Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMISC (2)0 King County State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist Department of Development and .Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Qakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 Purpose of the checklist The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW Chapter 43.21 C, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for the applicants This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. if you really do not know the answer or if a question. does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply" Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations such as zoning, shoreline and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. J � MAR 1 ca L05P ,C, iDAD IE S. A. BACKGROUND. 1. Narne of proposed project, if applicable: Jessie Glen Preliminary Plat 2. Name of Applicant: The Herbrand Company 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Owner/Applicant: 3153g" Ave, SW, Suite 8 Puyallup, WA 96373-3690 (253) 848-7700 Attn: Mr. Ty Pendergraft Agent: ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC. 720 South 348th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 838-6113 Contact: Mr. Eric LaBrie 4. Date checklist prepared: March 7th, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, Land Use Service DM51on 6. Proposed project timing or schedule (include phasing, if applicable): Upon application being deemed complete: Checklist Review: 3 months Land Use Review/Hearing: 3-6 months Engineering Review/Permitting: 4 months Plat Construction: 5 months Home construction is expected to begin in September 2006 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Not at this time. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Trafc Impact Analysis by TP & E 111712005 Wetland Determination by E-12 Wetland Consulting 12/14/2004 9. Do you know of pending applications for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None are known. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposals, if known. - SEPA Review - Preliminary/Final Plat Review - Engineering Review - Right-of-way Use Permits - Water and Sewer Plan Approval/Permits - NPDES Permit - Forest Practice Permit 11. Give a complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in the checklist which ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. This project is proposing to develop 5 parcels into 49 single family detached lots. The site is approximately 7.7 acres and is zoned R-6. The proposed lot sizes will range between 45'-50' x 100' and will typically be 456o square feet. There are several existing houses on site, including one mobile -home which will be relocated to accommodate the proposed development. The proposal is somewhat unique in that there will be two separate developed areas connected by a 30' wrde parcel of land that Is proposed to be park space. 12. Location of the proposal. Please give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your project, including street address, if any. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, please provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Please provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map and topographic map, if possible. 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 the checklist. (Indicate if maps or plans have been submitted as part of a permit application). The proposed subdivision is located in unincorporated King County on the East Hill of Kent. The project is more specifically located between 116th Avenue SE and 12d" Avenue 5E, just north of 5E192nd Street. The project is within a portion of the South west % of Section 33, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, of the Willamette Meridian. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS. 1. Earth. a. General description of the site (underline one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent of slope): The steepest slope on the property is approximately 15 percent. c. What general types of soil are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, please specify and note any prime farmland. The soils onsite consist of well drained gravelly soils. According to B-12 Wetland Consulting, the soils are 1 "-4" of loam over gravelly loam. According to the King County Soil Survey, this area is primarily AIderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgB). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are no surface indications of unstable soils on, or in the vicinity of the proposed site location. e. Describe the purposes, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading will be limited to the construction of the proposed roads, lots, water, sewer, other utilities, and the proposed detention facility. There will be approximately 25,000 cubic yards of fill, and 25,000 cubic yard of cut within this project. By balancing the amount of cut and ftll, no additional import or export of material should be necessary. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Some erosion could occur during clearing and grading operations associated with this project. To minimize the impacts of the project, appropriate erosion control measures will be reviewed and approved by the County prior to construction activity associated with this project g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT The preliminary plat shows approximately 62,500 square feet of new roads associated with this project Assuming an additional 2,500 square feet per lot (residence, driveway, etc.), an additional 122,500 square feet of impervious surface will be created upon completion of the project. Therefore, a total of 185,000 square feet of impervious surface, or 55 percent of the site is proposed. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any; During construction, various measures are expected to be used to control erosion. These methods include construction during the dry season, the use of silt fences and hay bails, and revegetation of disturbed areas Specific temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be reviewed and approved by the County prior to construction. 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, short-term emissions may occur, including dust and vehicle emissions from construction related equipment Alter construction, emissions from this project would primarily result from automobile usage as is typical with residential development. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor which may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None to our knowledge. c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts, if any: Dust emissions will be controlled during site construction by the use of best management practices, including periodic watering of disturbed areas. The project will not rely upon wood burning fireplaces as the primary source of heat for the new homes. All new homes will use natural gas and/or electricity to provide heat, reducing emissions caused by wood burning fires. 3. WATER. a. Surface: EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 1) Is there any surface water on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, associated wetland)? If yes, describe type, provide names, and, if known, state what stream or river it flows into. No. 2) Will the project require any work over or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Not applicable. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from the surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate source of fill materials. Not applicable. 4) Will surface water withdrawals or diversions be required by the proposal? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year lloodplain? Note location on the site plan, if any. M 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn or recharged? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. M 2) Describe waste water material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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 systems) are expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff and storm water and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will the water flow into other waters? if so, please describe. The proposed project will provide approximately 1700 linear feet of new roads, 46 new rooftops and other impervious surfaces which will generate new stormwater runoff. The increased runoff from these surfaces will be collected via catch basins and routed in underground pipes to a new stormwater detention facility. The new homes will either connect their downspouts to the storm drainage system in the stree4 or provide an onsite infiltration area for this runoff. (Please see Drainage Report and Conceptual Grading and Utility Plan prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC). 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? if so, generally describe. Waste materials are generally limited to petroleum products from the road surfaces. The water quality portion of the stormwater facilities is spedfreally designed to prohibit these materials from entering the downstream system. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: All development and engineering requirements imposed by the County to control the impacts to the hydrology of the area will be performed by the proponent. These include design of the stormwater facilities pursuant to the 1998 KCSWDM and recent amendments adapted by King County. 