet SL-1 on a drawing from Mirai Associates, Inc. dated 12/5/06, named 'Illumination and Pavement Marking Plan". 3. The plans have been updated per the redlines. 4. We have been advised about the traffic review and Significant Tree Plan. 5. Requested materials have been provided. We feel that we have adequately addressed the comments that were made. We respectfully request that you approve these plans as designed. Please call our office if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, P--1-J,1,µ~ Paul Nitardy, P.E. Cramer Northwest RECEIVED AUG i 2 2007 KING COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES 945 N. Central, Suite#I04 Kent WA 98032 (253) 852-4880 Fax (253) 852-4955 www.cramcmw.com E-mail: cni@cramemw.com m .. .. -; ' KingCounty Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov !RECEIVED AUG 2 » 2007 KING. COUNTY .. bAND IJB~ DeAVltll!fl ' Engineering Plans Review Comments Project Type : Four Lots Short Plat Review Date : 08-09-2007 Reviewer Name : Mazen Haidar, P.E. Project Name : Singh Short Plat Review No.: 2 nu Email : .. mazen.haidarlcilmetrokc.gov Project Number : L06S0009 .. Phone:· (206) 296 -7133 Activity Number : L06SR010 Fax·: (206) 206 -6613 Sub Back Reference Item Review Comments Consultant Response Check Item Sheet 3 1 Please revise the length of the proposed construction entrance to a minimum of 50-feet / Sheet4 1 Please show on plans the length of each proposed / dispersion trench 2 Label existing CB at the southeast property corner to ./ have solid lockinQ lid, see redline markups. 3 For existing Power Pole and Fire Hydrant, please revise / your note to read Ex. PP & FH are to be relocated per the 1993 Kina Countv Road Standards. General 1 SE 1492"0 is a Principal Arterial roadway. The proposed ~ road widening required a pavement design calculations ~~\ \~ based on actual soils conditions and CBR = 20, please submit these calculations for County review as soon as v./1-/ possible. . 2 Please submit Channelization Plans for SE 192"' for ~~ ~,:}~. County review and approval. 3 Please refer to plans redline markups and revise accordingly. Sheet 1 of 2 .. l~fl 'lal King County Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TIY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov Sub Reference Item Item 4 5 .. - Review Comments . Consultant Response Back Check . Please be advised that Traffic review and Significant Trees plan review are pending, and full compliance with / the reviews comments and conditions (if any) is necessarv for the enqineerinq review annroval. Please submit 3 set of revised bounded plans and TIR / along with all County review red lines for further review Sheet 2 of 2 ~·, ~ King County Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov RECEIVED AUG ~ 2 2007 KING COUNTY LAND USE SERVICES Engineering Plans Review Comments ,ProjectType: · Four Lots ShortPlat Review Date: 08°09-2007 ijeviewer Name:" 'Mazen Haidar, P.E Project Narne : Singh ShorfPlat Review No/: . Email : .· mazen.haidar@meffokc.gov Project.Number: L06S0009 ·•_ .Phone: · (206) 296-?133 Activify:Number : L06SR010: Fax : (206) 206 -6613 1:: Refe,!ence . Sheet 3 Sheet4 General Item 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 Sub· ltel)1 Revi~w Comme~~ . .;; .· --- Please revise the length of the proposed construction entrance to a minimum of 50-feet. Please show on plans the length of each proposed dispersion trench Label existing CB at the southeast property comer to have solid locking lid, see redline markups. For existing Power Pole and Fire Hydrant, please revise your note to read Ex. PP & FH are to be relocated per the 1993 Kini:i County Road Standards. SE 1492"' is a Principal Arterial roadway. The proposed road widening required a pavement design calculations based on actual soils conditions and CBR = 20, please submit these calculations for County review as soon as possible. Please submit Channelization Plans for SE 192"0 for County review and approval. Please refer to plans redline markups and revise accordin.9.ly. Sheet 1 of 2 - 1·: C I .. · Cci~~ulta~IRe~i>~~se I· ';;sack · :•Check' .. ,.___ ' .. ~ KingCounty Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TIY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov Reference Item 4 5 ·Suli Item . Review Comments . Please be advised that Traffic review and Significant Trees plan review are pending, and full compliance with the reviews comments and conditions (if any) is necessary for the en!lineering review approval. Please submit 3 set of revised bounded plans and TIR along with all County review redlines for further review Sheet 2 of 2 . . ' . . Ccinsultant Response . · Back -Check .·"". "ti KingCounty Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TIY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov Engineering Plans Review Comments if>roject Type : ProjecfName : Four Lots Short Plat Review Date: · oa.;09~2007 .. Reviewer'Name_ :,, Mazen Haidar, P.E. . Singh Short Plat.· Review. No, :-{ 2" Email : · mazen:haidar@metrokc.gov ·. Project Number : ~ctivify Number : · L06SOOb9.,. •···• ._Phone: ··(206) 296 -7133. L06SR010 · ••, -Fax: (:206) 206 -6613 · '_' Refe.~e_n~e Item sub •. -••• ,,·('/i ... ·• Review~::~ents . ··• . · .... ···,·· .. ;l6~sultanf~esponse. ·.· .. ~\-iha::k· ·"' Item. . .,. . ., . . . . . . . .. . i·, ._:::·.:. .·. . . ' '.,. .-:· . •-, ., ' ., ,-_, ___ ... ,. . _,._. .. .-. . Sh 1 3 1 Please revise the length of the proposed construction ee entrance to a minimum of 50-feet. She t 4 1 P_lease _show on plans the length of each proposed e d 1spers1on trench 2 Label existing CB at the southeast property corner to have solid lockinci lid, see redline markups. 3 For existing Power Pole and Fire Hydrant, please revise your note to read Ex. PP & FH are to be relocated per the 1993 Kina Countv Road Standards. 1 SE 1492"0 is a Principal Arterial roadway. The proposed General road widening required a pavement design calculations based on actual soils conditions and CBR = 20, please submit these calculations for County review as soon as oossible. 2 Please submit Channelization Plans for SE 192"0 for Countv review and approval. 3 Please refer to plans red line markups and revise accordingly. Sheet 1 of 2 ..._ -~ti KingCounty Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-5212 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 www.metrokc.gov . . Sub -- Reference Item . Item . . 4 5 -·.: -.--· .. . -'"· . .. Review Comme11ts --·'·' ..,-.. -,-: . . ... . . . . Please be advised that Traffic review and Significant Trees plan review are pending, and full compliance with the reviews comments and conditions (if any) is necessary for the enQineerinQ review annroval. Please submit 3 set of revised bounded plans and TIR along with all County review redlines for further review Sheet2 of 2 -. : ~ ~"~ ·_: __ ._ .. . ,., . .. - · Back Consultant Response.. : Check . ' --·_:· .. .,--.. "· c·.·c• .. -: · .. : .. -:.<.": ® King County Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 206-296-6600 TIY 206-296-7217 For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600. Drop-Off Cover Sheet for Land Use Services Division **************************** IMPORTANT ************•H******* .. *** PROJECT NUMBER AND NAME IS NECESSARY FOR ALL DROP-OFFS Project No.: L,-.8' 5 S ZJE'ff 'I . L, fr{,,, S /2-13 f d Project Name: ~ILW,l/ ~,' t~'k S P Date Received by LUSD ~~~G~~~,~~ FROM: ~ N vJ, 12.~tt-~ Nu{ Company Narrie / Co~ Perso9,, r;, Telephone No: X?.> gr;;;;;r<-1 d" <f () To: MaUYi ::HAicLa.J0 K.C. D.D.E.S. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY KING COUNTY STAFF (please print) Short Plat / Plats Please specify item(s) dropp~-~ff: ( ~ sd:r rwi'Ka ~J , ~ I Lot Line Adlustment Permit Please specify item(s) dropped-off: Right of Way Permit Please specify item(s) dropped-off: 1(& Clearing / Grading Permit -Additional information requested. Please specify item(s) dropped-off: Other: ------------------'------------------ PLEASE NOTE: All drop-off item(s) will be logged into the computer under the project number, therefore, it is important that the top portion of this form is completed properly before you drop-off anything. Assistance in finding a project number can be provided by speaking to a Zoning/Land Use Technician. Your cooperation is important. Thank you. Check out the DDES Web site at www.metrokc.gov/ddes Drop-Off Cover Sheet-LUSD Only lg-cvs-dropoff.pdf 11-03-2004 Page 1 of 1 ,• GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 NE 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX 747-8561 Transmittal JN: 083113 To, Gurdev Singh Co.: Addrasa: 19100-1041h Place S.E Renton, Wash. 98055 RE: . Revlliad Pavement Design 11328 S.E. 192nd S1reet King County, Washington . Dear Mr. Singh: Flan Marc R. McGinnis, P.E Data, December 8, 2006 FAX: (253) 854-2475 Phone: (425) Ryan of Cramer N.W. informed us ·that the street In front of the project is designated with a higher traffic capacity (principal arteriaO than we used in the initial pavement design dated November 17, 2006. We have revised the design for the higher traffic loading, and the new design is attached to this transmittal. Unfortunately, it increases the asphalt thickness by 0.5 inches. We.are also sending a copy to Cramer N.W. via email. Please call with any questions. r-:iJl :J> )I> z,,. m 0-(= z ra 0 5ic;, mo """' ffl a,C ..., -,..c: < -~Z "' C) m c,:.t C> ~ --.. Cl cc: Cramm-N.W. -rpnCD m1wwww.cam • Page 1 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Gurdev Singh 19100 -104th Place Southeast Renton, Washington 98055 Subject: Pavement Design Considerations 11328 Southeast 192nd Street King County, Washington Dear Mr. Singh: . 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 December 7, 2006 JN 06353 via facsimile: (253) 854-2475 Attached is our completed pavement design for the proposed widening of Southeast 192nd Street at the property located at 11328 Southeast 192nd Street in King County. Our scope of services consisted of visiting the site to hand excavate three test holes parallel to Southeast 192nd Street, commissioning laboratory tests consisting of the Modified Proctor test (ASTM Test D-1557) and the . California Bearing Ratio (CSR) test (ASTM Test D-1883-05). The ground surface along the north side of Southeast 192nd Street, where the widening will occur, is generally at, or above, the current street grade. As a result, this area will have to be excavated down a few feet to reach the elevation of the road surface. Our explorations immediately north of . the current curb encountered 4 to 6 inches of topsoil overlying medium-dense silty sand _arid gravel that became dense near one foot. below the existing grade. This dense soil has been glacially compressed, and is often referred to as glacial till. Samples of the glacial till soils were obtained and submitted to GeoEngineers, Inc. to determine the California Bearing Ratio (CSR) of the native soil. Copies of our assumptions, laboratory results, and pavement design computations are attached to this letter for reference. The CBR value of 24. O used in our pavement design calculations assumes that the road subgrade has a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent relative to the maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557). We were also provided with historical traffic counts of King County for Southeast 192nd Street. By assuming that 10 percent of the traffic Is trucks or buses, we estimated the number of Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL) per day based on the statistical truck distributions as determined by the Federal Highway Administration. The number of ESAL's were then determined over a 20-year pavement design life assuming an annual traffic growth of 6 percent. This total was divided by 2, assuming that each of the lanes would carry 50 percent of the traffic. The other input parameters were based on the attached design parameters from King County. The design parameters were inputted into the AASHTO Design Equation for flexible pavements, which yialdad a pavement section of 4.47 inches of asphalt. over 6 inches of crushed rock base. Therefore, we recommend using a pavement section for the new pavement consisting of 4.5-inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 6 inches of crushed rock base (CRB). The crushed rock should ba placed on a firm soil subgrade. If desired, 4 inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB) could be used in place of the CRB. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Gurdev Singh December 7, 2006 JN 06353 Page2 If you have any questions regarding this information, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. ZJM/MRM: jyb Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Prindpal GEOTECH CONSULT ANTS, INC. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC_ 13256 NE 20th Suce~ Suite 16 Bellevue. WA 98005 (425) 747-5618 1 FA~ (425) 747-8561 p ;:: Job No.0~3S' J Project 113 :)_ 8 SE l'l 1 ~ ~ s+. Subject S .f r -.e f lJ, ·J,,. :-, .I Made By lS/11 Checked By _____ _ Date I 2 • l · " '-Page I Of o1... !'I ~ ,'ii/'Jb ,• J ,. PJ . { /•It'< I£ I ---· __ ,__ '":_j.::4--~S "--~ . ..i: --1.Jl'o_.,; "* '-·\:i...fie... --'.O. f_ ,.--, '.I. ,_:.7-_'/_i_,,_, ~-C) QJ ,L_ --t-··1-t--t--+-·-t IJ -,a:. ·i: ) WI~ : -i llhJi ·c L. i/ 11> ... -+-1--l--+-+--1-,-+: +1 -!1-+-1-+-1-··+ , 1 -1-+-+-+-l+·,1--1--1--µ' f'_1.J.=.=.1-~'es,:..51J,-i-·llf-.L.i -1-++-+-t-1-1 ,_ GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256NE 20th Sttee~ Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 9800S (425) 747-5618 1 PA]( (425) 747-8S61 $ :; a Job No. 0~35-3 Project /13 ~~ S6 /91..J. .Sf. Subject .Sfree+ /J,·J,,. :,1a Made By lJl".I Checked By _____ _ Date 12 • r · 01, Page -<. Of --=...Z,..___ i ' b i I I I I l ------~-7: :::-LJt-~ ·~~ "-/,r::J~~-' ~ ~e:,,~--.11fL--l-f--~.::+1=:=::;=:=·;_-l---l--. -1-+-HI--I ,--1-t---1--.+--,---~:-Ti~-f-1. J,-+-1--,-+-:,-+--1--1----~r·· .S~llll'!lp-ft..'.~.~---_ _,_o_ .. o,°:Jl"J...:: ··~ :: __ ; 0. '.yJi.t..k-1--,1-+-f--l-·-I---I-··-!-+-+-+---- -·1-_,__J__;_J_L_,_ __ ,_ i--... L J "'-- 1---,+-!l-+-+--l-.-i~+-+-f---f-+-f--+--ll-+--+--:1--1--+-+--I _ , 1 1 1 r .1_-TLL 1/. _c__~l--!-=-f--"1C.."!._~,_!---+-l-+-H1--+-+-l--l--l--+-HL.....I l--l--+--J---1-+-I!,_ ' r -I I .l.. } = I ,., .p,,. J J ; <: ~ '"--+~ '"'4-,.4,JtL,t'·~1:..i, ~--1---l---l-+---l--l T . _, _ _,_' __,___,_,__r· __ ,_ ...... --:.--f~--+-+---·--l--i--~+-.. -i-,-~,;--0;; -l--:--+-+-+-+--1- ,_ _ _Jl--+i--l-----1---1-+---l~+-,•~--~ 1 _ I ,_. :~-: -~·-l--+---<-+-1--·-+-+-11--+-+---l:--+-+---l-+----+-l--l---l--Hl--+---1--4---l---l--+-l---l ,_ . I,{ e.1-4-l:I ..... ~ . e 1 .l A5.E/_7iq __ ,le. -':-tL 9-"-~Ll•.l!I ,__•/:;.,, I ..1 !ov ,. ' a; 1--r-t-1---f.-+--l--+-+-·+---ll--+-+-+--1-+ 1, --l--+-+-+-1---1-,-+--+--•,--+--+--l- --l---· --l--l--l-l--!C--+-+-+-+-+--1-+-+--+---l--l-+-+---l--i--+-+---l-+-~-+---l-t---l I ---+-+-+---1·-+'----r-~,+-1---:1--+_J-~~~--l-4-+--l---f---!---i-1,-1--+--1-~---,__.__.-,__,_-,_-+---1-"-_ _, _ _,_..,__,I ___ -----l-+--t--1--l-----l j---'-1--1-~--!.--l-+-+-Hl--+-+-l-++-+-H-l--+-l-+-I -'----e--1-1-i-1· I l 1--1-+---l-+--i----1-'-!->-+---i--+--!--ie-+---i-t-1•-! I ! j l!--+-+--+---l--l-+-!