HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc 3 of 4L05P0007
Bruce Whittaker
DDES/LUSD
MS OAK-DE-0100
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
400 Yesler Way, Room 404
Seattle, Washington 98104
Telephone (206) 296-4660
Facsimile (206) 296-1654
Email: hearex@metrokc.gov
REPORT AND DECISION
February 21, 2007
SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services File No. L05P0007
Proposed Ordinance No. 2007-0050
TALBOT RIDGE ESTATES
Preliminary Plat Application
Location: At the southwestern corner of the 102nd Avenue Southeast and
Southeast 192nd Street intersection, Renton
Applicant: Belmont Homes, Inc.
represented by Cliff Williams
P.O. Box 2401
Kirkland, Washington 98083-2401
Telephone: (425) 893-8478
King County: Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES)
represented by Trishah Bull
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, Washington 98055
Telephone: (206) 296-6758
Facsimile: (206) 296-7051
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS/DECISION:
Department's Preliminary Recommendation:
Department's Final Recommendation:
Examiner's Decision:
EXAMINER PROCEEDINGS:
Hearing Opened:
Hearing Closed:
Approve subject to conditions
Approve subject to revised conditions
Approve subject to revised conditions
January 30, 2007
January 30, 2007
Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes.
A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the King County Hearing Examiner.
L05P0007 — Talbot Ridge Estates
Page 2 of 12
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner
now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
General Information:
Owner/DeveIoper: Robert Wenzl
Belmont Homes, Inc.
PO Box 2401
Kirkland, WA 98083-2401
425-893-8478
Engineer: Core Design
14711 NE 29ffi Place, #101
Bellevue, WA 98007
425-885-7877
STR: NW 5-22-5
Location: The property is located at the southwest corner of the 102'a Avenue SE
and SE 1927d Street intersection.
Zoning:
R-6-SO
Acreage:
4.36
Number of Lots:
27
Density:
6.2 units per acre
Lot Size:
Ranges from approximately 3,200 to 5,850 square feet
Proposed Use:
Single-family detached dwellings
Sewage Disposal:
Soos Creek Water and Sewer District
Water Supply:
Soos Creek Water and Sewer District
Fire District:
King County District No. 37
School District:
Kent School District No. 415
Application completeness date: March 24, 2005
2. Except as modified herein, the facts set forth in the DDES reports to the Examiner and the DDES
and King County Department of Transportation (KCDOT) testimony are found to be correct and
are incorporated herein by reference.
3. The subject property is a near -rectangular parcel, 4.3 acres in area, located in the unincorporated
County just south of the Renton city limits, in the southwest corner of the intersection of 102nd
Avenue Southeast and Southeast 192nd Street (aka South 55th Street in the City of Renton street
grid system). The property is located in the Springbrook Creek tributary area of the Black River
sub -basin of the Lower Green River basin. The site terrain consists of a descent to the west from
the 102nd Avenue Southeast frontage; the descent begins with gentle grades and becomes
increasingly steep toward the west property line, although in the northwest comer of the site the
L05P0007 — Talbot Ridge Estates
Page 3 of 12
slopes remain moderate. The site is mostly wooded with a second and third -growth mix of
coniferous and deciduous trees native to the Pacific Northwest. Second -story vegetation and
groundcover consists of typical Northwest native species. No defined critical areas such as
streams, wetlands, and landslide or erosion hazard areas are found on the site or in close
proximity. The property is undeveloped structurally. The surroundings of the site are developed
with single-family residences.
4. Applicant Belmont Homes, Inc., proposed subdivision of the property into 27 lots for detached
single-family dwellings, as well as separate tracts for recreation/open space and drainage
detention, and for three private lot access tracts. The development will provide onsite recreation
facilities consisting of a recreation area with a tot lot, sport court and play equipment, and
pedestrian trails. Public road access would be provided by the extension of a cul-de-sac road due
westerly from 102nd Avenue Southeast to terminate in the west central portion of the site with an
offset bulb. No direct vehicular access would be provided to fronting roads; the King County
Road Standards (KCRS) require that lot access be taken from the most minor road frontages of a
lot, which in this case will require that access for Lots 1, 18 and 24-27 be taken from either the
internal cul-de-sac road or the pertinent private road access tract, not directly from 102nd
Avenue Southeast or Southeast 192nd Street.
The lot density would be approximately 6.2 units per acre, slightly above the basic six units per
acre normally permitted under the assigned R-6 zoning of the property through the authorized use
of two dwelling unit density credits transferred pursuant to the Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) provisions of Chapter 21 A.37 KCC.
6. The current property drainage consists of sheetflow overland to the west boundary, downslope
from the property's road frontage on 102nd Avenue Southeast. The proposed stormwater
management plan is to collect the sheetflow and divert it from its natural outlets toward
Southeast 192nd Street to a drainage detention vault in the northwest corner of the site. The
release from the detention vault will be subject to the Conservation flow control limits and Basic
water quality requirements of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM),
and will be conveyed in roadside ditching westerly along Southeast 192nd Street down to
Springbrook Creek. A stormwater adjustment has been granted under file L05VO061 for the
drainage diversion from its natural sheetflow off the property.
7. Due to the onsite soils, the development will be subject to stringent geotechnical review
conditions.
Traffic impacts of the proposed development will be adequately mitigated under applicable
County code requirements as proposed_ The development has been granted a traffic Certificate
of Concurrency under Chapter 14.70 KCC. The development is also subject to the standard
collection of MPS mitigation fee payments under Chapter 14.75 KCC, which apply to each
dwelling unit. No intersection -standard mitigation under Chapter 14.80 KCC is required given
the traffic levels generated by the development and the absence of High Accident Locations
(HAL) affected by the development's traffic. Sight distance improvements are needed for the
intersection of Southeast 192nd Street and 102nd Avenue Southeast, affected by the
development's traffic. A road standards variance has been granted under file LOSVO066 for the
intersection, which variance still requires significant frontage improvements along Southeast
192nd Street beyond the standard curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements, including road
It
L05P0007 — Talbot Ridge Estates
Page 4 of 12
widening and reconfiguration of the road geometry, including lowering of the road surface and
superelevation of the curvature to better meet the design speed standards for the roadway.
9. The development's resident public schoolchildren will be bused to their respective schools from
a bus stop at the southeast corner of the Southeast 192nd Street/IO2nd Avenue Southeast
intersection. The internal road/walkway improvements and the frontage improvements on 102nd
Avenue Southeast will provide safe walking conditions to the bus stop area, which is graveled
and sufficient for pedestrian safety while children wait for their school buses.
10. The King County Fire Marshal has recently instituted a more assertive program of fire
suppression rules applied to development, wherein if road widths are provided as narrow as the
1993 KCRS permit as minimums, then individual structures may be subject to individual fire
sprinkling requirements at the residential building permit stage. The matter is therefore left to
post -preliminary plat consideration by the Applicant in deliberating the relative viability of those
alternatives, and any agreements which may ensue from discussions with the appropriate fire
officials. The Applicant in this case is contemplating providing increased road widths, which
can be accommodated within the development without significant changes to the basic lot
layouts.
11. Former Chapter 2IA38 KCC's special overlay requirement SO-220 (Significant Tree Overlay)
applies to the property. The Significant Tree Overlay standards require the development to retain
a percentage of the significant trees onsite. To implement former KCC 21A.38.230, a detailed
tree retention plan must be submitted with the engineering plans for the subdivision.
12. Neighboring and nearby property owners expressed concern about the legitimacy of the
established R-5 zoning of the area. The Examiner is without authority to revisit the zoning,
which apparently was imposed on a legislative basis in the mid- I990's to implement the Growth
Management Act (GMA) when the subject area was included within the Urban Growth Area
(UGA)_ (Despite an assertion that the subject area is a "rural" area, it is within an area
undergoing urbanization within the UGA pursuant to the GMA.) Concern was also expressed
regarding the maintenance of wildlife travel corridors in the area and the potential for urban
development to block off such travel corridors, limiting wildlife choices and diverting wildlife
travel down into the erosion -sensitive Springbrook Creek corridor. The subject property is not
designated as significant wildlife habitat or a wildlife migration corridor, and there is no
regulatory means of preserving any wildlife corridor onsite. The Examiner notes, however, that
the western 20 percent of the site, approximately, will be preserved as unfenced open space
through which wildlife could travel.
13. The City of Renton requests that the development be required to be improved under City of
Renton development standards, given the potential for the property's annexation into the City.
Given the absence of a pertinent Interlocal Agreement (ILA) which calls for the County to do so,
the County is without authority to impose City of Renton development standards in the instant
case.
L05P0007 — Talbot Ridge Estates
CONCLUSIONS:
Page 5 of 12
1. The proposed subdivision, as conditioned below, would conform to applicable land use controls.
In particular, the proposed type of development and overall density are specifically permitted
under the R-6-SO zone.
2_ If approved subject to the conditions below, the proposed subdivision will make appropriate
provisions for the topical items enumerated within RCW 58.17.110, and will serve the public
health, safety and welfare, and the public use and interest.
3. The conditions for final plat approval set forth below are reasonable requirements and in the
public interest.
4. The dedications of land or easements within and adjacent to the proposed plat, as shown on the
revised preliminary plat submitted on August 24, 2005, or as required for final plat approval, are
reasonable and necessary as a direct result of the development of this proposed plat, and are
proportionate to the impacts of the development.
DECISION:
The preliminary plat of the Talbot Ridge Estates subdivision, as revised and received August 24, 2005, is
approved subject to the following conditions of approval:
Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19A of the King County Code.
All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final
plat a dedication which includes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No.
5952.
3. The plat shall comply with the density requirements of the R-6-SO zone classification. All lots
shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the R-6-SO zone classification or shall be
as shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat, whichever is larger, except that minor
revisions to the plat which do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion
of the Department of Development and Environmental Services.
4. The applicant shall provide the TDR certificate with the submittal of the engineering plans and
the final plat. If the TDR certificate cannot be obtained, the applicant shall redesign the number
of lots based upon the allowable density. This will result in the reconfiguration and loss of lots.
5. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the
King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187, as amended
(1993 KCRS).
The applicant shall obtain documentation by the King County Fire Protection Engineer certifying
compliance with the fire flow standards of Chapter 17.08 of the King County Code.
L05P0007 — Talbot Ridge Estates
Page 6 of 12
7. Final plat approval shall require full compliance with the drainage provisions set forth in King
County Code 9.04. Compliance may result in reducing the number and/or location of lots as
shown on the approved preliminary plat. Preliminary review has identified the following
conditions of approval which represent portions of the drainage requirements. All other
applicable requirements in KCC 9.04 and the Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) must also
be satisfied during engineering and final review.
a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water
Design Manual and applicable updates adopted by King County_ DDES approval of the
drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any construction.
b. Current standard plan notes and ESC notes, as established by DDES Engineering
Review, shall be shown on the engineering plans.
The following note shall be shown on the final recorded plat:
"All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious surfaces such
as patios and driveways shall be connected to the permanent storm drain outlet as shown
on the approved construction drawings # on file with DDES and/or the
King County Department of Transportation. This plan shall be submitted with the
application of any building permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed
and approved prior to the final building inspection approval. For those lots that are
designated for individual lot infiltration systems, the systems shall be constructed at the
time of the building permit and shall comply with plans on file."
d. The stormwater facilities for this site shall be designed to meet at a minimum the
Conservation Flow Control and Basic Water Quality requirements in the 2005 King
County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM).
A Surface Water Drainage Adjustment (L05V0061) is approved for this site. All
conditions of approval for this adjustment shall be met prior to approval of the
engineering plans.
To implement the required Best Management Practices (BMP's) for treatment of storm
water, the final engineering plans and technical information report (TIR) shall clearly
demonstrate compliance with all applicable design standards. The requirements for best
management practices are outlined in Chapter 5 of the 2005 KCSWDM. The design
engineer shall address the applicable requirements on the final engineering plans and
provide all necessary documents for implementation. The final recorded plat shall
include all required covenants, easements, notes, and other details to implement the
required BMP's for site development.
The applicant's geotechnical engineer shall provide recommendations for the design and
construction of the road, onsite grading and compaction, drainage detention vault, and any
required retaining walls. The geotechnical recommendations shall be included in the TIR and
incorporated into the design with submittal of the engineering plans.
r
L05P0007 — TaIbot Ridge Estates
Page 7 of 12
Special geotechnical construction inspection of the road improvements, onsite grading and
compaction, drainage detention vault, and any required retaining walls is required to ensure
compliance with the geotechnical recommendations. Daily inspection reports shall be submitted
to the assigned Land Use Inspector during the construction phases of those facilities. A final
construction report shall be submitted verifying compliance with the geotechnical
recommendations. Notes requiring the above shall be shown on the engineering plans.
10. Geotechnical engineer review of the future home foundation construction is required. Notes to
this effect shall be shown on the engineering plans and the final plat.
l 1. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS)
including the following requirements:
Road A shall be improved at a minimum to the urban subaccess street standard, with a
cul-de-sac at the west end. If Road A is improved with only a 24-foot roadway width,
then it shall be signed "No Parldng" on both sides of the road.
b. FRONTAGE: The frontage along 102"d Ave SE shall be improved at a minimum to the
urban neighborhood collector street standard (west side). The design shall require
compliance with Section 4.01(f) of the KCRS; asphalt overlay when widening.
FRONTAGE: The frontage along SE 192nd Street shall be widened and lowered, as
approved by DDES and in compliance with the conditions of approval for Road Variance
L05V0066. The frontage shall be widened to the urban neighborhood collector standard
on the south side. The road lowering is required to improve the entering and stopping
sight distance at the SE 192W Street/ IO2"d Ave SE intersection. Details of this
improvement shall be shown on the engineering plans and routed to KCDOT for
approval.
d. The proposed private access tract and joint use driveways shall comply with Sections
2.09 and 3.01 of the KCRS, unless otherwise approved by DDES. These tracts shall be
owned and maintained by the lot owners served. Notes to this effect shall be showed on
the engineering plans and the final plat-
e. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered according to the variance
provisions in Section 1.08 of the KCRS.
12. All utilities within proposed rights -of -way must be included within a franchise approved by the
King County Council prior to final plat recording.
13. The applicant or subsequent owner shall comply with King County Code 14.75, Mitigation
Payment System (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee and administration fee as determined by
the applicable fee ordinance. The applicant has the option to either: (1) pay the MPS fee at final
plat recording, or (2) pay the MPS fee at the time of building permit issuance. If the first option
is chosen, the fee paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of plat application and a note shall be
placed on the face of the plat that reads, "All fees required by King County Code 14.75,
Mitigation Payment System (MPS), have been paid." If the second option is chosen, the fee paid
shall be the amount in effect as of the date of building permit application.
A
L05P0007 — Talbot Ridge Estates
Page 8 of 12
14. Lots within this subdivision are subject to King County Code 21A.43, which imposes impact fees
to fund school system improvements needed to serve new development. As a condition of final
approval, fifty percent (50%) of the impact fees due for the plat shall be assessed and collected
immediately prior to recording, using the fee schedules in effect when the plat receives final
approval. The balance of the assessed fee shall be allocated evenly to the dwelling units in the
plat and shall be collected prior to building permit issuance.
15. The planter islands (if any) within the cul-de-sacs shall be maintained by the abutting lot owners
or homeowners association. This shall be stated on the face of the final plat.
16. Suitable recreation space shall be provided consistent with the requirements of KCC 21A.14.180
and KCC 2IA. 14.190 (i.e., sport court[s], children's play equipment, picnic table[s], benches,
etc.).
a. A detailed recreation space plan (i.e., area calculations, dimensions, landscape
specifications, equipment specifications, etc.) shall be submitted for review and approval
by DDES and King County Parks prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the
engineering plan. This plan must not conflict with the Significant Tree Inventory &
Mitigation Plan.
b. A performance bond for recreation space improvements shall be posted prior to
recording of the plat.
17. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction
of DDES which provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the recreation, open
space and/or sensitive area tract(s).
18. Street trees shall be provided as follows (per KCRS 5.03 and KCC 21 A.16.050):
a. Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of frontage along all roads.
Spacing may be modified to accommodate sight distance requirements for driveways and
intersections.
b. Trees shall be located within the street right-of-way and planted in accordance with
Drawing No. 5-009 of the 1993 King County Road Standards, unless King County
Department of Transportation determines that trees should not be located in the street
right-of-way.
If King County determines that the required street trees should not be located within the
right-of-way, they shall be located no more than 20 feet from the street right-of-way line.
d. The trees shall be owned and maintained by the abutting lot owners or the homeowners
association or other workable organization unless the County has adopted a maintenance
program. Ownership and maintenance shall be noted on the face of the final recorded
plat-
C
. The species of trees shall be approved by DDES if located within the right-of-way, and
shall not include poplar, cottonwood, soft maples, gum, any fruit -bearing trees, or any
L05P0007 — Talbot Ridge Estates
Page 9 of 12
other tree or shrub whose roots are likely to obstruct sanitary or storm sewers, or that is
not compatible with overhead utility lines_
f. The applicant shall submit a street tree plan and bond quantity sheet for review and
approval by DDES prior to engineering plan approval.
g. The applicant shall contact Metro Service Planning at 684-1622 to determine if SE
192nd Street and/or 102" d Avenue SE are on a bus route. If SE 192°d Street and/or 102°d
Avenue SE are a bus route, the street tree plan shall also be reviewed by Metro-
h. The street trees must be installed and inspected, or a performance bond posted prior to
recording of the plat. If a performance bond is posted, the street trees must be installed
and inspected within one year of recording of the plat. At the time of inspection, if the
trees are found to be installed per the approved plan, a maintenance bond must be
submitted or the performance bond replaced with a maintenance bond, and held for one
year. After one year, the maintenance bond may be released after DDES has completed a
second inspection and determined that the trees have been kept healthy and thriving.
A landscape inspection fee shall also be submitted prior to plat recording. The inspection
fee is subject to change based on the current County fees.
19. To implement SO-220 pursuant to former KCC 21A.38.230, a detailed tree retention plan shall
be submitted with the engineering plans for the subject plat. The tree retention and engineering
plans shall be consistent with the requirements of SO-220. No clearing of the site is permitted
until the tree retention plan is approved by DDES. Flagging and temporary fencing of trees to be
retained shall be provided, consistent with SO-220. The placement of impervious surfaces, fill
material, excavation work, or the storage of construction materials is prohibited with the fenced
areas around preserved trees, except as may be permitted under the provisions of SO-220.
A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating that the trees shown to be retained on the tree
retention plan shall be maintained by the future owners of the proposed lots, consistent with
KCC 21A.38.230(B)(6). The tree retention plan shall be included as part of the final engineering
plans for the subject plat.
20. In the event that any archaeological objects are uncovered on the site, the applicant shall comply
with RCW Chapter 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources. Immediate notification and
consultation with the State Office of Archaeology and Historical Preservation, King County
Office of Cultural Resources and relevant tribes (including the Suquarnish, Puyallup and
Muckleshoot tribes) is required if discovered materials are prehistoric and a site is present.
21. All future residences constructed within this subdivision are required to be sprinkled NFPA 13D
unless the requirement is removed by the King County Fire Marshal or his/her designee. The
Fire Code requires all portions of the exterior walls of structures to be within 150 feet as a
person would walk via an approved route around the building) from a minimum 20-foot wide,
unobstructed driving surface. To qualify for removal of the sprinkler requirement driving
surfaces between curbs must be a minimum of 28 feet in width when parking is allowed on one
side of the roadway, and at least 36 feet in width when parking is permitted on both sides.
L05P0007 — Talbot Ridge Estates
Page 10 of 12
Additionally, minimum 20-foot wide driving surfaces must be provided on Tracts A and B, and
the driveway serving Lot 11; or residences constructed on Lot 11, and Lots 16 through 19 and 23
through 26 will have to be sprinkled.
ORDERED February 21, 2007.
Peter T. Donahue
King County Hearing Examiner
TRANSMITTED February 21, 2007 to the following parties and interested persons of record:
Robert E. Burton
City of Renton
Core Design
19226 - 102nd Ave. SE
Attn: Rebecca Lind
Attn: Robert Stevens
Renton WA 98055
1055 S. Grady Way
I4711 NE 29th PI., #101
Renton WA 98057
Bellevue WA 98007
Kathy Doman
Patrick M. Hanis
John Hicks
22724 - 156th Ave. SE
Hanis Greaney PLLC
10313 SE 192nd St.
Kent WA 98042
6703 S 234th St., #300
Renton WA 98055
Kent WA 98032-2900
Belmont Homes, Inc.
Lazier Homes, Corp.
Roger & Linda McDonald
Attn: Cliff Williams
Attn: Jennifer McCall
10033 SE 192nd St.
P.O. Box 2401
1203 - 114th Ave. SE
Renton WA 99055
Kirkland WA 98083-2401
Bellevue WA 98004
Lt. Larry Rabel
John W. Ruth
Jerry Schmelzer
Fire District. #37
19406 - 102nd Ave. SE
19218 - 102nd Ave. SE
24611 - 116th Ave. SE
Renton WA 98055
Renton WA 98055
Kent WA 98030
Harchand Raur Angrej Singh
Mark Tullis
Wayne & Jane Uyeta
19225 - 102nd Ave. SE
10215 SE 192nd St.
19220 - 102nd Ave. SE
Renton WA 98055
Renton WA 98055
Renton WA 98055
Bob Wenz]
Virginia Zcmeck
Trishah Bull
Belmont Homes
19250 99th Pl. S
DDES/LUSD
P.O. Box 2401
Renton WA 98055
MS OAK-DE-0100
Kirkland WA 98083
Kim Claussen
Lisa Dinsmore
Nick Gillen
DDES/LUSD
DDES/LUSD
DDES/LUSD
MS OAK-DE-0100
MS OAK-DE-0100
MS OAK-DE-0100
L05P0007 — Talbot Ridge Estates
Shirley Goll
DDES/LUSD
MS OAK-DE-0100
Larry West
DDES/LUSD
MS OAK-DE-0100
Kristen Langley
DDES/LUSD
MS OAK-DE-0100
Bruce Whittaker
DDES/LUSD
MS OAK-DE-0100
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Steve Townsend
DDES/LUSD
MS OAK-DE-0100
Page 11 of 12
In order to appeal the decision of the Examiner, written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of
the King County Council with a fee of $250.00 (check payable to King County Office of Finance) on or
before March 7, 2007. If a notice of appeal is filed, the original and six (6) copies of a written appeal
statement specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal must be filed with the
Clerk of the King County Council on or before March 14, 2007. Appeal statements may refer only to
facts contained in the hearing record; new facts may not be presented on appeal.
Filing requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the Council, Room 1025, King County
Courthouse, 516 3'd Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104, prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the
date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within the
applicable time period. The Examiner does not have authority to extend the time period unless the Office
of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of
business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the filing requirement.
If a written notice of appeal and fling fee are not filed within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of
this report, or if a written appeal statement and argument are not filed within twenty-one (21) calendar
days of the date of this report, the decision of the hearing examiner contained herein shall be the final
decision of King County without the need for further action by the Council.
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 30, 2007, PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NO. L05P0007.
Peter T. Donahue was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Trishah
Bull, Bruce Whittaker and Kristen Langley representing the Department; Cliff Williams and Robert
Stevenson representing the Applicant, and Robert Burton.
The following Exhibits were offered and entered into the record:
Exhibit No, 1 Department of Development and Environmental Services file no. L05P0007
Exhibit No. 2 Department of Development and Environmental Services Preliminary Report, dated
January 30, 2007
Exhibit No. 3 Application for Land Use Permits received March 24, 2005
Exhibit No. 4 SEPA Environmental checklist received March 24, 2004
Exhibit No. 5 SEPA Determination of Non -Significance issued January 12, 2007
L05P0007 — Talbot Ridge Estates
Page 12 of 12
Exhibit No. 6 Affidavit of Posting indicating a posting date of July 12, 2005; received by DDES on
July 13, 2005
Exhibit No. 7 Preliminary plat map received August 24, 2005 (revised)
Exhibit No. S Preliminary Storm Drainage Calculations and Level 1 Drainage Analysis by Core
Design, received August 24, 2005 (revised)
Exhibit No. 9 Preliminary Road & Grading Plan received August 24, 2005 (revised)
Exhibit No. l0A Traffic Impact Analysis by Mirai Traffic Engineering & Planning, received March 24,
2005,
10B Traffic Analysis Addendum, received August 24, 2005
Exhibit No. 11 Geotechnical Engineering Study by GEO Group Northwest, Inc., received March 24,
2005
Exhibit No. 12 Approved KCSWDM Adjustment L05VO061 dated November 17, 2005
Exhibit No. 13 Approved KCRS Variance L05VO066 dated September 21, 2006
Exhibit No. 14 Revised Fire Engineering Conditions for File no. L05P0007 dated 1/25/07
Exhibit No. 15 Additional recommendation no. 21
PTD:ms
L05P0007 RPT
AIL A
KI
(i)
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
June 28, 2005
Robert Wenzl
Belmont Homes, Inc.
PO Box 2401
Kirkland, WA 98083-2401
RE: Notice of R uest for Additional Information or Studies
Application No. L05P0007 — Talbot Ridge Estates
Dear Mr. Wenzl:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you pursuant King County Code Title 20, that the
Land 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 of the submittal can also be
included in the cover letter. Please submit the information to:
King County Dept. of Development and Environmental Services
Land Use Services Division
ATTN: Trishah Bull, Planner 11, Current Planning Section
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, WA 98055-1219
If the submittal is hand delivered, submit at the address above,
Your application is on "hold" from the date of this notice, until the date you are advised
that the additional information satisfies this request, or 14 days after the date the
information has been provided. You will be notified if the Division determines that the
information is insufficient. Please note that the supplemental information required after
vesting of a complete application shall not affect the validity of such application.
The deadline for the submittal of the necessary information is September 26, 2005:
In the event you feel extenuating circumstances exist, which may justify an extension of
this date, you may submit such request, in writing, for consideration by this Department.
Failure to meet the deadline shall be cause for the Department to cancel or deny the
application.
If possible, please submit all of the information in one package. If you have any
questions, regarding the additional information or the submittal deadline, please call me
at (206) 296-6758.
Sincerely,
4rrent
Bull, Planner II
Planning Section, LUSD
Cc: Michael Chen, Core Design
14711 NE 2901 Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98007
Bruce Whittaker, Senior. Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD
Kim Claussen, Planner III, Current Planning Section, LUSD
Application File
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
Land Use Services Division
900 oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, Washington 98055-1219
Please submit ten (10) copies of the following unless otherwise noted:
Recreation Space: Per KCC 21A.14.180, the proposed plat is required to provide 390 square feet of recreation
space per lot. Provide a conceptual recreation plan indicating the type of improvements (i.e. sport court, play
structure, benches, landscaping, etc.) proposed. For developments of 26 to 50 dwelling units, at least two or
more of the recreation facilities listed shall be provided in addition to the tot lot or children's play area:
a. playground equipment;
b. sport court;
c. sport field;
d. tennis court; or
e. any other recreation facility proposed by the applicant and approved by the director.
Please note the following recreation space design requirements. Recreation space shall:
• Be of a grade and surface suitable for recreation improvements and have a maximum grade of five
percent;
• Be located in an area where the topography, soils, hydrology and other physical characteristics are of
such quality as to create a flat, dry, obstacle -free space in a configuration which allows for passive and
active recreation;
oV,- • Be centrally located with good visibility of the site from roads and sidewalks;
• Have no dimensions less than thirty feet;
• Have a street roadway or parking area frontage along ten percent or more of the recreation space
perimeter if the required outdoor recreation space exceeds five thousand square feet.
Drainage: A drainage adjustment is required to concentrate and route the post -developed drainage to the
northwest corner of the site. The existing drainage appears to sheet flow westerly to 99th Place S, then south
toward Eden Creek. Please provide a Level 1 Offsite Analysis for the existing drainage course.
Please revise the Level 1 Analysis and conceptual plan to include an evaluation of how the individual Lot BMP
requirements will be met in the 2005 Drainage Manual.