4. PLANTS. a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: xx deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other xx evergreen tree: fir, cedar; pine, other: hemlock EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY SY APPLICANT shrubs: sword fern, blackberry grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation (Note: Please see Wetland Report prepared B-12 Associates for additional plant information) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The majority of the existing vegetation will be removed for the grading and construction of the project. The project will attempt to retain as many significant trees as reasonably possible in areas near the rear of future Ibis, within the proposed park area and around the perimeter of the site. This project will meet the appropriate County requirements with respect to tree retention and/or mitigation. c. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on near the site. None, to our knowledge. d. List proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The proposed park site and detention facility will incorporate existing trees into their final design where possible, and the trees located in the rear of proposed lots will be retained if appropriate. The exact number of trees retained is unknown at this time and will depend on the final grading plan approved for this project. 5. ANIMALS. a. Circle (underline) any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: gawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rodents Fish: bass, salmon, trout, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT None, to our knowledge. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to our knowledge. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None are proposed at this time; however, rodents and small animals will undoubtedly inhabit the stormwater facility and use the open space within this project. 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 needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and/or natural gas will be used to meet the projects energy needs for light and heat. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? Construction of the new homes will meet or exceed the necessary energy requirements of the Northwest Energy Code and those adopted by the County. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. a. Are there any environmental health hazards, exposure to toxic chemicals, including risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1. Describe Special Emergency services that might be required. Not applicable. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 2. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None are proposed at this time, b. Noise. I. What type of noise exists in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None, to our knowledge. 2. What types of 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. Construction noises will likely occur on a short-term basis due to the use of heavy equipment, nailing guns and saws. This noise would be limited to typical construction hours and the County's noise ordinance. On a long-term basis, noise would be limited to typical residential uses, including cars and children. 3. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Increased noise levels due to construction will be restricted to the abovementioned hours to reduce any impacts to the neighboring residents. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE. a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently used as low -density residential properties, including some vacant lots. The uses of adjacent properties include a new single-family plat, existing low density residential, and undeveloped land. b. Has the site been used for agricultural purposes? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge, c. Describe any structures on the site. There are homes on three of the five parcels associated with this project. Each home has associated garages and other out buildings. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT One of the three homes is a mobile home that will be relocated to a new lot and preserved. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, two of the existing homes and all of the associated out buildings will be demolished to make way for the new development: However, one of the existing structures is proposed to be relocated onsite to Lot 32. (See Preliminary Plat plan). e. What is the current zoning of the site? The current zoning is single family residential, R-6 (6 units per acre). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan designation is urban residential, medium (Single Family, 4-12 units per acre). g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program environment designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Based on a household occupancy rate of 2.5 people per single-family residence, we expect that approximately 123 people will reside in the finished project. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Assuming 2.5 people per single-family residence, 5 people will be displaced by the completed project. k. What are proposed measures to avoid displacement or other impacts, if any? None are proposed at this time. 1. What are the proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT The proposed 43-lot subdivision is consistent with recent development in the area, current zoning, and comprehensive plan designations and will be compliant with the County Code, 9. HOUSING. a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. It is expected that the project will provide up to 47 new single-family residential units in the middle income level. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. There are three existing residences currently on site, all within the low to medium income levels. Two of these homes will be eliminated to accommodate the new development. One of the existing homes will be saved and relocated to a different location onsite. c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None are proposed at this time. 10. AESTHETICS. a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s) not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The County; zoning code restricts the building heights of single- family residential structures to 35: Exterior materials will typically consist of wood siding with brick, rock, or shingle accents. Specific materials will be determined by the home builder at the time of building permit and will comply with applicable County regulations. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any? None are proposed at this time. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 11. LIGHT AND GLARE. a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light would occur during evening and night time hours and would be limited to street lights, house lights, and minimal security lighting within the park space. 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 project? None. d_ What are the proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None are proposed at this time. 13. RECREATION. a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are three schools in the immediate vicinity (Benson Hill Elementary, Glenridge Elementary, and Meeker ]unior High), each provide recreation space such as sports fields and basketball courts. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. WO c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The project is proposing to construct an on -site park to serve the new residents. Approximately 20,020 square feet (6 percent) of the site is designated for on -site usable open space as prescribed by the County. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION. a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on the site. There are none, to our knowledge. c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None are proposed at this time. 14. TRANSPORTATION. a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any: The proposed subdlvlsion will be accessed from 1160 Avenue SE and 120"' Avenue SE. Addilf'onal access will be provided from the south (SE 192'0 Street) through the short plat of Sharmila Rathinam. (Please see Preliminary Plat for proposed access points). b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Public buses currently serve the general area of this project with the nearest bus stop being located approximately 3/ mile away on 10e Avenue SE (bus route 169). c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Assuming a minimum of 4 parking spaces per household (2-car garage and a 2-car driveway), there will be at least 196 parking spaces provided upon completion of this development, approximately 8 parking spaces will be eliminated by this proposal, equaling a total of 188 now parking spaces. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or street, or improvements to any existing roads or streets, not including EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Approximately 1700 linear feet of new roads will be required to serve the completed project. In addition, there will be one Joint Use Drive, which will provide access to two lots, and one Private Access Tract that will provide access to four lots. With the exception of the JUD and PAT all proposed roads within the project will be public roads. The street frontages along Ile Avenue SE and 1200 Avenue SE will be brought up into conformance with the appropriate improvements as required by the 1993 King County Road Standards. e. Will the project use or occur in the immediate vicinity of water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. 