--1--+-+--+--+-+-+-f--l-+-+--I l I I I .... TABLE IV-1 DISTRIBUTION OF TRUCKS ON DIFFERENT CLASSE~ OF. -..., HIGHWAYS-UNITED STATES* - ·PERCENT TRUCKS . ., . . .. Truck Clm RURAL SYSTEMS ,· . ; . -: INTER· OTHER MINOR CnL1 ECTORS . RANGE INTER- STATE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MA.JOA MINOR STATE Single-unit lrucks .. 2·a.xlc, 4~irc 43 60 71 73 80 /43·80 52 ' . . .. .. 2-axle, 6-lirc 8 10 11 10 .1.0. ··:-B·ll 12 .. 3-a.xle or more 2 3 .. 4 4 2 s 2:4 2 '· 0. .. .. All singlc-unils 53 73 87 92 . : 53:92 · · 66 . · .. :N:: ;:,-:':. · .. -~: ,!·':~ / . . ,: ... :' . ' . ; : •: 'r. • ~ -" ... -· ..... ":. . . :• . . .. I,. : ... i : • ·.· .. : • ... .. . . . ' ' . : .. . .. . . ·--:. ··-· .. · MuKipla Unil Trucks .. ' .. •·; 4-axlc or less 5 3 ~ 2 2 :· :, 2-5 5 ., 5-axJa·· 41 23 11 10 "6 ::,,s-41· 28 6-axle.ormore" 1 1 <1 1 <1 :.~ <H .1 0 , . -:~ . . . . All mulliple units 4'1 · 27 13 . . 8 . ;'-8-47 34 . .. .. ' 100 e . . ,{' . : . All lrucks 100 100 . 100 100 .... .. . ... 'Compiled from daca supplied.by Che Highway Sraeiseics Division, U.S. Federal Highe,ay Adminiscmion. ''Including ful/-trailcrc~f11binacions in some states. ·· .. '· -:-,-~ ·=··~ Z''j~tfr --······ --:-:'.:{J~·~::\/)~ .. -... :.::.··· . .. URBAN SYSTEMS·· OTHER OTHER MINOR ~REEWAYS PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 66 67 84 12 · • 15 9 4 -~-. .2 82 85 95 .. : .;-· .. • .. ! -~ . : ··.· I . .. 5 3 2 13 12 3 <1 <1 <1 18 15 5 . 100. 100 .1~. ,. ' ~ .. COLLEC-· RANGE TORS 86 52-86. :;:-~.: 11 9-15 <1 <1·4 .tr ')( . 97 ~6-97 . . ·,,-It! :.:_:_:; .: ,,fi ·::.· ... 1 1-5 2 • 2·28 <1 <1·1 3 3·34 ·100. . I i]f itHt~ -, 1 I I I ' I ' !..: . I n· i ·' _, · .. •' 00 . ·:..:.... ::. ·--::<.\(/~ ··-·· ., . ·. :_·: __ :. -::_·: . , ' ~ T!f{;)i:l!lli1ltt&iil --··~ -~....:..·,::_,.:_./ ~~.~ .. ·.\/.=)}::·.::. ::.· .... : __ .-' /:\· t, . ~~-·· .. -~.,.·/ •, TABLE IV-5 DISTRIBUTION OF TRUCI< FACTORS (TF) FOR DIFFERENT CLASS~:/~~: __ , HIGHWAYS AND VEHICLES-UNITED STATES* . ·.'.~ .. :\: . -----''-----------------------·:._;:::::· ··a,.,,,. '., Truck Factors ~-~-~~\:·.~-;~: .. ._. Rural Systems Urban Systems -. Vehicle Type Interstate Aural Other Rural All Rural All Urban -.. Average Range Average Rongo Avcr:igc Range Av1m1gc Range . Single-unit trucks -- 2-axle, 4-tiro 0.02 0.01-0.06 0.02 0.01-0.09 0.03' .. 0.02-0.0S 0.03''' 0.01-0.05 2-axle, 6--tirc 0.19 0.13-0.30 0.21 0.14-0.34 0.20 0.14-0.31 0.26· 0.18-0.42 3-axlc or more 0.56 0.09-1.55 0.73 0.31-1.57 0.67 0.23-1.53 1.03 0.52-1.99 All single-units 0.07 0.02-0,16 0,07 .. . . 0.02-0.17 0.07 0.03-0.16 0.09 0.04-0.21 Tractor semi-trailers 30,xJc 0.51 0.30-0.86 0.47 0.29-0.82 0.48 0.31-0.80 0.47 0.24-1.02 4-axle 0.62• 0.40-1.07 0.83 0.44-1.55 0.70 0.37-1.34 0.89 0.60-1.64 5-3xl c or more' • Q.94 0.67-1.15 0.98 0.56-1.70 0.95 0.56-1.64 1.02 0.69-1.69 " All mu_ltiol• unlts 0.93 0.67-1.38 0.97 0.67-1.50 0.94 0.66-1.43 l,~O .I. 0.72-1.58 . ·.· All trucks 0.49 0.34-0.77 0.31 0.20-0.52 0.42 0.29-0.67 0.30 0.15-0.59 'Compi/orf. from d,ca supplied by cha Highw:,y Statistics Division, U.S. Federal Highway Administr•tion. •'Including lu/l-crailcr combinations in some states. '' 'Soc Article 4.05 for values co be uied when the number of he•vy trucks is low. -~ ... All Systems '\\\.. · .. . . . ,,;. '· Avcr;igc Range 0.02 ~ 0.01-0.07 0.21 0.15-0.32 0.73 0.29-1.59 ,0.07 0.02-0.17 0.48 0.33-0.78 0.73 0.43--1.32 0.95 0.63-1.53 0.95 0.71-1.39 0.40' 0.27-0.63 ·~~ ,. ,,· ® King County Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 June 26, 2006 Engineering Plans: Sheet 1, Gurdev Singh Short Plat Initial Engineering Review Comments L05S0009, L06SR010 a. Please show the United States Postal Services approval stamp and signature for mailboxes location and show mailboxes location. Sheet 2, a. Please note that a temporary construction easement will be required and shall be shown on plans for the proposed TESC measures on the adjacent private property at ttie southwest property corner vicinity. b. At the minimum sediment trap and interceptor swale measures shall be provided during construction, please show on plans with section related details. Sheet 3, a. For the new on-site access, show centerline station in plan view, show road profile with complete information. b. Show profile design for proposed frontage road improvements with complete information. c. Please show pavement taper at 10: 1, and note that thickened edge is not acceptable in urban arterials d. Revise plans to show curb cut approach for the on-site access instead of intersection approvach. e. Please indicate and show on plans how the condition of approval number 5.E is met. f. Provide Horizontal Control plan for the subject site, show quarter and section and monuments and ties information, show temporary bench mark location and information. Please do not show topographic information on this plan. g. Please add a note on plans to add full width of pavement overlay in SE 192"d across the entire property frontage. h. Show on plan drainage BMP for individual lots i. Please provide Traffic Control, Traffic Channelization plan, and illumination plan for County review and approval. j. Please add condition of approval 5.H as a note on plans. Sheet 4, a. The short plat conditions of approval requires the on-site access to be consistent with the 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS) for Private Access Tract, please revise the proposed section so show crowned section. · b. Please submit pavement design calculations for the required pavement widening in SE 192"d Street for County review and approval. c. Add a note on all plan sheets (with large bold font) referencing the maxii:num amount of impervious surface allowed for each proposed lot as specified for each proposed lot. Technical Information Report (TIR): a, Include TIR worksheets in TIR b. Include conveyance capacity calculations for the required conveyance system across the property frontage. c. Include sediment trap design calculations in TIR. d. Provide calculations for individual drainage BMP for each lot. e. Include Bond Quantities Calculations Work Sheets. Should you have any questions, feel free to call me at 206.296. 7133 for assistance. Mazen Haidar, P.E. fl0~ LUSD,ERS ~--------------------------------- ' ') ,' ® King County Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 June 26, 2006 Engineering Plans: Sheet 1, Gurdev Singh Short Plat Initial Engineering Review Comments L05S0009, L06SR010 a. Please show the United States Postal Services approval stamp and signature for mailboxes location and show mailboxes location. Sheet 2, a. Please note that a temporary construction easement will be required and shall be shown on plans for the proposed TESC measures on the adjacent private property at the southwest property corner vicinity. b. At the minimum sediment trap and interceptor swale measures shall be provided during construction, please show on plans with section related details. Sheet 3, a. For the new on-site access, show centerline station in plan view, show road profile with complete information. b. Show profile design for proposed frontage road improvements with complete information. c. Please show pavement taper at 10: 1, and note that thickened edge is not acceptable in urban arterials d. Revise plans to show curb cut approach for the on-site access instead of intersection approvach. e. Please indicate and show on plans how the condition of approval number 5.E is met. f. Provide Horizontal Control plan for the subject site, show quarter and section and monuments and ties information, show temporary bench mark location and information. Please do not show topographic information on this plan. ; g. Please add a note on plans to add full width of pavement overlay in SE 192"d across the entire property frontage. h. Show on plan drainage BMP for individual lots i. Please provide Traffic Control, Traffic Channelization plan, and illumination plan for County review and approval. j. Please add condition of approval 5.H as a note on plans. Sheet 4, a. The short plat conditions of approval requires the on-site access to be consistent with the 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS) for Private Access Tract, please revise the proposed section so show crowned section. b. Please submit pavement design calculations for the required pavement widening in SE 192"d Street for County review and approval. c. Add a note on all plan sheets (with large bold font) referencing the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed for each proposed lot as specified for each proposed lot. Technical Information Report (TIR): a, Include TIR worksheets in TIR b. Include conveyance capacity calculations for the required conveyance system across the property frontage. · c. Include sediment trap design calculations in TIR. d. Provide calculations for individual drainage BMP for each lot. e. Include Bond Quantities Calculations Work Sheets. Should you have any questions, feel free to call me at 206.296. 7133 for assistance. Mazen Haidar, P.E. 00~ LUSD, ERS •• .. ® King County Depar1ment of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 March 6, 2006 KuldipSingh Tumber 19100-104tlt Place SE Renton, WA 98055 RE: Permit Fee Estimate Project: Singh Short Plat File Number: L06SROIO Dear Applicant: ------------------------------------ Thank you for submitting the engineering plans for site development of the Singh Short Plat To implement the engineering review process, our office will use a new procedure for managing permit applications to provide applicants with an enhanced level of customer service. The Project Manager Program seeks to provide customers with increased predictability for the permit process and better accountability from'County review staff. For permit applications using the Project Manager Program, a project manager is assigned to the permit to facilitate communication with the applicant and provide a fee estimate to cover the anticipated scope of review. The project manager will also monitor and manage the permit application throughout the review process to ensure that review schedules remain in line with performance standards and the overall work hours are within the range of estimated fees for the project Your application for engineering review was received by our office on February 17, 2006 and will be processed using the Project Manager Program. The enclosed information provides a summary of the fee estimate for the anticipated work disciplines and also discusses the submittal process and disclaimers which may affect the final permit fees. The fee estimate includes the scope of work for engineering plan review only and does not evaluate other final plat requirements such as construction inspection and review of plat recording documents. ,::_, ·'" Singh March 6, 2006 Page 2 Based upon the current engineering submittal, several design documents including requirements for arterial pavement designs, illumination plans, and private road designs have not been submitted which are necessary to address design requirements for the short plat. Due to the missing information, the attached fee summary is a rough estimate subject to modification based upon the disclaimers noted in the fee estimate form. As shown in the attached fee estimate, your original submittal included a fee payment of $13,803.00, which has been credited toward the total budget for engineering review. Your initial payment will be used as a down payment and the balance will be billed monthly. Once the fee estimate form is signed and submitted to our Department, your project will be assigned for further review. All future fee payments shall be made to the cashier in the DOES permit center using activity number L06SROIO and the signed fee estimate form shall be mailed to my attention in the Land Use Services Division. If you have any questions regarding the permit fees or other aspects of the engineering review process, please contact the project manager, Pete Dye via email pete.dye@metrokc.gov or by telephone at 206-296-7185. Sincerely, ?~ Pete Dye, P .E. Senior Engineer Enclosure cc: Larry Krueger @)) King County Land Use Services Division Permit Fee Estimate Pre-app Estimate Number: L06SR010 I Date: 03/06/06 Permit Title: Singh Short Plat Permit Type: SITEREVS -Engineering Plan I Based on pennit infonnation submitted by the applicant, the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DOES) has detennined the amount of review fees for the subject application. The fees shown below do not include ancillary pennit fees, recording fees, project-related mitigation fees, or other fees that are passed through to the applicant from other agencies or as part of the project's environmental review. Fixed Fees: Counter Service Fee for Application Intake Tree Retention Review Structural Review for Stonn Vault Other Fixed Fees Estimate for Hourly Fees: (106 Hours x $144.90) Fee Deposit Paid Total Fixed Fees: Total Permit Fee Estimate: Amount Due: $205.28 $205.28 $15,359.40 -$13,803.00 $15,564.68 $1,761.68 Note: The estimate for hourly fees stated above is based on the total estimated number of hours not to exceed 106 hours for the disciplines listed below, and is calculated using the department's hourly rate in effect at the time the work is perfonned. Based upon the financial disclosures found on page 2, the number of hours required may be modified. The total estimated hours reflect work perfonned by the following disciplines: Engineering Review, Survey Coordination, Project Management, Construe/ability Review, Traffic, and Planning. After receiving the fee estimate from DOES, the applicant has ninety (90) days to complete the application submittal. Please call 206-296-6797 to set up an appointment with the Pennit Center to complete your application and payment. If the application is not received within ninety (90) days, the applicant may be required to obtain a new fee estimate or this activity may be cancelled. For further questions on this fee estimate or for other requirements about this permit application, please contact Pete Dye via email pete.dye@metrokc.gov or by telephone at 206-296-7185. Peter Dye, P .E. Senior Engineer Land Use Services Division Project Manager.dot 1/26/04 Page I ·-@ King County Land Use Services Division Permit Fee Estimate Pre-app Estimate Number: L06SR010 Date: 03/03/06 Permit Title: Singh Short Plat Permit Type: SITEREVS -Engineering Plan Estimated Maximum Hours: 106 Applicant: Kuldip Singh Tumber Total Fee: $15,564.68 The following disclaimers are attached and are part of the fee estimate for this permit. The applicant is required to submit a signed copy of this form with the application and fee payment acknowledging that the applicant has read the disclaimers stated below. Disclaimer Applicants are responsible for all fixed fees, reported hours performed in reviewing submittal materials and processing, up to the fee estimate. Changes in the scope of the project review will result in a revised review fee estimate. Fee estimates are based on information submitted to ODES by the applicant prior to finalization of the permit application. In addition, estimates are determined by utilizing historical data gathered from projects of similar type, size, and scope. The fee estimate will be the maximum fee charged unless the scope of the project changes. Should fewer hours be required to complete the review, then the applicant may receive a refund for those hours. If items are identified that are not originally disclosed or identified later in the process, a new estimate may be required. Applicants will be responsible for any additional hours identified in a new estimate because of: I) Changes in the project and unknown or undisclosed site issues. 