-/ Please correct several references in the Level 1 Downstream Analysis from "east" to west.
Provide cross-section views of the west portion of the site, showing the proposed detention vault area and the
/ proposed stormwater connection to the SE 192nd Street drainage system. Evaluate the close proximity of the
proposed connection to existing property lines and required easements/setbacks.
TraMc/Roads: SE 192nd Street is an unclassified (i.e. not an arterial) roadway, that appears to have traffic
volumes considerably above the maximum volumes typically associated with a Neighborhood Collector — and
unlikely to change since there are no proposed capacity improvements to paralleling roadways: South 212"' ,
South 200th, Carr Road, that provide connections between Benson Highway and the Green River Valley. This
Cam' roadway has had an arterial designation by the City of Kent, and may also have an arterial designation by the
City of Renton. Please research the current status of the classification by these two agencies, and the most recent
.sc=
LF/P1atSCR.Sub 2/24/98 c1c
available information about which agency will be annexing the area, and identify any additional rigj -of-gray
that would be required to be dedicated to be consistent with that agency's designation for the roadway.
1 Ord Avenue SE, south of SE 192"d Street, appears to have limited potential to be extended to connect with any
other existing public roadways, however there is significant potential for `additional subdivision development
along this section of the road. It may, therefore, result in traffic volumes near the threshold for a neighborhood
collector. Therefore, please revise the site plan to show frontage improvements consistent with a neighborhood
collector roadway width (18 feet from centerline to curb line) across the entire frontage.
The TIA indicates that ESD requirements of the 1993 KCRS, looking west, are not met. Some mitigation is
identified, but is noted as being impractical or of limited benefit. Please evaluate whether any physical changes
(widening or limited realignment) to SE 192"d Street would mitigate the ESD deficiency. In addition, the
Applicant must apply for — and receive approval for — a Variance to the Road Standards for the ESD deficiency.
Please provide an addendum to the TIA to address that also includes the additional trip activiV associated with a
proposed 18-lot subdivision (A05PM079) of the property near the southerly terminus of 102' Avenue SE.
Specifically, please provide an evaluation of whether the criteria for an eastbound right turn lane would be met
under with the proposed plat either (a) by itself, or (b) with the cumulative development of this proposed
subdivision with other developable property served by 102nd Avenue SE.
Revised Preliminary Plat: Provide 25 copies of a revised preliminary plat, as necessary, as a result of the
referenced requests for additional information. Include 2 copies on legal -size paper.
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/reduction in lots.
.sc=
LF/F1atSCR.Sub 2/24/98 CIO
w
R - E
CEDAR AVENUE, LLC VFE�
PO BOX 2401 U� i 3
KIRKLAND, WA 98083
KING ;:i:)t} VTY
August 17, 2005 LAND USE �SFRVJCES
Trishah Bull
Planner,
Current Planning Section
King County DDES L05POW-17
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
RE: Talbot Ridge Estates — Preliminary Plat Application LO5P0007
Submittal of Requested Additional Information
Dear Ms Bull:
Thank you for your letter of June 28, 2005 in which you enclosed the Request for
information in support of our application. A copy of your request is attached.
Recreation Space:
The conceptual recreation plan is shown on sheet L-1, Preliminary Planting Plan and Tot
Lot Layout plan. The recreation space is located in the western end of the site with the
tot lot, sports court and picnic areas located on the roof of the proposed detention vault
and a nature trail and natural play facilities located along the lower slope behind the
vault. The total recreation space provided is 42,164 sq. ft., well in excess of the required
space of 10,530 sq. ft.
Drainage:
The Drainage Adjustment Request has been submitted. A copy is attached for your
reference.
The Level 1 Analysis has been revised to include the individual Lot BMP per the 2005
Drainage Manual. Refer to Revised Level I page 11 of 16.
The cross-section view of the proposed detention vault area is shown on the Preliminary
Road and Grading Plan, sheet 2 of 2.
Regarding the requirement to evaluate the close proximity of the proposed storm
connection to property lines at the NW corner, the storm line will not require an easement
since it will be located within a King County owned tract. However, it will be necessary
to ensure that the neighboring lots are not encumbered. Under normal conditions, a 12"
storm pipe less than 8 feet deep would require a 10-foot wide easement centered over the
r
pipe and a 5-foot building set back. The R-6 zoning for this area would require a 5-foot
building setback for the neighboring lots, so the storm pipe could be placed 5 feet from a
property line without encumbering the adjacent properties. As presented, we are
proposing to locate the 12" pipe 6.5 feet from the nearest property corner, which will not
encumber the lot to the south and will minimize impacts to the frontage and encroaching
driveway to the north.
Traffic/Roads:
The additional information requested for traffic and roads are contained in the Mirai
Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum dated August 11, 2005. The following is a brief
summary of the findings:
SE 192"d Street is the potential annexation area of the City of Renton and is presently not
classified as an arterial street.
Mitigating the SE 192"d Street ESD Deficiency does not appear to be practical. The
Entering Sight Distance Variance Request is attached (also see Mirai letter report on ESD
Variance Request dated August 11, 2005).
102"d Ave SE Neighborhood Collector: We concur that possible future lot development
potential is greater than 100 lots. Therefore, the road section was revised increasing the
lane width (see Road and Grading Plan sheet 1 of 2).
102nd Ave SE Right Turn Lane: An eastbound right turn lane is not warranted (see Mirai
letter report).
Revised Preliminary Plat:
Twenty-five copies of the revised Preliminary Plat are enclosed.
Please contact me at 206 714-7161 if you have any questions or additional comments.
of Engineering
Transportation
Planning &
Engineering
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
P.O. Box 2401
Kirkland, WA 98083-2401
Re: Talbot Ridge Estates Preliminary Plat
King County LUSD File No. L05P0007
Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum
Dear Mr. Williams:
w1 U
August 11, 2005
LU-.;-�lItett"1
At your request, we have prepared this Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum to provide the
information requested in the Traffic/Roads items in the Plat Screening Transmittal from King
County dated June 28, 2005. The County's information request was in response to our Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) report for this project dated March 21, 2005. A copy of the County's
Transmittal is attached.
Existing Roadway Classification
According to the functional street classification lists and maps on their web sites, neither
the City of Renton nor the City of Kent currently classifies S. 192n' Street. However, the
continuation of S.E. 192"d St. west of 99th Pl. S. is in Renton, and is named S. 55th Street.
Renton does not classify S. 55th St. as an arterial street.
We have also seamed that a property just west of the Talbot Ridge Estates site, south of
S. 55th Street, is in the process of being annexed into the City of Renton. Due to the proximity
of the existing Renton City limits and this proposed annexation, it is apparent that the Talbot
Ridge Estates site is more likely to some day become a part of Renton rather than Kent.
As noted in the County's Plat Screeninm Transmittal, S.E. 192Id St. is an unclassified
(i.e. not an arterial) roadway. Since S.E. 192 St. is not designated as an arterial in any of the
current roadway classification systems for the agencies in the area, no additional right -of way
dedication on S.E. 192"d St. is required in order to be consistent with current roadway
classification standards.
Existing Entering Sight Distance (ESD)
An existing ESD deficiency on S.E. 192"d St. to the west of 102"d Ave. S.E. was
identified and discussed extensively in the TIA (pages 2 — 4). Due to the limitations of the
available right-of-way and the existing topography, widening or relocation of S. 192" d St. to
mitigate the existing ESD deficiency does not appear to be practical. As requested in the
County's Plat Screening Transmittal, attached is a request for a Variance from the Road
Standards for the existing ESD deficiency.
K0433205addendum.doc
Mira! Associates, Inc. • 11410 NE 122nd Way, Suite 320 • Kirkland, WA 98034-6927 0 425.820.0100 - t 0 425.821.1750 - f
Transportation
Planning 6..
Engineering
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
August 11, 2005
Page 2
Eastbound Right Turn Lane
As requested in the County's Plat Screening Transmittal, an evaluation was conducted
to determine whether the criteria would be met for an eastbound right turn lane on S.E. 192"d
St. at the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection. The criteria used was Figure 910-12 Right -Turn Lane
Guidelines of the WSDOT Design Manual. In general, for lower traffic volume conditions, the
figure recommends only a right turn radius on the comer of an intersection. For intermediate
volume conditions, the figure recommends that a right turn pocket or taper should be
considered, and for higher volume conditions the figure recommends that a right turn lane
should be considered. A copy of WSDOT Figure 910-12 is attached.
Also attached is a table showing the Eastbound Right Turn Lane Analysis results for the
S.E. 192"d St./102"d Ave. S.E. intersection, based on the relevant traffic volumes and WSDOT
Figure 910-12. As shown on the first line of the table, for the existing 2005 PM peak hour
volume of five vehicles making the eastbound right turn, a radius only is recommended. For
the projected 2007 PM peak hour volumes without the Talbot Ridge Estates project (5 right
turns), a radius only is recommended. For the projected 2007 PM peak hour volumes with the
Talbot Ridge Estates project (19 right turns), a radius only is still recommended.
The County's Plat Screening Transmittal mentioned a proposed 18-lot subdivision
(A05PM079) of the property near the southerly terminus of 102" Ave. Southeast. Using ITE
trip generation rates for Single Family Detached Housing (as discussed on pages 4 and 5 of
the TIA), this subdivision would generate 18 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Using the
same trip distribution as was used for the Talbot Ridge Estates (as shown on Figure 4 of the
TIA), eight of these trips would be making the eastbound right turn from S.E. 192"d St. onto
102"d Ave. Southeast.
As shown on the attached table showing the Eastbound Right Turn lane Analysis
results, for the projected 2007 PM peak hour volumes with both this proposed 18-lot
subdivision (A05PM079) and Talbot Ridge Estates, WSDOT Figure 910-12 recommends that a
right-tum pocket or taper should be considered. As shown on the attached Figure 910-12, the
plotted point for the relevant traffic volume projections (487, 27) is near the lower edge of the
"Consider right -turn pocket or taperi' area of the graph, just above the Radius only" line.
Therefore, the recommendation from Figure 910-12 is marginal in nature.
All of the plotted points on the attached Figure 910-12 are well below the "Consider
right-tum lane" area of the graph. An eastbound right turn lane is not warranted on S.E. 192"d
St. at the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection.
Southeast 192"d St. climbs the hill from Talbot Rd. S. up to 102"d Ave. Southeast. The
road was constructed with a series of horizontal curves and "hairpin" turns winding up the hill.
K0433205addendum.dac
Transpartatian
Planning S.
Engrneering
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
August 11, 2005
Page 3
The grade crests at the west edge of the 102nd Ave. S.E. intersection, then the road is
relatively level through the intersection and continuing to the east. About midway between the
intersection and the first horizontal curve located to the west, the grade on S.E. 192"d St.
approaching the intersection eastbound was measured to be approximately 9%.
Southeast 192nd St. west of the 102nd Ave. S.E. intersection is well posted with turn and
winding road warning signs with 15 MPH advisory speeds for both directions of travel. The
eastbound approach to the 102nd Ave. S.E. intersection is also posted with a cross road
warning sign with a 20 MPH advisory speed.
The existing roadway grade, horizontal turns, and traffic control devices reduce the
speeds of eastbound traffic on S.E. 192nd St. approaching the 102nd Ave. S.E. intersection.
Also, since S.E. 192nd St. is not an arterial and the surrounding area is residential, higher
speeds are not desirable. A right turn pocket or taper would tend to encourage higher speeds
for eastbound through traffic and for eastbound right turn traffic. A right turn pocket or taper
would also increase roadway crossing distances for pedestrians. Combined with somewhat
higher vehicle speeds, this would make those intersection crossings somewhat less safe for
pedestrians.
The accident report data provided by King County staff for the four-year period from
January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2003 showed only one accident at the S.E. 192"d St./102nd
Ave S.E. intersection. The accident was a right angle accident that occurred at 8:20 PM at
night on 11/13/03 and resulted in property damage only. The accident data does not indicate a
need for a right tum pocket or taper.
As noted above, an eastbound right turn lane is not warranted on S.E. 192nd St. at the
102nd Ave. S.E. intersection. Also, for the reasons discussed above, we believe that a right -
turn pocket or taper should not be required on S.E. 192nd St. approaching the intersection
eastbound. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 820-0100 or via e-mail at
dave@miraiassociates.com.
DHE:
-6r
EXPIRES 9151 07
Very truly yours,
Mirai Transportation Planning &
Engineering
4 __ II �(- t'
David H. Enger, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Senior Associate
K0433205addendum.doc
King CMW
Deparmm of Development
and Fzvir� Services
Land Use Services Divisim
900 oakesdale Avcmrc Sowhwesc
Renton, Washk gbn 98G55 1219
Please submit ten (1 p) copies of the following unless otherwise noted:
Recreation Snace: Per KCC 21 A.14.180, the proposed plat is required to provide'390 square feet of recreation
space per lot. Provide a conceptual recreation plan indicating the type of improvements (i.e. sport court, play
structure, bencbes, landscaping, etc.) proposed. For developments of 25 to 50 dwelling units, at least two or
more of the recreation facilities listed shall be provided in addition to the tot lot or children's play area:
a. playground equipment;
b. sport court;
c. sport field;
d. tennis court; or
e. any other recreation facility proposed by the applicant and approved by the director.
Please note the following recreation space,design requirements. Recreation space shall:
• Be of a grade and surface suitable for recreation improvements and have a maximum grade of five
percent;
+ Be located in an area where the toEogmPhy, soils, hydrology and other physical Characteristics are of
such quality as to create a flat, dry, obstacle -free space in a configuration which allows for passive and
active recreation;
• Be centrally located with good visr'bility of the site from roads and sidewalks;
• Have no dimensions less theirs thirty feet;
• Have a street roadway or parking am frontage along ten percent or more of the recreation space
perimeter if the required outdoor recreation space exceeds fare thous&d square feet.
ralma e: A drainage adjustment is required to concentrate and route the post -developed drainage to the
northwest comer of the site. The existing drainage appears to sheet flow westerly to 99 b Place; S, then south,
toward Eden Creek Please provide a Level 1 Cffsite Analysis for the existing drainage course.
Please revise the Level l Analysis and conceptual plan to include an evaluation of how the individual Lot BW
requirements will be met in the 2005 Drainage Manual.
Please correct several references in the Level 1 Downstream Analysis fkom "easf'to west.
Provide cross-section vim—. of the west portion of the site, showing the proposed detention vault area and the
proposed stormwater connection to the SE 192" a Street drainage system. Evaluate the close proximity of the
proposed connection to existing property lines and required easements/setbacks.
Trafficfta!k: SE 192nd Street is an unclassified (i.e. not an arterial) roadway, that appears to bave traffic
volumes considerably above the maximum volumes typically associated with a Ndghborhood Collector — and
unlikely to change since there are no proposed capacity improvements to paralleling roadways: South 212t ,
South 20(P, Carr Road, that provide connections between Benson Highway and the Groom River Valley. "this
roadway has had an arterial designation by the City of Kent, and may also have an arterial designation by the,
City of Renton. Please research the current status of the classification by these two agencies, and the most recent
Mar
LF/FlatSCR.Sub 2/24/" c1c
available information about which agency will be annexing the area, and identity any additional right-of-way.,
that would be required to be dedicated to be constent with that agency's designation for the roadway.
102"d Avenue SE, south of St 192°d Street, appem to have limited potential to be extended to connect with any
other existing public roadways, however there is dgai$icaat potential for additional subdivision development
along this section of the road. It may, therefare,.rmk in U is volumes now the threshold for a neigbborhood
collector. Therefore, please revise the site plan to ebow frontage improvements condstent with a neighborhood
collector roadway width (18 feet from centerline to curb line) across the entire frontap.
The TIA indicates that BSD r'equmi meats of the 1993 KCRS, looking west, are not met. Some mitigation is
identified, but is noted as being impractical or of limited benefit. Please evaluate whether any physical changes
(widening or limited realignment) to SE 192'd Street would mitigate the ESD deficiency. In addition, the
Applicant must apply for — and receive approval for -- a Variance to the Road Standards for the BSD deficiency.
Please provide an addendum to the TIA to address that also includes the additional trip activit�v associated with a
proposed 18-lot subdivision (AO5PM079) of the property near the southerly taus of 1,02' Avenue SE.
Specifically, please provide an evaluation of whether the criteria for an eastbound riot turn lane would be met
under aith the proposed plat either (a) by itselt; or (b) with the cumulative development of this proposed
subdivision with other developable property served by lVd Avenue SE.
Revised Preliminary Plat: Provide 25 copies of a revised preliminary plat, as necessary, as a result of the
referenced requests for additional information, lxkde 2 copies on Legal-ske paper.
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 reduction in lots,
.acr
Eastbound Right Turn Lane Analysis
On S.E. 192nd St. at 102nd Ave. S.E.
Talbot Ridge Estates
Traffic impact Analysis Addendum
Condition
Existing 2005 PM Peak Hour,
Counted 4:45 - 5.45 Thursday, 3/3105, as shown on TIA Fig. 5
2007 PM Peak Hour Without Project, as shown on TIA Fig. 6
2007 PM Peak Hour With Project, as shown on TIA Fig, 7
2007 PM Peak Hour With Project,
Plus 18-lot plat at south end of 102nd Ave. S.E.
Eastbound Eastbound Eastbound
Right Turn Through Right + Thru
Volume Volume Volume
5 452
5 460
457
465
19 460 479
27 460 487
Right -Turn Lane Guideline
WSDOT Desion Manual
Figure 910-12
Radius only
Radius only
Radius only
Consider right -turn pocket or taper
K0433205RTtbl.x1s 811012005 Mimi Transportation Planning and Engineering
100
M.
•l
40
20
Consider
lanets)
right -turn
Consider
pocket
right-tum
or tapes
Radius only
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Peak Hour Approach Volume (DDHV) (1)
(1) For two-lane highways, use the peak hour DDHV (through + right -turn).
For multilane, high speed highways (posted speed 45 mph or above), use the right -lane peak hour
approach volume (through + right -turn).
For multilane, low speed highways (posted speed less than 45 mph), there is no traffisvglljme
right -turn lane or taper requirement.
(2) When all three of the following conditions are met, reduce the right -turn DDHV by 20.
• The posted speed is 45 mph or less
• The right -turn volume is greater than 40 VPH.
• The weak hour approach volume (DDHV) is less than 300 VPH.
(3) See Figure 910-B for right -turn corner design.
(4) See Figure 910-1a for right -turn pocket or taper design.
(5) See Figure 910-14 for right -turn lane design.
(6) For additional guidance, see 910.07(2) in the text.
Right -Turn Lane Guidelines(6)
Figure 910-12
tntenmcVons At Grade Design Manual
Page 910-28 English Version Msy 2001
Transportation
Planning 6,
Engineering
August 11, 2005
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
P.O. Box 2401
Kirkland, WA 98083-2401
Re: Talbot Ridge Estates Preliminary Plat
King County LUSD File No. L05P0007
Entering Sight Distance Variance Request
Dear Mr. Williams:
We have prepared this request for a Variance from the Road Standards for the
existing Entering Sight Distance (ESD) deficiency on S.E. 192" d St. to the west of 102Id
Ave. Southeast. This request was prepared in response to the Traffic/Roads items in
the Plat Screening Transmittal from King County dated June 28, 2005. The County's
information request was in response to our Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report for this
project dated March 21, 2005.
An existing ESD deficiency on S.E. 192nd St. to the west of 102nd Ave. S.E. was
identified and discussed extensively in the TIA (pages 2 — 4). We conducted a sight
distance review on S.E. 192nd St. for the northbound approach on 102" d Ave. Southeast.
The results of the available stopping sight distance (SSD) and entering sight distance
(ESD) measurements at this intersection are shown in the following table:
Type of Sight Distance
To/from the
To/from the
King County
East
West
Design Criteria
Stopping Sight Distance
Over 500
Approx. 320 *
250
(ft.)
Entering Sight Distance
Over 800
Approx. 340
490
" SSD to 24" high object per current AASHTO standards. Due to crest of grade on
the west edge of the intersection, the SSD to a 6" high object is approximately
140 feet.
This table also shows the King County Design Criteria for SSD and ESD per
Table 2.1 in the King County Road Standards -1993 (KCRS). The KCRS
K0433205ESDvadense. doc
Mlral Associates, Inc. 0 41410 NE 422nd Way, Suite 320 0 Kirkland, WA 98034-6927 0 425.820.0400 . t 0 425.821.1750 -
i
Transpartatian
Planning &,
Engineering
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
August 11, 2005
Page 2
recommended sight distances are for a design speed of 35 MPH. Per County policy,
the design speed is the posted speed limit (25 MPH on S.E. 192nd St.) plus 10 MPH
(total of 35 MPH design speed).
Our field review shows that the County's SSD criterion of 250 feet is met both to
the east and west along S.E. 192nd St. at the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection. For the
northbound approach to the intersection, the County's ESD criterion of 490 feet is also
met to the east.
However, to the west of the 102nd Ave. S.E. intersection, the existing available
ESD along S.E. 192nd St. was measured to be approximately 340 feet. The sight
distance is limited by vertical obstructions on the north side of S.E. 192nd St. on the
inside of a horizontal curve in the roadway. The initial obstruction is a line of five
Douglas fir tree trunks, ranging in diameter from about 8" to 20". The lower branches
have been removed, so increasing the sight distance would require removal of the trees
themselves. The trees are located back from the roadway, near the right-of-way line,
and appear to be within the County right-of-way. It is estimated that removing these five
trees would increase the ESD to approximately 370 feet. Since this is a gain of only
about 30 feet of ESD, removal of the trees does not appear to be worthwhile.
If the trees were removed, the sight obstructions would then become the private
fences located on or near the County road right-of-way line. Additional structures and
vegetation located on private single family residential properties north of the fences
would also need to be removed in order to further increase the ESD. Removal of these
structures and vegetation would require the purchase of additional property or
easements from the homeowners on the north side of the road. This would be
expensive, time consuming, likely involving legal complications, and ultimately
impractical.
The existing ESD deficiency on S.E. 192nd St. west of the 102nd Ave. S.E.
intersection is mitigated by the existing roadway geometry and the existing traffic control
devices installed and maintained by the County. Southeast 192nd St. climbs the hill from
Talbot Rd. S. up to 102m Ave. Southeast. The road was constructed with a series of
horizontal curves and "hairpin" turns winding up the hill. The grade crests at the west
edge of the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection, then the road is relatively level through the
intersection and continuing to the east. About midway between the intersection and the
first horizontal curve located to the west, the grade on S.E. 192"d St. approaching the
intersection eastbound was measured to be approximately 9%.
K0433205ESDvada"ce. dic
Transportation
Planning S..
Engineering
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
August 11, 2005
Page 3
As noted in the County's Plat Screening Transmittal, S.E. 192"d St. is an
unclassified (i.e. not an arterial) roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. West of
the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection, S.E. 192"d St. is well posted with turn and winding
road warning signs with 15 MPH advisory speeds for both directions of travel. The
eastbound approach to the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection is also posted with a cross road
warning sign with a 20 MPH advisory speed. The existing roadway grade, horizontal
turns, and traffic control devices reduce the speeds of eastbound traffic on S.E. 192"0
St. approaching the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection.
The accident report data provided by King County staff for the four-year period
from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2003 showed only one accident at the S.E.
192"d St./102nd Ave S.E. intersection. The accident was a right angle accident that
occurred at 8:20 PM at night on 11113/03 and resulted in property damage only. The
direction of travel of the vehicles involved is not apparent from the data provided.
However, since the accident occurred at night, and vehicle headlights would have been
on, ESD does not appear to be a factor in this accident.
Further improvements to increase the ESD west of the intersection do not appear
to be worthwhile or practical. Due to the limitations of the available right-of-way and the
existing topography, widening or relocation of S. 192"d St. to mitigate the existing ESD
deficiency does not appear to be feasible. The current SSD criteria are met. ESD does
not appear to be a factor in any traffic accidents at the intersection.
For these reasons, we believe that the County should grant a Variance from the
Road Standards for the existing Entering Sight Distance (ESD) deficiency on S.E. 192"4
St. to the west of 102"d Ave. Southeast. If you have any questions, please contact me
at (425) 820-0100 or via e-mail at dave@miraiassociates.com.
DHE:
Very truly yours,
Mirai Transportation Planning &
Engineering
A-�' 4 �( . Z,�
David H. Enger, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Senior Associate
EXPIRES 0 15 1 6
K0433205ESDvadance.abc
KING COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL. CHECKLIST
TALBOT RIDGE ESTATES PLAT
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental
agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant
adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checkh'st is to provide
information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid
impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is
required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of yot:z
proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briery, with the most
precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of vour knowledge. In most
cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans
without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer or if a question does not apply
to your proposal, Write "do not know.' of "does nun «r7 ii�r Co.'iipli,l: answers to the queSLAOns Lwow
may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies
can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period
of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your
proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may Ask you to
explain your answers or provide additional information reasonable related to determining if there may
be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklist for nonnroject proposals: (A nonproject proposal includes plans, policies and
programs where actions are different or broader than a single site -specific proposal,)
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not
apply ". 1N _�DDI'I'I01;, complete the. SUPPLE\1LT.11. S1 II�LT I=C�R NC)'PROIECT
ACTIONS (part D)
For nonproject actions, the references In fl]e checklist to the word "protect". "appliC;,1] "~ 7�
� `n n �+ n n - 7� tit
prt)pC•_t1~ i)t itc" slaotu�l he ict�d i. ]�r<�l r•ws�l, ��r«pt;:=e� any] ,i]lc:c'fc°�l �c��1'i���h�t' �.t�.
4 05IP4010 ;1 K.G• n.n,E.s,
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Talbot Ridge Estates Plat
Prchn-linary Plat
2. Name of applicant:
Belmont Homes, Inc
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Applicant:
Belmont Homes, Inc
Attn: Bob Wenzl
Post Office Box 2401
Kirkland, WA. 98093
(425) 893-8478
4. Date checklist prepared:
January 12, 2005
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Contact Person:
Cliff Williams, PE
Belmont Homes, Inc
Post Office Box 2401
Kirkland, Wlk. 98083
(206) 714-7161
King County, Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES)
G. Proposed tinning or schedule (including phasing, if' applicable):
Construction is proposed to start in the Fall 2005 subject to the approval process. The
project will be constructed as one phase.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
There arc no plans for future additions or expansions beyond the proposed project described
in this checklist. Further activist, will be the construction of required site improvements and
33 detached single-family homes.
S. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
• PreIitninart, Storm Drainage Calculations to be prepared by Core Design, Inc.,
Februaiv 2005.
• Site Obsetvations report prepared by AlderNW dated January 11, 2005, cope attached.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,
if known.
SF_P.1 Determination
Transfer of Development Rights Certificate
Preliminar)T Subdivision Approval
Site Work Construction Plan Approval
Demolition Permit
Final Plat Approval
Grading Permits
Building Permits
Other Customary Permits
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and
the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that
ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those
answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional
specific information on project description.)
This application proposes a 33 lot preliminary plat on a 4.36-acre (approximate) site (Tax
Parcel No. 0522059045) under the existing code requirements for a Single -Family Residential
(R-6-SO) zone. We plan to apply for Transfer of Development Rights for this plat, increasing
the density to 7.9 units/acre. The single-family homes are anticipated to be in the middle -
income price range for this market.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and
section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,
provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan,
vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit
any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed
plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The project is located in un-incorporated King County, Washington south of the City of
Renton The Street address is 1927KZ 102nd Ave S F. It is located in Section 5, Township 22 N,
Range 5E. A legal description is contained in the attached Title Report. A vicinity map is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous
other
The soils on site arc Alderwood gravelly sandy loam.
The property slopes from east to west with slopes vaiVing from 5% in the southeast facing 102nd
Ave SE to approximately 30% in the lower portions..All site drainage flows to the west of the
property.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The steepest slope is approximately 30° o and is located in the western portion of the property.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime
farmland.