4"o f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual, 6`h Edition, there will be an average of 9.57 vehicular trips per day, per household. For the entire project of 46 new lots, that would amount to approximately 440 total new trips per day. Peak volumes would most likely occur during typical rush hour times of 7,00 - 9:00 AM and 4: 00 - 6:00 PM. (Note. please see the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TP & E for more information.) g. What are proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The applicant will be responsible for any appropriate traffic Mitigation fees, which will offset some of the impacts of the subdivision. Other mitigation includes the construction of frontage improvements and new roads to serve the project. 16. PUBLIC SERVICES. a. Would the project result in an increase need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes. There would be an increased need for fire and police protection due to an additional 46 lots in the area. Also, there will be an impact on the present school system. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT b. What are proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Property taxes, building permits and school impact mitigation fees generated from these residences are expected to mitigate impacts incurred from this development. 17. UTILITIES. a. Circle (underline) utilities currently available at the site: electricity,^ natural gas; water, refuse service, telephone_, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: cable television. b. Describe the utilities which 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. Puget Sound Energy Gas: Puget Sound Energy Water: Soos Creek Water District Refuse: Rabanco Telephone: Qwest Communications Sewer: Soos Creek Sewer District Cable: Comcast Connections) to the above mentioned utilities will be negotiated with the individual purveyor during the building permit and construction phases of this project. There may also be a need for a right-of-way permits) to gain access to the property at construction. C. SIGNATURE. The above answers are true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Agent for the Applicant:4�/� Date Submitted: 3 - i ( � a5' Job No. 1123-002-004 3/8/2005 llesm8%eng6esm jobs111231002100MdocumentlsEPA.doc EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY LEGAL DESCRIPTION — Jessie Glen Legal descriptions taken from First American Title Insurance Company, File Number 4261-473774, l l/l/2004 APN: 619840-0080-04 (Parcel "A") APN: 619840-0100-00 (Parcel "B") APN: 619840-0120-06 (Parcel "C") APN: 619840-0140-02 (Parcel "D") APN: 619840-0320-04 (Parcel "E") Parcel "A": Lot 4 in Block 1 of the Northwestern Garden Tracts Div. No. 4, according to play recorded August 24, 1950 in volume 47 of plats at Page(s) 74, in King County, Washington. Parcel `B„ Lot 5 in Block 1 of Northwestern Garden Tracts Div. No. 4, according to plat recorded August 24, 1950 in Volume 47 of plats at Page(s) 74, in King County, Washington. Parcel "C": The East 30 feet of Lot 6 in Block 1 of Northwestern Garden Tracts Div. No. 4, according to plat recorded August 24, 1950 in Volume 47 of plats at Page(s) 74, in King County, Washington. Parcel "D": Lot 7 in Block 1 of Northwestern Garden Tracts Div. No. 4, according to plat recorded August 24, 1950 in Volume 47 of plats at Page(s) 74, in King County, Washington; Except the North 70 feet of the West 225 feet thereof; And Except the West 300 feet of the remainder of said Lot 7. Parcel "D-1": A non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress created by instrument recorded December 27, 1993 under Recording Nos. 9312272113 and 9312272116. Parcel "E": Lot 7 in Block 2 of Northwestern Garden Tracts Div. No. 4, according to plat recorded August 24, 1950 in Volume 47 of plats at Page(s) 74, in King County, Washington; VICINITY MAP - Jessie Glen PRELIMINARY PLAT OF JESSIE GLEN A PORTION OF THE S.W_ 1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. bpg6p �Q, EXISTING STRUCTURES ROA D TO BE REMOVED �,�9 BAC ) �° 6 S-E_ 192ND STREET (PRINICI PAL ARTERIAL) n Pll1'ALLUP, WA 98373-3$90 CONTACT: TY PENDERGRAFT (253) 848-7700 SIGHT DISTANCE vARTERIAL DESIGN SPEED: 45 MPH ENTERING SIGHT DISTANCE: STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: REQUIRED. 620' REQUIRED: 40D' PROVIDED: >62T PROVIDED: >400' WETLAND BIOLOGIST: R-12 ASSOCLATES 11C3 WEST MEEKER STREET KENT, WA 98032-5751 CONTACT: ED SEWELL (253) E159-0515 n SCALE: 1" = 60' 60' 30, 0 60' 120' SITE DATA ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 619840-DD80, 619840-0100, 619840-0120, 619640-0140, AND 619840-0320. TOTAL SITE AREA 7.7 AC. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: URBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (4-12 DUA) ZONING: R-6 PROPOSED USE 49 LOT, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING STRUCTURES: ALL BUILDINGS TO BE REMOVED, 1 MOBILE HOME 70 BE RELOCATED SEWER PRiMOER: SODS CREEK SEWER DISTRICT WATER PRLMOER: SODS CREEK WATER DISTRICT SCHOOL DISTRICT: KENT SCHDOL DISTRICT (4O3) FIRE DISTRICT: 0040 TELEPHONE: OWEST COMMUNICATIONS POWER: PUGET SOUND ENERGY GAS: PUGET SOUND ENERGY SOURCE OF BOUNDARY AND IUPO: ESM FIELO SURVEY, JANUARY, 2005 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (R-6): BASE DENSITY: 6 DU/AC. MAX. DENSITY: 9 OU/AC. MIN. LOT WIDTH: 30, BULLING SETBACKS. FRONT: TO' INTERIOR: 5' SIDE STREET: 19' GARAGE: 20' MO. BUILDING HD(;KT: 35' MAX. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 70% DENSITY CALCULATIONS: SITE AREA 335,412 SF - 7.7 AC SASE DENSITY; 6 DU/ACRE MAXIMUM DENSITY: 9 DU/ACRE ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS: 46 UNITS MINIMUM DENSITY: 34 UNITS MAXIMUM DENSTY: 69 UNITS 140TE: THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSING TO USE TDR'S TO ACHIEVE 49 LOTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FROM TT17E REPORT: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY FILE 1:4251-473774, 11/1/2DO4 LOT 4 IN BLOCK 1 OF NORTHWESTERN GARDEN TRACTS DIV. NO, 4, ACCDRDING TO PLAY RECORDED AUGUST 24. 1950 IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 74. IN KING CDLNTY, WASHINGFON. PARCEL 9 LOT 5 IN BLOCK 1 OF NURTNWESTLRN GARDEN TRACTS DN. NO. 4, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED AUGUST 24, 1950 IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS AT PAGES) 74. IN KING GOUNIY. WASHINGTON. FABCE r THE EAST 30 FEET OF LOT 6 IN BLOCK 1 OF NORTHWESTERN GARDEN TRACTS DN. NO. 4, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED .AUGUST 24. 1950 IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 74, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. LOT 7 IN BLOCK 1 OF NORTHWESTERN GARDEN TRACTS DIV. ND. 4, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED AUGUST 24, 1950 1N VOLUME 47 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 74, IN KING COUNTY, WASiINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 70 FEET OF THE WEST 225 FEET 7N17RFOF; AND EXCEPT THE WEST 300 FEET OF THE REMAINDER OF SAID LOT 7. A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS CREATED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1993 UNDER RECORDING NOS. 9312272113 AND 931227211B. LOT 7 IN BLOCK 2 OF NORTHWESTERN GARDEN TRACTS DIV, NO. 4, ACCORDING TQ PLAT RECORDED AUGUST 24, 1950 IN VOLUME 41 OF PLATS AT PACE(S) 74, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINCTON. ui �s wff zr w¢ alff zrZ rl v�A,o" 0 Qg 11a°Q I G� 1 5 E 7 15 N----------------- Q Lu 8 14 a0 � N 9 1 12 13 A PORTION OF THE S-W. 1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. Q 20• JOINT -USE ORNEWAY 30' HALF STREET IF 20' PAVEMENT 111' PAVEMENT 4• 8' 12' 3: 1 SLOP 3- 1 SLOP 3:4 SLOQE 7•--r-� 2.OS 3:7zn% �OPF JOINT -USE DRIVEWAY ROAD A - SUBACCESS 1/2 STREET NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 26' PRNATE STREET R 35' SUBACCLSS 3' 20' PAVEMENT 3' 24' PAVEMENT 10• ¢ 10, 3' 12' MIN. 12' MIN. 5• S/W 2' 3,.1 SiOAE 3: T St OPE I 3:1 2.OX 2.0X I .3:1 SLp,pE R2_Ox 2� SLOPE j PRIVATE STREET TRACT ROADS B, C & D - SUBACCESS o ur.-- - NOT TO SCAT-E NOT TO SCALE 16 42' R/W R/W R/W 60' EX. R/W R/W EX. EX" �17 21 22 R/W 60' EX. R/W — R/WOEDICATON 30, 30' NEW PNM'T. S/W LDSCP. ll]SCP" 5/W 7' .aPPROK 19 ". � � -.... NEW PdAI I. 18 �a f ---------pPE 3: t SLOpg 2.OX 1 116TH AVENUE S.E. - MINOR ARTERIAL 120TH AVENUE S.E. NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR -t- — NOT TO SCALE NOT 70 SCALE ROAD B (SUBACCESS) 26 1 27 128 29 30 31 36 37 1 38 1 39 1 LD STREET (PRINICIPAE ARTERIALy B ROAD A (SUBACCESS - HALF STREET) 42 1 43 1 44 AC�c p55 471 81 DETENTION POND CONSERVATION FLOW CONTROL {LEVEL 2) AND BASIC WATER QUALITY REQUIRED. SODS CREEX BASIN DETENTION VOLUME REQUIRED: 82.600 OF PROVIDED: 90,50D CF DEAD STORAGE VOLUME REQUIRED: - 26,000 CF PROVIDED; - 35,500 CF LI I � ABANDON EXISTING DRIVEWAY C 710 QI0 =ff O = N6 rLu 2 1 I J �Q�h1 SCALE: 1 " = 60' 60' sD' 0 so' 120, LEGEND SANITARY SEWER MAIN WATER MAIN S70RM DRAIN UNE WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT 18 CATCH BASIN, TYPE 1 SANNARY SEWER MANHOLE CONCRETE SIDEWALK — 400 EXISTNG CONTOURS _.