2) Incomplete information or errors in applicant submittal. 3) County code fee changes. Fees for Forest Practices Permit if determined necessary. 4) Fees for variance applications and/or structural permit review. 5) More than one major set of red line comments and one minor set of red line corrections. 6) Short Plat Condition SA -Pavement design not provided per KCRS 4.03. 7) Short Plat Condition SB -Right-of-way dedication not consistent with principal arterial standards per KCRS 2.02. 8) Short Plat Condition 5G -Private road does not meet urban design standards with crown. 9) Road profile not provided for private road. I 0) Sheet numbers not provided on engineering plans. 11) TIR not adequate -TIR should be bound with all ten sections clearly labeled with tabs. 12) TIR Section I -Incomplete (See 2005 drainage manual page 2-8). 13) TIR Section 2-Incomplete. Responses to Short Plat Conditions not provided. Keeping review fees at or below the fee estimate will depend on the applicant's commitment to complete the process review. This commitment should include submitting materials which address all County codes, policies, previously approved conditions, and responding to the County's request for corrections or additional information in a timely manner, not to exceed 90 days. Acknowledged: Applicant/Owner Name (print) Date: Applicant/Owner Name (signature) Project Manager.dot 1/26/04 Page 2 1-_ _,_/._J/{_/t)_, Ci. --. --1-r.m. #(fl&f/_l-fr-l.-t<td?--ltf'!l_cl.:.-~'----· ____ _:;J._v! J, -~r,~1,,/1--(r-t-!'tff~rr/&tf7--lr--(//-17}Yft'77&'ef--·-- \ I ;_(&fff!(lliwtU(?,-&17/Jl'l~t-_ /(k?f-p-,£/7tj-/.&!f~Kr.&?.;~ ~ · /or--11tr--d-.ftfyt:'1c-£. . f)~(l~/IJfrf /tll-!Jtft/~µ7-rf'le/-jt1/-~rt-?-41r/~L I.e.. -~1,::~i!J . GN!titr-.:4(-· ~-flt-thtr;f.<-trJl-j-/r--..lllf-1-1'-6.IJ.1-J--t-:. -. . #~f,n7-tlZJ.-l&"vV-¢-' ~l'?~ 7: i :-J11tl-~f!4-11-f.9-l&n1-Jhi4r-. ~ -4_q/!(.4t1/l[L ;lJ//.f/µ((-tr-dt-L/r-~A,µ-/-/,y?"~, 1 /Jw;__ /J1.~tt1L/11-/l1;(-~4cr-f'-t!J!~-l-~~;/tf(µ'.. ' . ---- M i r a i Treneportetlon Planning & Englncul!rlng Mirai Transportation Planning & Engineering 11410 NE 122nd Way Suite 320 Kirkland, WA 98034 TRANSMITTAL Cramer NW Date: · December 6, 2006 945 N Central, Suite 104 Kent, WA 98032 Project: Gurdev Singh illumination Plan Mirai Project Number: K0434106 [i1j mail l&l . information/use D copy of letter D report D messenger D ap'proval D prints [&] other D fedex D review/comment [&] plans _g to be picked up 1~~~~~~:t~}t:t1;:;;;;,:J~~~]j~1~;1~j~1trg~1f ~1!~~~~!~~t~;~[ilfit~~'.(~'.~J?~il}tjf :?~ .. :~!~:{.~!}~;_: ~~~t·~·~.~. <:.} :. ': aa·te;:~ ~'·:::·::; 24 x 36 paper plots Sheets SL-1 to Sl-3, Street lighting plans 2 12/05/06 j 24 x 36 paper plots ' Letter size Shee\ TC-1, Temporary Traffic Control Plan lllumi~ation calculations for 200W luminaires i 2 12/05/06 2 12/05/06 , 11 x 17 Existi~g illumination by Triad for Chinquapin Ridge 2 8/14/90 "--------1------1-------" E-----·------"-----~-----------------------------.. -------'----1___ 1~10610~ If enclosures are not as nr,rP,,. kindly notify us at once I L .... ·--------------.... ·-·---------... -.... _____ .. __ : .. __ .. _____________ .. ____________ .. ______________ .. ______ .. ______ .. _____ .. __ .. ______________ ,, ____________ .. ___ / : Mirai Associates, Inc • 11410 NE 122nd Way, Suite 320 • Kirkland, WA 98034-6927 • 425.820.0100 -t • 425.821.1750 -f . ! Changing the way you do Ughting Design ... A6A,tN II SAMPLE IIAIINER FOR AG132 AGl32 cop)light 1998 lighting Analy.sts, Inc. Roadway Optimize~ -Layout #1 Luminaire Label: 200W 6' arm 3ci MH Luminaire Description: GE451002 File Name: GE451002.ies ! Luminaire Arrangement: SINGLE Arm Length = 7 .5 Ft · Lumens Per Lamp = 22000 Number Of Lamps = 1 Total Light Loss Factor= 0.8 Layout Information: R-Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), Q0=0.07 Calculation Method: IES i I Layout Type: One Row, Far Side; 1 RFS Luminaire Spacing (Within Row):= 151 Ft Roadway Width = 43.5 Ft ! Setback = 6 Ft · Lanes Per Roadway = 2 y AGl32/Roaclway Optimizer -copyright 1999-2003 by ~lghling Analysts, Inc. ____ 1 Changi~ the way you do Ughti~ Design ••. ASA.ZN/I SANPUi BAIIIER FOR AGl32 A6132 cop)'ight 1998 llghting Analysts, Inc. ' Roadway Optimizer -Layout #1 Luminaire Location Summary: i Coordinates in Ft ' X-Coord -151 0 151 302 453 Y-Coord 49.5 49.5 . 49.5 49.5 49.5 Z-Coord '30 30 130 30 30 Total Number of locations = 5 , Average Tilted Lamp Correction Factor Applied = i ' AGl32/Roadway Optimizer· copyright 1999-2003 by l:.ighling Analysts, Inc. i Orient 270 270 270 270 270 Tilt 0 0 0 0 0 2 ' Changing the way you do Lighting Design ••• A6AlN11 SANl'Ui BAINER FOR AGIJZ AGl32 cop)tight 1998 Lighting Allalysts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer: -Layout #1 Luminance Grid: +0.9 +0.7 + : 0.8: + 1.2 +0.8 +0.7 +0.6 +0.7 ........•••.•.•..•••••••.. •··•·• ............. J ...• I I +0.4 +0.5 +o.5: +0.5 i ! .,_ +0.3 +oj +0.4 y ·0.2 Numerical Summary: Grid begins at: X = 7 .55 Y = 5.4375 Z = O Point Spacing Left-To-Right= 15.1 Ft Point Spacing Top-To-Bottom= 10.875 Ft Values in Cd/Sq.M. i Average = 0.77 Maximum = 1.6 Avg/Min = 3.85 I Max/Min = 8.00 ' Maximum Lv/Lavg Ratio = 0.30 · + 1.6 + 1.5 + 1.5 +0.9 + 1.0 + 1.1 +0.8 +0.8 +0.7 +0.5 +0.6 +0.5 Minimum = 0.2 Longitudinal Uniformity (Min/Max) per row starting with top row: 0.44 o.5 :o.5 o.33 AGl32/Roadway Optimizer· copyright 1999-2003 by Lli;ihling Analysts, Inc. I +1.5 + 1.2 +0.7 +0.3 +1.3 + 1.1 + 1.1 +0.9 +0.6 +0.5 +0.3 +0.2 3 Changing the way you do Ughting Design ... ASA.ZN II SANPU! BANNER FOR AGIS2 AGl32 copyright 1998 Ughting Allalysb, Inc. Roadway Optimizer • Layout #1 . ! ! llluminance Grid: +2.9 + 1.8 + 1.Q +0.6 ' +2.5 +2.0 + 1.2 +0.8 ········+···· + 1.4 + 1.3 + 1.q +0.8 + +0.7 +O.~ +0.6 y ·o.6 L_x Numerical Summary: Grid begins at: X = 7 .55 Y = ~.4375 Z=O Point Spacing Left-To-Right= 15. 1 Ft Point Spacing Top-To-Bottom= !10.875 Ft Values in Fe Average= 1.12 Avg/Min = 2.24 Max/Min = 5.80 Ma~imum = 2.9 I +0.5 +0.5 +0.6 +0.6 +0.6 +0.8 +0.8 +0.8 +0.8 +0.7 +0.7 ·o.6 Minimum = 0.5 Longitudinal Uniformity (Min/Max) per row starting with top row: 0.17 0.24 i 0.57 0.86 AGl32/RoadWay OpUmlzer • copyright 1999-2003 by Lighting Analyst~. Inc. ! + 1.0 + 1.2 + 1.0 +0.6 + 1.8 +2.9 +2.0 +2.5 + 1.3 + 1.4 +0.7 +0.6 4 Cha'9ng the way you do Ughting Design ... AG'4.?N II SANPUi BANNER FOR AGIS2 AGl32 cop)lright 1998 lighting Analysts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Definitions IES method: Average Pavement Luminance (L) -The overall average luminance of the road surface as observed from a specific point in Cd/m2 (metric units are used regardless). Observer position is 1.45 meters above the pavement surface, 83 meters back from each computation point along a longitudinal IJne parallel to the direction of travel. Observer line of sight is 1 degree below horizontal. Observer position changes relative to the curb line to align with each row of computation points. Longitudinal Uniformity -The ratio of minimum to maximum pavement luminance along each longitudinal line of computation points. Veiling Luminance (lv) -A measure of disability glafe, Veiling luminance ls a lumlnance superimposed over the eyes retinal image produced by stray tight within the eye. In the IES method, Lv Is computed at the same points as pavement luminance with the observer assuming the location of each point Observer line of sight is horizontal at 1.45 m above the road surlace. Veiling Luminance ratio-The IES method uses the maximum value of Veiling Luminance (Lv} divided by the Average Pavement Luminance (Lpavg} as a measure of the disability glare produced by a lighting system. Weighted Average VL (STV) -Weighted Average Visibility Level or Small Target Visibility determines the visibility level of an array of targets on the roadway considering the following factors: luminance of the targets, luminance of the immediate background, adaptation level of the adjacent surroundings, and disability glare (Lv). CIE method: Average Pavement Luminance (L) -The overall average luminance of the road surface as observed from a specific point in Cd/m2 (metric units are used regardless). Observer position Is 1/4 roadway width inset from the curb, 1.5 m above the pavement surface and 80 m back from each row of computation points. Line of sight is 1 degree below horizontal. Observer position is static relative to the curb line. Longitudinal Uniformity -The ratio of minimum to maximum pavement luminance along each longitudinal line of computation points. Veiling Luminance (Lv)-A measure of disability glare. Veiling luminance is a luminance superimposed over the eyes retinal image produced by stray light within the eye. In the CIE method, Lv is computed along a single row of calculation points directly in front of the observer position. Observer is 90m back from each point, 1/4 road width from the curb line. Line of sight is horizontal. The CIE method uses tt:,e maximum value of Lv to compute the relative Threshold Increment {Tl) and Glare Control Mark. Specific Luminaire Index (SU). A measure of a the glare control properties of a lumlnalre. The higher the number the greater the propensity for glare control. SU forms the luminaire associated portion of the calculation for Glare Control Mark. Relative Threshold Increment (Tl). A measure of the effect of disability glare produced by the lighting system. Threshold Increment Is intended to yield the percentage increase In the luminance of the roads surface required to render an object just visible (threshold of visibility) under the proposed lighting system (glare present) as compared to the luminance required to render the object just visible in the absence of glare. Glare Control Mark • A measure of the discomfort glare caused by a lighting system. Glare Control Mark is based on a relationship between the intensity of the luminaire at 80 degrees and 88 degrees, the luminaire flashed area, the tamp color constant, the height of the luminaire above the roadway, the average pavement luminance, and the number of luminaires per kilometer. The higher the value of Glare Control Mark the greater the glare control of the luminaire. CIE-AS method: The Australian variation of the CIE method differs in the following conventions: Average Pavement Luminance Observer position.-Observer position is 1/2 roadway width inset from the curb otherwise same as CIE. Veiling Luminance Observer Position -Observer position is 1/2 roadway width inset from the curb otherwise same as CIE. Longitudinal Uniformity -In addition to longitudinal uniformity along each line of computational points, longitudinal uniformity Is computed from a single column of points directly in line with the observer position. Observer position is·same as for pavement luminance. AGl32/Roadway Optimizer. copyright 1999-2003 by Ugh ting Analysts, Inc. 5 Changlng the way you do Ughting Design ... "'6AZN11 SAMPLE BAIINER FOR AGl32 AG132 coi>,ight t 9981.ighting An~b, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Layout #1 Luminaire Label: 200W 6' arm 30 MH Luminaire Description: GE451002 File Name: GE451002.ies Luminaire Arrangement: SINGLE Arm Length = 7.5 Ft Lumens Per Lamp = 22000 Number Of Lamps = 1 Total Light Loss Factor= 0.8 Layout Information: R-Table: R3 {Slightly Specular), Q0=0.07 Calculation Method: IES Layout Type: One Row, Far Side; 1 RFS Luminaire Spacing (Within Row)= 151 Ft Roadway Width = 43.5 Ft Setback = 6 Ft Lanes Per Roadway = 2 __________ ___J y 1 AGl32/Roactway OpUmizer • copyrighl 1999--2003 by Lighting Analysts, Inc. ------------------------------------- Changing the way you do Ughting Design ... A6A.ZN11 SANPI.£ BANNER FOR AGl!ll AGl32 cop)right 1998 Ughting Anal,sts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Layout #1 Luminaire Location Summary: Coordinates in Ft X-Coord Y-Coord 2-Coord Orient Tilt -151 49.5 30 270 0 0 49.5 30 270 0 151 49.5 30 270 0 302 49.5 30 270 0 453 49.5 30 270 0 Total Number of locations = 5 Average Tilted Lamp Correction Factor Applied = 1 AG132/Roadway Optimizer -copyright 1999-2003 by LlghUng Analysts, Inc. 2 Changing the way you do Ughting Design ... ASA.?Ntt SANPlE IIAIIIER FOR Afil32 AGl32 cop)'fght 1998 Ughtlng Analysts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Layout #1 Luminance Grid: ,+o.9 +0.7 ·a.a + 1.2 +0.8 +0.7 ·o.6 +0.7 +0.4 +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 y +0.2 +0.3 +0.3 +0.4 L_x Numerical Summary: Grid begins at: X = 7 .55 Y = 5.4375 Z = O Point Spacing Left-To-Right = 15.1 Ft Point Spacing Top-To-Bottom= 10.875 Ft Values in Cd/Sq.M. Average= 0.77 Maximum= 1.6 Avg/Min = 3.85 Max/Min = 8.00 Maximum Lv/Lavg Ratio.= 0.30 + 1.6 +1.5 + 1.5 +0.9 + 1.0 + 1.1 +a.a +0.8 +0.7 +0.5 +0.6 +0.5 Minimum = 0.2 Longitudinal Uniformity (Min/Max) per row starting with top row: 0.44 0.5 0.5 0.33 + 1.5 + 1.2 +0.7 +0.3 + 1.3 + 1.1 + 1.1 +0.9 +0.6 +0.5 +0.3 +0.2 ________ _3_ AGl32/Roadway Optimizer -copyright 1999·2003 by Lighting Analysts, tnc. ' Changing the way you do Ughting Design ... AGAJN11 SAlll'I.E BANNER FOi AGIS2 AGl32 cop)'lght 1998 lighting Aoalyob, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Layout #1 llluminance Grid: +2.9 + 1.8 + 1.0 +0.6 +2.5 +2.0 ~ +0.8 1.2 -t 1.4 + 1.3 ~ +0.8 1.0 y +0.6 +0.7 ~0.6 +0.6 I L X Numerical Summary: Grid begins at: X = 7 .55 Y = 5.4375 Z = 0 Point Spacing Left-To-Right= 15.1 Ft Point Spacing Top-To-Bottom= 10.875 Ft Values in Fe Average= 1.12 Avg/Min = 2.24 Max/Min = 5.80 Maximum = 2.9 +0.5 +0.5 +0.6 -t-0.6 +0.6 +0.8 +0.8 +0.8 +0.8 +0.7 +0.7 +0.6 Minimum = 0.5 Longitudinal Uniformity (Min/Max) per row starting with top row: 0.17 0.24 0.57 0.86 AGl32/Roadway Optimizer. Copyright 1999-2003 by Lighting Analysts, Inc. + 1.0 + 1.2 + 1.0 +0.6 + 1.8 +2.9 +2.0 +2.5 +1.3 + 1.4 +0.7 +0.6 4 Changing the way you do Ughting Design ... AGA.ZN II SAIIPlE BAIIIER FOR AGIS2 AGl32 cop)lright 1998 Lighting .Anal)!sts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Definitions IES method: Average Pavement Luminance (L) -The overall average luminance of the road surface as observed from a specific point in Cd/m2 (metric units are used regardless). Observer position ls 1.45 meters above the pavement surface, 83 meters back from each compulation point along a longitudinal line parallel to the direction of travel. Observer line of sight Is 1 degree below horizontal. Observer position changes relative to the curb line to allgn with each row of computation points. Longitudinal Uniformity-The ratio of minimum to maximum pavement luminance along each longitudinal line of computation points. Veiling Luminance (Lv) -A measure of disability glare, Veiling luminance Is a luminance superimposed over the eyes retinal image produced by stray light within the eye. In the IES method, Lv is computed at the same points as pavement luminance with the observer assuming the locatlon of each point. Observer line of sight is horizontal at 1.45 m above the road surface. Veiling Luminance ratio -The IES method uses the maximum value of Veiling Luminance (Lv) divided by the