The soils on site are .11derwood gravelly sandy loam, AgC.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No, there were no indications of past or recent instability on or adjacent to the site.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
The purpose of the grading is to construct the new public right-of-way- and to provide for the
required onsire storm detention vault, utility locations, and building pads for the single-family
residences. The grading plan intent is to balance the grading on site to minimize truck traffic on
adjoining streets. The quantities of the cuts and fills that may occur on site are approximately 5,000
cubic yards of cut and 5,000 cubic yards of fill. During the earthwork stage of construction, if it is
discovered that the site will need Ell materials, a till source statement will be submitted at that time.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Erosion could occur following storm events as a result of denuded soil during the construction
process. Hott,ever, the project will comply with all applicable erosion and control fneasures, both
short term and long term.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
1,11111 ': Ili . ii 1 r Il lt. . 1a , , ,1-} 1j1r'i 11. 11111' III I;
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
In accordance with County codes a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan (TESCP) will
be prepared as a part of the site work construction drawings. The TESCP -, ill be implemented prior
to commencement of site work construction activities. During construction, erosion control
measures may include anE of the following: siltation fences, tempora y siltation ponds, and other
mcasui.es that may be used in accordance with the requirements of King County. At completion of
the project, permanent measures will include stormwater runoff detention and water duality facilities,
as required by applicable codes.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile,
odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
During construction, there Nvill be a temporary increase in exhaust and dust particle emissions. :'After
construction, the principle source of emissions will be from automobile traffic, lawn equipment, and
other activities typical of a residential neighborhood.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
Off -site sources of emissions or odors are those typical of the residential neighborhoods adjacent to
this site, such as automobile emissions from traffic on adjacent roadways and fireplace emissions
from nearby homes.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Construction impacts will not be significant and can be controlled by several methods: watering or
using dust suppressants on areas of exposed soils, washing truck wheels before leaving the site, and
maintaining gravel construction entrances.
Automobile and fireplace ernission standards are regulated by the State of Washington, Puget Sound
Pollution Control agency. No land clearing or residential yard debris fires wouid be permitted
on -site, or in the surrounding neighborhoods, in accordance with these regulations.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
vear-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
There is no surface water body onsite.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
No
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wedands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
><r�dicaEe the s��t�rce �.{ f�fl ��i:�ierial.
Not appEicable.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No, there will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 104-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
No
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No, a public sanitary sewer system will be installed to serve the future homes.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No groundwater will be withdrawn, public water mains will be installed as part of the plat
construction. No water will be discharged to groundwater except through the incidental
infiltration of stormwatcr.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage: industrial, containing the
following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
The site will be served by public sanitary sewer mains extended from off site. There will be no
waste material discharged to the ground from the development.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Storm water runoff will result from roadways and other impervious surfaces and will be
collected and routed to the detention facilities Located on -site, treated for sediment and
petroleum removal, and then released into the downstream. State and Counr_t• requirements for
water quality, and runoff rate control will be met.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
This would be ven- unlikely. The only materials that could enter ground or surface waters "vould
be those associated with automobile discharges and yard/garden preparations and maintenance.
d. Proposed measures to redoce or control surface., ground, and runoffwnter impacts, if anti:
erosion control barriers during site construction, and permanent stormwater
collection/trcarment facilities soon after beginning the site developnent construction. This
permanent system will ensure that prior to the release of stormwater into the downstream
drainage ways, the system will have significantly reduced the potential impacts to ground and
surface waters.
4. Plants
a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site:
X. deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: cottonwood, ash
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: hemlock
shrubs
grass
pasture
wet soil plants: cattail, creeping buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, horsetail,
Nvater plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other:
Y other types of vegetation: Chokecherry, hazelnut, salmonberry, blackberry.
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
The property is undeveloped containing a second or third growth forest stand. The property
presently lies within the Significant Trees Special District Overlay. During the site survey the
significant trees will be recorded and a tree retention plan will be prepared.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
No threatened or endangered plants are known to exist on the site.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve o- ^r..ha„c,.-
vegetation on the site, if any:
The development will make Use of native and naturalized vegetation in the plantings Within the
storm detention tract. In addition, the vard areas associated with individual ownership will be
landscaped by the builder and future residents with both native and ornamental plantings as part of
the planned community landscaping.
5. Animals
a. Underline any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to
be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, son. b� irds, other: woodpecker
mammals: deer, bear, elk beaver, other: s uirrel
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on the site.
c. Is the site pert of a migration route? If so, explain.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
The development will make use of n;itiv e and naturalized vegetation in the plantings within the
storm detention tract, which will have high value to wildli£c. In addition, the yard areas will be
landscaped by the builder and future residents with both formal and informal plantings.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
Electricity and/or natural gas will be the primary source of energy used to provide heating and
cooling to each home. These forms of energy are immediately available to the site. In accordance
with the State Energy Codes, the homebuilder will provide the appropriate building insulation,
heating, and cooling systems that are energy efficient and cost effective for the homebuyer,
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal: List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
The requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the State Energy Code will. be incorporated
into the construction of the buildings. Energy conserving materials and fixtures are encouraged in
all new construction.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of
fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If
so, describe.
The project will not generate any environmental health hazards.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
None to our knowledge.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
There are no on -site environmental health hazards known to exist today nor are there any that
will be generated as a direct result of this proposal.
b. Noise
11 Whot types of noise exist iti the :irvo lvhic h mar affect Your project (for ex:trnple: traffic,
The main source of off site noise in this area originates from the vehicular traffic present on SE
i 92-1 Street and 102-1 Ave SE and in the residential areas surrounding the property.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Short-term noise impacts will result from the use of construction and building equipment
during site development and home construction. These temporary activities will be limited to
normal working hours set forth by King County
Long-term impacts will he those associated with the increase in population, additional traffic,
and the typical noise associated with single-family residential developments.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Building construction will be done during the hours prescribed by the County. Construction
equipment will be equipped Nvith muffler devices and idling time should be kept at a minimum.
$. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site is presently undeveloped.
The current use of the adjacent properties is as follows;
North:
Single-family residential.
South:
A Single-family residence.
East:
Single-family- residential.
West:
Single-family residential.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Not to out knowledge_
c. Describe any structures on the site.
There are no structures on the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The current zoning is Residential 6 du/acre (R-6-SOj.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
The ('I iI -cnt pki, tit iL7n;irirm is srl,_
Not applicable_
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
No, there are no sensitive areas on the site.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
ApproNitnately 83 people (25 persons per dwelling) will reside in the proposed neighborhoods.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
N/A.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
The area surrounding the site consists of single-family residential housing. The existing homes were
built under and R-1 zoning. The area has recently been rezoned as R-6. Therefore, additional.
developments similar to the Talbot Ridge Estates flat can be expected .in the future.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or
low-income housing.
The proposed preliminary plat contains 33 new single-family detached residences. The new homes
are anticipated to be in the middle -income price range for this market.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
None.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Tl,c �vdl mccflit' Iwl,�lit r('cfu11"CTI IWn of t1lr R 6-5O /onc -'111d \.ill Plot c°Nccud I)vO rc ricy
I;li'- I17'.11- iI., I ?.li ;Ills' f'f ill,
i
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
%'Vith the exisring topography, tree cover, and the location of the existing surrounding development,
there will be tninitnal impact on the views from the adjacent properties. The views for the adjoining
properties are toward the west as they overlook the Ccdar River Valley. The clearing of trees on the
Talbot Ridge Estates flat will serve to open up the view of the river valley to some of the adjoining
properties.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
The development will make use of native and naturalized vegetation in the plantings within the
storm detention tract, which will have high value to wildlife. The yard areas will be landscaped by
the builder and future residents with both formal and informal plantings. Also, the ne-w homes will
be of a scale and size to be compatible with the existing adjacent neighborhoods.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
Light and glare will originate from building lighting and exterior lighting. Light will also be produced
from vehicles using the site. These impacts would occur primarily in the evening and before dawn.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
The only offsite source of light and glare are from vehicles and street lighting from the adjacent
streets and the single-family neighborhoods_
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Street lighting, when deemed necessary, will be installed in a manner that directs the lighting
downward.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Boulevard Lane Park tend Soos Creek Park are located approximatell, 0.9 miles to the east. Garrison
Creel* Park is located approximately- 2 miles to the south and Green Tree Park is located
approximately 2 :Hiles to the southeast.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
C. Proposed nw.isures to reduce or control impacts on recreation. iuc?uding recreational
i 1�l tl f-,.�I �•3: 1'�f•; i�! `[, `i i��'li i1.-L� �i7' (�'�1` [�'Vr. .'!-t'.i .�t_.i'i'.;7'.f i{ ,i 11 ��_
The Talbot Ridge Estates preliminary plat will include an open space tract within the neighborhood
to provide recreational opportunizies For the residents.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
No.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None, there are no known impacts. In the event that an archeological site is found during the course
of construction, the State .Historical Preservation Officer will be notified.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The site is in the SW corner of the intersection of SE 192nd Street and 102nd Ave SE. As part of the
proposal, a new public road will be extended onto the site and dead -ended in a cul-de-sac.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
No. The nearest transit stop is located at the intersection of 108,h Avenue SE and SE 192"d Street,
approximate[y 0.4 miles to the east.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project
eliminate?
Four parking spaces will be provided in association with each new home for a total of 132 spaces on
the site. The spaces will be Located in garages and on the driveways.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private).
It is anticipated that frontage improvements will be required along 102116 Ave SE. However, no
improvements are anticipated for SE 19211�1 Street which borders the northeastern portion of the
property. The development will provide a ncAv public street extending on the site, terminating in a
cul-de-sac.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation?
If so, geneta ly describe.
How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,
indicate when peak volumes would occur.
:assuming 8 additional vehicular trips per unit per day, the development is estimated to generate a
total of 264 weekday daily trips. Peak hours will generally be 7 AM — 9 .c IM and 4 PINI — 6 Pivl.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Transportation impacts will be mitigated through the construction of frontage improvements along
102na Ave SE and the dedication of right-of-way for the new onsite public road.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
The need for public service such as fire, health, and police protection will be typical of single-family
development of this size. The school children originating from the homes in this development will
attend the schools in the Kent School District 415.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
The roads and homes will be constructed to meet all applicable standards and codes of King County,
State of Washington and the federal Uniform Building Code. The proposed development will
contribute to the local tax base and provide additional tax revenue for the various public services.
16. Utilities
a. Underline utilities currently available at the site:
electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
All utilities are available to the site through the County approved extension of services. Extension of
services is the developers' responsibility.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and
the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
Electricity will be provided by Puget Sound Energy.
Natural Gas will be provided by Puget Sound Energy,.
Water Service will be provided by Soos Creek
Sanitary Sewer will be provided by the Soos Creek
Telephone Service will be provided by Q-%vest.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of m�- knowledge. .I understand that the lead agency
is relying on them to make its decis in.
Signature: �' L� Bate: Marcia 22, 2005
`C ffW s,P.E.
Vice e dent, Manager of Engineering
CORE
��DESIGN
March 23, 2005
TALBOT RIDGE ESTATES
SCHOOLS
Site Address: 19200blk 102d` Ave SE
Parcel Number: 0522059045
The following are schools that will serve the children that live in the proposed plat:
Springbrook Elementary School 20035 — 100d' Ave SE — Kent, WA 98031
Meeker Junior High 12600 — SE 192"d St. — Renton, WA 98058
Kentridge High School 12430 SE 208th St. — Kent, WA 98031
All students will be bused to the schools listed above. An acceptable walking path to the bus stop
will be provided with the development of Talbot Ridge Estates (see preliminary plat plan). The
bus stop is located at the southeast corner of 102"d Ave. SE and SE 192"d St., across the street
from the proposed development. See photo below.
L 05POO6 7
� 1
CORE
'*%A�"DESIGN
March 23, 2005
TALBOT RIDGE ESTATES
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN
Site Address: 19200blk 102`h Ave SE
Parcel Number: 0522059045
The homes within Talbot Ridge Estates will be served by a public road system that will terminate
in a cul-de-sac toward the west end of the property. There are no plans to provide traffic a stub
road to the property south of Talbot Ridge Estates. It is assumed that the property owner to the
south would oppose any future traffic circulation onto their property where a 7,280 square foot
home valued at 1.5 million dollars was constructed in 2002.
Analyzing of the development potential in the area, we have concluded that the extension of
102' Ave SE would be restricted to the south due to the presence of erosion and landslide
hazard sensitive areas. However, there is the potential for connectivity to SE 194th PL, which is
located southeast of Talbot Ridge Estates. Based on the R-6 zoning in the area, the future
development potential may produce a lot yield of approximately 50 lots. If the extension of 102
Ave SE does occur it would be classified as a neighborhood collector, serving less than 100
homes.
K-C. D.1). E. &
LOspuno;7
Map Output
Page 1 of 2
(9 King County ., . r, IV
http://www5.metrokc.gov/servleVcom.esri.esri map.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&Client... 3/23/05
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED 33-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SW CORNER AT SE 192ND ST. & 102Nn AVE. SE
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
G-1992
Prepared for
Mr. Cliff Williams
Belmont Homes. Inc.
P.O. Box 2401
Kirkland, WA 98083-2401
March 17, 2005
GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC.
13240 NE 20' Street, Suite 10
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Phone: (425) 649-8757
Email: info@geogroupnw.com
K.G. D.D.E.S.
LOSP00007
sts
Geoch ci�rouN®rtest,Ic. Environmentalentists
�rrr�
March 17, 2005
Mr. Cliff Williams
Belmont Homes, Inc.
P.O. Box 2401
Kirkland, WA 98083-2401
SUBJECT: GEOTECHNECAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED 33-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SW CORNER AT SE 192" ST. & 102"D AVE. SE
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dear Mr. Williams:
G-1992
Geo Group Northwest, Inc. has completed an investigation of subsurface soils at the above
referenced site in King County, Washington. This work was performed in accordance with our
proposal to you dated February 28, 2005.
Geo Group Northwest, Inc., explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by excavating ten
exploratory test pits on March 9, 2005. Soils encountered in the test pits consisted of loose silty
SAND and gravelly silty SAND with some cobbles overlying dense to very dense silty SAND
and gravelly silty SAND with some cobbles at depths ranging from two to three feet below
ground surface (bgs).
Based on the results of our study, it is our professional opinion that the site is geotechnically
suitable for the proposed development. The proposed buildings can be supported on
conventional spread footings bearing on the dense native site soils or on compacted structural fill
placed on top of the dense native soils. The loose site soils and fills are not suitable to support
foundations due to their loose and variable condition. Based on the findings from our soil
investigation at the site, we anticipate that the dense soil under the building areas are present
between 2 and 3 feet below ground surface (bgs). Please refer to the text of the report for more
specific recommendations regarding the site development.
We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you on this project. We look forward
to working with you as this project progresses. Should you have any questions regarding this
report or need additional consultation, please feel free to call us.
13240 EVE 20th Street, Suite 10 • Bellevue, Washington 99005
Phone 4261649-8757 . FAX 4251649-8758
March 17, 2005
G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page ii
Sincerely,
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
20114
William Chang, P.E. >
15
Principal `�tQNAL
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOB NO. G-1992
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description ............................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Services ................................................. 1
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS....................................................2
2.1 Site Description .................................................. 2
2.2 Geologic Overview ............................................... 2
2.3 Field Investigation ................................................ 3
2.4 Soil Conditions .................................................. 3
2.5 Groundwater Conditions ........................................... 4
3.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ........................................... 4
4.0 STEEP SLOPE EVALUATION ........................................... 4
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 5
5.1 General 5
5.2 Site Preparation and General Earthwork .............................. 5
5.2.1 Temporary Excavation and Slopes .............................. 5
5.2.2 Structural Fill ............................................... 6
5.3 Spread Footing Foundations ......................................... 7
5.4 Permanent Basement and Conventional Retaining Wails ................... 9
5.5 Slab -on -Grade Floors ............................................ 10
5.6 Footing Drains ................................................. 11
5.7 Pavements......................................................11
6.0 LIMITATIONS...................................................... 12
7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................. 12
ILLUSTRATIONS
Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
APPENDIX A:
- Site Vicinity
- Site PIan
- Typical Footing Drain Detail
TEST PIT LOGS AND SOIL LEGEND
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED 33-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SW CORNER AT SE 192ND ST. & 102N" AVE. SE
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
G-1992
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The project site is located at the southwestern corner of the intersection at SE 192' Street and
102" Avenue SE in King County, Washington. The site is near the city limits for Renton,
Washington.
The project site consists of a 4.36 acre undeveloped parcel. We have been provided. with a
Conceptual Site Plan for the proposed development by Core Design which is dated December
17, 2004. According to the site plan the development will consist of 33 new residential lots, as
shown on Plate 2 - Site Plan. Finish floor elevations for the new buildings were not provided
at the time of this study. An access road and cul-de-sac turnaround are planned to be located
near the center of the lot, running east and west off of 102' Avenue SE. We understand that a
detention vault is planned for the northwestern corner of the project parcel with excavations on
the order of 10 to 12 feet below existing grade.
1.2 Scope of Services
The tasks we completed for this study were conducted in general accordance with the scope of
work presented in our proposal dated February 28, 2005. The scope of work included the
following:
Field exploration with ten test pits;
2. Preparation of test pit logs containing subsurface soil and groundwater observations;
3. Preparation of a written geotechnical report with the following recommendations:
• Allowable soil bearing capacity and foundation design criteria;
• Slab -on -grade floors and capillary break;
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
March 17, 2005 G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 2
• Excavations, including temporary cut slope recommendations;
0 Grading and earthwork;
• Drainage recommendations
• Seismic design criteria
• Earthwork and design recommendations for detention vault construction.
The results of our subsurface investigation and our recommendations regarding the proposed
development are summarized in the following report.
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 Site Description
We have been provided with a Conceptual Site Plan for the proposed development by Core
Design which is dated December 17, 2004. We understand that the topography shown on the
plan and incorporated into PIate 2 - Site Plan of this report is based upon lidar data and is
therefore only an approximate representation of slope conditions. Based upon the site plan the
site consists of gentle to steep west -facing slopes. According to the site plan the parcel ranges in
elevation from approximately 408 feet at the east property line to 326 feet at the west property
line. The majority of the site consists of geiitic to niodeiatu west-fauirig slopes. Moderate to
steep slopes west -facing slopes with inclinations of 36 to 40 percent are located at the
northwestern corner of the project parcel.
The site is currently undeveloped and highly vegetated by grass, blackberry bushes, ferns, and
trees. The trees at the site consist of primarily deciduous trees with a few mature evergreens
located on the northern margins of the site.
2.2 Geologic Overview
According to the Geologic Ma_p of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, by
Mullineaux, dated 1965, the surficial geology in the site vicinity is mapped as Ground Moraine
Deposits (Qgt). The ground moraine deposits consist of glacial till soils which are generally
described as an over -consolidated mixture of sand, silt and gravel which was deposited during
the Pleistocene Fraser Glaciation period about 14,000 years ago.
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
March 17, 2005 G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 3
2.3 Field Investigation
Geo Group Northwest, Inc., explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by excavating and
logging ten exploratory test pits TP-1 through TP-10 on March 9, 2005. The test pits were
spaced relatively equidistant across the site, as shown on Plate 2 - Site Plan.
The test pits were excavated to depths ranging between 5 and 11 feet below ground surface
(bgs). Soil samples at varying depths were collected, classified and returned to our laboratory
for moisture testing. The test pits were then backfilled with the excavated site soils and tamped
into place by the excavator bucket.
2.4 Soil Conditions
Soils encountered in the test pits consisted of loose silty SAND and gravelly silty SAND with
some cobbles overlying dense to very dense silty SAND and gravelly silty SAND with some
cobbles at depths ranging from two to three feet below ground surface (bgs).
We interpret the dense silty SAND and gravelly silty SAND with some cobble soils to be the
ground moraine deposits, glacial till, discussed in the geologic literature. The following table
suiranarizes the depth to dense site soils at each test pit location;
Test Pit Number
Project Area
Depth to dense native soil
ft
TP-1
Southeast
3
TP-2
Southeast
2.5
TP-3
Southwest
3
TP-4
Southwest
2.5
TP-5
West
2.5
TP-6
Northwest
2.5
TP-7
Northwest
2
TP-S
Center
2
Geo Group Northwest, Inc,
March 17, 2005 G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 4
TP-9
Northeast
3
TP-10
Northeast
3
Copies of the Test Pit Logs are presented in Appendix A: Test Pit Logs.
2.5 Groundwater Conditions
No groundwater seepage was encountered in the test pits. It should be noted that groundwater
conditions may fluctuate seasonally, depending on rainfall, surface runoff and other factors.
3.0 Seismic Considerations
Based upon our subsurface investigation at the site, it is our opinion that the project buildings
may be designed using the Class C soil profile from the 2003 International Building Code,
Section 1615.1.5. It is our opinion that the soils at the project site are not susceptible to
liquefaction, due to the absence of groundwater within the loose soil zone.
4.0 Steep Slope Evaluation
Based upon the site plan and our site reconnaissance moderate to steep west -facing slopes are
located at the northwestern corner of the project site. Based upon the site plan the slopes have an
inclination ranging from 36 to 40 percent from the horizontal. The slopes at the northwestern
corner of the site are vegetated primarily by deciduous trees, ferns and bushes. At the time of
our site visit the ground was covered with a large amount of leaves and forest floor detritus. We
observed no signs of soil movement at the northwestern corner of the site, such as scarps or
slumps. Based upon our site reconnaissance and the soils encountered in out subsurface
investigation, the moderate to steep slopes located a the northwestern corner of the site appear to
be relatively stable in their present condition.
Preliminary plans indicate that a detention vault will be located at the moderate to steep slopes at
the northwestern corner of the site. We understand that the detention vault may require
excavations of between 10 and 12 feet below ground surface. The primary concern with regard
to locating the detention vault in the moderate to steep slope area is that temporary excavation
slopes be excavated in accordance with this report. Excavation slopes in the overlying loose
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
March 17, 2005 G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 5
soils may be sloped no steeper than 1H:1V. Excavations in the underlying dense soils may be
sloped no steeper than 1H:2V. If groundwater seepage is encountered Geo Group Northwest,
Inc. should be contacted to evaluate the stability of the excavation slopes. It is our opinion that
the proposed detention vault may be located on the moderate to steep inclination slopes.
Appropriate erosion control measures such as silt fences and plastic sheeting should be
implemented during construction to prevent sediment laden runoff from being transported out of
the work area. In addition, we recommend that permanent erosion control on the moderate to
steep angle slopes should consist of jute netting and slope stabilizing vegetation.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General
Based upon the results of our study, it is our professional opinion that the site is geotechnically
suitable for the proposed development. The proposed buildings and detention vault may be
supported on conventional spread footings bearing on the dense native site soils or on compacted
structural fill placed on top of the dense native site soils. The overlying loose site soils are not
suitable to support foundations. We anticipate that the dense soils are located at depths ranging
from 2 to 3 feet below ground surface. Consequently we anticipate that a minimal amount of
rve:i-excavation may be required for the foundation at the building lucatiumi.
5.2 Site Preparation and General Earthwork
The building pad areas should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation and forest duff soils.
Silt fences should be installed around areas disturbed by construction activity to prevent
sediment -laden surface runoff from being discharged off -site. Exposed soils that are subject to
erosion should be compacted and covered with plastic sheeting.
5.2.1 Temporary Excavation and Slopes
Under no circumstances should temporary excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified
in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts greater than four feet
in height should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical) in the
loose site soils. Temporary cuts in the dense site soils may be excavated no steeper than 1H:2V
provided that no seepage is encountered. If groundwater seepage is encountered during
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
March 17, 2005 G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 6
construction, excavation of cut slopes should be halted and the cut slopes should be re-evaluated
by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. Permanent cut and fill slopes at the site should be inclined no
steeper than 2H:IV.
Surface runoff should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes into the
excavated area. During wet weather exposed cut slopes should be covered with plastic sheeting
during construction to minimize erosion.
5.2.2 Structural Fill
All fill material used to achieve design site elevations below the building areas and below non -
structurally supported slabs, parking lots, sidewalks, driveways, and patios, should meet the
requirements for structural fill. During wet weather conditions, material to be used as structural
fill should have the following specifications:
1. Be free draining, granular material containing no more than five (5) percent fines (silt and
clay -size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve);
2. Be free of organic material and other deleterious substances, such as construction debris
and garbage;
3. Have a maximum size of three (3) inches in diameter.
All fill material should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum
moisture content is the water content in soil that enables the soil to be compacted to the highest
dry density for a given compaction effort.
The majority of the surficial site soils will be moisture -sensitive because they consist of silty
SAND and gravelly silty SAND soils. The site soils should be suitable for use as structural fill
as long as they are placed near their optimum moisture content. If these soils are too wet they
will be very difficult to compact because of their silt content. Alternatively, an imported
granular fill material may provide more uniformity and be easier to compact to the required
structural fill specification.
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
March 17, 2005 G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 7
If the on -site soils are to be used as engineered structural fill, it will be necessary to segregate the
topsoil and any other organic- or debris -containing soil, because such soils would be unsuitable
for use as structural fill. Excavated on -site material that is stockpiled for later use as structural
fill should be protected from rainfall or contamination with unsuitable materials by covering it
with plastic sheeting until it is used.
Structural fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding ten inches in loose
thickness. Structural fill under building areas (including foundation and slab areas), should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test
Designation D-1557-91 (Modified Proctor).
Structural fill under driveways, parking lots and sidewalks should be compacted to at least 90
percent maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91 (Modified
Proctor). Fill placed within 12-inches of finish grade should meet the 95% requirement.
We recommend that Geo Group Northwest, Inc., be retained to evaluate the suitability of
structural fill material and to monitor the compaction work during construction for quality
assurance of the earthwork.
5.3 Spread Footing Foundations
The proposed buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on the dense
native site soils or on compacted structural fill placed on top of the dense native site soils. Based
on the findings from our soil investigation at the site, we anticipate that the dense soils are
present between 2 feet and 3 feet below ground surface. Some over -excavation and placement of
structural fill may be required at foundation locations, dependent upon the proposed finish
grades.
Individual spread footings may be used for supporting columns and strip footings for bearing
walls. Our recommended minimum design criteria for foundations bearing on the dense site
soils or on compacted structural fill are as follows-
- Allowable bearing pressure, including all dead and live loads
Dense native soil = 2,500 psf
Compacted structural fill = 2,500 psf
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
March 17, 2005 G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 8
- Minimum depth to bottom of perimeter footing below adjacent final exterior grade = 18
inches
- Minimum depth to bottom of interior footings below top of floor slab = 18 inches
- Minimum width of wall footings = 16 inches
- Minimum lateral dimension of column footings = 24 inches
- Estimated post -construction settlement = 1/4 inch
- Estimated post -construction differential settlement; across building width = 1/4 inch
A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressures can be used when considering
short-term transitory wind or seismic loads.
Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting
compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the
foundations. Foi ilde la«ef, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing
undisturbed soil or be backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements for structural
fill. Our recommended parameters are as follows:
- Passive Pressure (Lateral Resistance)
• 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight for compacted structural fill
• 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight for native dense sail.
- Coefficient of Friction (Friction Factor)
• 0.35 for compacted structural fill
• 0.35 for native dense soil
We recommend that footing drains be placed around all perimeter footings. More specific
details of perimeter foundation drains are provided below in Section 5.6 - Footing Drains.
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
March 17, 2005
G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 9
5.4 Permanent Basement and Conventional Retaining Walls
At the time of report preparation finish grades for the proposed residences were undetermined.
We understand that a below -grade detention vault will be located at the northwestern corner of
the site. We understand that the vault may have conventional retaining walls on the order of 10
to 12 feet in height. The following design recommendations may be used for permanent
basement and conventional retaining walls at the project site.
Permanent basement walls restrained horizontally on top are considered unyielding and should
be designed for a lateral soil pressure under the at -rest condition; while conventional reinforced
concrete walls free to rotate on top should be designed for an active lateral soil pressure.