^--`'AD---... PROPOSEII CONTOURS Fe E�/�sl OfVS R '�skMGIL �� d ores ,o- -Y A zq� 3 " ae s E o� u o u nu E W m p # a3 5a Ua' Z ]- g Q n IZ z W z D `a U o 0 O Z W < < _ o VJ O W � ' = W °d w LiJ EL EL z Y JOB NO.: i:av-oDz�u D.O. fY.M� vP-a2 DE9CNED W. DRwwN 9Y; ,Yf CNEG"ED D'!: p4TE: azfDymD's DATE OF PRINT: 2 - 4 A PORTION OF THE S.W. 114 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. *15 r y d 4W SYMBOL LEGEND- a2f 1 EXISTING TREES TO BE RETAINED 3 T I 24� 1 25 P26 1 27 1 28 29 � 30 31 NOTE SMPNICANT TREEES SHOWN HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY AN ARBORISTS TO DETEFUNE TIE HEALTH OF THE TREE- THE NUMBER OF SIG141'CANT TICS MAY BE REDUCED DEPENDING ON THE FINDINGS OF A CERTIFIED ARBORIST. 36 EXISTING TREES TO BE PRESERVED PICNIC TABLES GRASS LAWN 37 1 38 I SIGNIFICANT TREE COMMON NAME dataTRirM1 IiQICIe SIG. DECIDLOUS TREE 0 12 INCHES OR MORE APPLE ]iP ALDER Al— 91.diTn>A< CHESTNUT (L.ffiareca snfeux Ocusr m 6fAi. BLACK COTTONW000 .Fbp l trikloiarpa DOUGLAS FIR a INCHES f'*E me,ss—I OR MORE WESTERN HEMLOCK WESTERN RED CEDAR 4ri+Hja pliaata NOTE STREET TREE LOCATIONS ARE APPRO)WATE AND MAY BE AD=TED PER ACTUAL UTILITY AND DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS. 42 2 llf5 LEGEND- EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED d O DEOIF UOM TREE RwfH SM ]d C077ON0000 TREE wf1T1 5= 1P YR o APPLE = TH SLOE HN 11ItEM E SIZE 1 "0 ALDU' THEE wT1N Sly HEMLOCK TREE WITH 92E 2TG CHMMUT TREE wTIN SIZE 1S cEDAft THEE TTRN S2i tore LC a TREE WIN SIZE SIGNIFICANT TREE CALCULATIONS TOTAL 617E -'4 LGIV POMADE . 71 ACr.E6 - 335,417 U. 24D TREES PER ALTO . 1&4 TREES TO BE RETAINED RETANED 51GNFIC- ANT TRIUE6 . R,® WIDER oP PLANTED 6ICsVffIC4hfi TREES REQUITED . 94 n WI IpER OF PLANTED SIGNIFIG,AXT 71REE� FRCMDED . 54 F'L.ANTEP 51C311FICANT TREE SCALE: 1"— 50' 50• 25' 0 1. Tb0' u f lL Cy — a 1/2 BASKETBALL COURT PLANT LEGEND TOT LGT (AGES 2-5)I£ BENCHES fdidN717Y i PLAY STRUCTURE (AGES 5-12) 7RL1A "LIGATA J YESTERN 1M CEDAR 6• HT. M5L 5 V&DRDS, BJB a PYFW CAI LE72YAMA CHANTICLEER I FLOUIERSNIS. rMAR 1' GAL Te vIGQRC115. 15M TS.IA COPDATA ! LrTLELE4F LI/DN 1' GAL. S YOPIRrI6, SB Q VIB1Rx1'1 TW115 SPRBYA 5004ET' / LA11R IJST1NW6 5 GAL 9 6' WIDE ASPHALT PATH CONCEPTUAL PLANT MATERIALS -TYPICAL. SEE NOTE ON THIS SHELT PARK DETAIL SCALE: 1" = 40' 40' 20' 0 4tl' EO' ON -SITE RECREATION SPACE KOC 2W14.M A1j REQUIRED (49 X 390 S.F.) 19,110 S.F. TOTAL cm -SITE RECREATION PROVIDED 20,020 S.F_ NOTE CONCEPTUAL RECREATION SPACES ONLY. ACTUAL DEIGN, STRUCTURE SPECFICAT?ON, AND LANDSCAPE MATERIALS TO 1E DESIGNED AT FINAL PLAT PER KC 21&14.100EA. 1r ar , 2r 4 47 48 r RACT D oND N ,r 2 SE IL r d t a SIGNIFICANT TREE REQUIREMENTS - - rt*! 1LWT TO K14 a CCLNTT r1Nk RPAL CODE 2149*jv,T 40 60-xxo. A •513NP4rAM Tom• IS DEFNED AS AN EXIOTNG HEALTHY' TREE THAT 15 NOT HAZARD HAZAD TREE f V_ A TFEE T"T DOES NOT WAVE A NIGH r ROPA61LMT OF F IWMT FALLNra DLE TO A DEBILITATING P16E A6E OR 6T%IG URAL. P©r, =T) ARAM THAT, WHEN MA%FiEO FOtJR AND ONE HALF FEET ADOYE GRADE; 946 A HNMM DIAFti TER OF: L F• FOR r EN TREES. ORL 2. 12• FOR DEC06kO115 TREE+ 8GNFiC,4NT T7EE5 LOCATED N THE ft, R OR OF THE DEYEL.OPT1fNT FR "F- FOAL, NC L DIIH a 6E WI E ARIF4', APED TW?R 5UTERH, SHALL BE RETAP® IN THE RE6pENTtAL wAmpiv 610M AT THE RATE OF 7m TRse5 PER ADRE OR TEN rmcn ST OP 6LG7 TIEE5, W_uc VER m G%ATm A 51GNF:1CAMR TREE t W' 19E CIEDr= 49 PLO TREES WHEN IT M FT5 ONE OR "Oft OF THE FOL.LOUFLt CF!AIRACTERI5T•a L THE T1EE 16 b NCAE6 OR GREATER N P6A.'ipTEfSf IL THE TRH 15 LOCATED N A GROUPING. OF AT LEAST PIVE TRIMS LLTl-I f..NJOPES THAT ToxCw OR ovEPLAP+ III, THE TREE FL20Y1;XE5 ENEpGr SAVINGS TMI)UaN YINTER WNP PRIITr_'UON OR EU?'ER bALA m AB A RRE5,LT OF IT5 LOCATION FRP' ATNM- TO BUILDT� w, THE TREE BELON-5 TO A u =w oR LtawjAL 6PEQIES- PLAN HCPFICAVko & AND TREE REPLAGEFIENTR ARE FEF]91TTED AS FOLLOU15. A. ANY WINFICANT TREE N THE INTERIOR MAY BE REPLACED 5T AN OTiZR 61Cd(1F1OANT TREE N THE NTER+OIi h. F THr REOUII D KIIHMR OF 6L NIFIC TEMB CAFNOT 5E }ETAW.1>. TEEN NON-6rh FIGM1T SIZED TREES MAY M RETANRD OR NEW T}EE5 N,AY BE PLANTED m F'T_ET THIS SKNFICAw TREE IEOWR ETE a AB FOLLou* PQ0vtDED THAT THE REASON POR THE F'11OP05F OF TNB BLO&ECTKK THE 61GNFK-_ NT TREE TO BE REPLACED BY THE W W OR PXISTIW �N PEPLAT TREE 15 A56O41ED A AIAMETER OF 12 "a rl L YEN I181143 F£PLACEY1ENT TREES MASLRbC TNptE IN0 ES N DIRIEMR OR GREATER (A5 YEAMRED BY CALIPEPJ, oTE-HALF NCH PIA"E7ER OF REPLACII'reT.'T TREE 54ALL DE P� POR EVER,- ONE mu DIAFETER OF 5NsMFICANT TTEE To mE TEPLACEPf AND R. wHEN usm REPL A@'EHrr TREE* ME� LE65 THAN THREE INCHES N DIAYEfE12 CR.IE WW DIArETER OF REPLACi7ENT TREE OkA_+, BE PJZa MD FOR EVERY ONE NCH DIATETER OF 51 -"h=NR TREE TO BE REPLAOED. R EV1510 NS K sTirAv"Ir�kTaRR� S.cS REU5TEREb CT ffxMFICAIE Mn Ta3 Mug A 8 �� xg 0 E £ a � u E m 0 3 � c� �n un' 0 sue_ N if :5 IL L,J Q r IL Z o w < 0 w a 0 V) Z a W o Er ca rn H it U) W W Q W ♦— iL Ld U Z O U p� U i9 T ]C qwc_ HAMG pv�-py pO51GhE� er fli rxuwN er: .RfM cNECKF� BY: ry.TE: mro1/mas RNA GE PHmm: 3 OF 4 SHPEfS ianxpunj I ,u.lua6oueYl ,..(wd .4-M n,i7n" 6y�VAla Puo� 6u1�.—S 0.11 ouN...16.3 NOlANIHSYM iyians 3MI ONV SNOUIONOO ONUSIX] wvnOO `ONN r k H � 54.((eoc`1f mn 3n W03' _IAI�WBB'MMM a "r'",oi I � 1 (1 N� I J E u s s� g er N „ LUZ (�¢xj £ooB6 VM 'AUM Iawpaj I u 418re'9 °ZL ® Oil CH93141 ANVdWOO GNVH8H3H 3H-L Z 0 U LIJ (n U. 0 l3 VJ LU T F LL a y L 0 cc O a a 0 n O 9 II r W r o U U a k +F� 1a�,_ N3�yf y311W .S s I R � sfs sf9 X � � (io1J3��0`J ❑OOHFi49 1 --------------------- ua�ra nm�r 3on3 -- HrJ13N) '� m S JnN�JhV H1DZ 4 �I 04 I � f9 in A " ef00 f A 9Oq sf& fm f9 OVIk R-LIdy LIONIW) '3'S�f1N3J111H19LL B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. 1103 W. My der St (VP53-8590515 Kent, WA -5751 (# 253$52-0732 December 14, 2004 Ty Pendergraft The Herbrand Company 315 39th Ave SW Ste 6 Puyallup, WA 98373 RE: Wetland Determination — "Jessie Glen", King County, WA. B-12 Job#A4-366 Dear Ty, This letter describes my findings regarding jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on the proposed "Jessie Glen" subdivision located off 116'h Avenue SW in unincorporated King County, Washington (the "site"). Specifically, the 7.7 acre site is an irregular shaped combination of five (5) parcels (Parcels #619840-0080, #619840-0100, #619840-0120, #619840-0140, and 0619840-0320) located between 116"' Avenue SE and 120t' Avenue SW in the SW '/, of Section 33, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian. The site is generally located within a suburban area surrounded by residential development. A Sewall Weiland Consulting, Inc. Company The Herbrand Co. - Jessie GIenl#A4-366 B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 2004 Page 2 The site includes several existing single family homes with associated landscaping, lawns gravel driveways, and scattered outbuildings. Portions of the site have immature (20- 45yrs old) deciduous forest covering them. No wetlands, streams or associated wetland or stream buffers were found on the site. The proposed project is the construction of a 49 lot subdivision with associated road, and stormwater facilities. METHODS On December 7, 2004, I inspected the site for jurisdictional wetlands and streams using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands .Identification Manual (WADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by King County and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual as well as the 1987 Federal Manual requires the use of the three -parameter approach in identifying and delineating wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation, over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative (FAQ, facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed, 1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Anaerobic conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater of the growing season. Areas that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season may or may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all three parameters will be present in wetland areas. OBSERVATIONS Prior to visiting the site a review of existing inventories that included the area of the site was completed. The inventories reviewed included the Soil Survey of King County, Washington, the National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI), and the King County Wetland Inventory and iMap website. There are no wetlands, streams or hydric soils mapped for the site. t-oTs AUSH A?4D Ppr� EL , NOT Met'MOvM IN lLVOR-t . Field Observations The Herbrand Co. —Jessie Glenl,#A4-366 B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 2004 Page 3 The portions of the site that are not already developed with single family homes and associated lawn, landscaping and driveways consists primarily of deciduous forest on the east, and on the north, an area of mixed forest and shrubs and small saplings on the north. The eastern forested area is a mix of alder, big leaf maple, scattered hemlock, salmonberry, Indian plum, sword fern and Himalayan blackberry. Soil pits excavated within the site revealed a well drained gravelly soil with a 1 "-4" A - horizon of 1 OYR 3/2 loam over a 13-horizon of I OYR 3/4-3/6 gravelly loam. No hydric soil indicators were noted, and excavated test pits on the site