Average Pavement Luminance (Lpavg) as a measure of the disability glare produced by a lighting system. Weighted Average VL (STV) -Weighted Average Visibility Level or Small Target Visibility determines the visibility level of an array of targets on the roadway considering the follO'Wing factors: luminance of the targets, lumlnance of the immediate background, adaptation level of the adjacent surroundings, and disability glare (Lv). CIE method: Average Pavement Luminance (L) -The overall average luminance of the road suriace as observed from a specific point in Cd/m2 (metric units are used regardless). Observer position is 1/4 roadway width inset from the curb, 1.5 m above the pavement surface and 60 m back from each row of computation points. Line of sight is 1 degree below horizontal. Observer position is static relative to the curb line. Longitudinal Uniformity -The ratio of minimum to maximum pavement luminance along each longitudinal line of computation points. Veiling Luminance (Lv) -A measure of disability glare, Veiling luminance is a luminance superimposed over the eyes retinal image produced by stray light within the eye. In the CIE method, Lv is computed along a single row of calculation points directly in front of the observer position. Observer is 90m back from each point, 1/4 road width from the curb line. Line of sight is horizontal. The CIE method uses the maximum value of Lv to compute the relative Threshold Increment (Tl) and Glare Control Mark. Specific Lum!naire Index (SU) • A measure of a the glare control properties of a luminalre. The higher the number the greater the propensity for glare control. SU forms the luminaire associated portion of the calculation for Glare Control Mark. Relative Threshold Increment (Tl) -A measure of the effect of disability glare produced by the lighting system. Threshold Increment is intended to yield the percentage increase in the luminance of the roads surface required to render an object just vfsfble (threshold of visibility) under the proposed lighting system (glare present) as compared to the luminance required to render the object just visible in the absence of glare. Glare Control Mark -A measure of the discomfort glare caused by a lighting system. Glare Control Mark is based on a relationship between the intensity of the lumlnaire at 80 degrees and 88 degrees, the luminaire flashed area, the lamp color constant, the height of the luminaire above the roadway, the average pavement luminance. and the number of tuminaires per kilometer. The higher the value of Glare Control Mark the greater the glare control of the luminaire. CIE-AS method: The Australian variation of the CJE method differs in the following conventions: Average Pavement Luminance Observer position -Observer position is 1 /2 roadway width Inset from the curb otherwise same as CIE. Veiling Luminance Observer Position -Observer position is 1/2 roadway width inset from the curb otherwise same as CIE. Longitudinal Uniformity -In addition to longitudinal uniformity along each line of computational points, longitudinal uniformity is computed from a single column of points directly in line with the observer position. Observer position is same as for pavement luminance. AGl32/Roadway Optimizer· copyright 1999-2003 by Ugh ting Analysts, Inc. 5 -.. ---su~· _ .... ,.., _.,.,.., ,.._..., ---. 11 I 8 ii1 r; { ~ ti~ I- Ill -~ Ill ' a: ·1: I- ~£ i-1 Ill Ii Q ~i J z , .. N t CII .,r;; .. t; I •• " ~Ill I l -~~ -~-- OKIOd AS "ON I-.:t VTY1I 30CIDf NldVOONIH:l H'OllNOU.'ID 13111MC>. ·------ii-::i .: .: ..; ... ..; ~ ,·-,---,--,--,--,--,·1--,--:1! ~ LLLLLLL , . .L L/; ~ • I 1--!--!--!--!--!--! !--!-!--\; ; § !--!--!)))-' -!--!-!--'.! d LLLL_i__i_1 __ LL = _ _i. -------_:s..: •..;.,;...; ai i=- . ..t ·.· l· ·tJ ; . . I I . • . i ti·:\! . ·~ •·- . ·-------· ----- ~ :I at 0 !,I.. • zl -· z C: C, -~ ;; f ... C • • Z• o• -. ~ ~ z = -. :I I :, . ..I : ..I • -c ~ . . • • ~ ' ~ • C C • II II • I • ~=su~· ----. f i ~ d 11 I ~ -11 jl i' r; f s;:; ... I,, w X!I! w ! a: ,i .c ... -;s Ill :I:! G ~ 1.I ~1 f l., CD .,i;; g .. I;; I -3S 31\Y H.1CU-- I l 11: ~, 11 1 I I $ I i. I . It I I ;,!'I i 11 ,1,1;: la ,; !: ;~~Iii Ii; I! =1 la58~ §~ I I Ill*!~. I 11~sii 1 ., 1 1~ I 1111!1! iR I i fflJ i !1 =·1 •1Ba=aai ·a I ~3 1111• 1 :I ~-~iii: !e ! 11i I 11! 111,1,1111 I i:1 I ~ I ~I ~al :l;i §sa i a Ii .. <l .. ~ . . . . ... ,. !1 • ·------i!:L ::i .: .: .: ... -11 tS!:UlS.~ I='". ••••• • ••••••••••••••. ,, •••••• !I ~ \ifrl}thl\~ ~ E ill . . . . . . . . . . = ; = l:t:l)::t)::\::' .:\. t:\: ~ I!@ L.1 .. LLLLL , .. i. Lia ""i 11 l··l··l··l··l··{--! J·\· \··\: ; g LL.LLLi.:r .. Li. = .. J!! ~:!~~:;~:; F _... ,... __ .__ 1,. • .... ~~-t ~ aai::1~:.'!· ........ It •tt•••O 4 ···-·--· ----, H·iff!W~W ·------cit . IW.WD ~ ... . I • t \tJ ~I 0 11 !I. • \1 z ~--. ' zC ~: I : t .11· Q -• z. 0. -I ~ ~ z = -:I C ::, I ..I : :! ! ... • . • • ~ ' ~ -C ' • . ,. uec 1 ~ '.!ti u~:44p Ki::i ! Lancscap1ng & iv1a1nt. · GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ____ ... . -, \ Gurdev Singh i 19100-1()41~,:~~_:! ~~~~ceast / \ . Renton, Wss~ ~ ( __ _ _l---· ·, ,. __ ,,.,.i Subject: Pavement Design Considerations 11328 Southeast 192nd Street King County, Washington Dear Mr. Singh: p,1 !325(i Nc,rtbe~:-t 2'flth Stn::el. Sui~ 16 Bellevl1e, \V~r.i:1g1on 980(~5 (425) 747-5611:: FAX (425.J 747-8561 December 7, 2006 JN 06353 via facsimile: (253) 854-2475 Attached is our completed pavement design for the proposed widening of Southeast 192nd Street at the property !ocated at 11328 Southeast 192nd Street in King Count>/. Our scope of services consisted of visiting the site to hand excavate three test holes parallel to Southeast 192nd Street, commissioning laboratory tests consisting of the Modified Proctor test (ASTM Test D-1557) and the California Searing Ra~o (CSR) test (ASTM Test D-1883-05). The ground surface along the north sic!e of Southeast 192nd Street, where the widening will occur, is generally at, or above. the current street grade. As a result, this area will have to be excavated down a few feet to reach the elevation of the road surface. Our explorations immediately north of the current curb encountered 4 to 6 inches of topsoil overlying medium-dense silty sand and gravel :hat became dense near one foot below the existing grade. This dense soil has been glacially cor.ipressed. and is often referred to as glacial till. Samples of the glacial till soils were obtained and submitted to GeoEngineers, Inc. to deierrnine trie California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the native soil. · Copies of our assumptions, laboratory results, and ::iavement design computations are attached to this :etter for referenc~. The CBR value of 24.0 used in our pavement design calculatlons assumes that the road subgrade has a minimum relative compaction cf 95 percent relative '.o the maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557). We were also provided with historical traffic counts of King County for Southeast 192nd Street. By assuming that 10 percent of the traffic is trucks or buses, we estimated the number of Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL) per day based en the statistical truck distributions . as determined by the Federal Highway Administration. The number of ESAL's were then determined over a 20-year pavement design life assuming an annual traffic growth of 6 percent. This total was divided by 2, assuming that each cf the lanes wouid carry 50 percent o1 the traffic. The other input parameters were based on the attached design parameters from King County. The design parameters were inputted into the AASHTO Design Equation for flexible pavements, which yielded a pavement section of 4.47 inches of asohalt over € Inches of crushed rock base. Therefore. we recommend using a pavement section for the new pavement consisting of ;t5-1nches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 6 Inches of crushed reek base (CRB). The crushed rock should be placed on a firm soil subgrade. If desired, 4 inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB) could be used in place of the CRB. GeOTECH CONSULTANTS. 'NC. Ceo .12 06 09:45p KST Landscaping & . Maint. · ... : . Gurdev Singh December 7, 2006 , ,, ._, 425-271-6728 p.2 JN 06353 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this information, or f we may be of further ser,ice, please de not hesitate to contact us. ' ZJM/MRM: jyb Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Principal G:OOTECH CO~SULHNTS. JNC. lJec 1,: r;o u~ :44p K~ , Landscaping & iv1a1nt. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. r-:.··-··· -------·-.......-.. ,_ \ Gurdev Singh / i 19100-104th Place Southeast / \~enton, Was~ Subject: Pavement Design Considerations 11328 Southeast 192nd Street King County, Washington Dear Mr. Singh: _L---· ., _) p. 1 f325<i N(,rthl!'~'t :?0th Stn.:er. Suire ·J{J Benevue. W~hi:igtJn 9&X:5 (425) 74i-5618 FAX (425} 747-S56J December 7, 2006 JN 06353 via facsimile: (253) 854-2475 Attached is our completed pavement design for the proposed widening of Southeast 192nd Street at the property !ocated at 11328 Southeast 192nd Street in King Couney. Our scope of services consisted of visiting the site to hand excavate three test holes parallel to Southeast 192nd Street, commissioning laboratory tests consisting of the Modified Proctor test (ASTM Test 0-1557) and the Califomia Searing Ratio (CBR) test (ASTM Test D-1883-05). The ground surface along the north side of Southeast 192nd Street, where the widening will occur, is generally at, or above. the current street grade. As a result, this area will have to be excavated down a few feet to reach the elevation of the road surface. Our explorations immediately north of the current curb encountered 4 to 6 inches of topsoil overl)ling medium-dense silty sand and gravel that became dense near one foot below the existing grade. This dense soil has been glacially cor:ipressed. and is often referred to as glacial till. Samples of the glacial till soils were obtained and submitted to GeoEngineers, Inc. to deiermine the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the native soil. · · Copies of our assumptions, laboratory results, and ;,avemeni design computations are attached to this letter for referenc!I. The CSR value of 24.0 used in our pavement design calculations assumes that the road subgrade has a minimum relative compaction cf 95 percent relative to the maximum dry densiey as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557). We were also provided with historical traffic counts of King County for Southeast 192nd Street. By assuming that 10 percent of the traffic is trucks or buses, we estimated the number of Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL) per day based on the statistics: truck distributions as determined by the Federal Highway Administration. The number of ESAL.'s were !hen determined over a 20-year pavement design life assuming an annual traffic growth of 6 percent. This total was divided by 2, assuming that each of the lanes wouid carry 50 percent of the traffic. The other input parameters were based on the attached design parameters from K:ng County. The design parameters were inputted into the AASHTO Design Equation for flexible pavements, which yielded a paverrent sec:ion of 4.47 inches of asohalt over e inches of crushed rock base. Therefore. we recommend using a pavement section for the new pavemeni consisting of ,4.5-,nches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 6 Inches of crushec reek base (CRB). The crushed :-eek should be placed on a firm soil subgrade. If desired, 4 inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB) could be used in place of the CRB. · GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. 'NC. Cec 12 06 09:45p KST Landscaping & i Maint. Gurdev Singh December 7, 2006 , q '.~ \ ... _,."'J/ 425-271-6728 p.2 JN 06353 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this information, or 'f we may be of further ser1ice, please do not hesitate to contact us. ZJM/MRM: jyb Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Principal · G~OTECH CO'.iSULHNTS. INC. ® King County Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 June 26, 2006 Engineering Plans: Sheet 1, Gurdev Singh Short Plat Initial Engineering Review Comments L05S0009,L06SR010 a. Please show the United States Postal Services approval stamp and signature for mailboxes location and show mailboxes location. Sheet 2, a. Please note that a temporary construction easement will be required and shall be shown on plans for the proposed TESC measures on the adjacent private property at the southwest property corner vicinity. b. At the minimum sediment trap and interceptor swale measures shall be provided during construction, please show on plans with section related details. Sheet 3, a. For the new on-site access, show centerline station in plan view, show road profile with complete information. b. Show profile design for proposed frontage road improvements with complete information. c. Please show pavement taper at 10: 1, and note that thickened edge is not acceptable in urban arterials d. Revise plans to show curb cut approach for the on-site access instead of intersection approvach. e. Please indicate and show on plans how the condition of approval number 5.E is met. f. Provide Horizontal Control plan for Ire subject site, show quarter and section and monuments and ties information, show temporary bench mark location and information. Please do not show topographic information on this plan. .. :_.-" g. Please add a note on plans to add full width of pavement overlay in SE 1 g2nd across the entire property frontage. h. Show on plan drainage BMP for individual lots i. Please provide Traffic Control, Traffic Channelization plan, and illumination plan for County review and approval. j. Please add condition of approval 5.H as a note on plans. Sheet 4, a. The short plat conditions of approval requires the on-site access to be consistent with the 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS) for Private Access Tract, please revise the proposed section so show crowned section. b. Please submit pavement design calculations for the required pavement widening in SE 192"d Street for County review and approval. c. Add a note on all plan sheets (with large bold font) referencing the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed for each proposed lot as specified for each proposed lot. Technical Information Report {TIR): a. Include TIR worksheets in TIR b. Include conveyance capacity calculations for the required conveyance system across the property frontage. c. Include sediment trap design calculations in TIR. d. Provide calculations for individual drainage BMP for each lot. e. Include Bond Quantities Calculations Work Sheets. Should you have any questions, feel free to call me at 206.296. 7133 for assistance. Mazen Haidar, P.E. 00~ LUSD, ERS uec 1 ;1 u~ Ui:1:44p K::i I Lanascaping & N1a1nt. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ------------ ~ --.... .... \ \ Gurdev Singh . I I 19100-104tht!