Active Earth Pressure
Conventional reinforced concrete walls that are designed to yield an amount equal to 0.002 times
the wall height, should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent
fluid with a unit weight of:
35 pcf for level backfill behind yielding retaining walls
45 pcf for a 25 percent sloped backfill
60 pef for a 50 percent sloped backfill
At -Rest Earth Pressure
Walls supported horizontally by floor slabs are considered unyielding and should be designed for
lateral soil pressure under the at -rest condition. The lateral soil pressure design should have an
equivalent fluid pressure of.
60 pcf for level ground behind permanent unyielding retaining walls
75 pcf for a 25 percent sloped backfill
100 pcf for a 50 percent sloped backfill
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
March 17, 2005 G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 10
Passive Earth Pressure and Base Friction
The available passive earth pressure that can be mobilized to resist lateral forces may be
assumed to be equal to 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight in both undisturbed soils and engineered
structural hackfill.
The base friction that can be generated between concrete and undisturbed native soils or
engineered structural backfill may be based on an assumed 0.35 friction coefficient.
We recommend that a vertical drain mat, Miradrain 6000 or equivalent, be used to facilitate
drainage behind permanent concrete basement and conventional retaining walls. We recommend
that the drainage mat be installed on the back side of the wall extending from the finish grade
down to a footing drain pipe. The wall footing drain pipe should consist of a 4-inch diameter
perforated rigid PVC pipe surrounded by a bed of washed gravel and separated from site soils by
filter fabric, Miraf 140N or equivalent. The drain pipe should be tightlined to discharge.
Backfill behind conventional retaining walls should consist of free -draining sand or gravel soils
which are compacted in lifts.
Backfill in areas adjacent to basement or conventional retaining walls should be compacted with
liaiiu meld equipitieiit or a hoepack. Heavy compacting machines niiould not be alio wed c+vithai a
horizontal distance to the wall equivalent to one half the wall height, unless the walls are
designed with the added surcharge.
5.5 Slab -on -Grade Floors
Loose site soils should be excavated from all slab subgrade areas or compacted to a firm and
unyielding condition. Slab -on -grade floors may be constructed on top of medium dense to
dense native site soils or on top of compacted structural fill placed on top of the competent site
soils. The slab -on -grade floors should not be constructed on top of the loose fills at the site.
To avoid moisture build-up on the subgrade, slab -on -grade floors should be placed on a capillary
break, which is in turn placed on the prepared subgrade. The capillary break should consist of a
minimum of a six (6) inch thick layer of free -draining crushed rock or gravel containing no more
than five (5) percent finer than the No. 4 sieve. A vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic
membrane, is recommended to be placed over the capillary break beneath the slab to reduce
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
March 17, 2005 G-I992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 11
water vapor transmission through the slab. Two to four inches of sand may be placed over the
barrier membrane for protection during construction.
5.6 Footing Drains
We recommend that drains be installed around the perimeter of the foundation footings. The
drains should consist of a four (4) inch minimum diameter perforated rigid drain pipe laid at or
near the bottom of the footing with a gradient sufficient to generate flow, as schematically
illustrated in Plate 3 - Typical Footing Drain Detail. The drain line should be bedded on,
surrounded by, and covered with a free -draining rock, pea gravel, or other free -draining granular
material. The drain rock and drain line should be completely surrounded by a geotextile filter
fabric, Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Once the drains are installed, the excavation should be
backfilled with a compacted fill material. The footing drains should be tightlined to discharge
into the storm water collection system.
Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drainage
system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge into the storm water
collection system. We recommend that sufficient cleanouts be installed at strategic locations to
allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drains and downspout tightline systems.
5.7 Pavements
Based upon the site plan we understand that a new access roadway and cul-de-sac turnaround
will be constructed running east -west near the center of the site. The adequacy of pavements is
strictly related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. We recommend that all pavement
subgrades be compacted by several passes of a large vibratory drum roller prior to placement of
the crushed rock base. Before paving, we recommend that the subgrade be proof -rolled under
the supervision of the geotechnical engineer to verify that the subgrade is firm and unyielding at
the time of paving. The proof -roll may be performed by driving a fully loaded dump truck over
the subgrade areas. If loose or yielding soils are encountered it may be necessary to over -
excavate and replace with compacted structural fill in some areas. For firm and unyielding
native subgrade soils we recommend the following minimum pavement sections for driveways;
Class "B" Asphalt Concrete (AC) 3 inches
Crushed Rock Base (3/4-inch minus) 6 inches
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
March 17, 2005 G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 12
Or
Concrete Pavement 6 inches
Crushed Rock Base (3/4-inch minus) 4 inches
In accordance with the Washington State Department of Transportation Construction Manual,
transverse cracks will develop in concrete slabs at about 15 foot intervals along the length of
slabs and a slab wider than 15 feet may crack longitudinally. To control cracking of the
concrete, contraction joints should be installed. Contraction joints are weakened planes which
collect the cracking into a controlled joint, creating a maintainable joint in the slab, and
preventing random ragged cracks which spread and require expensive maintenance. We
recommend that contraction and construction joints be connected with #5 dowel bars, 30 inches
long, 18 inches on center. The contraction joints should be placed at maximum 14 foot intervals.
ril[i� IiUA -1-(I ". -I COMO
This report has been prepared for the specific application to this site for the exclusive use of Mr.
Cliff Williams of Belmont Homes, Inc. and his authorized representatives. We recommend that
this report be included in its entirety in the pioject cuiliract docuim;ius for usa by the contractor.
Our findings and recommendations stated herein are based on field observations, our experience
and judgement. The recommendations are our professional opinion derived in a manner
consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the
profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area and within the budget
constraint. No warranty is expressed or implied. In the event the soil conditions are found to
vary during site excavation, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. should be notified and the above
recommendation should be re-evaluated.
7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
We recommend that Geo Group Northwest Inc. be retained to perform a general review of the
final design and specifications of the proposed development to verify that the earthwork and
foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and
in the construction documents. We also recommend that Geo Group Northwest Inc. be retained
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
March 17, 2005 G-1992
Proposed 33-Lot Residential Development, King County, Washington Page 13
to provide monitoring and testing services for geotechnically-related work during construction.
This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and
to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to
the start of construction. We anticipate the following construction monitoring inspections may
be necessary:
1. Site clearing and grubbing;
2. Over -excavation and structural fill placement at building foundation locations;
3. Verification of bearing soil conditions for foundations;
4. Structural fill placement and compaction;
5. Slab -on -grade preparation;
6. Subsurface drainage installation;
7. Proof -rolling of pavement subgrade areas.
We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you on this project. We look forward
to working with you as this project progresses. Should you have any questions regarding this
report or need additional consultation, please feel free to call us.
Sincerely,
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
Adam Gaston
Staff Engineer
William Chang, P.E.
Principal
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
ILLUSTRATIONS
G-1992
Geo Group Northwest, Inc.
APPENDIX A:
TEST PIT LOGS
G-1992
.� `t,J ST a' SE 180'rH PL '....
SSE
T 181F ST L-
'? y -- --.
13
L LJ oaE
45T4 PL "'� fi' '"E 1$3RD t 1
32
S 47TFf ST k Ln SE
i
�. M - --- : _ _ �1 SE 1847N �t _ 184TH lc'
LM
x. � �yi Q Pi ;r
_j S CT Y Q Y
V) # SE 1H5 7 " � F � �u �.�.._..�,......„„w
VA
i._..
STi
ST
# � ` SE 187TH
SSE I&TH -+ka SE A
ST
PL p 187-N CT
4 = L
S j t SE 18M ST i 1:11 F- 1'
�£ i SE 189TH ST � 5E ; c
S E 190TH CA, ST ti. } 5 E 190TH ST la9i�i �
CDPROJECT SE s I ;� SE 190TH PL }
SITE SE 190TH ---
Q E $T 190TH PL h 4€ ,
cn ;i s=19� a
F' T.: I92ND #'� ST SE -� a
t �r
Lu
?. f
194 %f-� r�-1 SE co
�~q$ SE 194TH ST
SE
o 195TH
7-1'
SE 15TH ; STSE
w
a
n ` ':SPRIN%B'RQ4KSl
SE
~�.99TH
o oS
Coli� ST.
T:T t b.: ri:r �� OTH ST
SE
N N Lnn 2Q1STST
VICINITY MAP
Group Northwest, Inc. PROPOSED 33-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
daoteehnical Engsnears, Qologista. & SW CORNER AT SE 192ND ST. & 102ND AVE. SE
Environmental Scientisls KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
SCALE: NONE DATE: 3/11/05 MADE: AG CHKD: WC JOB NO: G-1992 PLATE 1
Site Plan based upon preliminary plans provided by Belmont Homes, Inc.
SITE PLAN
LEGEND Group Northwest, Inc. SW
33-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SW CORNER AT SE 192ND ST. & 102ND AVE SE
- - Geatechn it Engineers, G Lists ts, &"" IM'TG COUNTY WASHINGTON
TEST FIT NUMBER AiYD APPROXIMATE EnviroranerHai Scientists ,
Tp_I LOCATION
SCALE 11F=40P DATE 3111/05 HADE AG CHIG) WC JOB NO. G-1992 PLATE 2
BACKFILL WITH COMPACTED
NATIVE SOIL
GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC,
MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT
FREE DRAINING BACKFILL
CONSISTING OF WASHED
ROUND ROCK OR CRUSHED
ROCK
MINIMUM 4 INCH DIAMETER
PERFORATED PVC PIPE
LEVEL OR WITH POSITIVE
GRADIENT
TO DISCHARGE
6 " to 12"
NOT 10 SCALE
i
FO-OTING
NOTES:
1.) Do not replace rigid PVC pipe with flexible corrugated plastic pipe.
2.) Perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be tight jointed and laid with
perforations or slots down, with positive gradient to discharge.
3.) Do not connect roof downspout drains into the footing drain lines.
TYPICAL FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
i Group Northwest, Inc. PROPOSED 33-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Geolechnicalagineem. C4010gists, & SW CORNER AT SE 192ND ST. & 102ND AVE. SE
Environmental scientists KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
SCALE NONE DATE 3/11/05 MADE AG CHKD WC 7josm G-1992 PLATE 3
LEGEND OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND PENTRATION TEST
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)
MAJOR DIVISION SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
CLEAN
GRAVELS
GRAVELS
Vittle or no
COARSE.
(More Than Half
fines)
GRAINED SOILS
Coarse Grains
Larger Than No. 4
Sieve)
I DIRTY
GRAVELS
(with some
fines)
SANDS
CLEAN
SANDS
(More Then Half
More Than Half
Coarse Grains
(little or no
by Weight Larger
Smeller Than No.
; fines)
Than No. 20D
4 Sieve)
Sieve
DIRTY
SANDS
(rwth some
fines)
Liquid Llnut
SILTS
< 50`y
(Below A -Line on
Plasticity Chart,
FINE•GRAINED
Negligible Organic)
Liquid Lim t
SOILS
50%
Liquid Limit
CLAYS
< 30%
(Above A -Line an
Plasticity Chart,
Negligible Organic}
Ligwd Limit
> 50%
More Than Half
Liquid Llrxil
by Weight Smaller
T! ri "lo. 200
ORGANIC SILTS
Sieve
& CLAYS
(SeluW A•Line cn
Piacticity Chart)
Liquid Limit
} 50%
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GW
WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND
Cu = (D80I D10) greater than 4
MIXTURE, LITTLE OR NO FINES
-
DETERMINE
PERCENTAGES OF
GRAVEL AND SAND
Cc = (D302 )1(O10' D60) between 1 and 3
I POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, AND GRAVEL -SAND
—
GP
MIXTURES LITTLE OR NO FINES
FROM GRAIN SIZE
NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS
I
DISTRI13UTION
GM
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -SILT MIXTURES I
CURVE
ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW
'ALINE,
CONTENT
OF FINES
EXCEEDS 12%
or PA, LESS THAN 4
ATTERBERG LIMITS ABOVE
'A'
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -CLAY
MIXTURES
COARSE GRAINED
LINE.
SOILS ARE
CLASSIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:
or P.I. MORE THAN 7
SW
WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS,
Cu = (D60 / 010) greater than 6
UITLE OR NO FINES
< 5% Fine Gralned:
a (D3D2)1(010' 060) between 1 and 3
SP
POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS,
LITTLE OR NO FINES
GW, GP, SW, SP
> t 2% Fina Grrained:
NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS
SM
SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT MIXTURES
ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW
'ALINE
GM, Gin S SC
5 to 12 % Fine
CONTENT OF
FINES
EXCEEDS 12%
th P.I• LES5THAN" 4
ATTSRBERG LIMfCS ABOVE
SC
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES
Grained: use dual
'A' LINE
I
symbols
with PA. MORE THAN 7
ML INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR, SANDY SILTS
OF SLIGHT PLASTICITY
MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS, FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOIL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY,
CL GRAVELLY, SANDY, OR SILTY CLAYS, CLEAN
CLAYS
CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT
CLAYS
OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF
LOW PLASTICITY
OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY
Pt I PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SOIL PARTICLE SQE
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE
FRACTION
Passing
Retained
SIeVe
mme)
Steve
Size
(Mmi
SILT1 CLAY
#200
0.075
FINE
#40
0.425
#200
0,075
MEDIUM
#10
2
#40
0.425
COARSE
04
4,75
Ma
2
GRAVEL
FINE
19
#4
4.75
COARSE
76
19
COBBLES
76 mm to 203 mm
BOULDERS
> 203 mm
ROCK I
FRAGMENTS
> 76 mm
ROCK
>0.76 cubic meter in volume
50
50
40
a
Z
r 30
[S
24
a 10_
❑ 10 20 30 40 5� 60 70 80 90 10 11
4 ❑
LIQUID LIMIT {%)
GENERAL GUIDANCE OF SOIL ENGINEERING PROPERTIES FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
SANDY SOILS
SILTY & CLAYEY SOILS
Blow
Relat[ve
Friction
Blow
Unconfined
Counts
Density
Angle
Descption
Counts
Strength
❑essripllon
N
%
ip, degree
N
q , tsr
0-4
0 -15
Very Loose
< 2
< 0.25
Very son
4.10
15 - 35
26.30
Loose
2-4
025 - 0.50
ScrR
ID-30
35 - 65
20.36
Medium Dense
4 - 8
0.50. 1.00
Medium Stiff
30-50
65 - 85
35 - 42
Dense
8 -15
1.00 - 2.00
Stiff
> 50
65 -100
3a - 46
Very Dense
15 - 30
2.00 - 4.00
Very Stiff
> 30
> 4.00
Hard
iw
Group Northwest, Inc.
-""61�1 Geatechnical Zri veers, Geologists, &
Environmental SckwAlsts .
13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 Bellevue, WA 98005
Phone (425) 546757 Fax (425) 649-8756 PLATE All
TEST PIT NO. TP-1
LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 3/9/05
DEPTH
ft.
USCS
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
No.
Water
%
OTHER TESTS/
COMMENTS
4" thickness forest duff
Probe 6-12"
Sl
20.7
Probe 12"
SM
Orangish Brown silty SAND with some gravel and cobbles, moist,
loose
---
-----
---------------------------------------------------
S2
19.9
SM
Tan silty SAND with some gravel and cobbles, moist, dense
5
SM
some cementation
S3
21.2
Total depth of test pit = 5 feet bgs
No groundwater seepage
10
15
LOGGED BY AG
TEST PIT NO. TP-2
TEST PIT DATE: 3/9/05
DEPTH
M
USCS
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
No.
Water
%
OTHER TESTS/
COMMENTS
4" thickness forest duff
Probe 24"
SM
Orangish Brown silty SAND with some gravel and cobbles, charcoal
nieces_ moist_ loose
S1
15.6
Probe 34"
SM
Mottled gravelly silty SAND with occasional cobbles, moist, dense
52
15.4
Probe 2-3"
5
SM/
Gray fine silty SAND to sandy SILT with some gravel and oce.
ML
I cobbles, very dense
S3
14.3
Total depth of test pit = 6 feet
No groundwater seepage
10
15
Group Northwest, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, &
Environmental Scientists
TEST PIT LOGS
PROPOSED 33-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SW CORNER AT SE 192ND ST. & 102ND AVE. SE
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. G-1992 I DATE 3/10/05 1 PLATE A2
TEST PIT NO. TP-3
LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 3/9/05
DEPTH
ft.
I
USCS
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
No.
Water
%
OTHER TESTS!
COMMENTS
SM
12-18" thickness loose forest duff
Probe 12-18"
---
-----
----------------------------- ^--
Sl
18.7
Probe8-10"
SM
Drangish Brown gravelly/cobbly silty SAND, moist, loose
---
----
SM
---------------------------------------------------
Mottled gravelly/cobbly silty SAND, moist to wet, dense
S2
17.6
S
SM/
Gray silty SAND to sandy SILT with some gravel, moist to wet, very
ML
S3
17
Total depth of test pit = 6 feet bgs
No groundwater seepage
10
45
TEST PIT NO. TP-4
LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 3/9/05
DEPTH
ft.
uses
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
No.
Water
%
OTHER TESTS/
COMMENTS
6" thickness loose forest duff
Probe 24"
SM
Orangish Brown fine silty SAND with some gravel, cobbles and
boulders, moist, loose
-----------
-------
S1
12.1
SM
Tan silty SAND with some gravel, moist, dense
Probe 1-3"
5
some cementation and cobbles
S2
13
Total depth of test pit = 6 feet
No groundwater seepage
10
1s
Group Northwest, Inc,
T.rr Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, &
Environmental Scientists
TEST PIT LOGS
PROPOSED 33-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SW CORNER AT SE 192ND ST. & 102ND AVE. SE
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
.JOB NO. G-1992 I DATE 3/10/05 1 PLATE A3
TEST PIT NO. TP-5
LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 3/9/05
DEPTH
ft.
USCS
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
No.
Water
%
OTHER TESTS/
COMMENTS
SM
6-12" thickness loose forest duff
Probe 6-18"
-----
----------------------------------------- ------
Orangish Brown silty SAND with some gravel and occ. (aT)hTes,
S1
16.8
---
SM
-----------------------------------------------------------
moist, loose
SM
Tan to mottled fine silty SAND with some gravel, moist to wet, dense
I S2
12.3
Probe 1-3"
5
SM
Brown gravelly/cobbiy silty SAND, moist, very dense
Total depth of test pit = 6 feet bgs
No groundwater seepage
10
75
TEST PIT NO. TP-6
LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 3I9/05
DEPTH
ii.
tiSCS
SOIL 015br-RIPTION
SAMPLE
No.
Water
OTHER TESTSI
COMMENTS
6-12" thickness loose forest duff
Probe 24"
SM
Orangish Brown fine silty SAND with some gravel and cobbles
Probe 4-10"
moist, loose
S1
11.9
SM
Tan silty SAND with some gravel and cobbles, moist, dense
5
some cementation
I S2
15.3
SM
Mottled gravelly/cobbly silty SAND, moist, very dense
I S3
14.3
SM
Brown gravelly silty SAND with occ. cobbles and boulders, moist,
very dense
10
1. S4
11.3
Total depth of test pit = 11 feet
No groundwater seepage
15
Group Northwest, Inc,
Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, &
Envirorwartal Scientists
TEST PIT LOGS
PROPOSED 33-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SW CORNER AT SE 192ND ST. & 102ND AVE. SE
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. G-1992 1 DATE 3/10/05 1 PLATE A4
TEST PIT NO. TP-7
LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 3/9/05
DEPTH
ft.
USCS
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
No.
Water
%
OTHER TESTS/
COMMENTS
SM
6" thickness loose forest duff
Probe 12-18"
Orangish Brown silty SAND with some gravel and cobbles, moist,
I Sl
14.8
Probe 4-10"
--
SM
- ---
10me ------------------------------------------------
SM
Tan to mottled fine silty SAND with some gravel, moist, dense
S2
13.$
5
SM
Gray gravelly silty SAND with some cobbles, moist, very dense
Total depth of test pit = 5 feet bgs
No groundwater seepage
10
15
TEST PIT NO. TP-8
LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 3/9/05
DEPTH
ft.
USCS
SOIL OESCRIPlioN
SAMPLE
No.
Water
%
OTHER TESTS/
COMMENTS
6-8" thickness loose forest duff
Probe 10-12"
SM
Orangish Brown silty SAND with some gravel, moist, loose
SM
Tan silty SAND with some gravel and occ. cobbles, moist, dense
Probe <1"
SM
Gray gravelly fine silty SAND with some cobbles, moist, v. dense
5
S2
14.7
Total depth of test pit = 5 feet
No groundwater seepage
10
15
Group Northwest, Inc.
Geatechnical Engineers, Geologists, &
Environmentat Scientists
TEST PIT LOGS
PROPOSED 33-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SW CORNER AT SE 192ND ST. & 102ND AVE. SE
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. G-1992 I DATE 3110105 1 PLATE A5
TEST PIT NO. TP-9
LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 3/9/05
DEPTH
ft.
USCS
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
No.
Water
%
OTHER TESTS/
COMMENTS
SM
6" thickness loose forest duff
Probe 6-12"
SM
Oran ish Brown silty SAND with some ,
g� ty gravel moist loose
Probe 6-16"
---
---- —
Sm
----------------------------------- ________________
Tan silty SAND with some gravel, moist, dense
1
12.3
5
SM
Gray gravelly silty SAND with some cobbles, moist, very dense
S2
13.2
Total depth of test pit = 5 feet bgs
No groundwater seepage
10
15
TEST PIT NO. TP-10
LOGGED BY AG TEST PIT DATE: 3/9/05
DEPTH
ft.
USCS
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
No.
Water
%
OTHER TESTS/
CUMMENIS
4" thickness loose forest duff
Probe 2-8"
SM
Orangish Brown silty SAND with some gravel and cobbles, moist,
Probe 8-16"
loose
I St
17.4
---
----
SM
------�
----------------------------------------------
Tan silty SAND with some gravel, moist to wet, dense
g
SMj
Gray silty SAND to sandy SILT with some gravel and occ. cobbles
S2
17.6
ML
and boulders, moist, v. dense
S3
14.1
Total depth of test pit = 6 feet
No groundwater seepage
10
15
Group Northwest, Inc.
Geotechnieal Engineers, Geologiats, &
Environmental SClentlsts
TEST PIT LOGS
PROPOSED 33-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SW CORNER AT SE 192ND ST. & 102ND AVE. SE
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. G-1992 I DATE 3/10/05 1 PLATE A6
TALBOT RIDGE ESTATES
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KING COUNTY
Prepared for
BELMONT HOMES, INC.
P. O. Box 2401
Kirkland, WA 98083-2401
�Escv�
March 21, 2005 PF
�
lA 2005
K-C� D.a•E.S.
Prepared by
Tr�r.av4r-t�sior.
Engin®arinp
Mira! Transportation Planning & Engineering
11410 NE 122", Way, Suite 320
Kirkland, Washington 98034
Telephone - (425) 820-0100
Fax - (425) 821-1750
TALBOT RIDGE ESTATES
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KING COUNTY
Prepared for
BELMONT HOMES, INC.
P.O. Box 2401
Kirkland, WA 98083 2401
Prepared by
MIRAI TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING
11410 N E 122"d Way, Suite 320
Kirkland, Washington 98034-6927
Telephone: (425) 820-0100
Fax: (425) 821-1750
hftp:llwww.miraiassociates.com
March 21, 2005
Transportation
Planning &
Engineering
March 21, 2006
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
P.O. Box 2401
Kirkland, WA 98083-2401
Re: Talbot Ridge Estates • King County
Traffic Impact Analysis
Dear Mr. Williams:
We are pleased to submit this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Talbot
Ridge Estates single-family residential plat. The site is located on the southwest comer of the
S.E. 192rd St./102nd Ave. S.E. intersection in unincorporated King County. This project was
initially known as the Sheehan Property plat (as shown on the figures and elsewhere in this
TIA), but was renamed Talbot Ridge Estates shortly before the completion of this report.
This study was prepared based on the King County Intersection Standards requirements
as implemented by Ordinance # 11617, which requires analysis of intersections that carry 30 or
more site generated trips and at least 20% of the site generated traffic. The only intersections
that will meet these criteria are the intersections on 102nd Ave. S.E. at the proposed site access
and at S.E. 192nd Street. However, County staff also requested that this TIA address the S.E.
192nd St.(S. 550' St.)ITalbot Rd. S. intersection in Renton, and the S.E. 192nd St./l08'h Ave.
S.E.(SR 515) intersection controlled by WSDOT.
The Talbot Ridge Estates project received Certificate of Transportation Concurrency
#01692 from King County on January 12, 2005. The certificate is for a formal plat with 32 single
family residential units, and expires on January 12, 2006. A copy of the Certificate of
Transportation Concurrency is attached in the Appendix to this TIA.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the project site and the surrounding
street network. The site is located on the southwest comer of the S.E. 192`d St.1102nd Ave. S.E.
intersection in unincorporated King County.
Figure 2 shows a Preliminary Plat prepared by Core Design received on March 18,
2005. The preliminary plan shows 27 single family residential lots, a 35-foot wide right -of --way
for a proposed residential street with a cul-de-sac, and several tracts for lot access and slope
areas. The proposed street would intersect the west side of 102nd Ave Southeast,
approximately 200 feet south of S.E. 192" d St. (measured center to center). The preliminary
plan also shows a right-of-way dedication of 30 feet along the east edge of the site, to complete
a total right-of-way width of 60 feet on 102nd Ave Southeast.
x04W205 she~ Plait TIA. d0c
Aura! Associates, Inc. 0 11410 NE 122nd Way, Suite 320 0 Kirkland, WA 98034-6927 0 425.820.0100 - t • 425.021.1750 - f
Transportation
Planning &
Engineering
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
March 21, 2005
Page 2
Although the current Preliminary Plat shows 27 single family residential lots, previous
versions of the plan have shown slightly more lots, and the Certificate of Transportation
Concurrency was issued for 32 single family residential units. Therefore, in order to present a
conservative analysis, 32 single family residential lots are used for the analysis in this TIA.
The site presently is undeveloped. Full development and occupancy are expected to
occur by 2007, which is the horizon year used for this analysis.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Roadway Facilities
Figure 3 shows existing traffic control, number of roadway lanes, number of approach
lanes at intersections, and other pertinent information. The primary roads within the study area
and their classification per the King County Arterial Functional Classification Macy, December 8,
2004 are as follows:
S.E. 192"d St. Local Road (between Talbot and 108"i Ave. S.E.)
Talbot Road S. Collector Arterial (south of S.E. 192"d St.)
102"d Ave. S.E. Local Road
1080 Ave. S.E. (SR 515) Principal Arterial (State Highway)
Per the descriptions in Table 2.03 of the King County Road Standards - 1993 (KCRS)
for Residential Access Streets, S.E. 192"d St. would likely be classed as a Neighborhood
Collector. South of S.E. 192"d St., 102"d Ave. S.E. would likely be classified as a Subaccess
Street. The proposed on -site road would also likely be classified as a Subaccess Street.
Sight Distances
We conducted a sight distance review on S.E. 192"d St. for the northbound approach on
102"d Ave. Southeast. The results of the available stopping sight distance (SSD) and entering
sight distance (ESD) measurements at this intersection are shown in the following table:
Type of Sight Distance
TbA"rom the East
Toffmm the West
Wng County
Design Criteria
Stopping Sight Distance (ft.)
Over 500
Approx. 320 `
250
Entering Sight Distance (ft.)
Over 800
Approx. 340
490
SSD to 24" high object per current AASHTO standards. Due to crest of grade on the
west edge of the intersection, the SSD to a 6" high object is approximately 140 feet.
K0433206 Sheehan Prat MAW
Transpartntion
Planning &
Engineering
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
March 21, 2005
Page 3
This table also shows the King County Design Criteria for SSD and ESD per Table 2.1 in
the King County Road Standrlyds - 1993 (KCRS). The KCRS recommended sight distances
are for a design speed of 35 MPH. Per County policy, the design speed is the posted speed
limit (25 MPH on S.E. 192"d St.) plus 10 MPH (total of 35 MPH design speed).