that were 6' deep were dry to the bottom. No indication of wetland hydrology is present on the site. The two northern parcels include a forested area on the extreme north, and a shrub area just south of that parcel. The forested area inclines a mixed third growth forested area with a mix of Douglas fir, big leaf maple, red alder, sword fern, Indian plum, hazelnut and salmonberry. Soils are dry with high chroma soils colors and hydric soil indicators. The shrub area contains large thickets of Himalayan blackberry as well as scattered cherry, alder, and Indian plum. Several small (100sf-400sf) depressions are located within some tire rutted areas where vehicles and debris have been driven and stored. Some scattered patches of buttercup were found in these areas but no evidence of wetland soils or hydrology. Soils were similar to other areas of the site previously described. Of -site Areas I inspected the area of off -site forest to the north of proposed Lot 32 (see "Jessie Glen Conceptual Site Plan — ESM Consulting Engineers, Inc. 11/5/04) for wetlands with the landowner's permission. This area has several large cottonwoods as well as some red - osier dogwood which looked like a potential wetland area. However, soil pits excavated within this area revealed only moist, non-hydric soils not meeting wetland criteria. I also inspected the area to the south of the site in just south of proposed lots 33, 36, & 37-41. This area has a subdivision proposed on it (KCLU L04SO003). Some very small depressions within old fill were noted with wetland flags on this site. Only one, just south of Lot 39 appeared to have any evidence of wetland hydrology or soils. This area is a small (approximately 500so area of scrub -shrub wetland. Since this wetland is <2,500sf in size it would not be regulated by the County within the urban area. Conclusion There are no jurisdictional wetlands, streams or buffers on the Jessie Glen site. The Herbrand Co. - Jessie Glenl#A4-366 B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 2004 Page 4 If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at ed(aDbl2assoc.corn Sincerely, B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist (PWS#212) King County Preferred Consultant JESSIE GLEN PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KING COUNTY Prepared for THE HERBRAND COMPANY 315 39" Ave. S.W. Suite #6 Puyallup, WA 98373 January 17, 2005 2223 - 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98004-2952 Telephone: (425) 455-5320 Facsimile: (425) 453-5759 JESSIE GLEN PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KING COUNTY Prepared for THE HERBRAND COMPANY 315 39th Ave. S.W. Suite #6 Puyallup, WA 98373 Prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223-112th Ave. N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Telephone: (425) 455-5320 Fax: (425) 453-5759 http:klwww.tranplaneng.com January 17, 2005 EXPIRES zi1 O 10 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223 - 112P AVENUE N.E., SUITE 1D1 - BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 9BOD4-2952 425 TELEPHONE VICTOR H. BISHOP, P.E. President TELEPHONE ) 455-5320 AVID H. ENGER. P.E. Vice President FACSIMILE (425) 453-5759 January 17, 2005 Mr. Ty Pendergraft THE HERBRAND COMPANY 315 39`h Ave. S.W. Suite #6 Puyallup, WA 98373 Re: Jessie Glen Plat - King County Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Pendergraft: We are pleased to submit this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed 49-lot Jessie Glen project located 18924 116"' Ave. S.E. in unincorporated King County. This project has received a Certificate of Concurrency, #01628, from King County, A copy of which is attached. 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. No intersections meet these criteria. 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 two connecting parcels between 116`h Ave. S.E. and 1201h Ave. Southeast, Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan provided by ESM. The plan consists of constructing 49 single-family lots on the two connecting parcels. However, the internal roadways of the two parcels would not be connected and each parcel would have its own access onto the County road system. The west parcel, comprising of 31 lots would have access onto 116"' Ave. S.E. and the east parcel, comprising of 18 lots, would have access onto 1201h Ave. Southeast The site presently has three single-family houses, two of which will be removed as part of the project. The third would be relocated within the site. Therefore, there would be 46 net new single-family homes constructed. Full development and occupancy of Jessie Glen is expected to occur by 2008. This 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 CAWORK DOCUMENTS\-PR0JECT5\King GDun1y%K04:MQ5 Jessie Glen TIA.d06 Mr. Ty Pendergraft THE HERBRAND COMPANY January17, 2005 Page 2 and their classification per the Arterial Functional Classification Map, December 1998 are as follows: SR 515 (108"'Ave. S.E.) 192nd St. S.E. 116th Ave. S-E. 1201h Ave. S.E. Sight Distances State Highway/Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Collector Arterial Local Access We conducted a sight distance review on 116`h Ave. S.E. at the proposed west site access. 116`h Ave. S.E. is a straight and relatively level Collector Arterial. Results of the available for which stopping sight distance (SSD) and entering sight distances (ESD) at the proposed west site access are shown in the following table: 11 SIGHT DISTANCE SUMMARY Proposed West Site Access To/From the North To/From the South King County Design Criteria Stopping Sight Distance (ft.) Over 500 Approx. 750 S.E. 192"d St.) 400 Entering Sight Distance (ft_) Over 7OO i to Approx. 750 S.E. 192"d St.) 620 This table also shows the County's SSD and ESD criteria per Table 2.1 in the King County Road Standards - 1993_ (KCRS). The KCRS recommended sight distances are for a design speed of 45 MPH (posted speed limit on 116" Ave. S.E. of 35 MPH plus 10 MPH per the County policy). Our field review shows that the County's SSD criteria of 400 feet is met both to the north and south. The County's ESD criteria of 620 feet is also met to the north and south. Therefore, we believe that there would not be a sight distance deficiency at the proposed west site access. A sight distance review was also conducted at the east site access, which would enter onto 120sh Ave. S.E., a local access road. For local access roads, the KCRC SSD requirement is ISO ft. and would be met. There is no KCRC ESD criteria for local access roads. We believe that there would not be a sight distance deficiency at the proposed east site access either. Accident Data The King County staff provided accident report data for the roads surrounding the project site for the time period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2003_ This data indicate that during this four year period there appear to have been 11 reported accident at the S.E. 192nd St.1116"' CAWORK DOCUMEHTSI-PRDdECTMing CountylK0433005 Jessie Glen TiA.doc Mr. Ty Pendergraft THE HERBRAND COMPANY January 17, 2005 Page 3 Ave. S.E. intersection, one accident on 1161h Ave. S.E. 200 feet from S.E. 189th Pl. and one traffic accident at the 1201h Ave. S.E./188th St. intersection. The County staff did not indicate that any of the surrounding roadways or nearby intersections are high accident locations. Based on this data, the relatively low number of accidents, and our field review no apparent accident problem exists at the surrounding intersections. A copy of the accident data is attached. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The site presently has three single-family houses, two of which will be removed as part of the project. The third would be relocated within the site. The project proposes to construct 49 single-family lots. Thus, there would be 46 net new single-family homes, which are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Average Trip Rate Trips Entering Trips Exiting Total Trips Average Weekday T = 9.57 (X) 220 (50%) 220 (50%) 440 AM Peak Hour T = 0.75 (X) 9 (25%) 26 (75%) 35 PM Peak Hour T = 1.01(X) 29 (63%) 17 (37%) 46 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 the King County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), found on the internet at www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/roads/cip/default.aspx, 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 1081h Ave. S.E. to 1401h Ave. Southeast. Phase V of the project would make improvements to the 1161h Ave. S.E. intersection. However, this portion of the project is currently unfunded. More data on this project is attached. C:%WCRK DDGUMENTSI-PROJECISVing Covnty%K0433005 Jessie Glen TIA_dac Mr. Ty Pendergraft THE HERBRAND COMPANY January 17, 2005 Page 4 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 zones for which a residential fee has been pre -calculated. This project is located in MPS zone #342, which has a fee of $3,730 per single-family unit. The current MPS fee for the 46 net new single-family units of the Jessie Glen Plat is calculated to be $171,580. Per King County standards, the developer would likely be required to construct frontage improvements on 116"' Ave. S.E. and on 120"' Ave. S.E. adjacent to the project site. These frontage improvements would likely consist of curb, gutter and a six and a half foot wide sidewalk on 116"' Ave. S.E. and curb, gutter and a five foot wide sidewalk on 1201hAve. Southeast. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Per King County criteria, no intersections would carry 30 or more site generated trips and at least 20% of the site generated traffic. The proposed project would not have more than 30 site -generated trips at either of the site access intersections, which are expected to operate at a satisfactorily with the proposed Jessie Glen project. We recommend that the Jessie Glen project be constructed with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: Provide a King County MPS fee contribution for zone #342 in the likely amount of $171,580. 2. Construct frontage improvements adjacent to the project site, which would likely consist of curb, gutter and a six and a half foot wide sidewalk on 116"' Ave. S.E. and curb, gutter and a five foot wide sidewalk on 1201hAve. Southeast, 3. Construct the proposed on -site roads per King County Road Standards. No further mitigation is expected. if you have any questions, please call Mikhail (Mike) Ekshtut, E.I.T. or myself at (425) 455-5320 or e-mail us at s teks(a tranplaneng.com. Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC_ c ,�Z�r Victor H. Bishop, P.E. ME --me President C:%WORK O0CUMFNTM-PR0JECT51King CDUnly%K0433005 Jessie Glen TIA.doc SE I n SE Pet SSE 1ZZt2 &LW ! G�rrr�-ti vy w 0 co ? 0. 0. -c w 4 n w } CJ � Q � w 5� } S ri St C fi Ere rh v Q T fv r —�. � a ar f ry � ¢ _ Bt , 5f �'� LU ) to 4'Lo ti -" ITC ti SE j4is ro 0 T w n, � fi y b h � o SE 122h St W ui w w a w y � � c e — � u, S 2001h S1 w w }r N J `a SE 202n:Ir:p 1 L m t SE 2 40 vi VSEN h 6 mi 0,2 Streets Plus VICINITY MAP f I � JESSIE GLEN PLAT - KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FIGURE (' Ppuo7 P'O°Wda�lal'1� P �s .m,wv woz► � R 1 1 I I I I I Q� t I R I 1 i I I + Y au I S 3 9 ^ � Ll R k Y o �- ^ onr.uz r I+ N116 � fL I I o onr.oz n Y p ^ RI w 1 ax IrrRnr+w+lA') P gC vnuuY Y194L � ..___ ._.._...._ P jam' SITE PLAN JESSIE GLEN PLAT - KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FIGURE LEGEND O Traffic Control Stop Sign XX mph Posted Speed --; Approach Lan Signal Limit e & Direction XL Number of Roadway Lanes EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS JESSIE GLEN PLAT - KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS I N Ole FIGURE 515 S.E. 186th St. N not to scale ai 4 L_ CD N Y- o to (D n S.E. 188th Sty-2 2-� 3� , 5� �3 i � N Project * Site S-E. 192nd St, 30% 40 % I w ¢� Li r� N � 3 6 6 co NET NEW PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION: WEST EAST PORTION ENTER: 19 (63%) 10 EXIT: 10 (37%) 7 LEGEND 29 17 xx% Trip Distribution Percentage 46 X— PM Peak Hour Troffic Volume & Direction PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION FIGURE JESSIE GLEN PLAT — KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS King County Road Services Division TYPE OF CERTIFICATE October 22, 2004 Department of Tranepertat'ion ®ORIGINAL Certificate #01628 20I South Jackson street ❑ CONDITIONAL fife Number: 04-10-15-02 Seattle. WA 98104-3856 Expires: October 22, 2005 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 and sufficient road capacity is reserved for the development project described below. 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: Ty Pendergraft, The Herbrand Company 1870 Lois Lane, Enumclaw, WA 98022 2. Property Location: a. Property Address:18924 116th Avenue SE b. Development Name: Jessie Glen c. Parcel Number: 6198400D80,100,120,140,320 3. Type of Development Permit To Be Requested: Formal Plat 4. Proposed Land Use. Single Family Residential 5. Zone Location and Reserved Units: a. Concurrency Zone: 799 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: 49 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 data listed herein. This Certificate of Concurrency is not transferable to any other property and has no commercial value. This Certificate Expires: October 22, 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 (DDES), bring this Certificate of Transportation Concurrency as part of the development application package. if you have any questions, please call (2&6) 2634722. Linda Dougherty, Director, Road Services Deparimcnt of Transportation King County, Washington Page I of 1 Mikhail Ekshtut From: "Scanlon, Jodi" <Jodi.Scanlon@METROKC.GOV> To: <sgteks@tranplarleng.CDm> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:22 PM Subject: Collisions on SE 192nd Street Mike, Here is the collision information that you requested. A couple of questions you may be asking: OD means opposite direction, SD means same direction. The one accident with footage is measured to the south of the intersection. Please let me know jf you have other questions. Thanks, Jodi Accident listing 01 /01 /2000 - 12/31 /20113 116th Ave Se 1890.I)0() to 1920.0W) sDrICd by <DATI--,TI N1,i;ACC#> QUADRj NT CAST: ID DATE TIKII ACC SLVLRM` N-D AGI` 1VrATIIRR LIM1-I-INCH ROAD COI.I.is; ON TYPL DISTAN STREET ] STREET 2 l UD-68B]91 04/29/2000 17:401njury Arc 0 Overcast Daylight Dry O)) one It turn one straight 0 11GTII AVI? SE SE 192ND ST 4 (0-161627 U8/21/2010 16:25 Injury Acc O Clear/Partly (Jou Daylight Dry OD one lr turn one straight 0 116TI 1 AVL SI_ SH 192ND ST 4 00-99310808/28/2000 8.)D Injury Acc 0 4 111 -993096 1)2/28/2001 13:50 Injury Acc 0 4 C2-371359 09/25/2002 8:(i3 I'mperty Damabc 0 � �Il 4 (12-371544 11/16/2111)2 22-30 Injury Acc iY t 4 U2-150191) 11/30/2002 15:28 Property Damagc 0 4 4 03-63588G 10/03/20(13 10:57 Properry Damage 0 Ovar/Partly Clou Daylight Dry SD both straight one stop RE 0 116TI1 AVE SE SE 192ND ST CIc3r/Partly Clou Daylight Dry OD one h turn one straight 0 116TI1 AVH SE SE 192ND ST Clear/Partly Clou Daylight Dry Right ankle 0 11(;T1I AVE SL'' Sf_ 192ND ST Ovurcasr Dark strcct light 1)ry 01) one It turn one straight () 116111 AVIi SIs SP, 192ND ST Fob/Smog/Smoke Daylight Dry OD one It turn une straight (I 11 GI71 AVE 51: SC 192ND ST Clear/)lartly Clou Daylight Dry SD both straight both moving SS 0 116TI1 AVE SE SE 192ND ST 03-696174 10/11 /2003 3:28 Injurh AcC 0 Cicar/i'artly Clou Dark sirect light Dry Vch strikes fi\L41 obj 0 116'TI I AV I? S U SL 192ND S-I' d03-770329 11/ IU/21)03 14:112 I'mperty Damage 0 Raining Daylight Wtl Right an& 0 116TI I AV 1; SI? S1: 192N1) ST 4 03-770330 ) 2 /19 /2003 17:20 Property Damage 0 Raining Dark no street U Wet SD both straight one stop Itli 200 116TII AVE SL, SI?189TI 1 LAND r 4 03-700430 12/10/1X 3 17:45 Property Damagc 0 Raining Dark no strcct li %'rt SD both Sinight one stop Itli 0 116T1 i AVE. SL SIi 192NO SC 4 U3-395420 04/28/20(13 22:5() PmNrry Damage 0 Clear/Party (wort D:rk strcct light Dry Right angle O 120)Tl I AVI: SI: q,' 1887.1I ST 1/11/05 SE 192nd Street - King County Road Services Division Page I of 2 *W1,7), King County 01111. News '90-d I, You are in: Transportation ? Road Services > Capital Improvement Program > SE 192nd Street Online Directory 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 I 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 11 is at 124th Ave SE and will be a separate project. Phase III was constructed in 2D01 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 11 6th 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 January 7, 2005 The project is in the design phase. Environmental Information —1-e-1/i I c : 1 n I ., t . y map. (click for details) rrent Budget"...--, Future Funding J Project contact Lorraine Lai 206-296-5760 Services provided Bridges Citizen requests Closures & delays Commuter information Construction Contact us Doing business Engineering Environment Maps Planning Safety Signs Traffic Your Roads Division About us Links for ... Businesses Communities Commuters Job seekers Teachers & kids Other links Regional The overall air quality within the project vicinity may improve slightly after the completion of this project due to reduced queue lengths and littp://www.ii-letrokc,. gov/kcdot/roads/cip/Proi ectDctal 1. aspx?CIPID=401 5 95 1/10/05 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 Transportation Needs Re.pDrt How does the CIP work? The Road Services Division Capital Improvement Program (CIE contains all design, construction and studies for improvements on roads, bridges or transportation facilities in unincorporated areas in King County. We have a glossary_ to help explain our terms and jargon. Top of_pagg 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 F�q= 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. T The details. http:l/www,iiletrokc.govlkcdotlroadslcipTroj ectDetail. aspx?LIPID=4015 95 1 /10/05 JESSIE GLEN PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KING COUNTY Prepared for THE HERBRAND COMPANY 315 391" Ave. S.W. Suite #G Puyallup, WA 98373 January 17, 2005 2223 - 112th Avenue N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98004-2952 Telephone: (425) 455-5320 Facsimile: (425) 453-5759 !