~:! ~~~~"east /' \-..........!3.enton,~as~~ Subject: Pavement Design Considerations 11328 Southeast 192nd Street King County, Washington Dear Mr. Singh: -1---··· ··:., '· p.l 13256 N(,r!bl!..,"t 10th S:n:et. Suire 16 Bellevue:. \V~ti:lgt::in 98()(:,5 (425) 747-5611, FAX (A15,J 74'7-856] December 7, 2006 JN 06353 via facsimile: (253) 854-2475 Attached is our completed pavement C:esign for the proposed widening of Southeast 192nd Street at the property located at 11328 Southeast 192nd Street in King Count)/. Our scope of services consisted of vis~ing the site to hand excavate three test holes parallel to Southeast 192nd Street, commissioning laboratory tests consisting of the Modified Proctor test (ASTM Test 0-1557) and the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test (A.STM Test D-1883-05). The ground surface along the north side of Southeast 192nd Street, where the widening will occur, is generally at, or above. the current street grade. ·As a result, this area will have to be excavated down a few feet to reach the elevation of the road surface. Our explorations immediately north of the current curb encountered 4 to 6 inches of topsoil overlying medium-dense silty sand and gravel :hat became dense near one fool below the existing grade. This dense soil has been glacially cor:ipressed, and is often referred to as glacial till. Samples of the glacial till soils were obtained and submitted to GeoEngineers, Inc. to determine t~e California Bearing Ratio (CSR) of the native soil. · Copies of our assumptions, laboratory results, and ::iavement design computations are attached to this letter for referenc~. The CBR value of 24.0 used in our pavement de~ign calculations assumes that the road subgrade has a minimum relative compaction cf 95 percent relative :o 1he maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557). We were also provided with historical traffic counts of King County for Southeast 192nd Street. By assuming that 10 percent of the traffic is trucks or buses, we estimated lhe number of Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL) per day based on the statistical truck distributions as determined by the Federal Highway Administration. The number.of ESAL's were then determined over a 20-year pavement design life assuming an annual traffic growth of 6 percent. This total was divided by 2, assuming that each of the lanes· wouid carry 50 percent of the traffic. The other input parameters were based on the attached design parameters from K;ng County. The design parameters were inputted into the AASHTO Design Equation for flexible pavements, which yielded a pavement s~ion of 4.47 inches of asohalt. over E inches of crushed rock base. Therefore, we recommend using a pavement section for the new pavemen1 consisting of 4.5-,nches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 6 Inches of crushec reek base (CRB). The crushed cock should be placed on a firm soil subgrade. If desired, 4 inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB) could be used in place of the CRB. GEOTE.CH CONSULTANTS. 'NC Ceo 12 06 09;45p KST Landsceping & : Maint. • Gurdev Singh December 7, 2006 425-271-6728 p.2 JN 06353 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this information, or 'f we may be of further ser1ice, please de not hesitate to contact us. ' ZJM/MRM: jyb Respectfully subrriitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. [!>CPIFIES Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. F'rin_cipal G30TECH CO~SULT.\JHS. INC. / ® King County Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 June 26, 2006 Engineering Plans: Sheet 1, Gurdev Singh Short Plat Initial Engineering Review Comments L05S0009, L06SR010 /' a. Please show the United States Postal Services approval stamp and signature for mailboxes location and show mailboxes location. Sheet 2, /a. ). Please note that a temporary construction easement will be required and shall be shown on plans for the proposed TESC measures on the adjacent private property at the southwest property corner vicinity. At the minimum sediment trap and interceptor swale measures shall be provided during construction, please show on plans with section related details. Sheet 3, /a. For the new on-site access, show centerline station in plan view, show road profile with complete information. Show profile design for proposed frontage road improvements with complete information. / c. Please show pavement taper at 10: 1, and note that thickened edge is not acceptable in urban arterials / d. Revise plans to show curb cut approach for the on-site access instead of intersection approvach. lij-Please indicate and show on plans how the condition of approval number 5.E is met. / f. Provide Horizontal Control plan for the subject site, show quarter and section and monuments and ties information, show temporary bench mark location and information. Please do not show topographic information on this plan. ,' / g. Please add a note on plans to add full width of pavement overlay in SE 192nd across the entire property frontage. /h. Show on plan drainage BMP for individual lots (!} Please provide Traffic Control, Traffic Channelization plan, and illumination plan for County review-and approval. . ) r!J/) Please add c~ition of approval 5.H as a note on plans. Sheet4, ~ "Ji''~ t-5 (I' / fa) The short plat conditions of approval requires the on-site access to be consistent with V the 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS) for Private Access Tract, please revise J, t~e proposed section so show crowned section . .,: e /please submit pavement design calculations for the required pavement widening in SE <J 192nd Street for County review and approval. } c. Add a note on all plan sheets (with large bold font) referencing the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed for each proposed lot as specified for each proposed lot. Technical Information Report (TIR): I a, ~ b. )/' Id. e. Include TIR worksheets in TIR Include conveyance capacity calculations for the required conveyance system across the property frontage. Include sediment trap design calculations in TIR. Provide calculations for individual drainage BMP for each lot. Include Bond Quantities Calculations Work Sheets. Should you have any questions, feel free to call me at 206.296. 7133 for assistance. Mazen Haidar, P.E. L'i0~ LUSD,ERS . . Cramer Northwest, Inc . • Surveyors •Planners •Engineers V December 5, 2006 King Co. DDES Attn: Mazen Haidar, P.E. 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 RE: L05S0009, L06SR010 Gurdev Singh Short Plat Dear Mazen, This is our response to the letter we received dated June 26, 2006 regarding the above project. This response outlines point by point how each issue is resolved. Engineering Plans: Sheet 1 a. The mailboxes are shown on sheet 5, along with the USPS approval stamp. Sheet 2 (old), Now sheet 3 a. A rock wall has now been added, eliminating the need for a temporary construction easement. b. We are using the silt fence as the sole form of treatment as allowed in Appendix D, Section D3.3. See TIR Section VIII for more information. Sheet 3 (old), Now sheet 4 a. The centerline station of the on-site access has been shown on sheet 5, along with a profile. b. A flow line profile is now provided on sheet 5. c. A 1 O: 1 taper is now shown on sheet 5, and the thickened edge in the arterial has been removed. d. A curb cut approach is now shown on sheet 5. e. See roadside obstacle note on sheet 5. f. A horizontal control plan has been provided, see sheet 2. g. See note added on sheet 5, (full pavement overlay). h. Drainage BMP's are now shown on sheet 4. i. Traffic control and Traffic channelization plans have been provided; see sheets SL-1, SL-2, SL-3, and TC-1. . j. See sheet 5 for note about no direct vehicular access to or from SE 192"" ST. k. For the pipe-stem parcels, we request approval of the width as shown. We would be relying on KCRS, Chapter 3, (3b, on page 25), which states: "Driveways may utilize full width of narrow pipe-stem parcels or easements if approved by Reviewing Agency." 945 N. Central, Suite #104 Kent WA 98032 (253) 852-4880 Fax (253) 852-4955 www.cramernw.com E-mail: cni@cramernw.com --------------------- Cramer Northwest, Inc. • Surveyors • Planners • Engineers I/ Sheet 4 (old), Now sheet 5 TIR a. We would ask that a single slope instead of a crowned section be allowed for this situation. We are using a single slope in the PAT. because there would be an unusual transition to get from a crown to the near constant slope of the sidewalk. The single slope provides for a straightforward solution without any complex issues. Please allow this configuration for this situation. b. C. a. b. C. d. e. Pavement design calculations have been provided by others. A bold note has been added on engineering plan sheets referencing the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed for each lot. TIR worksheets are now included in Appendix C. A conveyance calculation has been provided in Appendix B for the one new pipe between the two new catch basins. No sediment trap calculations are required because we are using the silt fence as the sole form of treatment as allowed in Appendix D, Section 03.3. See TIR Section VIII for more information. A calculation has been provided in Appendix B for the drainage BMP. A bond quantities worksheet has been included and can be found in Appendix C. We feel that we have adequately addressed the comments that were made. We respectfully request that you approve these plans as designed. Please call our office if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, /J~ }JA!1;,e,.1j Paul Nitardy, P.E. Cramer Northwest 945 N. Central, Suite #104 Kent WA 98032 (253) 852-4880 Fax (253) 852-4955 www.cramernw.com E-mail: cni@cramernw.com M i r a i T,-,eneportatlon PlanninQ & Engineering Mirai Transportation Planning & Engineering 11410 NE 122nd Way Suite 320 Kirkland, WA 98034 TRANSMITTAL Cramer NW Date: December 6, 2006 945 N Central, Suite 104 Kent, WA 98032 Project: Gurdev Singh illumination Plan Mirai Project Number: K0434106 2 112/05/06 24 x 36 paper plots ' . Shee\ TC-1, Temporary Traffic Control Plan 2 i 12/05/06 / 12105106 ' _________ , ___ _, ____________ _,_ __ ' - Letter size lllumi8ation calculations for 200W luminaires 11 X 17 CD 2 ······-·--·-··· ···-·············-·······--············-------------------t------t----- Existi~g illumination by Triad for Chinquapin Ridge 2 J 8/14/90 ; --··------------·----·-·-.. --------·-·····--····-·--··· .. --------·-----·--·------·-------·-----; AutoCAD 2005 files ............. 1 __________ L_12/06/06 _ If enclosures are not as kindly notify us at once ························································································-······--·-············---------------·---------------- -----·------------~------. . I ~q-. ;r Jo~~ Mirai Associates, Inc• 11410 NE 12~nd Way, Suite 320 • Kirkland, WA 98034-6927 • 425.820.0100-t • 425.821.1750 -f Changing the way you do Ughting Design ... AGA.tN II SAIIPUl IWIIEI FOR AGl32 A613Z "'l')right 19981.ighting Analysts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Layout #1 Luminaire Label: 200W 6' arm 30 MH Luminaire Description: GE451002 File Name: GE451002.ies : Luminaire Arrangement: SINGLE Arm Leng1h = 7 .5 Ft · Lumens Per Lamp = 22000 Number Of Lamps = 1 Total Light Loss Factor= 0.8 Layout Information: R-Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), c:m=0.07 Calculation Method: IES Layout Type: One Row, Far Sid~; 1 RFS Luminaire Spacing (Within Row);= 151 Ft Roadway Width = 43.5 Ft 1 Setback = 6 Ft Lanes Per Roadway = 2 ~--------i----------------·------1- AG132/Roadway Optimizer· copyright 1999-2003 by ~lghling Analysts, lnc. Changi~ the way you do Ughti~ Design ••• AGAJ:N11 SAIIIPlE IIAIINER FOR AGIU AGl32 cop)1ight 1998 Lighting Analysts, Inc. Roadway Optimize~ -Layout #1 Luminaire Location Summary: i Coordinates in Ft X-Coord -151 0 151 302 453 Y-Coord 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 Total Number of locations = 5 2-Coord ,30 30 '30 30 ;30 Average Tilted Lamp Correction Factor Applied = AGl32/Roadway Optimizer· copyrlghl 1999-2003 by l:.ighting Analysts, Inc. ' Orient 270 270 270 270 270 Tilt 0 0 0 0 0 2 ChaJ9ng the way you do Ughting Design ... AGAlN11 SAMPLE IWIIER FOR AGIU Nil32 cop)light 1998 Ughling Anal)lsts, Inc. Roadway Optimize~ -Layout #1 Luminance Grid: +0.9 +0.7 + : 0.81 + 1.2 +0.8 +0.7 +0.6 +0.7 ·····--···-·· : +0.4 +0.5 I +0.5 +o 5 . ' I y +0.2 +0.3 +o.3' +0.4 X Numerical Summary: Grid begins at: X = 7 .55 Y = 5.4375 Z = O Point Spacing Left-To-Right= 15.1 Ft Point Spacing Top-To-Bottom= 10.875 Ft Values in Cd/Sq.M. i Average= 0.77 Maximum = 1.6 Avg/Min = 3.85 Max/Min = 8.00 Maximum Lv/Lavg Ratio = 0.30 + 1.6 + 1.5 + 1.5 +0.9 + 1.0 + 1.1 +0.8 +0.8 +0.7 +0.5 +0.6 +0.5 Minimum = 0.2 Longitudinal Uniformity (Min/Max) per row starting with top row: 0.44 0.5 0.5 0.33 AGl32/Roadway Oplimizer -copyright 1999-2003 by Lighting Analysts, Inc. +1.5 + 1.2 +0.7 +0.3 + 1.3 + 1.1 .:. +0.9 1.1 +0.6 +0.5 +0.3 +0.2 3 -------------- Changing the wa.y you do Ughting Design ... ~AZN11 SAIIPt.E IIAIINER FOR AGIS2 AGBZ copjdght 1998 Lighting Analysts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Layout #1 . i ! llluminance Grid: +2.9 + 1.8 + 1.Q +0.6 +2.5 +2.0 +1.2 +0.8 + 1.4 + 1.3 + 1.0 +0.8 y +0.6 +0.7 +O.q +0.6 I L __ X Numerical Summary: Grid begins at: X = 7.55 Y = 5.4375 Z = 0 Point Spacing Left-To-Right= 15.1 Ft Point Spacing Top-To-Bottom= :10.875 Ft Values in Fe ' Average= 1.12 Avg/Min = 2.24 Max/Min = 5.80 Maliimum = 2.9 I . +0.5 +0.5 +0.6 +0.6 +0.6 +0.8. +0.8 + +0.8 ·o.8 +0.7 +0.7 +0.6 Minimum = 0.5 Longitudinal Uniformity (Min/Ma~) per row starting with top row: 0.17 0.24 i 0.57 0.86 AGl32/Roadway Optimizer· copyright 1999-2003 by LighUng Analysts, lnc. ! + 1.0 + 1.2 +1.0 +0.6 -I + 1.8 +2.9 +2.0 +2.5 + 1.3 + 1.4 +0.7 +0.6 4 Changing the way you do Ughting Design ••• AGA?N11 SANPLE BAINER FOR AGl32 AGBZ <OP)right 1998 Lighting Analysts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Definitions IES method: Average Pavement Luminance (L) • The overall average tUminance of the road surface as observed from a specific point in Cd/m2 (metric units are used regardless). Observer position Is 1.45 meters above the pavement surface, 83 meters back from each computation point along a longitudinal line parallel to the direction of travel. Observer line of sight is 1 degree below horizontal. Observer position changes relative to the curb line to align with each row of computation points. Longltudinal Uniformity -The ratio of minimum to maximum pavement luminance along each longitudinal line of computation points. · Veiling Luminance (Lv) -A measure of disability glare, Veiling luminance is a luminance superimposed over the eyes retinal image produced by stray light within the eye. In the IES method, Lv is computed at the same points as pavement luminance with the observer assuming the location of each point. Observer line of sight is horizontal at 1.45 m above the road surlace. Veiling Luminance ratio -The IES method uses the maximum value of Veiling Luriiinance (Lv) divided by the Average Pavement Luminance (Lpavg) as a measure of the disability glare produced by a lighting system. Weighted Average VL (STV) -Weighted Average Visibility Level or Small Target Visibility determines the visibility level of an array of targets on the roadway considering the following factors: luminance of the targets, luminance of the immediate background, adaptation level