Our field review shows that the County's SSD criterion of 250 feet is met both to the east
and west along S.E. 192"d St. at the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection. For the northbound approach
to the intersection, the County's ESD criterion of 490 feet is also met to the east.
However, to the west of the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection, the existing available ESD
along S.E. 192"d St. was measured to be approximately 340 feet. The sight distance is limited
by vertical obstructions on the north side of S.E. 192"d St. on the inside of a horizontal curve in
the roadway. The initial obstruction is a line of five Douglas Fir tree trunks, ranging in diameter
from about 8" to 20". The lower branches have been removed, so increasing the sight distance
would require removal of the trees themselves. The trees are located back from the roadway,
near the right-of-way line, and appear to be within the County right-of-way. It is estimated that
removing these five trees would increase the ESD to approximately 370 feet. Since this is a
gain of only about 30 feet of ESD, removal of the trees does not appear to be worthwhile.
If the trees were removed, the sight obstructions would then become the private fences
located on or near the County road right-of-way line. Additional structures and vegetation
located on private single family residential properties north of the fences would also need to be
removed in order to further increase the ESD. Removal of these structures and vegetation
would require the purchase of additional property or easements from the homeowners on the
north side of the road. This would be expensive, time consuming, likely involving legal
complications, and ultimately impractical.
The existing ESD deficiency on S.E. 192"d St. west of the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection is
mitigated by the existing roadway geometry and the existing traffic control devices installed and
maintained by the County. Southeast 192"d St. climbs the hill from Talbot Rd. S. up to 102"d
Ave. Southeast. The road was constructed with a series of horizontal curves and "hairpin" turns
winding up the hill. The grade crests at the west edge of the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection, then
the road is relatively level through the intersection and continuing to the east. About midway
between the intersection and the first horizontal curve located to the west, the grade on S.E.
192"d St. approaching the intersection eastbound was measured to be approximately 9%.
Southeast 192"d St. west of the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection is well posted with turn and
winding road warning signs with 15 MPH advisory speeds for both directions of travel. The
eastbound approach to the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection is also posted with a cross road warning
sign with a 20 MPH advisory speed.
The existing roadway grade, horizontal turns, and traffic control devices reduce the
speeds of eastbound traffic on S.E. 192"d St. approaching the 102"d Ave. S.E. intersection. The
K0433205 Sheehan Plat T1A. doc
Tran aporrarion
Planning 6
engineering
Cliff Williams; P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
March 21, 2005
Page 4.
current SSD criteria are met. Further improvements to increase the ESD west of the
intersection do not appear to be worthwhile or practical. Therefore, we believe that no further
mitigation should be required for the existing ESD at this intersection.
By inspection, the sight distances at the 1020d Ave. S.E./proposed site access road
intersection will be adequate. The posted speed limit on 102W Ave. S.E. is 25 MPH, and the
road is straight and relatively level. Sight distances to the north will extend to the north of the
stop sign controlled S.E. 192nd St. intersection. Sight distances to the south will extend south to
the dead end at the south end of 102"d Ave. Southeast.
Accident Data
King County staff provided accident report data for the S.E. 192"d St./102"d Ave S.E.
intersection and the stretch of the S.E. 192"d St. between 100d' Ave S.E. and 1080' Ave
Southeast. The accident data indicate that there were six accidents recorded on S.E. 192"d St.
between 100 h Ave S.E. and 108th Ave S.E. for the four-year period from January 1, 2000 to
December 31, 2003. Four of the accidents were within 600 feet of 100th Ave Southeast. One of
the accidents was at the S.E. 192"d St./102"d Ave S.E. intersection. All of the accidents
occurred at different locations along the roadway. Four of the six accidents were limited to
property damage only. The majority of the accidents involved a vehicle hitting a fixed object.
The low number of accidents and the dispersion of accidents at different locations do not
indicate a pattern of accidents susceptible to correction. Due to the geometry of the roadway
required by the topography, and the traffic control devices already installed and maintained by
the County, no further accident mitigation is apparent.
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
A single family residential plat with 32 lots would be expected to generate the vehicular
trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown in the table
below:
Time Period
eTrips
Trip RAverage
Entering
r
Ex 9
Total Trips
Average Weekday
T = 9.57 (X)
153 (50%)
153 (50%)
306
AM Peak Hour
T = 0.75 (X)
6 (25%)
18 (75%)
24
PM Peak Hour
T = 1.01(X)
20 (63%)
12 (37%)
32
KM3205 Sheehan Plat TIA.cbc
Transportation
Planning &
Engineering
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
March 21, 2005
Page 5
A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the
origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated
using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation,
Seventh Edition, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip
generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including
resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips.
Figure 4 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site -generated traffic
volumes. The distribution is based on the characteristics of the road network, existing traffic
volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping,
school, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies.
ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Review of King County's Capital Im rovement Program (CIP), found on the Internet at
www.metrokc.pov/kodottroads/cip/default.asDx, identifies that there is one road improvement
project in the vicinity of the project site. This project, #401595 is an ongoing improvement
project of S.E. 192"d St., from 108'" Ave. S.E. to 140' Ave. Southeast. Phase IV of the project
would make improvements to the 108t' Ave. S.E. intersection with sidewalks and new right turn
lanes. A copy of the description of this CIP project from the internet is included in the Appendix.
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Figure 5 shows PM peak hour traffic volumes at the S.E. 192"d St./Talbot Road South,
S.E. 192 St./102"d Ave. S.E. and S.E. 192"d St./108'h Ave. S.E. intersections. These volumes
were counted by Traffic Count Consultant, Inc. on Thursday, March 3, 2005. The peak hours
were as shown on the figure. Copies of the counts are attached in the Appendix.
Figures 6 and 7 show the estimated PM peak hour traffic volumes for 2007 without and
with the project. The 2007 volumes without the project shown on Figure 6 were calculated
based on the 2005 counts and the growth rate provided by King County staff. The year 2007
volumes with the project shown on Figure 7 are the sum of the volumes shown on Figure 4 and
Figure 6.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within
a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions
include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F,
with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the
worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate
K0433M Sheehan Plat TIA.doc
100��l
Transportation
Planning 6
Engineering
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
March 21, 2005
Page 6
and LOS E and F are low. Volume/Capacity (V/C) is the ratio of the traffic volume using a
roadway or intersection to the calculated traffic -carrying capacity of the roadway or intersection.
LOS and VIC are calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board
Highway Capacity Manual 2000. The LOS is determined by the calculated average delay per
vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average delay in seconds are as follows:
Type of
Intersection
A
B
C
D
E
F
Signalized
< 10.0
>10.0 and : 20.0
>20.0 and <35.0
>35.0 and <55.0
>55.0 and <80.0
>80.0
Stop Sign Control
<10.0
>10 and <15
>15 and <25
>25 and <35
>35 and <50
>50
LOS calculations were carried out for the S.E. 192nd St./Talbot Road South, S.E. 192nd
St./102nd Ave. S.E. and S.E. 192nd SU108th Ave. S.E. intersections for the PM peak hour for
existing conditions, 2007 conditions without the project, and 2007 with the project. The LOS
were calculated using the Synchro software. Of the three intersections, the first two have two-
way stop control and the third, S.E. 192nd Street / 108th Avenue S.E., is traffic signal controlled.
The table below shows the LOS and average delay per vehicle:
Intersection
2005
Existing
2007
Without Project
2007
With Protect
S.E. 192nd St./Talbot Rd S.#
Level of Service (EB approach)
F
F
F
Average Delay/Vehicle (sec.)
84
89
98
S.E. 192nd St.1102nd Ave. S.E.'
Level of Service (SB approach)
B
B
B
Average DelayNehicle (sec.)
13
13
14
S.E. 192nd SU108"' Ave. S.E.
Level of Service
E
E
E
Average Delay/Vehicle (sec.)
62
65
66
Volume/Capacity Ratio (v/c)
1.01
1.02
1.04
Notes: 1. Unsignalized intersection, two-way stop control
K0433205 Sheehan Plat TIA.doc
r
�fTransportation
Planning S
Engineering
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
March 21, 2005
Page 7
The two-way stop controlled S.E. 192"d St./Talbot Road S. intersection is calculated to
operate at LOS F for all conditions analyzed. With the project, the average delay per vehicle
increases by nine seconds.
The S.E. 192"d St./102"d Ave. S.E. intersection is calculated to operate at LOS B for all
conditions analyzed. The average delay increases by one second per vehicle with the project.
The signalized S.E. 192"d St./108d' Ave. S.E. intersection is calculated to operate at LOS
E for all conditions analyzed. The average delay per vehicle increases by one second due to
the project in 2007.
By inspection, the 102"d Ave. S.E./proposed site access road intersection will operate at
LOS A. The traffic volumes at this intersection of dead-end residential streets will be very low.
TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
King County`s Mitigation Payment System (MPS) is utilized to provide funding for
transportation improvements. The County is divided into 453 MPS zones. A residential MPS
fee has been pre -calculated for each zone. The Talbot Ridge Estates site is located in MPS
zone #343, which currently has a fee of $1,246 per single-family unit. The current MPS fee for
32 new single-family units is calculated to be $39,872. The current MPS fee for 27 new single-
family units is calculated to be $33,642.
The developer may also be required to construct frontage improvements on the roads
adjacent to the project site per King County standards.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Talbot Ridge Estates project received Certificate of Transportation Concurrency
#01692 from King County on January 12, 2005. The certificate is for a formal plat with 32 single
family residential units, and expires on January 12, 2006.
King County Intersection Standards requirements as implemented by Ordinance
#11617, require analysis of intersections that carry 30 or more site generated trips and at least
20% of the site generated traffic. The only intersections that will meet these criteria are the
intersections on 102"d Ave. S.E. at the proposed site access and at S.E. 192'd Street. These
intersections will operate at high levels of service (LOS A or B) with the proposed Talbot Ridge
Estates project.
This analysis also addressed the S.E. 192"d St.(S. 551' St.yTalbot Rd. S. intersection in
Renton, and the S.E. 1920d St./108'hAve. S.E.(SR 515) intersection controlled by WSDOT.
K0433205 Sheehan Plat na.idoc
11"V��l
Transportation
Planning s
Engineering
Cliff Williams, P.E.
Belmont Homes, Inc.
March 21, 2005
Page 8
We recommend that the Talbot Ridge Estates project be constructed with the following
traffic impact mitigation measures:
1. Provide a King County MPS fee contribution for MPS zone #343, which currently has
a fee of $1,246 per single-family unit. The current MPS fee for 27 new single-family
units is calculated to be $33,642.
2. Construct such frontage improvements as may be required by the County on the
roads adjacent to the project site.
3. Construct the proposed on -site road per King County Road Standards.
No further mitigation is expected. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425)
820-0100 or via e-mail at dave@miraiassociates.com.
DHE:
Very truly yours,
Mirai Transportation Planning &
Engineering
David H. Enger, P.E., P.T.O.E.
Senior Associate
K0433205 Sheehan Plat 'r)A.doc
IM frail
Transportation
Planning &
Engineering
SHEEHAN PROPERTY —KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
N
not to scale
FIGURE
1
a
TT
po
209
�
i • 23
F r=
rx
21
ea
•
all
w rrtl-utam i n TRACT'C' •�•��" xrwwY �wY� vr.µA ,uebw.� _uow�s un:,ti;
, um rvr w w. 3
arrormm �K: -
YIYr1tl. Y[
M irall
Transportation
Planning &
Engineering
N
not to scale
SCALE. 1" — 40'
SITE PLAN
SHEEHAN PROPERTY —KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS �
FIGURE
2
a�
v
�z a
108TH
AV SE
4-1
515
Q
�
0
z
N
W
CI}
Cn
•I 102ND AV SE
_
0
0
N
W
rALBp T RD
S
LEGEND
U)
O Traffic Control Signal
_
Stop Sign
�
—} Approach Lane & Direction
to
IMirail
Transportation
Planning &
Engineering
EXISTING ROAD CONDITIONS
SHEEHAN PROPERTY —KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FIGURE
LO
v
rn
--Wmmwz o 7%2�
108 TH AV SE
N 515
cn
0
z
C4
IV_ 00 PR
er G,
w 0 20� I
� N
r
F
44% 1-
LO
LO
NET NEW cn
PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION:
ENTER: 20 (63%) _
EXIT: 12 (37%)
32
M irai
Transportation
Planning &
Engineering
. J102N D AV SE
0
d-
TALBOT RD S
cn
0
0
N
W
(n
LEGEND
XX % TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE
X—PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
VOLUME & DIRECTION
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
SHEEHAN PROPERTY —KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FIGURE
II
a o_°
U-) it �z j-�-
0
g3I
' 108 o908 TH AV SE
C515 �
cL
co
U
�n z
�N �— 4 N
�
o�
n 10 —� 0 N to
�LO
•I 102ND AV SE _
0
0
N
V W
0 12
�133
411—
N�
9 r) n N
(D
raLBo
T T RD S
cn
Ln
LEGEND
X—w PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME & DIRECTION
ALL COUNTS TAKEN THURSDAY, 03/03/05 AT THE TIME SHOWN
mitai
Transportation
Planning &
Engineering
2005 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME
SHEEHAN PROPERTY —KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FIGURE
k
rn 0032
_
Q .�-1332
19
222
—Nowz o 9 3 � � 515 108 TH AV SE
c:oo
4-1
t� Q 00 � R#�I
C � 1`
0
n z
o rN 4 N
`vI '` — 0
I' sr- 2
Lu
10� �0LO
•I 102ND AV SE _
I" ~
0
a
N
W
cn
`Q 1� 12
r r
-.*-135
484
�1
418-
9
TALB
0 T RD S
t-
Ln
LEGEND U'
K - PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME & DIRECTION
M irail
2007 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITHOUT PROJECT
FIGURE
Transportation U:7!EHAN PROPERTY-KLYS
ING COUNTY 6
Planning &
Engineering TRAFFIC IMPACT ANAIS
�00
�_IrnN�1632
19
U)
�+ �31
�z o
923�• t
i
108 TH AV
SE
4_16
o
2 ---*, o r- o
worn
'�
515
"�
�
c
V7
a
r`
z
olI�co �12
CIA�6
r
�
W
V)
10� C)
A 102ND
AV SE
_
0
0
N
W
�r, 12
35
V-
A1
418
TALBpT
-r
RD S
LO
LEGEND
U'
XPM
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
VOLUME &
DIRECTION
mitai
Transportation
Planning &
Engineering
2007 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITH PROJECT
SHEEHAN PROPERTY ---KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FIGURE
APPENDIX
Ding County
Road Services Division
Department of Transportation
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98to4-3856
TYPE OF CERTIFICATE January12, 2005
® ORIGINAL Certificate # 01692
❑ CONDITIONAL File Number: 05-01-05-02
Expires: January 12, 2006
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY
❑ Specific conditions are described on the reverse side of this certificate.
Pursuant to King County Code, Chapter 14.70 as amended, this certificate confirms that the level of service
standard used in the Transportation Concurrency Management program has been satisfied.
IMPORTANT: This certificate does not guarantee a development permit. Other transportation improvements and
mitigation will be required to comply with Intersection Standards, Mitigation Payment System, King County road
standards, and/or safety needs.
1. Applicant Name and Address: Robert Wenzl, Belmont Homes, Inc.
P.O. Box 2401, Kirkland, WA
2. Property Location:
a. Property Address: 192xx 102nd Ave. SE
b_ Development Name:
c_ Parcel Number: 0522059045
3. Type of Development Permit To Be Requested: Format Plat
4. Proposed Land Use: Single Family Residential
5. Zone Location and Reserved Units:
a. Concurrency Zone: 795 Community Planning Area: Soos Creek
i. Commercial Project -Total Square Feet: 0
ii. Multi -family - Number of Units: 0
iii. Single family - Number of Units: 32
6. This Certificate is subject to the following general conditions:
a. This Certificate of Concurrency runs with the land and is transferable only to subsequent owners of the
same property for the stated development, subject to the terms, conditions and expiration date listed herein_
This Certificate of Concurrency is not transferable to any other property and has no commercial value_
This Certificate Expires: January 12, 2006
unless you apply for the development permit described above, prior to that date. If this requirement is not met
the King County Department of Transportation reserves the option to cancel your certificate and capacity
reservation.
When you apply for a development permit with King County's Department of Development And Environmental Services
(DD£5), bring this Certificate of Transportation Concurrency as part of the development application package. If you
have any questions, please call (2W 204759.
e-�
Linda Dougherty, Director, Road Services Dhiciott--'
Department of Transportation
King County, Washington
APPENDIX A. Accident Data from King Count
SE 192nd Street / 102nd Avenue SE:
Accident listing
01/01/2000 - 12/31/2003
102nd Ave Se & Se 192nd St
Sorted by <DATE;TIME;ACC#>
QUADRANT CASE ID DATE TIME ACC SEVERITY PED AGE WEATHER LIGHTING ROAD COLLISION TYPE
DISTAN STREET 1 STREET 2
4 03-173512 11/13/2003 20:20 Property Damage 0 Clear/Partly Cloud Dark street light Dry Right angle
0 102ND AVE SE SE 192ND ST
SE 192nd Street between 1081h Avenue and 100th SE:
Accident listing
01/01/2000 - 12/31/2003
Se 192nd St 1000.000 to 1080.000
Sorted by <DATE;TIME;ACC#>
QUADRANT CASE ID DATE TIME ACC SEVERITY FED AGE WEATHER LIGHTING ROAD COLLISION TYPE
DISTAN STREET 1 STREET 2
4 00-725919 01/01/2000 23:54 Injury Acc 0 Clear/Partly Cloud Dark no street light Dry Veh strikes fixed obj
600 SE 192ND ST 100TH AVE SE
4 01-162087 01/27/2001 15:20 Injury Acc 0 Clear/Partly Cloud Daylight Dry Veh strikes fixed obj
80 SE 192ND ST 10017H AVE SE
4 03-457531 08/17/2003 6:10 Property Damage 0 Clear/Partly Cloud Daylight Dry Veh overturned
1270 SE 192ND ST 102ND AVE SE
4 03-392251 10/25/2003 22:30 Property Damage 0 Clear/Partly Cloud Dark no street light Dry Veh strikes fixed obj
180 SE 192ND ST 100TH AVE SE
4 03-695682 11/26/2603 12:25 Property Damage 0
339 SE 192ND ST 100TH AVE SE
4 03-173512 11/13/2003 20:20 Property Damage 0
0 102ND AVE SE SE 192ND ST
Clear/Partly Cloud Daylight Dry Veh strikes fixed obj
Clear/Partly Cloud Dark street light Dry Right angle
SE 192nd Street - King County Road Services Division
Page 1 of 2
@) King County
Seared
You are in: Transportation ?Road Services > Capital Improvement Program >
�! SE 192nd Street
Online Directory
Site index
Capital Improvement Program
SE 192nd Street
Project No.: 401595
Project limits: Benson Road to 140th Avenue
SE
Current phase: intermediate Design
Project type: Capacity
Thomas Bros. Map No.: 686d2
Project description
The SE 192nd Street CIP includes phases 1 to 5
along SE 192nd Street. Phase I was constructed
in 1997/1998 and included a pathway from 124th
Ave SE to 134th Ave SE and a pedestrian signal
at Meeker Jr High. Phase II is at 124th Ave SE
and will be a separate project. Phase III was
constructed in 2001 and added turn lanes and a
sidewalk at 140th Ave SE. Phase IV is located at
108th Ave SE and includes a sidewalk and new
right turn lanes . Phase V is located at 116th Ave
SE but is currently unfunded.
Why is King County doing this project?
S.E. 192nd St is a principal arterial in the Soos
Creek area. The road also provides access to
area schools.
Status as of March 1, 2005
The project is in the design phase.
Environmental Information
The overall air quality within the project vicinity
may improve slightly after the completion of this
project due to reduced queue lengths and
Vicinity map
A
r
x i
SE U281 -
�xul Prol�cif1407P%
7- _
(Enlarged view in
Q.&C:IFI::
Project contact
Lorraine Lai
206-296-8760
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdottroads/cip/Proj ectDetail.aspx?CIPID=401595 3/8/2005
SE 192nd Street - King County Road Services Division
Page 2 of 2
reduced overall delay at the traffic signal. After
construction is completed, disturbed areas will be
restored to previous conditions by using native
plant materials and seeded. Revegetation with
native plants will help stabilize the banks of
Panther Creek, shade the creek, and provide
habitat for wildlife.
See also
King County Comprehensive Plan
My Commute
Online Bus Trip Planner
Transports#ion Needs Report
How does the CIP work?
The Road Services Division Capital Improvement
Program CIP contains all design, construction
and studies for improvements on roads, bridges
or transportation facilities in unincorporated areas
in King County. We have a glossa to help
explain our terms and jargon.
Top of page
King County
Department of Transportation
Road Services Division
201 S. Jackson St.
Seattle, WA 98104
206-296-6590 or
1-800-325-6165
TTY: 711 Relay Service
E-mail
Ph= external link
Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County.
By visiting this and other King County Web pages,
you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site.
The details.
http://wvvw.metrokc.gov/kcdot/roads/cip/ProjectDetail.aspx?CIPID=401595 3/8/2005
19
SE 192nd St
11
O
Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Woodinville, WA 98072
Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX: (425) 861-8877
Turning Movement Diagram
U,< 1146
a
896 254
E�
9 1 411 1 476
3
3
2
j i 1 133 1 12
rn
0
a
566
Intersection: SE 192nd St @ Talbot Rd S
Location; Renton
Date of Count: Thurs 3/03/05
Peak Period: 4:30 P - 5:30 P
Checked By: CMW
Prepared For: Mirai Associates
SE 192nd St
114
1 122
613
441
Check
In: 1172
Out: 1172
%HV
PHF
EB
0.0%
0.50
WB
0.8%
0.82
NB
1.4%
0.89
SB
0.4%
0.92
Intersection
0.6%
0.92
Traffic Count
Consultants, Inc.
Woodinville,
WA 98072
Phone: (425) 861-8866
FAX:
(425)
861-8877
Vehicle Volume Summary
Intersection:
SE 192nd St @ Talbot
Rd S
Date
of Count:
Thurs
3/03/05
Location:
Renton
Checked By:
CMW
Time
From North on (SB)
From South on (NE)
From: East on (WS)
From West on (EB)
Interval
Interval
Talbot Rd S
Talbot
Rd S
SE 192nd St
SE 192nd St
Total
Ending at
T
L
S
R
T
L
S
R
T
L
S
R
T
L
S
R
4:15 P
0
74
96
3
1
0
39
4
0
1
1
25
0
0
3
0
246
4:30 P
0
89
95
3
1
1
29
3
0
2
0
17
0
0
0
0
239
4:45 P
1
88
107
1
0
0
34
3
1
1
0
36
0
0
0
1
271
5:00 P
0
130
106
1
2
0
37
2
0
2
0
26
0
2
1
1
308
5:15 P
2
133
108
3
0
1
37
3
0
1
1
30
0
1
1
0
319
5:30 P
1
125
90
4
0
0
25
4
0
3
0
22
0
0
1
0
274
5.45 P
0
97
89
3
0
0
25
4
0
1
2
40
0
0
1
0
262
6:00 P
1
BO
80
2
0
0
18
6
0
2
0
28
0
2
0
0
218
6:15 P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6:30 P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6:45 P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7:00 P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
tj
survey5
816
771
20
4
2
244
29
1
13
4
0
5
7
2
2137
4:30 P
to
5:30 P
Peak Hour Summary
Total
4
476
411 9
2
1
133 f
12
1
7
1 1
114
0
3
2
1172
A roach
696
146
122
_L__Lj
8
1172
WV
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
PHF
0.92
0.89
0.82
0.50
0.92
PEDESTRIANS ACROSS:
[worth
South
East
West
Intv,l Sum
Interval:
1
0
2
0
Legend:
T= Number of heavy
vehicles
(greater than 4
wheels)
3
1
1
2
L= heft -Turn
4
1
1
2
S= Straight
5
0
R= Right -Turn
6
1
1
HV= Heavy Vehicles
7
0
PHF= Peak hour
Factor
(Peak
hour volume / (4*Higheat 1!
8
0
Ped Totals:
0
1
1
3
5
PreDared
For:
Mirai Associates
TMosbo32-al
Cmumrm aoft isx
NJdawocart ti of WOW
ow YwR
4. owom [redo lip"
2. Lai* 01100-
a vewoyou "
4 SWPWPOrIWW
5- LAMSlRW
6. Lam= on wrows
mkIT'anaei.rrA.J c.r:ar cr";3-ea-uw.i
i
SE 192nd St
127
Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Woodinville, WA 98072
Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX: (425) 861-8877
Turning Movement Diagram
w 81
y
Q
21 0
N
O
rr
624
40
497 452
5 L
z 0 4
Q 0 0
�a
c 13
Intersection: SE 192nd St @ 102nd Ave SE
Location: Renton
Date of Count: Thurs 3/03/05
Peak Period: 4:45 P - 5:45 P
Checked By: CMW
Prepared For: Mira) Associates
SE 192nd St
20
115 137
2 604
467
Check
In: 661
Out: 661
%HV
PHF
EB
0.0%
0.91
WB
0.0%
0.88
NB
0.0%
0.75
SB
OA%
0.75
Intersection
0.0%
0.92
Traffic Count
Consultants, Inc, Woodinville,
WA 98072
Phone: (425) $61-8866
FAX:
(425)
861-8877
Vehicle Volume Summary
Intersection:
SE 192nd St @ 102nd
Ave SE
Date
of Count:
Thurs
3/03/05
Location:
Renton
Checked By:
CMW
Time
From North on (SB)
From South on (NE)
From East on (WB)
From Best On
(BB)
Interval
Interval
102nd Ave SE
102nd Ave SE
SE 192nd St
SE 192nd
St
Toted
Endinq at
T
L
S
R
T
L
S
R
T
L
S
R
T
L
S
R
4:15 P
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
22
3
1
3
80
0
116
4.30 P
0
2
0
4
0
0
0
1
1
0
13
3
0
4
82
0
109
4.45 P
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
1 1
0
39
4
0
9
77
0
134
5.00 P
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
2
1 0
1
24
6
0
16
110
1
166
5:15 P
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
30
5
0
8
128
1
180
5.30 P
0
1
1 0
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
24
8
0
6
117
2
163
5:45 P
0
2
1 0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
37
1
0
10
97
1
152
6 : 0 0 P
0
5
1 0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
34
7
0
B
80
0
137
6.15 P
0
0
❑
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6:30 P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,45 P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7:00 P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Survey 1
0 1
26 1
0
20
0
2
0
6
3
3
223
37
1
64
771
5
1157
4.45 P
to
5:45 P
Peak Hour Summary
Total
0
11
0 10
0
2
0
4
0 2 115
20
0
40
452
5
661
A roach
21
6
137
497
661
%H4
0�
❑ir
0�
0*
0�
PHP
0.75
0.75
0.88
0.91
0.92
PEDESTRIANS ACROSS:
North
South
East
West
intvil Sum
Interval:
1
0
2
1
1
Legend:
T= Number of heavy vehicles
(greater than 4 wheels)
3
1
1
L= Left -Turn
4
1
1
S= Straight
5
0
R= Right -Turn
6
0
HV= Heavy Vehicles
7
❑
PHF= Peak hour
Factor (Peak
hour volume / (4*Highest 1S
8
3
Ped Totals:
0
1
5
0Pre
t_3
aged For: Mirai Associates
sboa2-o2
0
SE 192nd St
1 615 1
437
Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Woodinville, WA 98072
Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX: (425) 861-8877
TurninLy Movement Diaeram
x 1953
� 71$6 767
Q
as
0
60 908 218
53
297
87
oe
0
105
88
126
30 1 609 1 130
1 1890 1
Intersection: SE 192nd St @ 108th Ave SE (SR515)
Location: Renton
Date of Count: Thurs 3103105
Peak Period: 4:45 P - 5.45 P
Checked By: CMW
Prepared For: Mirai Associates
769
SE 192nd St
319
V964
645
Check
In: 2711
Out: 2711
%HV
PHF
EB
0.0%
0.87
WB
0.0%
0.87
NB
0.8%
0.93
SB
0.7%
0.92
Intersection
0.5%
0.96
Traffic Count
Consultants, Inc.