� n 2U" Irk5 iC,C. 1:7.D.E.d... JESSIE GLEN PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KING COUNTY Prepared for THE HERBRAND COMPANY 315 391" Ave. S.W. Suite #6 Puyallup, WA 98373 Prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223-1121h Ave. N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Telephone: (425) 455-5320 Fax: (425) 453-5759 http:llwww.tran planeng.com January 17, 2005 �SIONA%0V EXPIRES 912710 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223 - 112" AVENUE N.E., SUITE 101 - BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004-2952 VICTOR M- BISHOP, P.E. President TELEPHONE (425) 455-5320 ❑AVID H. ENGEA. P.E. Vice Presidonl FACSIMILE (425) 453-5759 January 17, 2005 Mr. Ty Pendergraft THE HERBRAND COMPANY 315 39"' Ave. S.W. Suite #6 Puyallup, WA 98373 Re: Jessie Glen Plat - King County Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Pendergraft: We are pleased to submit this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed 49-lot Jessie Glen project located 18924 1161h Ave. S.E. in unincorporated King County. This project has received a Certificate of Concurrency, #01628, from King County. A copy of which is attached. 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. No intersections meet these criteria. 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 two connecting parcels between 116'h Ave. S.E. and 120`h Ave. Southeast - Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan provided by ESM. The plan consists of constructing 49 single-family lots on the two connecting parcels. However, the internal roadways of the two parcels would not be connected and each parcel would have its own access onto the County road system. The west parcel, comprising of 31 lots would have access onto 1161" Ave. S.E. and the east parcel, comprising of 18 lots, would have access onto 120th Ave. Southeast The site presently has three single-family houses, two of which will be removed as part of the project. The third would be relocated within the site. Therefore, there would be 46 net new single-family homes constructed, Full development and occupancy of Jessie Glen is expected to occur by 2008, This 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 C:MORK DOCUMLNTS1—PROJECTSWmg Cwnty�1C0433005 Jessie Glen TIA.doc Mr. Ty Pendergraft THE HERBRAND COMPANY January 17, 2005 Page 2 and their classification per the Arterial Functional Classification Map, December 1998 are as follows: SR 515 (108`h Ave. S.E.) 192nd St. S-E. 116`h Ave. S.E. 1201h Ave. S.E. Sight Distances State Highway/Principal Arterial Principal Arterial Collector Arterial Local Access We conducted a sight distance review on 1161h Ave. S.E. at the proposed west site access. 116'h Ave. S.E. is a straight and relatively level Collector Arterial. Results of the available for which stopping sight distance (SSD) and entering sight distances (ESD) at the proposed west site access are shown in the following table: SIGHT DISTANCE SUMMARY Proposed West Site Access To/From the To/From the King County North South Design Criteria Stopping Sight Distance (ft.) Over 500 Approx. 750 (toS.E. 192"d St.) 400 Entering Sight Distance (f#.) Over 700 Approx. 750 (to S.E. 192nd St.) 620 This table also shows the County's SSD and ESD criteria per Table 2.1 in the Kin County Road Standards - 1993 (KCRS). The KCRS recommended sight distances are for a design speed of 45 MPH (posted speed limit on 116`h Ave. S.E. of 35 MPH plus 10 MPH per the County policy). Our field review shows that the County's SSD criteria of 400 feet is met both to the north and south. The County's ESD criteria of 620 feet is also met to the north and south. Therefore, we believe that there would not be a sight distance deficiency at the proposed west site access. A sight distance review was also conducted at the east site access, which would enter onto 120th Ave_ S.E., a local access road_ For local access roads, the KCRC SSD requirement is 150 ft. and would be met. There is no KCRC ESD criteria for local access roads. We believe that there would not be a sight distance deficiency at the proposed east site access either. Accident Data The King County staff provided accident report data for the roads surrounding the project site for the time period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2003_ This data indicate that during this four year period there appear to have been 11 reported accident at the S.E_ 192nd St./116" (;:'.WORK DOCUMENT&-PROJECTSTing Coun(yW)433005 Jessne Glen TIA.doc Mr. Ty Pendergraft THE HERERAND COMPANY January 17, 2005 Page 3 Ave. S.E. intersection, one accident on 1161h Ave. S.E. 200 feet from S.E. 1891h Pl. and one traffic accident at the 120" Ave. S.EJ188`h St. intersection. The County staff did not indicate that any of the surrounding roadways or nearby intersections are high accident locations. Based on this data, the relatively low number of accidents, and our field review no apparent accident problem exists at the surrounding intersections. A copy of the accident data is attached. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The site presently has three single-family houses, two of which will be removed as part of the project. The third would be relocated within the site. The project proposes to construct 49 single-family lots_ Thus, there would be 46 net new single-family homes, which are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Average Trip Rate Trips Entering Trips Exiting Total Trips Average Weekday T = 9.57 (X) 220 (50%) 220 (50%) 440 AM Peak Hour T = 0.75 (X) 9 (25%) 26 (75%) 35 PM Peak Hour T = 1.01(X) 29 (63%) 17 (37%) 46 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 band 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 the King County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), found on the internet at www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/roads/cip/default.aspx, 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 1081h Ave. S.E, to 1401h Ave. Southeast, Phase V of the project would make improvements to the 116'h Ave. S.E_ intersection. However, this portion of the project is currently unfunded. More data on this project is attached. GAWORK DOCJMENM-PROJECTStiKing County=4J3005 Jessie Gler TIA.doc Mr. Ty Pendergraft THE HERBRAND COMPANY January 17, 2005 Page 4 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 zones for which a residential fee has been pre -calculated. This project is located in MPS zone #342, which has a fee of $3,730 per single-family unit. The current MPS fee for the 46 net new single-family units of the Jessie Glen Plat is calculated to be $171,580. Per King County standards, the developer would likely be required to construct frontage improvements on 116'h Ave. S.E. and on 120'h Ave. S.E. adjacent to the project site. These frontage improvements would likely consist of curb, gutter and a six and a half foot wide sidewalk on 1161h Ave. S-E. and curb, gutter and a five foot wide sidewalk on 120'hAve. Southeast. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Per King County criteria, no intersections would carry 30 or more site generated trips and at least 20% of the site generated traffic. The proposed project would not have more than 30 site -generated trips at either of the site access intersections, which are expected to operate at a satisfactorily with the proposed Jessie Glen project. We recommend that the Jessie Glen project be constructed with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: 1. Provide a King County MPS fee contribution for zone #342 in the likely amount of $171,580. 2. Construct frontage improvements adjacent to the project site, which would likely consist of curb, gutter and a six and a half foot wide sidewalk on 116'r' Ave. S.E. and curb, gutter and a five foot wide sidewalk on 1201hAve. Southeast. 3. Construct the proposed on -site roads per King County Road Standards. No further mitigation is expected. If you have any questions, please call Mikhail (Mike) Ekshtut, E.I.T. or myself at (425) 455-5320 or e-mail us at sgteks(�tranplaneng.com_ Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. /c- Victor H. Bishop, P.E. ME:me President CAWORK DOGUMENIS1-PROJEC7S�Kkng Coun;ykK0433005 Jessie Glen TIA.doc C— rm (/) fTl �7 7 r— T m F Z D� D D � � t— � C Z -T1 0 7U Fri 10ind Ave SE 1041h Pf SE r 7J ,rn a I _ I51h PI S^ � 1061h Ave S q f07tfl ve f07th Pf SE n zlr f08th Ave 9SE EE 10Bth Ave SE,, f rn rn E 1h Ave S�1L1h Ave $E u}Z t 1131h P1 ! SE P1S1741ti 7 118th Ave SE I I 716t N -1181h A je SE i m f201h Ave SE ., s t Ave SE' f � I a 122nd Pf SE 1� 1 1241h A e SE YYY 24 h ve E 1 c p ti rzrrn t'f- � ti 5 yz9th � a y +l}0 m rn m ly m 132nd AY SE (' pwjron paowogy�IMJf A as �mv aRoz� \ R wr- 1 I i 0 1 I I I A R r I I i { \ LL p I n C R { e I 1 r Y p R M i sal nqr -oz R � � a �r i n car.oz N ur ry Y A 41 w m I an [riNwv,o�le1 R as ---V' Lm" \ A SITE PLAN f I � JESSIE GLEN PLAT - KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FIGURE 4 515 J N S.E. 186th St. N not to scale Li U) a3 a_ N L N O N S.E. 188th St. Project a - Site r� S.E. 192nd St. 2L 40 MPH Li Lzl Lei Q N Q CL a� Q 00 Q N LEGEND 0 Traffic Control Signal el Stop Sign XX mph Posted Speed Limit —a- Approach Lane & Direction XL Number of Roadway Lanes EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS FIGURE JESSIE GLEN PLAT - KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS W 515 S.E. 186th St. liJ Ui a� 7 a 0 N not to scale "} 0 PO cD F) 1 S_ E. 188th St_ 12 2--A/ /�— 7 rri � Project * Site S.E. 192nd St. 30% 40% I i I w �tII 1_ _ 6 L-i � r� c� _ 6 4 4-1 coco o c� NET NEW PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION: WEST EAST PORTION ENTER: 19 (637.) 