of the adjacent surroundings, and disability glare (Lv). CIEmethod: Average Pavement Luminance (L) -The overall average luminance of the road surlace as observed from a specific point in Cd/m2 (metric units are used regardless). Observer position Is 1/4 roadway width inset from the curb, 1.5 m above the pavement surlace and 60 m back from each row of computation points. line of sight is 1 degree below horizontal. Observer position is static relative to the curb line. longitudinal Uniformity -The ratio of minimum to maximum pavement luminance along each longitudinal line of computation points. Veiling luminance (lv) -A measure of disability glare, Veiling luminance is a luminance superimposed over the eyes retinal Image produced by stray light within the eye. In the CIE method. lv is computed along a single row of calculation points directly in front of the observer position. Observer is 90m back from each point, 1/4 road width from the curb line. line of sight is horizontal. The CIE method uses the maximum value of Lv to compute the relative Threshold Increment (Tl) and Glare Control Mark. Specific luminaire tndex (Sll). A measure of a the glare control properties of a luminaire. The higher the number the greater the propensity for glare control. Sll forms the luminaire associated portion of the calculation for Glare Control Mark. Relative Threshold Increment (Tl) -A measure of the effect of disability glare produced by the lightlng system. Threshold Increment is intended to yield the percentage increase in the luminance of the roads surface required to render an object just visible (threshold of visibility) under the proposed lighting system (glare present) as compared to the luminance required to render the object just visible in the absence of glare. Glare Control Mark -A measure of the discomfort glare caused by a lighting system. Glare Control Mark is based on a relationship between the intensity of the luminaire at 80 degrees and 88 degrees, the tuminaire flashed area, the lamp color constant, the height of the luminaire above the roadway. the average pavement luminance, and the number of luminaires per kilometer. The higher the value of Glare Control Mark the greater the glare control of the luminaire. CIE-AS method: The Australian variation of the ClE method differs I~ the following conventions: Average Pavement luminance Observer position. Observer position is 1/2 roadway width inset from the curb otherwise same as CIE. Veiling luminance Observer Position. Observer position Is 1/2 roadway width inset from the curb otherwise same as CIE. longitudinal Uniformity -In addition to longitudinal uniformity along each line of computational points, longitudinal uniformity is computed from a single column of points directly in line with the observer position. Observer position is same as for pavement luminance. AGJ32/Roadway Optimizer. copyright 1999--2003 by Ughtmg Analysts, Inc. 5 Changing the way you do Ughting Design ... AGAZN11 SANPUi BAINER FOR AGl32 AGl32 cop)light 1998 Lighting Anal)sb, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Layout #1 Luminaire Label: 200W 6' arm 30 MH Luminaire Description: GE451002 File Name: GE451002.ies Luminaire Arrangement: SINGLE Arm Length = 7 .5 Ft Lumens Per Lamp = 22000 Number Of Lamps = 1 Total Light Loss Factor= 0.8 Layout Information: R-Table: R3 (Slightly Specular), Q0=0.07 Calculation Method: IES Layout Type: One Row, Far Side; 1 RFS Luminaire Spacing (Within Row)= 151 Ft Roadway Width = 43.5 Ft Setback = 6 Ft Lanes Per Roadway = 2 y I X AGl32/Roadway Optimizer. copyright 1999--2003 by lighting Analysts, Inc. I 1 Changing the way you do Lighting Design ... ASAlNJ/ SAMPLE BANNER FOR AG13Z AGl32 cop)fight 1998 Lighting Analysts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Layout #1 Luminaire Location Summary: Coordinates in Ft X-Coord -151 0 151 302 453 Y-Coord 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5 Total Number of locations = 5 Z-Coord 30 30 30 30 30 Orient 270 270 270 270 270 Average Tilted Lamp Correction Factor Applied = 1 AG132/Roadway Optimizer. copyright 1999-2003 by Lighting Analysts, Inc. Tilt • 0 0 0 0 0 2 Cha'9ng the way you do Ughting Design ... AGAZN11 SAMPLE IWIIER FOR AG132 AGl32 cop)'ight 1998 Lighting hlalysts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Layout #1 Luminance Grid: +0.9 +0.7 +0.8 + 1.2 +0.8 +0.7 ·o.6 +0.7 +0.4 +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 y ·0.2 +0.3 +0.3 +0.4 l_x Numerical Summary: Grid begins a1: X = 7.55 Y = 5.4375 Z = 0 Point Spacing Left-To-Right= 15.1 Ft Point Spacing Top-To-Bottom= 10.875 Ft Values in Cd/Sq.M. Average = 0.77 Maximum = 1.6 Avg/Min = 3.85 Max/Min = 8.00 Maximum Lv/Lavg Ratio= 0.30 + 1.6 + 1.5 +1.5 + 0.9 + 1.0 + 1.1 +0.8 +0.8 +0.7 + 0.5. +0.6 +0.5 Minimum = 0.2 Longitudinal Uniformity (Min/Max) per row starting with top row: 0.44 0.5 0.5 0.33 AGl32/Roadway Optimizer. copyright 1999-2003 by lighting Analysts, Inc. + 1.5 + 1.2 +0.7 +0.3 + 1.3 ·+-1.1 + 1.1 +0.9 +0.6 +0.5 +0.3 +0.2 3 Changing the way you do Ughting Design ... AGAJ:N11 SAIIPI.E BAIIIER FOR AGIS2 AGl32 cop:,,lght 1998 Ugbtlng Analy:>ts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Layout #1 llluminance Grid: +2.9 + 1.8 + 1.0 +0.6 + +2.0 + 1.2 +0.8 2.5 -+ 1.4 + 1.3 ~ +0.8 1.0 +0.6 +0.7 + +0.6 0.6 y I X Numerical Summary: Grid begins at: X = 7.55 Y = 5.4375 Z = O Point Spacing Left-To-Right= 15.1 Ft Point Spacing Top-To-Bottom= 10.875 Ft Values in Fe Average= 1.12 Avg/Min = 2.24 Max/Min = 5.80 Maximum = 2.9 +0.5 +0.5 +0.6 +0.6 .+0.6 +0.8 +0.8 +0.8 +0.8 + +0.7 +0.6 '0.7 Minimum = 0.5 Longiludinal Uniformity (Min/Max) per row starting with top row: 0.17 0.24 0.57 0.86 AGJ32/Roadway Optimizer -copyright 1999-2003 by Li?hting Analysts, tnc. +1.0 + 1.2 + 1.0 +0.6 + 1.8 +2.9 +2.0 +2.5 +1.3 + '1.4 +0.7 +0.6 4 Changing the way you do Ughting Design ... AGAJ:N II SANPlE IIAIIIER FOi AGIS2 AGl32 cop)right 1998 Ughting Analysts, Inc. Roadway Optimizer -Definitions 1ES method: Average Pavement Luminance (L) -The overall average luminance of the road _surface as observed from a specific point in Cd/m2 (metric units are used regardless). Observer position ls 1.45 meters above the pavement sulface, 83 meters back from each computation point along a longltudlnal line parallel to the direction of travel. Observer line of sight is 1 degree below horizontal. Observer position changes relative to the curb line to align with each row of computation points. Longitudinal Uniformity -The ratio of minimum to maximum pavement luminance along each longitudinal line of computation points. Veiling Luminance (Lv) -A measure of disability glare, Veiling luminance is a luminance superimposed over the eyes retinal image produced by stray light within the eye. In the IES method, Lv is computed at the same points as pavement luminance with the observer assuming the location of each point. Observer line of sight is horizontal at 1.45 m above the road surface. Veiling Luminance ratio -The IES method uses the maximum value of Veiling Luminance (Lv) divided by the Average Pavement Luminance (Lpavg) as a measure of the disability glare produced by a lighting system. Weighted Average VL (S1V) -Weighted Average Visibility Level or Small Target Visibility determines the visibility level of an array of targets on the roadway considering the following factors: luminance of the targets, luminance of the Immediate background, adaptation level of the adjacent surroundings, and disability glare (Lv). CIE method: Average Pavement Luminance (L) -The overall average luminance of the road surface as observed from a specific point in Cd/m2 (metric units are used regardless). Observer position Is 1/4 roadway width inset from the curb, 1.5 m above the pavement surface and 60 m back from each rcrN of computation points. Line of sight is 1 degree below horizontal. Observer position is static relative to the curb line. Longitudinal Unifonnity-The ratio of minimum to maximum pavement luminance along each longitudinal line of computation points. Veiling Luminance (Lv) -A measure of disability glare, Veiling luminance is a luminance superimposed over the eyes retinal image produced by stray light within the eye. In the CIE method, Lv is computed along a single row of calculation points directly in front of the observer position. Observer is 90m · back from each point, 1/4 road width from the curb line. Line of sight is horizontal. The CIE method uses the maximum value of Lv to compute the relative Threshold Increment (Tl) and Glare Control Mark. Specific Luminaire Index (SU)-A measure of a the glare control properties of a Juminalre. The higher the number the greater the propensity for glare control. SU forms the luminalre associated portion of the calculation for Glare Control Mark. Relatlve Threshold Increment (Tl) -A measure of the effect of disability glare produced by the lighting system. Threshold Increment is intended to yield the percentage increase in the luminance of the roads surface required to render an object just v!sible (threshold of visibility) under the proposed lighting system (glare present) as compared to the luminance required to render the object just visible in the absence of glare. Glare Control Mark -A measure of the discomfort glare caused by a lighting system. Glare control Mark is based on a relationship between the intensity of the luminaire at 80 degrees and 88 degrees, the luminalre flashed area, the lamp color constant, the height of the luminaire above the roadway, the average pavement luminance, and the number of tumina!res per kilometer. The higher the value of Glare Control Mark the greater the glare control of the Juminaire. CIE-AS method: The Australian v8riation of the CIE method differs in the following conventions: Average Pavement Luminance Observer position -Observer position Is 1/2 roadway width inset from the curb otherwise same as CIE. Veiling Luminance Observer Position -Observer position is 1/2 roadway width inset from the curb othe!Wise same as ClE. Longitudinal Uniformity -In addition to longitudinal uniformity along each line of computational points, longitudinal uniformity is computed from a single column of points directly in line with the observer position. Observer position is same as for pavement luminance. AGt32/Roadway Optimizer· copyright 1999-2003 by Lighting Analysts, Inc. 5 ll ~ --~ II ;, ,; l ~ ll::I I- Ill l!l! Ill '?} a: m< I--j!; ::I~ "' UI Ii 0 I, ~! f z N I ;t., ~- GI -tin .. Ii I " I.:.,; - ::: :: (I) -3S :IAV H.lffl--- I l .... ~-in,I_VTY11 ·-· 3!>CJIY NldVOONIH:> NYldNOllYZI C31MI::>. ---·----·------;;_ ::i .; ..: .; ... ..; ~ :·-,· .. , .. , .. , .. , .. ,.,, .. , .• ,!! ~ : .. : .. : .. : .. : .. , .. ,. : .. :. , .. ,= * ii I 1--/-.J..j..j..J..j /--i-l-·!; ~ fl -;··;··;··;--;--;-: -;--;-;-·;l!l ;R L.L.L.Li . .i.1 .. Li. ' .. la -------.:..s ..: ... ..; .. ..; - F --== ---u- . ··--...... --·-- . 6'·H·W a.LYO •-~---ctf . NMWCJ ,, I ' I '°' ~I ~ :I at 0 !I. • ZI -, zC ~-= en f Ill a -• z. o• -I ~' z = -:I • ::, I ..I : ::! t <Ii --• • ' ' ~ • ~ i s I ~ -ti ii i' Ii I Ii~ I- Ill !~ Ill 1 a: -j5 I- ~l! IO Ii ii f Q t I ~ Cit ~ti .. ti I -:IS :IA y HJ.Cl-~ -- I l -·· ~~ .... "OIIIti,vyy& ·-· :ll>CIW NldVOONIHO w,.&~'fb U8fllt:>. i1: ~, 11 i I i $ I i I I . It I ( ;.! B i a, 5111a a 11 9 1 ,I a I• ; 'Ii I 1· s II ~R I!~ 9 I .I I a i l;l .a ;i; I ~, II! ! o I• I~-~~, •fi. 1: ah!! il I i mi ~ ,, ='1 '1!a=Dli ·a I~~ al ~ -=a;a i I-~ 1,1· Ii I j:;11.i; ,e ~ :!i 18 i !i I~~ ial1·!a ii! al :'~ ~!a ~aa ~ ~ !i ,(I " " t, • ~\I ::s!:1a:.~ ..;-.,;.:.:o =. ;at1~;:.'! . . . . . . .. ......... o • I fl ;;~~~~~--: . -·--. -----. ---.•• ,,.. 11.'f'O 1---.. ...... --- cif . -.wa WiiEffEM!P' ,, I ' • 1 \lJ ~I ~~~~ g! ••• =, .!· 1ii1 , .. 111 i&:1 .1:; • ;i: h-!ol! 0 Ii~~ ,il k" !.I. t-5 z • ~. :JI ............ ~• I a;~=:t:-~ ~~i& !!l .. .:.:.;.:..;o ' Hii :ij -.! !ii z I "11,ao• • !I;·-:..-;-:";··,. ·r ........ o I • .. a I c -$~I~ . . ... ,,,, . . ... )it 0 a, .. ~ .... ~.• Z ·~· i • I· 0.:.:.:00 l z: . . . ilt ,i:, ....... ,, • ......... . s· . 00.:.:00 ~ 1! i .J a• s=~ts•-~: i~!i 1 ri · t~ ~~~~~~. & &i" .5"" .J. . ,.A ~~~~~;-~: j~li .. ~JI n!l ~1 g 000 .... 0 ; lilt ii I ~~~ij,~ ~ iii! HJ HH ni::·0 C, .> -Cl) ... Cl z 0 -~ z -:I :::, _. _. -4 • C ~ -~ • • I I C • • C I • • • C . • • • Ii C Ii • C C • Ii Ii ~ ,. • 11 ' ,1 ' .. •' . ~ •• • Web date· 10/10/2005 (!) King, County -Department of Development and Envlronmental Services Land Use Services Division ENGINEERING REVIEW .CHECKLIST 1998 Surface Water Design Manual .1993.King County Road Standards 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 206-296-6600 TIY 206-296-7217 For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600. PROJECT INFORMATION P,ojeci Nam,~I Activity Number \ :CS~ § = Project Number C OU Development Number DOES Review Engineer Date Notes OK D Hearing Examiner's Report ........ Date _______ Revised Report ...... Date D Plat Ordinance Number Date D Preliminary Plat Map .......... Date Approved by Hearing Examiner D Revised Preliminary Plat Map ....... Date Approved by ODES D 5-year Expiration ....... Date (Show on engineering cover sheet) ---------- ROUTING TO OTHER KING COUNTY SECTIONS OK D Wetland Report / Plans Route Date ___________ _ Response Date ___________ _ D Geotechnical Report I Plans Route Date ------------Response Date ___________ _ 0 Grading Report/ Plans Route Date ___________ _ Response Date ___________ _ D Structural Designs I Calculations I Civil Plans/ Soils Report (Vaults, Retaining Walls, Bridges) Route Date Response Date ___________ _ D Landscape / Recreation / Street Tree I Plan Route Date ------------Response Date ------------ EngineeringReviewChecktistFORM.doc re-ckl-ercheck.pdf 10/10/2005 1 of 16 ' r---• • Activity Number: ------------- (Continued) 0 Traffic Improvement Plan / Report Route Date ___________ _ Response Date ____________ _ 0 Tree Retention/ Forestry/ Plan Route Date ___________ _ Response Date ____________ _ 0 Other Report/ Plan Route Date ------------ 0 All required routing stations shown and updated on PRMS Response date ____________ _ Notes GENERAL SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS 0 Site plan layout matches preliminary plat approved by Hearing Examiner (Check for same lot count, tract configuration, road alignments, etc.) 0 Compliance with conditions of preliminary approval 0 Compliance with Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance 0 Tract Table if three or more tracts. Identify name, size and purpose. 0 Show and label all SAO tracts, buffers, and 15' BSBL. 0 Review maximum height of 6-feet for rockeries and retaining walls per KCC 21A.12.030, 110-170, 220) Also show standard note per policy on Web site. 0 Use updated cover sheet showing designation for highly critical sites per Appendix, 044. 0 Determine if HPA fisheries permit required -contact CAO staff. 