Woodinville,
WA 98072
Phone: (425) 861-8866
FAX:
(425)
861-8877
Vehicle Volume Summary
Intersection:
SE 192nd St @ 108th
Ave SE (SR515)
Date
of Count:
Thurs
3/03/OS
Location:
Renton
Checked By:
CMW
Time
From !Forth on (SB)
From South on (NB)
From East on (WB)
From West
on (SB)
Interval
Interval
108th Ave SE (SR 515)
108
Ave SE
(SR 515)
SE 192nd St
SE 192nd St
Total
Endinq at
T7
L
S
R
T
L
S
R
T
L
S
I R
T
L
S
R
4:15 P
2
42
244
12
2
16
158
28
0
45
10
32
0
4
66
11
668
4:30 P
0
34
199
14
2
2
145
42
3
46
15
30
0
9
52
16
600
4.45 P
1
53
224
14
2
13
136
29
0
25
24
25
1
12
60
16
631
5;00 P
2
48
229
17
2
6
163
37
0
33
17
25
0
12
70
27
684
5.15 P
4
49
237
17
1
7
138
26
0
30
19
23
0
14
89
23
672
5 : 3 0 P
0
65
243
16
3
5
161
29
0
28
22
30
0
15
76
19
709
5.45 P
2
56
199
10
0
12
147
38
0
35
30
27
0
12
62
18
646
6:00 P
2
54
216
16
1
9
161
39
1
37
27
28
0
10
69
10
676
6.15 P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6;30 P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6;45 P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7:00 P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
720171
Survey
13
401
1791
112
13
70
1209
266
4
279
164
88
544
14
55286
4.45 P
to
5:45 P
Peak Hour Summary
Total
8
218
908 60
6
30
609 13Q
0
126 88
105
0
53
297
87
2711
A roach
1186
769
319
437
2711
,HV
It
1%
0�
0%
l�k
PHF
0.92
0.93
0.87
0.87
0.96
PEDESTRIANS ACROSS:
North
South
East
West
Intv'l Sum
Interval:
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
2
Legend:
T= Number of heavy
vehicles
(greater than 4
wheels)
3
1
3
1
2
7
L= Left -Turn
4
0
0
1
0
1
S= Straight
5
0
1
0
0
1
R= Right -Turn
6
0
0
0
0
0
HV= Heavy Vehicles
7
0
1
I 1
0 1
2
PHF= Peak hour
Factor
(Peak
hour volume / (4*Highest 1!
6
0
2
1 2
0
4
Ped Totals:
1
8
6
3
16
t1
Prepared
For:
Mirai Associates
b432-11
r
Jr
trC.
evi **
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: S 192nd St & Talbott Rd S 3/9/2005
4e 4--- IQ 4\ fi 4
Lane Configurations,,
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
3
3
2
7
1
114
1
133
12
476
411 9
Peak Hour Factor
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.92
0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
6
6
4
9
1
139
1
149
13
517
447 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1784
1652
452
1662
1650
156
457
163
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1784
1652
452
1652
1650
156
457
163
tC, single (s)
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.6
6.2
4.1
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
p0 queue free %
84
90
99
84
98
84
100
63
cM capacity (veh/h)
38
62
608
52
63
889
1104
1416
�
Volume Total
16
149
164
974
Volume Left
6
9
1
517
Volume Right
4
139
13
10
cS H
61
438
1104
1416
Volume to Capacity
0.26
0.34
0.00
0.37
Queue Length (ft)
23
37
0
43
Control Delay (s)
83.5
17.4
0.1
6.9
Lane LOS
F
C
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
83.5
17.4.
0.1
6.9
Approach LOS
F
C
Average Delay
8.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
73.9%
ICU Level of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
2030 Background -PM Peak
Mirai Associates, Inc.
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: S 192nd St & Talbott Rd S 3/9/2005
Lane Configurations
4
4b
4
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
3
3
2
7
1
116
1
135
12
484
418 9
Peak Hour Factor
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.92
0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
6
6
4
9
1
141
1
152
13
526
454 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft!s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1814
1679
459
1679
1677
158
464
165
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1814
1679
459
1679
1677
158
464
165
tC, single (s)
7.1
6.6
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
4.1
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
p0 queue free %
83
90
99
83
98
84
100
63
cM capacity (veh/h)
36
59
602
49
60
887
1097
1413
a
t
Volume Total
16
151
166
990
Volume Left
6
9
1
526
Volume Right
4
141
13
10
cSH
58
428
1097
1413
Volume to Capacity
0.28
0.35
0.00
0.37
Queue Length (ft)
24
39
0
44
Control Delay (s)
89.4
17.9
0.1
7.0
Lane LOS
F
C
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
89.4
17.9
0.1
7.0
Approach LDS
F
C
Average Delay
8.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
75.0%
ICU Level of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
2030 Background -PM Peak
Mirai Associates, Inc.
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
`b
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: S 192nd St & Talbott Rd S 3/9/2005
Lane Configurations
*
4
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
3
3
2
7
1
120
1
135
12 498
418 9
Peak Hour Factor
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.89
0.89
0.89 0.92
0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
6
6
4
9
1
146
1
152
13 541
454 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1849
1709
459
1710
1707
158
464
165
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
1849
1709
459
1710
1707
158
464
165
tC, single (s)
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
4.1
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.6
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
p0 queue free %
82
89
99
81
98
83
100
62
cM capacity (vehlh)
33
56
602
46
56
887
1097
1413
Volume Total
16
156
166
1005
Volume Left
6
9
1
541
Volume Right
4
146
13
10
cSH
54
420
1097
1413
Volume to Capacity
0.30
0.37
0.00
0.38
Queue Length (ft)
26
42
0
46
Control Delay (s)
97.6
18.6
0.1
7.1
Lane LOS
F
C
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
97.6
18.6
0.1
7.1
Approach LOS
F
C
Average Delay
8.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
76.0%
ICU
Level
of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
2030 Background -PM Peak
Mira! Associates, Inc.
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: S 192nd St & 102nd St 3/9/2005
w.
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
40
452
5
2
115
20
2
0
4
11
0
10
Peak Hour Factor
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph)
44
497
5
2
131
23
8
0
5
15
0
13
Pedestrians
Lane width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
153
502
747
745
499
739
737
142
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
153
502
747
745
499
739
737
142
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
97
100
99
100
99
95
100
99
cM capacity (veh/h)
1427
1062
316
331
571
322
335
906
919-lffftffift&1-2� Erg -z `
.._
Volume Total
646
156
8
28
Volume Left
44
2
3
15
Volume Right
5
23
5
13
cSH
1427
1062
450
464
Volume to Capacity
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.06
Queue Length (ft)
2
0
1
5
Control Delay (s)
0.9
0.1
13.1
13.3
Lane LOS
A
A
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.9
0.1
13.1
13.3
Approach LOS
B
B
Average Delay
1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
47.0%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
2030 Background -PM Peak
Mira! Associates, Inc.
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: S 192nd St & 102nd St 3/9/2005
4- t
41
Lane Configurations,,
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (vehth)
41
460
5
2
117
20 2
0
4
11
0
10
Peak Hour Factor
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.88
0.88
0.88 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
Hourly flaw rate (vph)
45
505
5
2
133
23 3
0
5
15
0
13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft!s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
156
511
761
759
508
753
750
144
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
156
511
761
759
508
753
750
144
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
97
100
99
100
99
95
100
99
cM capacity (veh/h)
1424
1054
.309
325
565
315
329
903
,,....
_ ..
Volume Total
556
158
8.
28
Volume Left
45
2
3
15
Volume Right
5
23
5
13
cSH
1424
1054
443
456
Volume to Capacity
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.06
Queue Length (ft)
2
0
1
5
Control Delay (s)
0.9
0.1
13.3
13.4
Lane LOS
A
A
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.9
0.1
13.3
13.4
Approach LOS
B
B
Average Delay
1.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
47.6°%
ICU
Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
2030 Background -PM Peak
Mira! Associates, Inc.
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
113
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: S 192nd St & 102nd St 3/9/2005
-'V ,-
Lane Configurations
+
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (vehlh)
41
460
19
8
117
20 6
0
12
11
0
10
Peak Hour Factor
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.88
0.88
0.88 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
Hourly flow rate (vph)
45
505
21
9
133
23 8
0
16
15
0
13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
156
526
782
780
516
785
779
144
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
156
526
782
780
516
785
779
144
tC; single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
97
99
97
100
97
95
100
99
cM capacity (veh/h)
1424
1040
298
314
559
292
314
903
6
Volume Total
571
165
24
28
Volume Left
45
9
8
15
Volume Right
21
23
16
13
cS H
1424
1040
433
431
Volume to Capacity
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.06
Queue Length (ft)
2
1
4
5
Control Delay (s)
0.9
0.5
13.8
13.9
Lane LOS
A
A
B
B
Approach May (s)
0.9
0.5
13.8
13.9
Approach LOS
B
B
Average Delay
1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilisation
48.8%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
2030 Background -PM Peak Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Mirai Associates, Inc.
f�
Timings
9: S 192nd St & 108th St
-_1P 4--- 1► �,
Lane Configurations
4,
0
0
Volume (vph)
297
88
30
609
218
908
Turn Type
Prot
Prot
Protected Phases
3
4
1
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
Detector Phases
3
4
1
6
5
2
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Split (s)
8.0
20.0
8.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Total Split (s)
34.0
26.0
8.0
30.0
20.0
42.0
Total Split (%)
30.9%
23.6%
7.3% 27.3%
18.2%
38.2%
Yellow Time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
All -Red Time (s)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Lead/Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
Max
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
30.0
22.0
4.0
26.0
16.0
41.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.27
0.20
0.04
0.24
0.15
0.37
vlc Ratio
1.01
1.01
0.52
0.96
0.92
0.80
Uniform Delay, di
39.9
42.3
54.4
39.7
47.2
31.4
Control Delay
81.7
90.9
80.3
63.0
86.6
36.8
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
81.7
90.9
80.3
63.0
86.6
36.8
LOS
F
F
F
E
F
D
Approach Delay
81.7
90.9
63.6
46.0
Approach LOS
F
F
E
D
Splits and Phases: 9: S 192nd St & 108th St
®1 ■ m2 o3 m4
05 I m6
2030 Background -PM Peak
Mirai Associates, Inc.
3/9/2005
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
M
Timings
9: S 192nd St & 108th St
3/9/2005
__* *-- 4% t #
Lane Configurations
Vi
0
Vi
0
Volume (vph)
302
89
31
619
222
923
Turn Type
Prot
Prot
Protected Phases
3
4
1
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
Detector Phases
3
4
1
6
5
2
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Split (s)
8.0
20.0
8.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Total Split (s)
34.0
26.0
8.0
30.0
20.0
42.0
Total Split (%)
30.9%
23.6%
7.3% 27.3%
18.2%
38.2%
Yellow Time (s)
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
All -Red Time (s)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Lead/Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
Max
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
30.0
22.0
4.0
26.0
16.0
41.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.27
0.20
0.04
0.24
0.15
0.37
vlc Ratio
1.02
1.02
0.53
0.97
0.94
0.81
Uniform Delay, d1
39.9
42.3
54.4
39.9
47.4
31.6
Control Delay
85.5
94.1
81.9
66.0
89.7
37.4
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
85.5
94.1
. 81.9
66.0
89.7
37.4
LOS
F
F
F
E
F
D
Approach Delay
85.5
94.1
66.7
47:0
Approach LOS
F
F
E
D
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.02
Intersection Signal Delay: 64.7 Intersection LOS. E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
spins ana rnases: 9: 5 1 vina St & 1 UUtn St
2030 Background -PM Peak
Mira! Associates, Inc.
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
ItP
Timings
9: S 192nd St & 108th St 3/9/2005
Lane Configurations
0
0
Volume (vph)
307
94
31
619
222
923
Turn Type
Prot
Prot
Protected Phases
3
4
1
6
5
2
Permitted Phases
Detector Phases
3
4
1
6
5
2
Minimum Initial (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Split (s)
8.0
20.0
8.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Total Split (s)
34.0
26.0
8.0
30.0
20.0
42.0
Total Split (%)
30.9% 23.6%
7.3% 27.3%
18.2% 38.2%
Yellow Time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
All -Red Time (s)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Lead/Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead -Lag Optimize?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recall Mode
None
Max
None
Max
Max
Max
Act Effct Green (s)
30.0
22.0
4.0
26.0
16.0
41.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.27
0.20
0.04
0.24
0.15
0.37
v/c Ratio
1.04
1.04
0.53
0.97
0.94
0.81
Uniform Delay, d1
39.9
42.3
54.4
39.9
47.4
31.7
Control Delay
90.1
98,2
81.9
66.0
89.7
37.5
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay
90.1
98.2
81.9
66.0
89.7
37.5
LOS
F
F
F
E
F
D
Approach. Delay
90.1
98.2
66.7
47.1
Approach LOS
F
F
E
D
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length:
110
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.04
Intersection Signal Delay: 66.1
Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity
Utilization
87.9%
ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
and Phases: 9: S 192nd St & 108th St
m11 i 02
2030 Background -PM Peak
Mirai Associates, Inc.
a4
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
t1
V ESSIE GLEN - 43 LOTS/ SW 33-23-05
_IP ............
Lic =cc. KIN6 MUN TY; W.A FEefial Number: 6135 Users: '150,' VefSion:,v..4.7,7:
j al6ndx- MIrPERMITS'PJUS^Start II
4EA144P
M
Thursday, Jan 15, 2009 03:44 PM
User: carlsonj Computer: DE242927 Os: Windows NT Version: 5.1
Core Design, Inc.
14711 N,F 29thPface,Suite 101
CORE
DE Bellevue, Washington98007
425.885.78 77 Fax 425.885.7963
w w.coredesigninc.cam
PRELIMINARY STORM DRAINAGE
CALCULATIONS AND LEVEL I
OFFSITE DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION
Project Manager:
Prepared by:
Date:
Revised:
Core No.:
rXIM
TALBOT RIDGE ESTATES
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
C
EXPIRES 12J141 a
Robert H. Stevens, P.E.
James A. Morin, P.E.
March, 2005
August, 2005
04120
1
f1;1<gle 1 ,)l ENGINEERING - PLANNING - SURVEYING
TALBOT RIDGE ESTATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item page
1. Project Overview..........................................................3
2. Off -Site Analysis..........................................................4
Downstream (Discharge Course) ................................. 4
Downstream (Existing Course) .................................... 5
3. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design.... 9
A -Hydraulic Analysis ............................................... 9
B-Detention Routing Calculations ............................... 12
C-Water Quality Volume Calculation ...........................14
Appendix.....................................................................15
I. Property Information (3 pages)
I1. King County Soils Map (1 pages)
III. FEMA FIRMette (1 page)
IV. King County Complaint Listing (13 pages)
V. KCRTS Data (5 pages)
F'aL„e 2 01' 1 i
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW:
The project site is located south of SE 192ND ST and west of 102ND Ave SE, just outside
the City of Renton city limits in unincorporated King County. Specifically the project is
in the northwest quarter of Section 5, township 23 north, range 5 east, W.M. The site is
bordered by SE 192" d ST on the north, 102ND AVE SE on the east, an existing single
family residence to the south and Plat of High Park Tracts to the west. The King County
tax parcel ID for this property is 0522059045. Note that this project was originally known
as the Sheehan Plat. The property is 4.36 acres in size and is mostly forested. The
property generally slopes downward to the west with the western third of the property as
steep as 4:1. See the vicinity map for the site follows this section. (Figure 1). Also see the
following "King County Aerial Map" for an overall view of the area.
The proposed project divides this property into 27 single family lots with access to these
lots taken from a new roadway perpendicular to 102nd Ave NE about midway in the
property.
This new county road, with curb, gutter and sidewalk, will terminate with a cul-de-sac.
All utility services will access the lots by way of the new road. The storm drainage
detention and water quality facility will be located in the northwest corner of the property
in a storm drainage tract (See Figure 2, Site Plan).
The project was designed using the guidelines and requirements established in the
following references: 2004 King County, Washington, Surface Water Design Manual
(2004 KCSWDM) The site is classified as "Conservation Flow Control" and the
County's "Basic Water Quality Menu".
1'ag ; cif, 1 ti
SITE
VICINITY MAP
APPROXIMATE SCALE N4000'
FIGURE 1
Ir la�jm'
:mow L
WA
jt
law,
soli
SEC. 5, TWP. 23N, RGE 5E., W"M.
Xie.
UNKN41
QKN 8" W 330.91 .; �
LT
S. E.
— . 3i. / — z --------------- -- --- -- � 9 2 N � Q T.
>li . — w -------------- i
' y` "� N 38 WW 391.
----W.--.�_ — r—. —� W ._`_7�— —w - --� L. --_—._------F�—_--.__—_.-- _..----- — Y — `
j y
N8976'07"w 103.19 :
55M-I I
3300
�. 4" L 315.00
12" E 321.10
WIU.G:, 1?" N '14.90 11 ! ! C7 1 ! !
12'SW31475 I �� A
BRIM 325,21'� _��� �,
12" NE 323.E Q t
12" NW 323.1. 1D. j! E
• .�1 .� I..d: '' � � '` w w Sao- �e
o;oI, ii 1
� N
H PN D O
ON ROAD
A
I
ti '4+2P.12 4 `
2 1
r
If
v
! p
� }
V I N88-�7'20,'w 215 76
NBB*'06 W 299.07
— — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — N68'1L39 —
i STONE PILPILLAAR
N
FIGURE 2 'Ei-� , �F=:�, L- [---,
TALBOT RIDGE ESTA TES
14717 NE 29th vlace, 6 , E
SCALE: 1 • : 10' v..hry o,: neaa, DATE MARCH, 2005 SHEET OF
o ss DE5rGNAM
t, pt—
od,
JLar
A �
�,j i 1'S
ji. Vwi
i A
AQ
7 T
III! T TV
� El
hl—
?
kc-
kk
Logm t%
Uv id;
4-0
KA Jr.A
t e5l
UPSTREAM BASIN NIAP,
T4
i
I
I
467 l t ,_ lao C� i
1 ai
�' '� y~+ I i ,I•>, I T � .r a }. ; I 1r� ter` ��f, 5i �� {� a4 :.�I
>A /�i i:-1 s'!/ _ Ir•,} I p' � ^y _.I F� � r. � � J �� 'i 4.fs t -is<r It -, 3} f ,
41
SQLIb {,p4+lin �•
w1 f fi k it t -
C� P i V
(���J�
V T I' - � � �_ ' - a r '�� rv, �l Sri J 1- a t L'S„ �` � iy. 1.-- h �i I � " 4'`i i •^ - L-
-�.
-_�-i ':.k.'':� :: •�- �.�_ �"+.��'.:+ Y � t ' , _.. �.Q � ♦. .... - _........_ ...-.. .-- � :_-_. .. .. _` - _ `+ �9 t� J ,•� �j`� 3 -..-_ .yt�l ,._ _... -- x.- .. .._., t - - ..
rTE
m .
;( I i � j�� r ry' L � I 1� I �•
i Ln 1. i I y t rt^Y I
.,. 3�`toe
wyM.,
cr
ICA
F ',1 F .. f - - -.is t A _ Lea r5•, `y ?%FJ
'T"' !^ , -+r• •� ;I�. - ..-_._.... ..
7S Mi
''.t. � ;;'mil{• t ,._ } ,J 5 j � _ �rJ!! c Sig t;i �. N �' ['a #`"' �-'1
zUi
41
p
:
. ,. -. j . I `xS -.. � ✓ . ;ri ,t:�,t i .F'_ __ � Y '�, rP : �, •.�' �� M _ I _ _ .. . _ _ t .. a y —_ —�1R' _... �'r _ - . _ ....:
-
- a-
... -
IF
IV
I
: 1 -t .�Y • � �I If I �•} lel� Ii.. � f '`�` li � ili1�., ryF � � �ll ��} p. �' :. .I . � - �'' 1 i ..
1 7R J
I r f -
..
6
1'f
LL
CD
Of
Li 0 I I O L,—
Q i
Ir
4.
r
zo
r'"` ..
I
000gdKPGAJa
Luef'pir Sg:ti0:8 SOOZ/EZIZ ,Bmp,IOZLpJnodoj-\ lnS10ZLtiO1VOOZ1:f
2. OFFSITE ANALYSIS:
Upstream Tributary Area
(See "Upstream Basin Map") The property is located near the highest point in the
drainage basin. 102"d AVE SE borders the eastern edge of the property. The low point in
this street coincides with the southeast corner of the project site. There is a 2.1 Ac basin
which sheet flows to a depression on the eastern side of 102" d Ave SE. There was no
defined conveyance system found from this low area and no apparent sign that the storm
water ever overflowed the road here. There is also no indication of any concentrated run
off collecting on the western side of the property. It appears the water infiltrates into the
depression and stays on the east side of the road.
Downstream Analysis (Discharge Course)
Field Investigation
See the Downstream Analysis exhibit to assist in the following discussion.
On February 22nd, 2005 a site visit was conducted. The weather was cool, 45 degrees
and sunny. The week prior to this site visit was moderately dry and cold.
Downstream Analysis (Discharge Course)
The downstream analysis begins at the northwest corner of the property (point 1). This is
where the outfall for the site will be located. The roadside ditch, on the south side of SE
192" J ST, is well defined here and protected from erosion with rip -rip. There are standing
pools of water in the ditch where debris is piled but there is no running water in the ditch
at this point. The open ditch goes from the culvert under the existing driveway to another
pipe before entering a catch basin (point 2). This CB is connected to the next CB on the
north side of the road (point 3). There are a series of CB's, perhaps two that are not
visible and may have been buried because of recent shoulder and driveway construction
along the north edge of the road (point 4). The storm conveyance system does emerge
around the bend of the road and still on the north side (point 5)_ The pipe was partially
11"luc 4 W, 15
buried and covered with debris but looked to be 18-inch. From the end of this pipe the
water enters a deep, rectangular shaped channel approximately 6-feet x 6-feet in size. The
channel appears to be man made and is heavily protected with large rip -rap. The channel
goes through heavy underbrush and emerges from the property on the north side of the
final easterly bend in SE 192"d ST (point 6). At this point the channel, the roadside ditch
on the north side of the road, and a minor cut-off ditch from the north all combine into
one grated catch basin before continuing west along the north side of SE 192°d ST in a
combination of short culverts and open ditch. The ditch is heavily protected with rip -rap
(point 7). Over topping of driveway culverts has happened along here but flow that
remains in the ditch does not appear to be eroding the ditch. This ditch has not been well
maintained and it appears that the overtopping of the driveway culverts and the ditch in
most locations could be minimized by removing the large accumulations of debris in the
ditch and the upstream ends of the culverts. The culverts are full of sediment; therefore it
is difficult to determine the size. They appear to be 18-inch. There is no running water in
the ditch at this point.
This ditch continues west to where it drains to a 24-inch pipe and continues west under
Talbot Rd. The pipe invert is deep, perhaps 4 feet down below the roadway and heavily
protected with riprap. There is no sign that the runoff overtops the road (point 8). This
point is 1/4-mile from the project site. The pipe enters a CB in Talbot Road that has a solid
locking lid. There was no outfall found from this CB. Researching County records will be
needed to determine the exact outfall location (see addendum that follows).
All water within this basin converges about 14-mile further west (point 9) with stream
flow from the south that passes under SE 192"d ST in a 36-inch CMP culvert. The
upstream end of this culvert is partially buried with sediment deposited because of debris
in the end of the pipe. The downstream end forms in a 20-foot diameter pool with the
culvert end hanging about the stream channel by approximately 1-foot. The stream
channel takes a 90-degree bend at this pool and parallels the road until it reaches the SR
167 highway where it continues west in a 48-inch pipe. This point is one mile from the
project site (point 10).
This ends the field investigation on this day.
Noe 5 o l 13
Downstream Analysis (Existing Course)
See the Downstream Analysis exhibit to assist in the following discussion.
On July 26th, 2005 a site visit was conducted. The weather was warm, 85 degrees and
sunny. The week prior to this site visit was moderately dry and warm.
Downstream Analysis (Existing Course)
The downstream analysis begins at the western property boundary (point A). The
drainage sheet flows southwest for approx. 120 ft. across three lots and discharges onto
99th Pl. S. (point B). The flow continues south along the flow line for approximately 150
ft. until it enters a type I catch basin (point Q. The flow continues south through an
existing storm drain system consisting of 12" concrete pipe and type I catch basins for
approximately 440 ft. The pipe enters a type I catch basin on the edge of a cul-de-sac at
the south end of 99'h Pl. S. where there are signs of the flow passing over the top of the
catch basin and flowing down the steep slope into the ravine (point D). The flow
continues south through an SAO landslide area for approximately 75 ft. through a 12"
corrugated metal pipe and discharges via a type II catch basin at the bottom of the ravine
(point E). The flow continues southwest though the SAO landslide area via a stream
channel for approximately 75 ft where it leaves the SAO landslide area and enters an
SAO erosion area (point F). The flow continues west through the SAO erosion area via a
stream channel for approximately 1000 ft. where it connects with another stream and
exits the SAO erosion area (point G). The flow continues northwest along the stream
channel for approximately 200 ft. where it enters a culvert which crosses under Talbot
Rd. S. (point H). The flow continues northwest through the culvert for approximately 200
ft. and discharges west of Talbot Rd. S. (point I). The flow continues northwest for
approximately 350 fl. via a stream channel where it enters the Gallagher property which
has a drainage complaint on file with King County Surface Water Management (point J).
The flow continues north for approximately 150 ft. through the Gallagher property where
it discharges into an SAO wetland (point K). The flow then discharges at the northwest
edge of the wetland (point L) and enters a culvert which discharges on the north side of S.
192°d St. (point M). This point is approximately 0.6 miles from the project site.
This ends the field investigation_
Palle 6 o I' 1
+..1'E: '1/2 6-22-5 f-> 0 5 - 2 2 - �D
-A �50 DZE)
9 N 0-+_, '• ST a _ 'a..+�.. ` � � V _�: ,3P�N r'+- J! J4 . � � �• �. �. �- j' 9 2 M
,.� I �> ..� ems•• f � � f
,� f I 1 NI J
�
i
42 • IO. lenor Sheehan
sire yiq 5 1 S,? 1177007
'T, 3 4l�Ef •4-Burton
#w �j
sAT 4,: 15"6 y r 7 fl: a 0. L burlon 1 T
�� n -: >:,], �3 ?i� ,.966 _J L rxN f � Ord In
1 -. 1.93 Ac.7
- r1 I�L•�.� .�583� r00 f -e���io,��o. -'�-i•.1 :Si !y �l�rZ
- ��77,��� l -IJI-�..._.i'Ly + r`e!
I:-.� �r' 91°97 26
a i4 SSA s•� l ]8 !' l3a, s�`�f '•zy
r� 4 `� 1
' ,�q7 .�: `�xy,. �� f .� F 5 ~ 192 853 9
S. 19 S_ .�_' hf tila 3.1 3�.�6 .PLC.
li.iZ
� � S
a t888 14 _: _' •' 9A' tip i3i �� �l L. �l� i4 R th 1 i6 15 14�
A 1562k .Zp � I- i f i Iti 2� Rob`�
i-
y (Dw
05
N,
j£ !_�O-st�' `\':�� !