0 Tree Retention Plans -Show standard plan note (see section policies). SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (1998) CORE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OK SWDM 0 1.2.1 0 1.2.2 0 1.2.3 0 1.2.6 0 1.2.8 0 1.3.1 0 1.3.2 Core #1 -Evaluate diversion of drainage within subbasins and/or tightline requirements for landslide hazard drainage areas. Core #2 -Off-site analysis. Evaluate adequacy and conclusions. Core #3 -Flow control. Determine design standard based upon mapping and/or off-site analysis. Evaluate exemptions from flow control if applicable. Core #6 -All drainage facilities and road access shall be located in public tracts, right-of-way and/or drainage easements dedicated to King County. For private facilities, specify the required Declaration of Covenant and drainage easements for final recording. Core #8 -Water Quality. Determine design standard based upon mapping and/or off-site analysis. Evaluate exemptions if applicable and untreated areas per page 1-57. Special #1 -Area specific requirements. Perform P-suffix search on computer, evaluate grading code restrictions, and review for shared facility drainage plan. Special #2 -Floodplain boundaries shown on plans. EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck. pdf 10/10/2005 2 of 16 • • Activity Number: -------------DRAINAGE VARIANCES OK SWDM D 1.4 Activity No. ---------Approval Date Design Issues ~----------------------------~ TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT OK SWDM D 2.3.1.1 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Section 1 -Project Overview Figure 1: TIR Worksheet Figure 2: Site Location Figure 3: Drainage Basins a. Acreage of subbasins b. Identify all site characteristics c. Show existing discharge points to and from the site d. Show routes of existing, construction, and future flows at all discharge points and downstream hydraulic structures. e. Use a minimum USGS 1 :2400 topographic map as a base f. Show and cite the length of travel from the farthest upstream end of a proposed storm system in the development to any proposed flow control facility. Figure 4: Soils a. Show the project site b. The area draining to the site c. The drainage system downstream for the distance of the downstream analysis Section 2 -Preliminary Conditions Summary with responses Section 3 -Off-Site Analysis Section 4 -Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) Performance Standards (Part C) Flow Control System (Part D) Water Quality System (Part E) Section 5 -Conveyance System Design and Analysis Section 6 -Special Reports and Studies -Geo, Wetlands, Floodplain analysis (4.4.2) Section 7 -Other Permits (HPA, Special Use, WSDOT, etc.) Section 8 -Erosion / Sedimentation Control Design Section 9 -Bond Quantities Worksheet and RID Facility Summary Section 1 O -Maintenance and Operations Manual (Section 10 for privately maintained or special non-standard features EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 10/10/2005 3 of 16 • • Activity Number: L C)lp t) Ra \() SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS OK SWDM D 2.3.1.2 D Vertical Datum NAVO 1988 -show benchmark D Horizontal Control NAO 1983/91 D 2.3.1.2 General Plan Format (1) Sheet size 24" x 36"; quality reproducibles (2) King Co. Standard Map Symbols; existing / proposed (Reference 7 A) (3) Project Information I Cover Sheet a. Title: Project name and ODES file number b. Table of Contents if more than 3 plan sheets c. Vicinity Map D D D D D D D d. Name & Phone of Utility field contacts and One Call Number: 1-800-424-5555 (water, sewer, D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D gas, power) e. Preconstruction / Inspection notification requirements f. Name & Phone of erosion control supervisor g. Name & Phone of Surveyor h. Name & Phone of Owner/ Agent i. Name & Phone of Applicant j. Legal description k. Plan approval block for ODES I. Name & Phone of engineering firm preparing plans m. Fire Marshal's approval stamp (if required) n. Mailbox location approval by U.S. Postal Service o. List of conditions of preliminary approval on all site improvements (4) An overall site plan if more than three plan sheets are used a. The complete property area development b. Right-of-way information c. Street names and road classification d. All project phasing and proposed division boundaries e. All natural and proposed drainage collection and conveyance systems with catch basin numbers shown (5) Each sheet and TIR is stamped, signed, and dated by a Professional Engineer licensed in Washington State (6) Detail Sheets Provided (7) Title block on each sheet a. Development title b. Name, address and phone number of engineering firm c. Revision block d. Page numbering e. Sheet title (e.g., road and drainage, grading, etc.) (8) King County approval block on each plan sheet (9) The location and label for each section or other detail shall be provided (10) Critical Area Setbacks per K.C.C. 21A.24 (11) All match lines correspond to the sheet reference (12) Division phase lines with limits of construction (13) Standard Plan Notes -General, Drainage & Structural notes (Reference 78) (14) Survey control plan sheet stamped by licensed PLS in Washington State EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck. pdf 10/10/2005 4 of 16 -·-, • • Activity Number: -------------SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS tcontlnuodl OK SWDM D 2.3.1.2 Plan View: Site Plan and Roadway Elements D (1) Property Lines, R/W lines, roadway widths shown D (2) Existing / Proposed road features; CL, edge pavement, edge shoulder, ditches, curb, sidewalk & access pis D (3) Existing/ Proposed topographic contours@2', 5'>15% slope, 10-'>40% slope D (4) All affected utilities are shown; utility poles marked D (5) All roads and adjoining subdivisions identified D (6) Existing / Proposed R/W dimensioned and shown D (7) Existing / Proposed surfacing shown D (8) Scale generally 1"=50' (1"=100' for lots >1 Acre) D 2.3.1.2 Plan View: Drainage Conveyance D Sequentially number all catch basins and curb inlets D Show length, diameter, and material for all pipes, culverts, and stubouts D Label catch basin size and type D Show stubout locations for roof drains D Label all drainage easements, access easements, tracts, and building setbacks D Provide flow arrows for drainage direction D 2.3.1.2 Plan View: Other D Show all buildings, property lines, streets, alleys, and easements D Verify condition of public right-of-way D Show structures on abutting properties within 50 feet D Identify fencing for drainage facilities D Provide section details of all retaining walls and rockeries D Show all wells on-site and within 100-feet of site. For well abandonment, include notes referencing DOE procedures. D 2.3.1.2 Profiles: Roadway and Drainage D D D D D D D D D D D Existing/ proposed roadway centerline (CL) at 50' stations increasing, reading from left to right. Show stationing of points of smooth vertical curve, with elevations Show vertical curve data including stopping sight distance Show all pipes and detention tanks with slope, length, size and type Show all pipe inverts and elevations of catch basins or lids Minimum cover dimensions if less than 2.0' Indicate roadway stationing and offset for all catchbasins Show vertical and horizontal scales (vertical 1 "=5') Label all profiles with street names and reference numbers to plan sheet Show all property boundaries and match line locations Provide profiles for conveyance systems of 12" and larger pipes or channels other than roadway ditches Catch basin lids are flush with ground line EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le·ckl-ercheck.pdf 10/10/2005 5 of 16 • • Activity Number: ------------- SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS tconunuedl OK SWDM D 2.3.1.2 Plan Details D Provide scale drawing of each pond, vault, or water quality facility. Include all pipe details for size, type, slope, length, etc. D D Show existing and final grade contours at 2-foot intervals. Show maximum design water elevation. Dimension all berm widths D D D D D D D D D D 2.3.1.2 D Notes: Provide two cross sections through pond, including one section through restrictor Specify soils and compaction requirements Show location and detail of emergency overflows, spillways, and bypasses Specify rock protection I energy dissipation details Provide inverts for all pipes, grates, etc., and spot elevations on pond bottom Show location of access roads to control manholes and pond / forebay bottoms Provide plan and section views of all energy dissipaters. Specify size and thickness of rock. Show bollard locations (Typically at entrance to drainage facility and walking trails) Restrictor and control structures must have section and plan view drawn to scale Structural Plan Details Verify that designer is a licensed structural P.E. for vaults or bridges EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ISWDM Appendix DI OK D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D SWDM 2.3.1.3 D.4.1 General Specifications Separate plan sheet showing entire site w/features Show critical areas and buffers in separate tracts Show existing contours and final grades if scope or work includes grading Pertinent information from soils report is added to plans Drainage features identified {streams, wetlands, bogs, springs, seeps, swales, ditches, pipes & depressions) Utility corridors other than roads shown Show drainage divides and flow directions Specify best management practices Show cut and fill slopes with catch lines indicated Sufficient conceptual details to convey design intent Standard ESC plan notes shown on plans {Page D-69) For grading and structural fill within lot areas -show standard notes for geo hazards {see section policies for geo notes) Clearing Limits (1) Delineate clearing limits -colored survey tape may be used. Critical areas require plastic/ metal safety fence or stake and wire fences. (2) Provide detail of fencing EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 10/10/2005 6 of 16 • • Activity Number: ------------- 2.3.1.3 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (SWDM Appendix DI (continued) OK SWDM D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D.4.2 D.4.3 D.4.4 D.4.5 D.4.6 Cover Measures (1) Specify the type and location of temporary and permanent cover measures. (Mulch, erosion control nets, blankets, plastic, seeding and sodding) (2) Specify the seed mixes, fertilizers and soil amendments to be used and application rates (3) Areas receiving special treatment are specified Qute netting, rock lining or sod) (4) Soil cover practices and locations of disturbed areas Perimeter Protection (1) Specify the location and type of perimeter protection to be used -silt fence, brush barriers, and/or vegetated strips (2) Provide details and specify type of fabric for silt fence Traffic Area Stabilization (1) Show construction entrance with detail (Figure D.4.G) (2) Show proposed construction roads and parking areas. Specify details for stabilization. Sediment Retention (1) Show location of sediment pond or sediment trap. Very small areas can be treated with only perimeter protection (see D.4.3). (2) Sediment Trap -Can be used for drainage areas of 3 acres or less. Calculate surface area using 2-year design storm. Show detail per Figure D.4.H. (3) Sediment Pond -Determine pond geometry and show details on plan for required storage, depth, length and width (4) Show sediment pond cross section and detail (Figures D.4.J and K) (5) Provide details of cell dividers and stabilization techniques for inlet/ outlet (6) Specify mulch or recommended cover of berms & slopes (7) Specify the 1-foot marker for sediment removal (8) Indicate catch basins for protection and show design details (Figures DAL and M) Surface Water Control (1) Show conveyance of all surface water to a sediment pond or trap (2) Discharge location shall be downslope from disturbed areas (3) Show details for conveyance with interceptor dike, swales (Figures D.4.0, P). (4) For ditches, determine capacity for 10-year storm with 0.5 feet freeboard. Show details for check dams (Figure D.4.R). Determine check dam spacing and as needed, show inverts and minimum slopes of open channels. Also show direction of open channel flow. (5) For pipe slope drains, determine capacity for 10-year storm. Show details per Figure D.4.Q. (6) Determine level of protection for outlet (rock pad, outfall design, or level spreader). See requirements in D-38 through D-40. (7) Evaluate off-site flows entering the site and assure bypass of disturbed areas EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc lo-ckl-ercheck. pdf 10/10/2005 7 of 16 • • . . Activity Number: \~Dk ~R. a\ Q 2.3.1.3 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ISWDM Appendix DI (continued) • OK SWDM D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D.5.1 D.5.2 D.5.3 D.5.4 D.5.7 0.5.8 ESC Report (1) · Show detailed construction sequence (page D-70) (2) All required calculations and soils reports contained in TIR Wet Season Requirements (1) Provide a list of all applicable wet season requirements (details on page D-42) Critical Area Restrictions (1) Consider phased construction during the dry season. See special recommendations on page.D- 43. Maintenance (1) Plans shall list the name, address and phone number of the ESC Supervisor. A sign shall also be posted on the construction site with information for contacting the ESC supervisor. (2) Determine if site is Highly Critical (Soil Types C or D, 5 acres of disturbance, large areas with slopes >10%, proximity to streams, wetlands, or lakes) (3) On cover sheet of engineering plans, designate if highly critical site NPDES Requirements (1) Determine if project will disturb more than 5 acres (2) If disturbed area is greater the 5 acres, show the following note on the plans: "No construction or site disturbance for this project may begin before the applicant first obtains a General Permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). For more information or application form, please visit DOE's website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/ecy02085.html" Forest Practices Permit (1) Determine if project needs FPA permit. Contact DOES grading section. (2) Provide a reference note on the cover sheet indicating whether or not an FPA permit has been obtained. Early Start Plan Review (1) Standard cover sheet included with Title for Phased Early Start (2) List the scope of work for ea~y start (scope of work will vary for each project -evaluate clearing, grading for roads, lot grading, utility installation, vault construction, off-site work) (3) Update the sheet index to identify all plans with updated page numbers (4) Include standard ESC plan prepared in accordance with all requirements listed above for erosion and sediment control (5) Include detailed construction sequence and identify ESC supervisor (6) Show standard erosion control notes (7) Show early start activity number on all plain sheets EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck. pdf 10/10/2005 8 of 16 • • Activity Number: ------------- DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OK SWDM D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 3.2 3.27 3.3.6 3.3.7 4.0 4.5 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.10 4.27 4.35 4.51 4.69 4.53 5.0 . 