93
E53�a .
r.
r 9 s NORTH
erg us R. jv Kean
1026 '?S
9 ti• IOU t,C lid • $ 125 - 156.�7 i s `�-' SG` . 95 13153
5 7 ag Aa I S.P a61072 S.P 880046 ,�����R o i` SCALE. 1"-200' 1r
IUne
e r 1 F p EI.Sei.:. �5 �� ~� • • '-.L','-r.'`-'
fSy 2yP' ?w li'[ i r<'❑ ! t I l ,. �y .x�Sd
DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS
,n .4455 ,� = _` � � �L, EXISTING COURSE
t I ..9.. I s� .�r�"' ;,JS '� `� o.D �`�Q -
'SS Lr,s '\ "�"J- �j�, c;m �•_ i� '� `p j'� _ ifi%$a 1 .9 z.T57 :J ���� y TALBOT RIDGE
CORE PROJECT NO.04120 rl
,44a1
OFF -SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE
Surface Water Design Manual, Care Requirement #2
Basin 04120 Talbot Ridge - Existina Course Subbasin Name: Subbasin Number:
Symbol
ratnage
Component Z ype,
Namc, and Sire
Drainage t
Des nption
Slope
Distance
from site
dischargc
xmn-s
Probktns
P7a'ffial
Problans
Obwvafions or fieldinspector
resource rev"ar, or resident
sec map
ype: sheet Fu w, swr5 e.
st vunt,,.hannel. pipe.
pwid, Size: diameter,
surf ux area
drainage basic, vCgetation, cover,
depth, type of serisitive area, volume
%
N mi " 1,320 t
Con>i CtWnS, U �paetty, � trt$,
ovenWi% Hooding. habitat or orpai.Sln
destruction, scouring, bank sloughing,
sedirmmtation, iocisioo, other erosion
tributury area. likelihood of problem,
overflow pathwuys. potential i n,pact%
site -A
A-B
sheet flow
sheet flow
site discharge
adjacent lots
0'
0'-120'
B-C
C-D
shallow channel
pipe flow
roadway & adjacent property
120'-270'
270'-710'
roadway & adjacent property
D-F
E-F
pipe flow
channel flow
roadway & adjacent property
adjacent property
710'-785'
785'-860'
SAO Landslide Area
SAO Landslide Area
evidence of flow bypassing CB
evidence of scouring
F-G
G-H
channel flow
channel flow
adjacent property
860'-1860'
1860'-2060'
SAO Erosion Area
evidence of scouring
adjacent property
H-1
1-i
pipe flow
channel flow
adjacent property
2060'-2260'
2260'-2610'
adjacent property
J-K
K-L
channel flow
plug flow in wetland
adjacent property
2610'-2760'
2760'-2960'
WLRD Drainage Complaints
SAO Wetland
adjacent property
L-M
pipe flow
adjacent property
2,960'-3,130'
Addendum to Investigation
On March 18'h , a sunny dry day, the manhole at point 8 was revisted to remove the
locked top since City of Renton records where not clear as to the existing conveyance
system. After removing the top a 24-inch pipe entering from the ditch previously
mentioned along with an 18-inch from the north along Talbot Road was found. The
outfall pipe is a 36-inch going west, after taking a bearing on this pipe another locked
CB was discovered about 100 feet west that was covered by dirt and landscaping (point
A) and continues 200 feet west to a CB at point B then 50 feet more to a ditch at point C
on the north side of SE. 192" d ST. The ditch is well defined and continues west to point 9
described in the previous investigation. There is no sign of overtopping or erosion in this
ditch but the ditch is heavily chocked with vegetation between point C and point 9.
It was reconfirmed that this basin does not enter Spring Brook Creek above the fish farm.
This ends the 2" a field investigation.
Resource Review
The site is located within the Duwamish-Green river watershed, which is within the
Black River Drainage Basin. Resources listed in the KCSWDM were reviewed for
existing/potential problems within the study area, i.e. the site and within 1-mile of the site
along the downstream drainage route.
Adopted Basin Plan:
The site is located within WRIA 9.
Basin Reconnaissance ,Summary Reports:
N/a
Critical Drainage Area Maps:
These are not currently available per DDES.
Page. 7 or 1
FEMA Maps:
FEMA map dated May 16, 1995 numbered 53033CO987F was reviewed. The site is not
located within a flood plain. A copy of the FIRMette is included in the Appendix of this
report.
Sensitive Areas Folio:
The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio was reviewed to confirm whether or not the
study area is located within a wetland, stream or flood hazard area, erosion hazard area,
landslide hazard area, or seismic hazard area.
NR Drainage Problems Maps:
N/a
King County Soils Survey:
The soils on site are Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. See Soils Map in the Appendix
Wetlands Inventory Maps:
There are no wetlands on this site.
MigrratinngRiver Studies:
N/a
Page 8 o F 1 ti
3. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND
DESIGN:
A. Hydraulic Analysis
The drainage analysis was modeled using the King County Runoff Time Series software.
The onsite soils are Alderwood (AgC), KCRTS group Till. See soils map included in
Section 2 Offsite Analysis of this report. The site is located in the Sea-Tac rainfall region
with a location scale factor of 1.0.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The total property is 4.36 acres. See Figure 3 — "Existing Site Hydrology"
The property is currently covered by Forest and the "Conservation Flow Control"
standard specifies that the site be modeled in the "Historic Site Conditions" (footnote 49,
page 1-42) as Forested. 0.43 Acres of the site will not be developed.
Total developed area = 4.36 0.43 = 393 Ac
The following landcovers were used to create the predeveloped time series:
EXISTING CONDITIONS
(PREDEV time series)
Total Area = 3.93 acres
GROUND COVER
AREA(acre)
Till Forest
3.93
Impervious
0.00
'age 1) o f- 15
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File: rp edev.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates ---
Flow Rate
Rank Time of Peak
(CFS)
0.250
2 2/09/0118:00
0.068
7 1/06/02 3:00
0.185
4 2/28/03 3:00
0.006
8 3/24/04 20:00
0.110
6 1/05/05 8:00
0.192
3 1 / 18/06 21.00
0.162
5 11/24/06 4:00
0.319
1 1 /09/08 9:00
Computed
Peaks
---Flow Frequency Analysis-------
- - Peaks - -
Rank
Return Prob
(CFS)
Period
0.319
1 100.00
0.990
0.250
2 25.00
0.960
0.192
3 10.00
0.900
0.185
4 5.00
0.800
0.162
5 3.00
0.667
0.110
6 2.00
0.500
0.068
7 1.30
0.231
0.006
8 1.10
0.091
0.296
50.00
0.980
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
The developed site will consist of 27 single-family residences with associated roadway
and utility improvements. The storm water runoff will be directed to a wetvault that will
be located in the northwest corner of the property. Drainage discharging from the
wetvault will be tight -lined down the slope to the existing ditch.
Impervious Area
Calculation
Total Site + Frontage = 4.36 Ac, Total developed area
4.36 - 0.43 = 3.93 Ac
Area
Size SF
(Ae)
Measured
Impervious
Area
SF(Ac)
Grass Area
SF (Ac)
Forested Area
SF (Ac)
Undeveloped Area
18,900
(0.43)
Frontage
8,500
5,890
2,610
0
Tract A
2,800
2,200
600
0
Tract B
3,520
2,900
620
0
Tract C
800
800
0
0
Right of Way
19,700
17,390
2,310
0
Storm Tract
20,900
15,000
5,900
0
Totals
56,220
(1.29)
44,180(1.01)
12,040(0.28)
0
Lots (4.36-1.29-0.43) =
2.64 Ac
114,998
(2.64)
60% Impervious =
(1.58)
(1.06)
Total
(3.93)
(2.59)
(1.34)
(0.00)
Page 10 ol' 15
The following landcovers were used for generating time series and flow frequencies.
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
(DEV time series)
Total Area = 3.93 acres
GROUND COVER
AREA(acre)
Till -Grass (Landscaping)
1.34
Impervious
2.59
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series Fiie:dev.tsf
Project Location: Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates ---
Flow Rate
Rank Time of Peak
(CFS)
0.748
6 2/09/01 2:00
0.614
8 1/05/0216:00
0.898
3 2/27/03 7:00
0.670
7 8/26/04 2:00
0.805
4 10/28/0416:00
0.794
5 1/18/0616:00
0.975
2 10/26/06 0:00
1.51
1 1/09/08 6:00
Computed
Peaks
Individual Lot BMPs
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
- - Peaks - -
Rank Return
Prob
(CFS)
Period
1.51
1
100.00
0990
0975
2
25.00
0960
0.898
3
10.00
0900
0.805
4
5.00
0.800
0.794
5
3.00
0.667
0.748
6
2.00
0.500
0.670
7
1.30
0.231
0.614
8
1.10
0.091
1.33
50.00
0.980
See Figure 5.2.1.A "Flow Chart for Determining Individual Lot BMP Requirements"
Page 5-11, KCSWDM 1998.
This site is greater then 22,000 SF. Impervious surface is greater then 45% (2.59/4.36 =
59%). It is NOT feasible to implement full dispersion on ALL target surfaces.
Determine Impervious area on the smaller of
20% of the site = 0.20 x 4.36 = 0.87 ac
40% of the target impervious area = 0.40 x 2.59 = 1.03 ac
Select: 0.87 ac
Therefore basic dispersion will be used (on 0.87 ac) and individual splash blocks
selected. The 27 lots cover 2.64 acres which is 0.0978 acres per lot_ 60% of the lot area is
impervious which is 0.60 x 0.0978 = 0.0587 ac. Which means 15 lots will be required to
have splash blocks (0.81 / 0.0587 = 14.8).
11atre i 1 of t 6
B. Detention Routing Calculations
This area must comply with the "Conservation Flow Control" standard per the Flow
Control Applications Map created by the County and included in the jacket of the 2004
KCSWD manual. This standard requires the project detention facility to match (within
10%) the predeveloped frequency and duration from 1/2 the 2-year up to the 50-year event
while maintaining the 2 and 10 year predeveloped release rates. We have selected a
detention vault to best meet the space and detention requirements for this site.
The vault (pvault.rdf) was sized based on the 2004 KCSWDM standards and modeled
with the Counties KCRTS Computer Software. A 60-foot x 100-foot vault was modeled
and it was determined that the water depth would be 8.7-feet deep. Routing the developed
timeseries though a vault this size will meet the required Conservation Flow Control
Standard.
Retention/Detention Facility
Type of Facility
Facility Length:
Facility width:
Facility Area:
Effective Storage Depth:
Stage 0 Elevation:
Storage Volume:
Riser Head:
Riser Diameter:
Number of orifices:
Orifice #
1
2
Checking Release Rate:
Detention Vault
60.00 ft
100.00 ft
6000. sq. ft
8.70 ft
360.00 ft
52200. cu. Ft <-Volume Required
8.70 ft
12.00 inches
2
Full Head
Height Diameter Discharge
(ft) (in) (CFS)
0.00 0.90 0.066
6.00 1.90 0.167
Pipe
Diameter
(in)
4.0
Predeveloped
Developed
2-year Event
0.11 cfs
0.05 cfs
10-year Event
0.19 cfs
0.19 cfs
PiLl"C 12 (if 15
Checking Frequency -Duration:
Rdout is the time series created by the program for the vault release. This comparison
confirms the vault meets the required King County standard within 10% positive
excursion and less then or equal to % the 2-year event.
Duration Comparison Anaylsis
Base File: predev_tsf
New File: rdout.tsf
Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS
-----Fraction of Time -----
---------Check of Tolerance
-------
CutoffBase
New
96Change
Probability
Base
New
Khange
0.056
0.91E-02
0.40E-02
-55.8
0.91E-02
0.056
0.051
_r
-5.3 V
0.062
0.76E-02
0.36E-02
-52.7
i 0.76E-02
0.062
0.052
-6.2
0.068
0.64E-02
0.33E-02
-49.4
I 0.64E-02
0.068
0.052
-23.2
0.075 I
0.58E-02
0.31E-02
-45.9
0.58E-02
0.075
0.053
-28.8
0.081 I
0.52E-02
0.30E-02
-42.2
0.52E--02
0.081
0.054
-33.8
0.087 I
0.47E-02
0.30E-02
-37.4
0.47E-02
0.087
0.054
-38.2
0.093
0.42E-02
0.28E-02
-33.2
0.42E-02
0.093
0.054
-41.8
0.100
0.37E-02
4.26E-02
-29.6
0.37E-02
0.100
0.059
-40.6
0.106
0.33E-02
0.23E-02
-29.7
0.33E-02
0.106
0.068
-35.9
0.112
0.30E-02
0.21E-02
-29.1
I 0.30E-02
0.112
0.084
-25.2
0.118
0.27E-02
0.19E-02
-29.3
0.27E-02
0.118
0.098
-17.2
0.125 I
0.24E-02
0.18E-02
-25.3
0.24E-02
0.125
0.105
-15.9
0.131
0.22E-02
0.17E-02
-21.2
0.22E-02
0.131
0.111
-15.0
0.137 I
0.18E-02
0.16E-02
-11.0
0.18E-02
0.137
0.125
-9.1
0.144
0.15E-02
0.14E-02
-6.5
I 0.15E-02
0.144
0.139
-3.1
0.150
0.13E-02
0.13E-02
0.0
0.13E-02
0.150
0.150
0.0
0.156 I
0.11E-02
0.11E-02
0.0
0.11E-02
0.156
0.156
0.0
0.162 '
0.86E-03
0,10E-02
17.0
0.86E-03
0.162
0.168
3.5
0.16.9 I
0.77E-03
0.85E-03
10.6
0.77E-03
0.169
0.173
2.3
0.175
0.62E-03
D.65E-03
5.3
I 0.62E-03
0.175
0.176
0.4
0.181 I
0.51E--03
0.46E-03
-9.7
I 0.51E-03
0.181
0.179
-1.1
0.188
0.36E-03
0.36E-03
0.0
0.36E-03
0.168
0.188
0.0
0.194
0.29E-03
0.23E-03
-22.2
0.29E-03
0.194
0.190
-1.7
0.200
0.26E-03
0.18E-03
-31.2
0.26E-03
0.200
0.191
-4.3
0.206 '
0.21E-03
0.11E-03
-46.2
0.21E-03
0.206
0.196
-4.9
0.213
0.18E-03
0.49E-04
-72.7
0.18E-03
0.213
0.200
-5.7
0.219 I
0.16E-03
0.00E+00
-100.0
0.16E-03
0.219
0.201
-8.1
0.225 I
O.15E-03
0.00E+DO
-100.0
0.15E-03
0.225
0.204
-9.4
0.231 !
0.13E-03
0.00E+00
-10o,0
0.13E-03
0.231
0.206
-11.2
0.238 i
0.82E-04
0.00E+00
-100.0
0.82E-04
0.238
0.212
-10.9
0.244
0.33E-04
0.00E+00
-100.0
0.33E-04
0.244
0.215
-12.1
Maximum positive excursion = o.o06 cfs ( 3.6%)q
occuring at 0.163 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf
and at 0.169 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf
Maximum negative excursion = O.D40 cfs (-42.4%)
occuring at 0.095 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf
and at 0.055 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf
See the Appendix of this report for the full listing from the KCRTS Model.
Pagc 1 of 15
C. Water Quality Volume Calculations
This area must comply with the "Basic Water Quality Menu" standard per the Water
Quality Delineation Map created by the County and included in the jacket of the 2004
KCSWD manual. This standard requires a number of water quality options listed in the
County's Basic Water Quality Menu. For this project, a wetvault has been selected to
meet this standard. Therefore a permanent water volume (dead storage), stored below the
live detention volume, will be used. The required volume of dead storage will be
designed per KCSWDM Section 6.4.1.1. The following variables were used in the
calculation:
Volume Factor (0 = 3
Rainfall = 0.039 feet
Area = developed basin tributary to wetvault
Where Ai = area of impervious surface (sf)
Atg = area of till soil covered with grass (sf)
Atf= area of till soil covered with forest (sf)
Ao — area of outwash soil covered with grass or forest (sf)
Min. allowable water depth for Water Quality = 3 feet
Vr = [0.9A; + 0.25At9 + 0.lAtf+ O.OlAJ x (R)
Vr = [(0.9)(112,820) + (0.25)(58,370)] x 0.039
Vr-- [(101,538) + (14,592)] x 0.039 = 4,529 CF
Vb = rVr = 3(4,529) = 13,583 CF Required
60'x 100' x 3.0' = 18,000 CF Provided
Nave 14 of 15
APPENDIX
I. Property Information (3 pages)
II. King County Soils Map (1 pages)
III. FEMA FIRMette (1 page)
IV. King County Complaint Listing (13 pages)
V. KCRTS Data (5 pages)
Pa�c l� �rt� 1ti
King County: Districts and Development Conditions Report
Page 1 of 2
`) King County r .. P 1021 MIN
PARCEL REPORT
Districts and Development
Conditions
for Parcel number: 0522059045
Administrative DN&Icts and Areas
Address
Jurisdiction
King County
Zipoode
l(Ing County Council District
(2(*)4-•2(D5 Districting Committee)
Council District:5
Council Member: Dwight Pelt
Prone: (200) 2W1005
Web site
School District
415
Fire District
0037
Water District
None
Sewer District
None
Water and Sewer District
SCWS
Water Service Planning Area
Soos Crook Water and Sewer District
Mucldeshoot Indian Reservation
I No
Planning Deslanations
King County Zoning
R4s-W
Comprehensive Plan land Use
gb
Urban Growth Area
Urban
Comrnunity Planning Area
Soo* Crook
Unincorporated Area 0(mincil
None
P-Suffix Cot iditions
None
Kroll Map Page
604
Thomas Guide Map Page
6W
Agricultural Production District
No
Forest Production District
No
Roads MPS Zone
30
T'mnsporlation Concurrency Zone
M
lifp://www5.metrokc.govhWrts/di reporLasp?PIN=0522059045
3, E.
3/17/2005
King County: Districts and Development Conditions Report
Page 2 of 2
Environmental Areas
Drainage Basin
Black River
Watershed Name
Duwamish - Green River
WRIA Name
Duwamish-Green
WRIA Number
9
We0and
None mapped
100-Year Flood Plain
None mapped
Coal Mine Hazards
None mapped
Erosion Hazards
None mapped
Landslide Hazards
None mapped
Seismic Hazards
None mapped
t 1*8 Permitting tntotma*i )
4,bwnjof Property Charalctesistk.�
Zoom to Parcel - IMAP (High Speed Internet Connection)
Zoom to Parcel - Parcel Viewer (Aft Internet Connections)
The Information Included an this report has been complied by lGng County staff from a variety of souross and Is
subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to
accuracy, oompiesruese, thneliness, or rights to the use of such Information. King County shall not be Aable for arty
general, special, indirect, incldental, or consequential damages kKKKIng, but not HnAed to, lost revenues or kilt
profits resulting horn the use or misuse of the Information contained on this report. Any sale of this report or
Information on this report Is prohibited except by written permission of King County.
This report was generated: 3/17/2005 1:31:00 PM
Enter a 10 digit Parcel Number.
or Enter an address:
search
Ding County I GIS Center 1 News j Services I Comments I Search
By visiting this and other King County web pages,
you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the she,
rho dotalls
hq://www5.metroke.gov/reporWdd--report.up?PM=:0522059045
3/17/2005
King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report
CP
Page I of 2
King County
By law this Information may not be used for commercial purposes.
Taxpayer SHEEHAN NANCY Parcel Number 0522059045
Account Number 052205904502
Tax Year 2004 Levy Code 5092
Tax Status TAXABLE Taxable Value Reason NONE OR
UNKNOWN
Appraised Land Value
$297,000
ITaxable Land Value
$207,000
Appraised Improvement
Value j
$0 ITaxable
Improvement Value
10
Taxpayer SHEEHAN NANCY
Tax Year 2005
Tax Status TAXABLE
Parcel Number 0522059045
Account Number 1352205904502
Levy Code 5002
Taxable Value Reason NONE OR
UNKNOWN
Appraised Land Value —
$297,000
ITaxable Land Value
$207,000
Appraised Improvement
Value
]Taxable
Improvement Value
$0
I
Tip., Use the Reorders Offk*,. Excise Tax Affiftvift Repotl
to see more sales records details
Sale Date
2/1 MAM
ISale, Price
Seller Name
_j$1,600,000
SHEEHAN STEPHEN
Buyer Name
JWO LLC
Sale Date
1111212=
I Sale Price
1$0
Seller Name
SHEEHAN SARAH
Buyer Name
SHEEHAN NANCY ET AL
Sale Date
7MVIUS
I Sale Price
1$0
Seller Name
SHEEHAN SARAH
Buyer Name
LOBRUCH INC
District Name KING COUNTY
lProperty Name Property
I RESIDENTIAL]
Plat Name
Present I Vac eM
http:/Iwww5.metrokc.govhr,porWproperty_,reportasp?plN=o522o5go45
3/17n)ow
• ' • . 93
IL s, r
�`., ;'.f � •. 11941
� 1 F� i 1•} _�'Y` ���� •� ��
Ar #� + • .r�• • +
32
AU
Mt
TTTTE � • i
Tda. •, .... _ ••: 06
•ar• J �* F tie
It
IN
_ •�.. � `' Via•-
Bkl 1 r >a * •• . wr i
9
to lit 1 `�
tLic•..w • ••-
.VTT- ^•T �F'ML. g• •� M1.. '
$ ..w 'aris
'
e axis: � • � yi., i li r. .
t • I - �..• a' i
q•� ass �W .> ,. .' a•
CITY OF RENTON
530088
NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN
TOWNSHIP 22 NOUN, RANGE 5 EAST AND TOWNSHIP 33 NOVH,
RANGE 5 EAST.
W
0
CL
0
U
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN PEEP
5w 0 500
wmmmmwPManal
FIRM
R988 1NfIME DATE MAP
E NG COUNTY,
WASENGTON AND
INC ORPORATED AT"
PMWIFM
jiEE IMP RM= FOR PANELS NOT PRMrEM
I
V NI>A�1 PAIR YJFPCC
NW MY OF Raw lou F
*��7` �,-E N�G/y�CiOUNTY �+ — "` ' MAM- � ~ ow F
ZlI l\AA� �.ORMR TM ��7 N�IIOIL WY or NAOPI Aw F
w 530071
Ix M
U�
a
t7
z
c a 52 . MI► NIIINER
w Is,, =
CI
T1Ms M M at1�tY oeo!► M r ptxEon of tlr �noN ��oed ttooa RUFF s
� �chtiet�d wM�O FaNIT OMtina 7hle +eop does rat RIIeCt NunOee
ar an owhnwft Mid wM hm Loon "oft elbee}pmt to the dM on the
tttfe lMoek For 4u Feet ptednot kinnvAen m6MM P1dMW Rood uwu m
F�avan toed meoe etnek Me FFJdA Flood Mop �Ywe et wnyr mee l m wac
Map Output
Page 1 of 1
King County M=w L =1 1 2 =1 W-'
+
�Je S jvwl ta:j louj:."
L7j] 1-11 91 Jj & j
SO.N Njv I L�jj 11ji-ji,
11-:0-tzill
ISM ftba! di-1, a .81 ji 14m4k
WAP -
tA,
! ,, r 4Anlif!,
'ILA
eit 0.1 J99
J.
4ZA0 1 J*L
L41MMnd
I -Air,
13TIJ Lk4jv
infOrM01" MUOW on We Map ASS been oompiled by King County staft from a variety of sources and is aL*W to chongIe without notice.
i County makes no representations or warrantiss, wqmm or holed, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such
madw. King County shall not be liable for any general, WwIW, Incireort, Incidental. or oonoequenM damages; Inducing, but not limited to,
revenues or lost profits resulting ftm the use or misuse of the Information owftMed on this map. Any *We of this map or information on
By visiting this and other King County web pages, you w9r6sdy agree to be bound by terms and oondiflons of the zfte. Me details
httn://www5.metroke.gov/servlet/comesri.esfimapEsfimap?SeniceName=overview&Clie... 2/22f"5
COMMENTS ON DOWNSTREAM COMPLAINT LIST:
The following downstream complaint list is a comprehensive list of complaints filed with
the King County. '
Note that none of the complaints are directly adjacent to the property and that the
proposed discharge point for this project is into the ditch along the north side of SE 192 d
ST, which has no recorded downstream complaints.
3
FEB .23.2005 3.02PM KING CO. WO N0.0977
�l .UNO COuMrt WAI% BAWD I,AND RMOURGYS DxMox
DRAjNAGE NBTIGATim RxpoRT
` vAn0N RIF-Quvzr
,ji
P. 9/12
5 Ate'"'
Recef ved from:
(ay) (EVe)
ADDRESS:PG S City , 5tata Zip
LOCA'€ xw OF Pizom Et w DIFFERENT:
Accrsx Permiolon Granted ❑ Call P"r (Would Lilco To Ha ft as )
't/re5►til ill �, . ''rt 4 / JV R6e1Jw P 04 4-"
Plat name'-.C,[,• / —,5CJ Lot No: Block No:
Cdm envies invo ed. ' 'NQ f1614 ' required
t/a S T R Patel No. Y0031 . Th.Bros: New
RDP Basin. � Cotes District ;. _ City_ Charge No.
RESMNSE: C d= notified on by: lie lettear ____, in pmm _
Agri
WA Alt
Lz
to on by OR. No � twcdon. rbcommeaded because:
Lead agmoy has been notified:
Problem has been eomwted_ No problem bas been idenfifie& Prior i nveadgedon add€esses problem:
SWE Fez #
Private Problem •- NDAP will not oonsider becwm;
'4Vatar ori�tes onsite ate] r M-rgbbonng pared
.-.— (Specify').
DATE CI,b►9ED: - By:._
-1Srt] spov'& cam/ NrAON
s -
FEB. 23. 240 3 2P ..,KIN CO. W36�,•,:�,:. • .� _r,;L,,.;,. :� ��: ;NO. 0�77w�0/144,'i.�•.WdY'�i'.; r; �
J
a nuuni IWO==
Water and Land Re"Urce Divlsko ]HONE 2Q -852.W74 rsPeca
08
RAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT �aa�x.ret� - fiA - Max 5- 3
FIELD INVESTIGATION NUM.D1�ON n UTAIS-w
DETAUS OF DMEMGAUUM:
U
Ske ,kdsk with Harry Trapp on 5-"3. There Is some erosion on the steep bmk to the East of 981' PL.. S. Wivate row
and he would like some technical assistance. The arosion is caused by a break in a 4" ADS pipe apprmftetely Z(?
above the road In the bank The origin of this pipe Is not icnmn. Harry plans on connetr% the pipe to the interceptor
drain he 1ndmk4 behind the curia a few years ago because the`do nstream end of 4" ADS Is pkmed with sediment
due to minimal grade. This will eliminate the eroslon issue.
Harry Would also like asWstmiae Wdh the folkowV4
(1) is Tract V part of NGPF-? AcoordkV to the RgcordW Plat document, only the southernmost 29 of Tract'C' is
part of the NGPE.
(2) Can the H.O.A. rawy+e fhe bladcbarries from Tract 'C' and reptaoe with outer plaiAngs, to mini nee erosion? Conlad
Jim BaUeber at King County (ZW2954MM to determine rTa pemA is regpimd. Jim may also be We to help with the
type of plantings best suited for hillside eroWon control.
M is $. t 92d ST. Renton CL or is R maintained by KC? S.19Z d ST is wltitht Renton•CL and is rrrinfakwi by Renton.
(4) Can they replace Blackberries with other plantings in tho city of Renton's easement on KC properly? Contact Bernard
ThQrrq)son at King County (2W298-7456) to apply 1br a pem4L
ME
!
s _ r
ap I t9223
r
i
!
r
k
Tract `C'
ti
1
r
1
umk in p4*
FEG.23.2005
3:01PM KING CO, WLRD NO, 0977
siNG CuurxT w*ir".AND LAND fts+4xTR= DIYmoiN
DRAINAGE INVESTiGAMN REPORT
rntvEs OA:n(W l E&MST
13LEM: pie-&
Elvin 8Y_ 14Aw ,-a
3
V V�
Rec6ived tom.-
jj (ay) (Z52 } (Eye)
N.�: 1 [l* f7g e PHq 7- - i 5
LOCA"i•ICiN OF FROBURK IF DIFFERBNr.