5.3 5.9 5.11 Runoff Computation Rational Method required for on-site conveyance (See Table 3.2) KCRTS used for flow control design Evaluate correct data: Rainfall region, scale factor, time step, record type, acreages, soil cover groups, and percent impervious For_ urban areas, unprotected forest modeled as pasture or grass For rural areas, unprotected forest assumes 50% grass, 50% pasture All pre-developed grassland modeled as pasture All post developed grassland modeled as grass Impervious coverage calculated based upon specific project -clearly summarize types and amounts of impervious For urban development, impervious for each lot, >= 4,000 sq ft or maximum allowed in zoning code For rural development, impervious for each lot, >= 8,000 sq ft or maximum allowed in zoning code Evaluate requirements for modeling with effective impervious area Point of compliance -evaluate for on-site bypass and off-site closed depression On-site closed depressions and ponding areas Conveyance System Analysis and Design Conveyance systems are in easements with BSBLs Off-site easements must be recorded using standard forms (Reference 8H) Determine which easements are public and private, label and dimension Pipes are parallel to and alongside property lines Minimum pipe size 12-inch, for private systems may allow 8 inch Easements for pipes outside of right of way For connecting pipes at structures, match crowns, 80% diameter, or inverts Minimum velocity at full flow 3.0 feet per second Minimum cover for pipes 2 feet Debris barrier for pipes 18-36 inch Outfall design criteria Surcharges (backwater analysis may be required) Maximum headwater allowed for culverts Bridge design Floodplain analysis Open channels Flow Control Design Mandatory requirements for roof downspouts in order of preference. Must evaluate feasibility of each. • Infiltration • Dispersion • Perforated stubouts Dispersion system criteria including vegetated flow path Perforated stub out, if used show detail per Fig. 5.1.3.A EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-cld-ercheck.pdf 10/10/2005 9 of 16 • • Activity Number: LO \a()\({\ \Q DESIGN REQUIREMENTS jcontlnuedl OK SWDM D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 5.14 5.15 5.17 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 Forested open space flow control BMPs • Show tracts or easements for FOS • Show required notes on plan for plat recording Roadway dispersion BMPs, check design criteria BMPs for reducing facility size. Note: Facility sizing credit allowed for dispersion only if flowpath from roofs ultimately drain to RID facility. Detention Facilities Emergency overflow -Evaluate flow path for safe and adequate conveyance Setbacks Flow-through system Detention Ponds Dam Safety Compliance Two cross-sections through pond (one x-section to include control structure) Review pond details in Figures 5.3.1.A and B Designed as flow-through system Side slopes interior 3H:1V or fenced Vertical interior retaining walls Stamped by licensed structural civil engineer For pond walls, min. 25% of perimeter vegetated and no steeper than 3:1 Berms greater than 4 feet require key excavation Minimum berm width of 6 feet Primary overflow (control structure with riser). Secondary Inlet to the control structure Emergency Overflow Spillway, 100 year developed peak flow Soil and compaction requirements described (95% modified proctor) Access road min. turning radius, maximum grade, min. width, fences or gates Pond sign (Figure 5.3.1.D) Fencing and planting requirements Setbacks -5 feet from tow of exterior slope or 5 feet from water surface for cut slope Detention Tanks Flow-through system required 6''. of dead storage in tank bottom Minimum pipe diameter of 36" Materials and structural stability Control structure per Section 5.3.4 Buoyancy Access risers and CBs are spaced properly with max. depth from finished grade to tank invert shall be 20 feet and accessible by maintenance vehicles EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 10/10/2005 10 of 16 • • Activity Number: ------------- DESIGN REQUIREMENTS lcontlnuedl OK SWDM D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.4 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.2.2A 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.2.5 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.1.1 6.3.1 6.3.4 Detention Vaults Structural package submitted for approval Flow-through system required Review design details per Fig. 5.3.3.A. Note: Grate over sump with 2' x 2' hinged access door Access positioned a maximum of 50 feet from any location. (if over 3 foot cover use cone riser) Access required to inlet pipe and outlet Removable 5x1 O panel if vault greater than 1250 sq. ft. floor area Maximum depth from finished grade to vault invert to be 20 feet Minimum internal height shall be 7 feet, min. width shall be. 4 feet min Ventilation pipes provided in all four comers Control Structures Section and plan view shown to scale Orifice size and elevation on plans match calculations. Minimum orifice 0.5". (Note: Information Plate details are no longer required -see policy on Web site.) Infiltration Facilities Appropriate soils logs and testing procedures in TIR Pond bottom at least 3 feet above seasonal high water Permeable soil extends minimum 3 feet below bottom of pond Geotechnical report states suitability and determines design infiltration rate Overflow route identified with 100-yr overflow conveyance Spill Control device upstream of facility Presettling Review setback requirements, page 5-60. Design water surface setback of 20 feet from external tract, easement or property lines Show the standard note regarding public rule for in operation facility (see section policies) Water Quality Design Water Quality Menus Water Quality facilities Water Quality Sequencing Setbacks, slopes and embankments Facility Liners Flow Splitter Designs Bloflltratlon Facility Biofiltration swales and soil amendments Methods of Analysis Swale geometry, plantings, flow conveyance, high flows, velocity Road access requirements, page 6-43 Filter strip geometry (slopes) EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck. pdf 10/10/2005 11of16 • • Activity Number: ------------- DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (contlnuedl OK SWDM D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Notes: 6.4 6.4.1.2 6.4.1.1 6.4.2 6.4.1.1 6.4.1.1 6.4.2.2 6.4.3 6.4.3.1 6.4.3.2 6.4.4 6.4.4.1 6.4.4.2 6.4.4.2 6.5 6.5.1 6.5.2 6.5.2.1 6.5.2.2 6.5.3 6.5.3.2 6.5.3.2 Wetpool Faclllty Designs Wetpool geometry, 2 cells, minimum depth of first cell 4 feet Flowpath length to width ratio 3:1. Note: If flow path achieved with berms or walls, top of berm must be at 2-year water surface elevation. Berms, Baffles, Slopes lnleUOutlet Design Access, setbacks, and plantings Wetvaults Sizing basic or large Berms, Baffles, Slopes Two cells separated by wall or removable baffle Vault bottom forms a broad "V" with 5% sideslopes Inlet is submerged and outlet pipe designed for 100-year overflow Gravity drain provided if grade allows Minimum 50 square feet of grate over second cell Stormwater Wetlands Methods of Analysis Design Criteria -Wetland geometry, liners, access, plantings Combination Detention and Wetpool facllltles Methods of Analysis Design Criteria -Detention and wetpool geometry, berms, baffles, slopes Access and plantings Media FIitration Faclllty Designs Presettling/pretreatment Sandfilters -Basic and Large Methods of analysis Design Criteria -Geometry, overflow/bypass, underdrain, and access · Sandfllter Vaults Design Criteria -geometry, pretreatment, flow-spreading, energy dissipation Overflow/bypass, underdrain and access EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-ckJ-ercheck.pdf 10/10/2005 12 of 16 • • Activity Number: ------------- KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (1993) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS KCRS 1.03 A, B 1.03 D Off-site and frontage improvements determined by reviewing agency Note: For grading permits, the required extent of road improvements must be determined during engineering review. For subdivisions, the requirements are determined during preliminary review. Subdivisions must have recorded public access except for private roads DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 1.08 Road Variances Activity No. Approval Date ---------- Design Issues ROAD CLASSIFICATION TABLE Name of Roadwav KCRS Classlflcatlon OK KCRS D 2.03C Maximum Superelevation (2.05) D 2.03D Horizontal curvature (2.05) D 2.03E Maximum grade (2.11) D 2.03F Stopping Sight Distance (2.05, 2.12) D 2.03G Entering Sight Distance (2.05, 2.13) EnglneeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 1011012005 13 of 16 • • Activity Number: ------------- KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (1993) DESIGN REQUIREMENTS tcontlnuodl OK KCRS D 2.03H D 2.031 D 2.03J D 2.03J D 2.03K D 2.03L D 2.06 D 2.0687 D 2.07 D 2.08A D 2.088 D 2.08E D 2.08F D 2.09 D 2.098 D 2.10A D 2.10A D 2.10A D 2.108 D 2.10C D 2.10E D 2.11A D 2.118 D 2.12D D 2.16 D 2.18 D 2.20 D 3.01 D 3.01 D 3.02A D 3.028 D 3.05 Minimum pavement width (Note: Footnote 9 -Neighborhood collectors require 36-feet at approach to intersections with arterials) Minimum roadway width Minimum R/W width Min. R/W width (Footnote 12 and 2.198 -include 1 foot extra ROW behind curb or sidewalk) Curb or shoulder type road (2.01) Minimum Half-Street width Private Street Design Standards Verify maximum potential of 16 lots Half Streets Minimum Cul-de-Sac diameters Maximum Cul-de-Sac length Maximum Cross Slope 6% Bulb island shall be offset 2-feet Alleys Private Access Tracts (Note: Must meet all standards for minor access street, except curb cut driveway design is allowed with property line radii dedication) Angle of intersection between 85 and 95 degrees Intersection curb radius Intersection right-of-way radius Intersection spacing Intersection landing Low Speed Curves Maximum Grade -Use AC for grades >12%, Use PCC for grades >20% Grade Brakes -maximum 1 % at intersections Intersection stopping sight distance (125' SSD allowed for local access streets) Bus zones -For arterials and neigh. collectors, the designer shall contact metro Intersections with State Highways Single access serving more than 100 lots · Driveways Joint Use Driveways Sidewalks (both sides for subcollectors and higher classification) Location and width Handicapped access ramp (Use updated detail from KC Road Engineer, 3/26/04) EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 10/10/2005 14 of 16 • • Activity Number: ------------- KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (1993) DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ccontlnuadl OK KCRS D 3.09 D 3.10 D 3.11 D 4.01 D 4.01F D 4.01F D 4.02 D 4.02 D 4.03 D 4.05 D 5.01 D 5.02 D 5.03 D 5.04 D 5.05 D 5.06 D 5.07 D 5.08 D 5.11 D 6.00 D 7.02A-D D 7.03A D 7.03L D 7.04A D 7.04E D 7.05A D 7.056 D 7.05E D 8.02 D 8.036 School Access -asphalt walkway, sidewalk, or delineated shoulder Bikeways Equestrian Facilities Road Section and Surfacing (drawings 1-001 -1-006) Note: Neighborhood collectors require 3-inch asphalt concrete. Perform saw cut of pavement at fog line Pavement overlay for widening and channelization (show special note as approved by Development Engineer -see section policies) Residential street design Poor subgrade evaluation Arterial pavement design Pavement markings, channelization, and tapers (Requires DOT review) Rock facings (Dwg. Nos. 5-004 --5-007) Side slopes, generally 2H:1V Street trees and landscaping Mail boxes (Dwg. Nos. 5-010 -5-012) Street illumination Survey Monuments to be disturbed are shown Roadway Barricades Bollards for walkways or maintenance roads Roadside obstacles (Note: If variance required for utility pole, the utility company must apply for the variance.) Bridges (minimum width 28-feet) Grass-lined, pipe or rock lined, special designed ditch Minimum pipe size 12-inch diameter Beveled ends for culverts in ROW Maximum spacing between catch basins CBs taller than 5' (grate to invert) are Type II, Max. depth 12-feet per Dwg. 2-005 Vaned grates Through curb inlet frames for sag curves and intersections > 4%. Notes: a) Through curb inlet not used on rolled curb b) See section policies for policy on three flanking inlets All covers and grates shall be locking Utility pole locations and other obstacles Open cuts on existing roadways, patch requirements EngineeringReviewChecklistFORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 10110/2005 15 of 16 • • Activity Number: L. () ~t) RC) \. 0 j KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (1993) DESIGN REQUIREMENTS tcontlnuedl Notes: Check out the DDES Web site at www.metrokc.gov/ddes EngineeringReviewCheckllstFORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck. pdf 10/10/2005 16 of 16 I ' r • • Web dale: 09/09/2005 ® King County Deparbm,nt of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT STATUS Renton, Washington 98055-1219 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 For alternate formats. call 206-296-6600. Pennlt Number: Activity Number: Pennit Name: FOR INDIVIDUALS: I, 'fk/Ltl)/~ 5/!110 H LI/JYIJ3f8 (printname),herebycertifythatlam the/an owner of he property which is the subject of this permit. If I am not the sole owner of the property, I certify that I am authorized to represent all other owners of the property. My mailing address is: 4-ICJ/00 ·-/t>lf !'Z 52= ~16h iv ,V-) c1S•''!',·5,- I further certify that I am the "Applicant" for this permit and as such am financially responsible for all fees and will receive any refunds paid. I shall remain the "Applicant" for the duration of this permit unless I transfer [l)' "a licant" status in writin on a form provided by DOES. * '1< ~ '1' ~ --3 c;, ·-0 b ~ Date Signed -OR- FOR CORPORATIONS/BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS: I, (print name), hereby certify that I am an authorized agent of , a corporation or other , business association authorized to do business in the State of Washington, which is the sole owner of the property that is the subject of this permit. If this corporation or business association is not the sole owner of the property, I certify that this corporation/business association is authorized to represent all other owners of the property. The mailing address of this corporation/business association is: --·-·------------------------- I further certify that the above named corporation/business association is the "Applicant" for this permit and as such is financially responsible for all fees and will receive any refunds paid. This corporation/business association shall remain the "Applicant" for the duration of this permit unless it transfer , applicant status in writing 011 a form provided by ODES. * Signature of Applicant's Agent Date f ~ ~ ( l; , i i ~ I D * By signing as the Applicant or the Applicant's Agent, I certify under penalty of perjury under thw"ll!; o~ra Sfale.o.f~s . Washington that the information provided above is true and correct. · I cuu CertApplicantStatusFORM lc-cer-apstalpdf 09/09/2005 • • NOTICE TO APPLICANTS: By law, this department returns all engineering and other plans to the applicant. If, however, you wish to authorize the department to return engineering and other plans directly to the engineer, architect, or other consultant for the limited purpose of making corrections, please designate below: d I authorize this department to return plans directly to my consultant(s) for the limited purpose of making corrections as designated on this form. CONSULTANTS: Check out the DDES Web site at www.metrokc.gov/ddes CertApplicantStatusFORM lc-cer-apstat.pdf 09/09/2005 Page 2 of 2