Arcers Permxssiun [,rmxtedA0 ❑ Call First (Would L� To 'Be Rra�et}
f -4-s
416
-� � L�1 � S Cra v� ,.S�,r7J �� Sri �•�-. q�r S � Cc nr � ��' y'"'�
P'- foam- -r" to" -,, j
Plat ram: Q,(j-r.. Lot No: Block No:
Other agencies involved: No -field xn 'on usred
J4 S T R PaCt1 NoUmwo Droll Th.Bros: New C 3
RDP Basin _ Council DisWot _ City Charge No. - -
-! Ar to ' ' t f ma`s'
DrsPosmoN; Turned to on -_I � _ _ by OR No fi rffiw action recommended because:
Lead agency bos beennotffted_
Problem has been conncbtd No groblctn has bcm xkattfie4L _ - - Prior inveshpiion addresses problem
Private probIcm - NDAP will not consider bacauac: ' SEE FEE #
Wad originates ansita :ndlor on ne%&bori parcel.
(SPAY):
DATE CLOSI D: 03
/,vim t
{
FEB. 23, 200 3:42PM K?NG �0. WLMD w : � . 0977- P. 8i12 _.
w... -�.
1 j
PBX NO.: 20113.0194
ACING COUNTYNAW: raY.x�gn
ADDRESS: 1934199 Place South, City of
W XVVF�ZTGATION REPORT
FULD HiVF LIGATION
. . i
PHONE: (253) sax 4705
DATE OF INVESTIGA'TTON: o;; O&03
D,nTS'TIGATED BY: VirsOPacampatrat
I wag to the site on 3N5M3 st 7:30 AM to imeMpte au inquiry Ann a pwpcayto ties &Wh afMm Fmd that has a Fac&y Pond 'The
received notification tit s. f = eras to be conrtxacbed atong their pn4mity ]me * i mm vm aon6 m*od soal►o distance Am the pmpertv I
They am wankft ifq&Woa1 knee v M be trilled.
Imrang23ian shay M that the p ubnew *= was bLAs Led at The City efRoman W It vu a 9"ea of #tee City cf Renton for seen
wound the vW 41 - 11 am It is an 9-9 foot b%b dbata Ikk f , I'm Pmjed Mmmpr of is Mr. Ride M uhm IU nodEcdion left
c=e 5om an City of Rots They each W1 the open am within CU waband
I spot to Mm about the op" of Mrs. Fne& He told. me 6W they we dwe month the womt and ft finm wu installed at the mgbW bm
wkich is located sr the downg ream not Ae mpareML AccmdWS to idm dwy abandooed t}te ptm 4*iasbftg the feeaae nod to fm ptaga v
Mr. Freed due to same bumoday dispute quad liti$gtion's wiotb atbs as ac+ent pro¢etty at am NE W& of then wateahcd.
I xc(mrad Mrs. )Finad to hma pax his p =isdm
f �
PL Sm i
DIM
� � f
i
I !
Resldeatial Eta ses � �_, .^ .__ _,r.,.r. ge Ave. BE
19 i Freud _ 4194�14 !
-•s.,. ... .... a.. ... a..
P owly iafs1%d A = f" .
.. e• ••a■■•r• LJ K r. •e *■•..\.•\.u.a..ur..•.ra •wa
.■\+•a\\ .ram■�� ! ••ra i..■.\ i
fir\�■1■ • +. i■
w
�m....�.yT :..r +�+: • yr•:.■•.w... i.."r�tiaaf J-su4 Pm*g •.
rCmorb= %con i r •
SUMVE
a ■ •
• a •
4 � •
■ ■ i
'\\r\ti t■+i■+a � �
1` � M[ 41
JER. 23. 2005 3:OOPM KING CO. WLRC ' NO. 097,
XMG COUNTY WAII AND i.r,AWJD )RESOURtTS DIVIRON
DRAINAGE 1N RsnGATxoN REpoRT
rNVEMCAMIkEQUM
lzEM: D/2.41+wA <�g- -
L.
Z7
P. 3/12.
M
Received from:
er*J S LT7. -5 r 19
pay) ) (Eve) f
—NAME-- ,— 6 K PHONE Z 3 a ?�,3 /
ADDMS: r . ,:, .:3 S d . Z21fe�V D St-t'--kM Zip eS
LOCATION OF PROBLEM, IF DIF€ERENI':
Accas Permrssian Granted 0 Call First (Would Lim To Be ftww)
Plat none: Lot No: Block No:
E,
F1
R
RDP Basin Council Disl,rict _ _ [',�isrge No.
RESPONSE. C91= notified on A by:. .,phone letter in pmon
J, 11�4 ►rL do A-J 4%%. L WISSA61E OL.c.+S tfZC: C' irS
(
DIsPOSI,'i'ION: Twrned to on _ - I L by OR No father action reoon=mded because:
Lod agency has been motifed:-___�
Problem hu been oonveted. _ No problem has been identified. _ Pdor-investigafton addresses problem:
~ % PEES R =
Private problem - ND,AP will not com-sideC because.
Water ordinates onsite acid or on neighboring parcel.
0tber (Specify).
DATE CLOSED: _ 1?71 By-
e
FEB.23.2005 2:59PM KING CO. UID NO.0977 P. 2/12
Flo No,
NAIVE
Gain
AWWMW
Problem
Type
C-04 Ito a .111.1 e
STATUS MUM
In►regti�aiaf _;-' �r�,E, FD.._INV
- 40A9l�NTS
Goeed Date DIW09 tion RWYMM T5 TRP To
TaScreener I]afiegtteetseci
g000
- IK
/
M.,,I-O-FEB, 23, 2005
3 : 0 3i.KING CO. WLU� 0 � � �
NG Cowry wA rzR AND LAMA RESOURcu Dimxorf
DRAINAGE YNVEsnGATrm REPORT
/_ nW&MGAMONREQUWT
P. 11%12..-...d.�.
�rw
Type 20—<
Received from:
�) -' �.)
NAME: j U zc 67 &ZiWAAJDL= PHom r Y,4
ADDRESS: N Z 5 City Sta#c /� Zip � �Ss
LDCAnoN oP P oum4, w DPI':
Access Pe,rmftdax Granted[] Call First (woWd Lie To Be i'xen A)
FA
0&/,
Plat name:
-� S T R
i.3Lot No: $lo ak No:
RDP Basin C= ail Dis r -- City Chafe No.
REOWW: Cites notified on by. phone in pemm
1044,
10 A-7 (,ter 4541 &.4 1 � yr � '] S JW�' i �v? S .Q rt/� •
DIS POS1[7 ON: e(di to _ on I b , _ a . OR- No firma action reoormme nded bccausm
—Lead agency has beam nctificd:
Problems hu be= camded- No problem ha been wed. Prior investigation addtmmm problem:
SnFMI#
Pnvaw problem - NDAP will not consider because: .
W'ater orl&atea Mate and/or t o neighboxing parvcL
_Qther (Specie ).
DACE CWR D: 12 -It 3 By.. -
1� PD V, 06
FEB .21 20056' 3:G PM "-KING CO. WL!
KING COUNTY
W rtm of TTa Rrsom=s
Water and Land Resource Division
DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT
FIELD INVI~STI AMON
ZORTARS OF EMMCIMM.,
O.0973 P. 12/1
PHONE 269 TRPA¢E E
R$oLL PACE DAi& 1 a
NAM. IMMON — 4 - nUTUM - 5e8
On site 10-10-03 to investigate repot of Vege<tatlon-`eyesoW at Talbot Estates feci14 #D92539.
Facility appears to pe functioning properiy and In good shape. All vegetation appears to be kept in
good order ecept for a small amount of vegetation growkV in the gravel access road. This facility hes
a S.U.P. for the H.O A to maintain the vogetation within tract A.
MEL 1
S. 1 94th ST
Lot 4 t
\ /
Lot 1
I � 1 �12 i
Lot 3 Lot 2 ►
I
f It
1
Cr
X
0
ca
M
F JEB. 212005 3:00PM KING CO. WL R9 NO. 0977 P, 5 12
K WG COUNTY WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DIVISION. A
DRAINAGE.INwsnGATioN RiEpow
nvvss�r&r�toN Rr�t;,r�sr Type
)arrM: '
&LU
v sfr: Dow 1 kl Ordbw. P No. 2003
Received from:
(Day) (Eve)
NAME: 14LY�ilf-mil--ys
ADDRESS:? o J�2.,f n " S? ` City State��p �S
LOCA CiDN OF PR ORUML IF Dom:
Access Permissiafi Granted ❑ Cadl First (Wound lAm To Be Puscw) ;0 0 -- � p ;fin
�/lJl�ll�JiG'r-' '�``f��6�i �r-]��-ltJ i'r /� 9..1`"�r✓� ��` /i�SuTi���;
Plat name;
'/4 S
!�`,r*-T��✓�,,r-- �o✓.•-lam q!� TIC
�.CJ��*-.1�. �-?-,r� cam• � .�.�'i'" �,� c,
Lot No: Block Na:
. T P, Patcei N64-4,? d MZIL5 Kro,U ,X— Th.Bros: New r
RDP` Basin, Co mcfl Distriot City ChargeNo.
.B SPONSnr Citizen notified on Z _ by: 72C— phe letter m person
Dsspostr m Turned to on 1 1I
OR No Miter action recommended becmm-
Lead agency has been notified C t ` - * E � .-_ R
Problem has been corroded. No problem has men identifiod. ,� � Prior invostigation addresses problem:
.SERFAZ#
Private problem - NDAP will not consider bwnse:
Water originates onsite andlor on nexobmi g parcel-
Other (Spocify).
DATE CLOSED: / By.
TT pe
f
_:�►i��:� ArI..FEB, 23, 20051 3:00P "KING CO. W�F�ti �•pi ::... lF, .4/12i--.
Complaint 2W2-0207 Kozhenevsky '
Investigated by Audrew McD onald on March 19, 2002
I attempted to mare contact with complainant, Alex Kozhenevsky, but I ww unable to reach him
of t cr leaving several messager on his call phone voice mail. 1 visited the site as noted above and
took photographs of the site. The site sits adjacent to a wetland and was reviewed under DDFS
building permit number B96R0578. The site was reviewed fat both wetland and drainage
cons on site. Watiand conditions iueludcd a notice on title for the set aside ofwedands on
the property to be maiaiamed as native growth per the SAO. The general area bas been, the
R*jdct of previous groundwater complair" Complainant's MT r•y sits at the bottom of the hill
on the west side of Talbot RD S. The building pae for the re9dence sits gTww imstcly ten feet
below the road grade for Talbot RD S. The yard srnrozmdt the residence while landscaped
with plantings and grass lawns has many varxetiesofRu3bw growing on site where lawn has
given way to wet saturated soils, Seeps and sings flow fivm tho eastern side of lot and flow
towards the wetlands behind the residence and detached garage on site. Water is also flowing
hmm cracked areas of stucco walls surroundutg the stay Je hn g to tbo ftvm =ftxe of the
midence. The eastern yard of the property is highly saft mted and woWd need to have
interceptor Wmehes placed and discharged tb wetlands rvpdring the cowpWnant to contact
y DDRS regarding woridng within the SAO buffer -
SE i92nd ST
�4
f
FEB. 23. 2005. 3;01P KIH CO. WLR)=� -,�.:- �„ N0. 0977 P. 6 12 `
.��:�,--= M�4�i�:r�.A::...r3�r�drii.+�na.ccraar�,
Complaint 2003-0011 Kozhenevsky ;
Invesdgated•by Aud ew McDonald on Jamxz�y 9, 2003
Visited site and mct with Mr. Kozhenevsky. He is conccmW with water entering hm site from
Talbot RD S and from S 192ad ST. The Coutty-City bowAny 1ffie is S 192"4 ST. On the nosh,
sided of the strut is the City ofRadon auo on the south side is King County. Mr. Kothenievsky is
concerned about the water he gets from his- eastem and northern prape y lines which border
Talbot RD S to the cast and S 192" d ST to the north. He believes tbat failure to mated ain the
roadside stitch on dw western side ofTaBwt RD S and along the southern side of 5 19e ST, east
of Talbot RD have caused water to shed flow across Talbot and ante his lot at the intersection.
Mr. Kozhcnevsky is hoping that King Corwy Roads cart provide some relictin cleaning the
ditches and keep water from entering bis site N.Ix: KoAmwsky also wishes to build a rt+taining
wallh ockes'y along her property line. I refawA him to DDFS for pe mtbng and row.
d tered 2-21-03 : I spoke to John lU mpom at City efS.+eatM PUbhe WOxW
Rnad I relayed the problem Mr. Kozhcnevskyrgxutad to Mr. Thompson as this
portion ofx of way is mvint ed by the City of Renton and not by King Cowrtykoads per
BUl Conner at King Co Roads. I told Mr KOAMevsky dot I had given this complaint to the
City of Renton. He would prefer that his name not be givers to the City nor his telephone
number.
Of
pcf Mr.
02
edp
p=Yf!
8 192md 'i`
2 3
8
ACh &UAAg to crass divert IftdMg to
it ttheAV Spd*bm* CI-
.� i
� R..
i ,
Retention/Detention Facility
Type
of Facility:
Detention
Vault
Facility Length:
60.00
ft
Facility
Width:
100.00
ft
Facility Area:
6000.
eq. ft
Effective Storage Depth:
7.50
ft
Stage
0 Elevation:
360.00
ft
Storage Volume:
45000.
cu. ft
Riser Head:
7.50
ft
Riser Diameter:
12.00
inches
Number of orifices:
2
Full Head
Pipe
Orifice #(
Height
Diameter
Discharge
Diameter
(ft)
(in)
(CPS)
(in)
1
0.00
1.00
0.077
2
4.50
1.80
0.164
4.0
Top
Notch Weir:
None
Outflow Rating Curve:
None
Stage
Elevation
Storage
Discharge
Percolation
(ft)
(ft) (cu.
ft) (ac-ft)
(cfs)
(cfs)
0.00
360.00
0.
0.000
01000
0.00
0.01
360.01
60.
0.001
0.003
0.00
0.02
360.02
120.
0.003
0.004
0.00
0.03
360.03
180.
0.004
0.005
0.00
0.04
360.04
240.
0.006
0.006
0.00
0A5
360.05
300.
0.007
0.006
0.00
0.06
360.06
360.
0.008
0.007
0.00
0.07
360.07
420.
0.010
0.007
0.00
0.08
360.08
480.
0.011
0.008
0.00
0.09
360.09
540.
0.012
0.008
0.00
0.22
360.22
1320.
0.030
0.013
0.00
0.35
360.35
2100.
0.048
0.016
0.00
0.48
360.48
2880.
0.066
0.019
0.00
0.60
360.60
3600.
0.083
0.021
0.00
0.73
360.73
4380.
0.101
0.023
0.00
0.86
360.86
5160.
0.118
0.025
0.00
0.98
360.9B
5880.
0.135
0.027
0.00
1.11
361.11
6660.
0.153
0.029
0.00
1.24
361.24
7440.
0.171
0.030
0.00
1.36
361.36
0160.
0.187
0.032
0.00
1.49
361.49
8940.
0.205
0.033
0.00
1.62
361.62
9720.
0.223
0.035
0.00
1.75
361.75
105500.
0.241
0.036
0.00
1.87
361.87
11220.
0.258
0.037
0.00
2.00
362.00
12000.
0.275
0.038
0.00
2.13
362.13
12760.
0.293
0.040
0.00
2.25
362.25
13500.
0.310
0.041
0.00
2.38
362.38
14280.
0.328
0.042
0.00
2.51
362.51
15060.
0.346
0.043
0.00
2.64
362.64
15840.
0.364
0.044
0.00
2.76
362.76
16560.
0.380
0.045
0.00
2.89
362.89
17340_
0.398
0.046
0.00
3.02
363.02
1B120.
0.416
0.047
0.00
3.14
363.14
18840.
0.433
0.048
0.00
3.27
363.27
19620.
0.450
0.049
0.00
3.40
363.40
20400.
0.468
0.050
0.00
3.53
363.53
21180.
0.486
0.051
0.00
3.65
363.65
21900.
0.503
0.052
0.00
3.78
363.78
22680.
0.521
0.053
0.00
3.91
363.91
23460.
0.539
0.054
0.00
4.03
364.03
24160.
0.555
0.054
0.00
4.16
364.16
24960.
0.573
0.055
0.00
4.29
364.29
25740.
0.591
0.056
0.00
4.42
364.42
26520.
0.609
0.057
0.00
4.50
364.50
27000.
0.620
0.058
0.00
4.52
364.52
27120.
0.623
0.056
0.00
4.54
364.54
27240.
0.625
0.060
0.00
4.56
364.56
27360.
0.628
0.064
0.00
4.58
364.58
27480.
0.631
0.069
0.00
4.59
364.59
27540.
0.632
0.075
0.00
4.61
364.61
27660.
0.635
0.082
0.00
4.63
364.63
27780.
0.638
0.090
0.00
4.65
364.65
27900.
0.640
0.093
0.00
4.78
364.78
28680.
0.658
0.106
0.00
4.90
364.90
29400.
0.675
0.116
0.00
5.03
365.03
30180.
0.693
0.125
0.00
5.16
365.1.6
30960.
0.711
0.133
0.00
5.29
365.29
31740.
0.729
0.140
0.00
5.41
365.41
32460.
0.745
0.147
0.00
5.54
365.54
33240.
0.763
0.153
0.00
5.67
365.67
34020.
0.7B1
0.160
0.00
5.79
365.79
34740.
0.798
0.165
0.00
5.92
365.92
35520.
0.815
0.171
0.00
6.05
366.05
36300.
0.833
0.176
0.00
6.18
366.18
37080.
0.851
0.181
0.00
6.30
366.30
37800.
0.868
0.186
0.00
6.43
366.43
38580.
0.886
0.191
0.00
6.56
366.56
39360.
0.904
0.195
0.00
6.68
366.68
40080.
0.920
0.200
0.00
6.81
366.81
40860.
0.938
0.204
0.00
6.94
366.94
41640.
0.956
0.209
0.00
7.07
367.07
42420.
0.974
0.213
0.00
7.19
367.19
43140.
0.990
0.217
0.00
7.32
367.32
43920.
1.008
0.221
0.00
7.45
367.45
44700.
1.026
0.225
0.00
7.50
367.50
45000.
1.033
0.227
0.00
7.60
367.60
45600.
1.047
0.537
0.00
7.70
367.70
46200.
1.061
1.100
0.00
7.80
367.80
46800.
1.074
1.840
0.00
7.90
367.90
47400.
1.088
2.630
0.00
8.00
368.00
48000.
1.102
2.920
0.00
8.10
368.10
48600.
1.116
3.170
0.00
8.20
368.20
49200.
1.129
3.410
0.00
8.30
368.30
49800.
1.143
3.630
0.00
8.40
368.40
50400.
1.157
3.840
0.00
8.50
368.50
51000.
1.171
4.040
0.00
8.60
368.60
51600.
1.185
4.220
0.00
8.70
368.70
52200.
1.196
4.400
0.00
8.80
368.80
52800.
1.212
4.570
0.00
8.90
368.90
53400.
1.226
4.740
0.00
9.00
369.00
54000.
1.240
4.900
0.00
9.10
369.10
54600.
1.253
5.050
0.00
9.20
369.20
55200.
1.267
5.200
0.00
9.30
369.30
55800.
1.281
5.350
0.00
9.40
369.40
56400.
1.295
5.490
0.00
Hyd
Inflow Outflow
Peak
Storage
Target
Calc
Stage
Elev
(Cu-Ft)
(AC -Ft)
1
1.44
0.32
0.91
7.67
367.67
45998.
1.056
2
0.71
*******
0.22
7.26
367.26
43573.
1.000
3
0.71
0.19
0.19
6.35
366.35
38079.
0.874
4
0.86
*******
0.18
6.13
366.13
36771.
0.844
5
0.75
*******
0.14
5.29
365.29
31730.
0.728
6
0.44
0.11
0.09
4.62
364.62
27710.
0.636
7
0.57
*******
0.05
3.94
363.94
23625.
0.542
8
0.61
*******
0.05
2.78
362.78
16705.
0.383
----------------------------------
Route Time Series through Facility
Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf
Outflow Time Series File:rdout
Inflow/Outflow Analysis
Peak Inflow Discharge: 1.44 CFS at
Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.911 CFS at
Peak Reservoir Stage: 7.67 Ft
Peak Reservoir Elev: 367.67 Ft
Peak Reservoir Storage: 45998. Cu-Ft
1.056 AC -Ft
Flow Frequency Analysis
Time Series File:rdout.tsf
Project Location:Sea-Tac
---Annual Peak Flow Rates ---
Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak
(CFS)
0.221 2
0.054 7
0.179 4
0.045 8
0.085 6
0.140 5
0.188 3
0.911 1
Computed Peaks
2/09/01 20:00
1/07/02 4:00
3/06/03 22:00
8/26/04 7:00
1/08/05 1:00
1119106 0.00
11/24/06 8:00
1/09/08 10:00
6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8
10:00 on Jan 9 in Year B
-----Flow Frequency Analysis-------
- - Peaks
- -
Rank
Return
Prob
(CFS)
(ft)
Period
0.911
7.67
1
100.00
0.990
0.221
7.32
2
25.00
0.960
0.168
6.35
3
10.00
0.900
0.179
6.13
4
5.00
0.800
0.140
5.29
5
3.00
0.667
0.085
4.62
6
2.00
0.500
0.054
3.98
7
1.30
0.231
0.045
2.78
8
1.10
0.091
0.681
7.63
50.00
0.980
Flow Duration
from Time Series File:rdout.tsf
Cutoff
Count
Frequency
CDF
Exceedence`Probability
CFS
W
%
W
0.003
31591
51.518
51.518
48.482
0.485E+00
0.009
6192
10.098
61.616
38.364
0.384E+00
0.016
5302
8.646
70.263
29.737
0.2978+00
0.022
4924
6.030
78.293
21.707
0.217E+00
0.028
4079
6.652
84.945
15.055
0.151E+00
0.034
3641
5.938
90.882
9.118
0.912E-01
0.040
1731
2.823
93.705
6.295
0.629E-01
0.047
1614
2.632
96.337
3.663
0.366E-01
0.053
1052
1.716
98.053
1.947
0.195E-01
0.059
846
1.380
99.432
0.568
0.568E-02
0.065
27
0.044
99.477
0.523
0.523E-02
0.071
14
0.023
99.499
0.501
0.501E-02
0.077
7
0.011
99.511
0.489
0.489E-02
0.084
14
0.023
99.534
0.466
0.466E-02
0.090
10
0.016
99.550
0.450
0.450E-02
0.096
23
0.038
99.587
0.413
0.413E--02
0.102
16
0.026
99.614
0.386
0.386E-02
0.108
20
0.033
99.646
0.354
0.354E-02
0.115
24
0.039
99.685
0.315
0.315E-02
0.121
17
0.028
99.713
0.287
0.287E-02
0.127
13
0.021
99.734
0.266
0.266E-02
0.133
20
0.033
99.767
0.233
0.233E-02
0.139
27
0.044
99.811
0.189
0.189E-02
0.146
16
0.026
99.837
0.163
0.163E-02
0.152
11
0.018
99.855
0.145
0.145E--02
0.158
10
0.016
99.871
0.129
0.129E-02
0.164
8
0.013
99.884
0.116
0.116E-02
0.170
8
0.013
99.897
0.103
0.103E-02
0.177
13
0.021
99.918
0.082
0.815E-03
0.183
11
0.018
99.936
0.064
0.636E-03
0.189
12
0.020
99.956
0.044
0.440E-03
0.195
8
0.013
99.969
0.031
0.310E-03
0.201
4
0.007
99.976
0.024
0.245E-03
0.208
3
0.005
99.980
0.020
0.3.96E-03
0.214
4
0.007
99.967
0.013
0.130E-03
0.220
6
0.010
99.997
0.003
0.326E-04
Hyd Inflow outflow
Peak
Storage
Target
Calc
Stage
Elev
(Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft)
1 1.44
0.32
0.91
7.67 367.67
45998.
1.056
2 0.71
*******
0.22
7.26 367.26
43573.
1.000
3 0.71
0.19
0.19
6.35 366.35
38079.
0.874
4 0.86
*******
0.18
6.13 366.13
36771.
0.844
5 0.75
*******
0.14
5.29 365.29
31730.
0.728
6 0.44
0.11
0.09
4.62 364.62
27710.
0.636
7 0.57
*******
0.05
3.94 363.94
23625.
0.542
8 0.61
*******
0.05
2.78 362.78
16705.
0.383
Duration Comparison.
Anaylsis
Base File: predev.tsf
New File: rdout.tsf
Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS
--Fraction of Time------- ------ -Check of Tolerance-------
CutoffBase
New
%Change
Probability
Base
New
%Change
0.056 ]
0.91E-02
0.80E-02
-12.0 ]
0.91E-02
0.056
0.055
-1.1
0.062 ]
0.76E-02
0.46E-02
-38.4 ]
0.76E-02
0.062
0.056
-9.7
0.068
] 0.64E-02
0.44E-02
-31.9
] 0.64H-02
0.068
0.057
-16.8
0.075
] 0.58E-02
0.43E-02
-26.5
] 0.58E-02
0.075
0.057
-23.1
0.081
0.52E--02
0.41H-02
-21.3
I 0.52E-02
0.081
0.058
-28.4
0.087
I 0.47E-02
0.39E-02
-17.0
! 0.47E-02
0.087
0.061
--30.4
0.093
] 0.42E-02
0.38E-02
-9.8
] 0.42E-02
0.093
0.078
-16.8
0.100
] 0.37E-02
0.35E--02
-4.4
] 0.37E-02
0.100
0.095
-4.7
0.106
] 0.33E-02
0.34E-02
2.0
] 0.33E-02
0.106
0.108
1.9
0.112
0.30E-02
0.31E-02
3.8
I 0.30E-02
0.112
0.116
3.1
0.118
0.27E-02
0.29E-02
7.9
I 0.27E-02
0.118
0.125
5.8
0.12.5
0.24E-02
0.27E-02
14.4
0.24E-02
0.125
0.130
4.4
0.131
I 0.22E-02
0.24E-02
9.8
0.22E-02
0.131
0.134
2.5
0.137
0.18E-02
0.20E-02
11.0
0.18E-02
0.137
0.140
2.3
0.144
0.15E-02
0.17E-02
10.8
0.15E-02
0.144
0.149
3.7
0.150
0.13E-02
0.15E-02
13.7
I 0.13E-02
0.150
0.157
5.0
0.156
0.11E-02
0.14E-02
18.6
I 0.11E-02
0.156
0.164
4.8
0.162
f 0.86E-03
0.12E-02
37.7
0.86E-03
0.162
0.175
7.7
0.169
0.77E-03
0.10E-02
31.9
0.77E-03
0.169
0.178
5.5
0.175
I 0.62E-03
0.86E-03
39.5
0.62E-03
0.175
0.183
4.6
0.181
I 0.51E-03
0.67E-03
32.3
0.51E-03
0.181
0.186
2.8
0.188
0.36E-03
0.46E-03
27.3
0.36E-03
0.188
0.191
2.1
0.194
0.29E-03
0.31E-03
5.6
0.29E-03
0.194
0.196
1.2
0.200
0.26E-03
0.24E-03
-6.3
0.26E-03
0.200
0.199
-0.6
0.206
0.21E-03
0.1BE-03
-15.4
0.21E-03
0.206
0.204
-1.3
0.213 j
0.18E-03
0.11E-03
-36.4 I
0.18E-03
0.213
0.208
-2.4
0.219
0.16E-03
0.33E-04
-80.0
0.16E-03
0.219
0.209
-4.7
0.225 I
0.15E-03
0.00E+00
-100.0
0.15E-03
0.225
0.211
-6.4
0.231 I
0.13E-03
0.00E+00
-100.0
0.13E-03
0.231
0.212
-8.5
0.238 I
0.82E-04
0.00E+00
-100.0
0.82E-04
0.238
0.217
-8.9
0.244
0.33E-04
O.00E+00
-100.0 i
0.33E-04
0.244
0.219
-10.3
Maximum positive excursion = 0.013 cfe ( 7.7t)
occuring at 0.162 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf
and at 0.175 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf
Maximum negative excursion = 0.027 cfs (-31.5%)
occuring at 0.085 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf
and at 0.058 cfe on the New Data:rdout.taf