10 EXIT: 10 (37%) 7 LEGEND 29 17 xx% Trip Distribution Percentage 46 X--► PM Weak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION JESSIE GLEN PLAT - KING COUNTY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FIGURE 21 King County Road Services Division TYPE, OF CERTIFICATE October 22, 2004 Department of Traneportation ® ORIGINAL Certificate # 01628 201 South Jackson Street ❑ CONDITIONAL File Number: 04-10-16-02 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Expires: October 22, 2005 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 and sufficient road capacity is reserved for the development project described below. IMPORTANT: This certificate does not guarantee a development permit. Other transportation improvements and mitigation will be required to comply with Intersection Standards, Mitigation Paymetit System, King County road slandards, and/or safely needs. 1. Applicant Name and Address: Ty Pendergraft, The Herbrand Company 1870 Lois Lane, Enumclaw, WA 98022 2. Property Location: a. Property Address:18924 116th Avenue SE b. Development Name: Jessie Glen c. Parcel Nunhber: 6198400080,100,120,140,320 3. Type of Development Permit'ro Be Requested: Formal Plat 4. Proposed Land Use: Single Family Residential 5. Zone Location and Reserved Units: a. Concurrency Zone: 799 Community Planning Area: SODS Creek i. Commercial Project -Total Square Feet: 0 ii. Multi -family -Number of Units: 0 iii. Single family -Number of Units: 49 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 ovzhers 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 oilier property and has no commercial value. This Certificate Expires: October 22, 2005 unless you apply for the development permit described above, prior to that date. If this requirr-ment 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 or Development and Environmental Services (DDES), bring this Certificate of Transportation Concurrency as part of the development application package. if you have any questions, please call (206) 263-0722. r-� Linda Dougherty, Director, Road Services Department of Transportation King County, Washinglon Page 1 of I Mikhail Ekshtut From: "Scanlon, Jodi" <Jodi.Scanlon@METROKC.GOV> To: <sgteks@tranpIaneng.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:22 PM Subject: Collisions on SE 192nd Street Mike, Here is the collision information that you requested. A couple of questions you may be asking: OD means opposite direction, SD means same direction. The one accident with footage is measured to the south of the intersection. Please let me know if you have other questions. Thanks, Jodi Accident listing pl/l1I/?(toll- 12/31/20(13 I IGth Ave Se 1890.000 to 1920.000 Boded by [DATE; INIH,ACC#} QIJ.: Dlb%NT CASE 11) DATE ' IMIr ACC Sl'_VERI-tY ITD AC;13 WI.-AT1117It 1,1(.11TINC, ROAD COLLISIUNT1 TE DISTA.N STRERT 1 SrR1 1'2 41 00-688191 04/29/20(H) 17 49 Injury Acc 0 ovefcasr Daylight Dry QD one It turn one straight 0 116'1'fl AVF SI? SE 192ND ST 4 00-I61627 I18/21/211110 16:25 lnjury Acc 0 C;lear/Panty Clow Daylight Dry 01) one It turn unc straight 0 11GTI I AV E Sir SI? 192NDST 4 00-993108 OB/28/20W 5:10 [njuryAcc 0 Cicar/Partly Clou Daylight Dry SD both straight nut stop ]iE (I 116'171 AV E SE SE' 192ND ST 4 ai-993096 02/28/2001 13:50 Injury Acc 0 Clear/P2nly Clou Daylight Dry OD one It turn one straight 0 116TH AVE SE S11 192ND Sr j 4 / -- L }02-371359 09/25/2002 9:03 Prohcrry Damage 0 Clear/Partly Clnu Daylight Dry Itight angle D 1 IG'1'I I AV I-` SE Sii 192ND ST 4 \ (12-371544 11/16/2002 22:30 Injury Acc 0 Ch'cmisI Dark Strcct light Dry C)D unc It ILlrn one straight Il 116'111 AV I: SI-. SP. 192ND ST 4 02-150190 11/3D/2002 15:28 Pruperty Damabc 0 Vog/Smog/Smoke Daylight Dry C)D unc It turn one straight 0 116TI1 AV13 YLi SIs 192ND ST 4 03-635886 W/Q3/2003 1 D:57 Property Damagc 0 Clear/Partly Cluu Daylight Dry SD both straight both moving SS it 116"1'11 AVI_ S8 SU 192ND ST 4 03-G96174 W/ 11/20o3 3:28 Injury Acc 0 Clcar,Tardy ("IOU Dar>; strcct light Dry Vch StnkcS 6.Cd ohj II 11OTII AVE Sr, 5I," 192ND ST 03-770329 11 / 10/2003 14;02 Property Damabc ll Itaining Daylight Wcz Right angle 0 1 16T] I AV I: SE 51; 192N1) ST 4 03-770330 11 J19/2003 17.2(1 Property Damagc 0 Raining Dark no street k 1Vct SD both straight one stop RE 200 116PI1 AVIr S13 SIr189TI1 [,AN I' r i U3-7011430 12/1{)/2UU3 I7:45 Properq I7anlabc ll Raining Dark nu street li 1Y'u1 S1) both straight one stop ICIi 0 116'l'1J AVE' SE S1I 192ND 5T •1 16-395420 (A/28/2003 22:50 Pruperty D:1maylc II 0Car/1'art11 (:Iou Dark xtrect Iiglot Dry lUght 111XIc D 121ITI I AVI` SI? SI? 1s8,nI S'r 1/11/05 SE 192nd Street - Ding County Road Services Division Page 1 of 2 King County 111111111111 11111110i1IBWS 51`111C$5 `Ointments ' Nleves You are in: Transportation > Road Services > Capital Improvement Program > SE 192nd Street Online Director Capital Improvement Program Vic'nity a � __ SE 192nd Street Project No.: 401595 Services provided Bridges Citizen requests Project limits: Benson Road to 140th Avenue _ Closures &delays SE Current phase: Intermediate Design- �,iojOCllltl01595 . Commuter information Project type: Capacity i_ H Construction Thomas Bros. map No.: 686d2 j A r-4 Contact us 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 {click fordetai}s) -`•Current budget *R & latenFuturt Fin in Doing business Engineering Environment Maps Ave SE to 134th Ave SE and a pedestrian signal Project contact Pianning at Meeker Jr High. Phase 11 is at 124th Ave SE and will be a separate project. Phase II I was Lorraine Lai Safety constructed in 2001 and added turn lanes and a 205-296-8760 Signs 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 Traffic Your Roads Division SE but is currently unfunded. Why is King County doing this project? About us Links for .-- Businesses S-E. 192nd St is a principal arterial in the Soos Creek area. The road also provides access to Communities Commuters area schools. Status as of January 7, 2005 The project is in the design phase. Job seekers Teachers & kids Other links Regional 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 http:Hwww.rnetrokc.gov/kedot/roads/cip/ProjectDetail.aspx?CIPID=401595 1/10/05 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 Kina County Comprehensive Plan My -Commute Online Bus Trip Planner Transportation Needs Report How does the CIP work? The Road Services Division Ca ital lmprovemerit 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 giossa_ry_ 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 D' = 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://www.i-netroke.gov/kcdot/roads/cip/ProjectDetail.aspx?CIPID=401595 1/10/05 �'�,_� �`� B-12 Wetland Consulting, lnc. ' 1 �03W. hJleekerSt (v)25385,}0515 `�. � � Kam, WA98�2•S51 [f125.',-$��i2�?� December 14, 2004 Ty Pendergraft The Herbrand Company 315 39th Ave SW Ste 6 Puyallup, WA 98373 RE: Wetland Determination — "Jessie Glen", King County, WA. B-12 Job#A4-366 Dear Ty, This letter describes my findings regarding jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers on the proposed "Jessie Glen" subdivision located off 116th Avenue SW in unincorporated King County, Washington (the "site"). Specifically, the 7.7 acre site is an irregular shaped combination of five (5) parcels (Parcels #619840-0080, 4619840-0100, #619840-0120, #619840-0140, and #619840-0320) located between 116th Avenue SE and 120th Avenue SW in the SW '/, of Section 33, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the Willamette Meridian. The site is generally located within a suburban area surrounded by residential development. 5p Oop-� L 0.,.s 1# c� A Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Company K.C. D-D.E.S The Herbrand Co. -Jessie Glen/#A4-366 B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc, December 14, 2004 Page 2 The site includes several existing single family homes with associated landscaping, lawns gravel driveways, and scattered outbuildings. Portions of the site have immature (20- 45yrs old) deciduous forest covering them. No wetlands, streams or associated wetland or stream buffers were found on the site. The proposed project is the construction of a 49 lot subdivision with associated road, and stormwater facilities. On December 7, 2004,1 inspected the site for jurisdictional wetlands and streams using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual (WADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by King County and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual as well as the 1987 Federal Manual requires the use of the three -parameter approach in identifying and delineating wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation, over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed, 1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Anaerobic conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater of the growing season. Areas that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season may or may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all three parameters will be present in wetland areas. OBSERVATIONS Prior to visiting the site a review of existing inventories that included the area of the site was completed. The inventories reviewed included the Soil Survey of King County, Washington, the National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI), and the King County Wetland Inventory and iMap website. There are no wetlands, streams or hydric soils mapped for the site. Axrr-bvA-L W VT I.A-?-10 VFb{rn) -- aV50 f Ivor w 51Y-O P yr oeoD W fi" . The Herhrand Co. - Jessie Glenl#A4-366 B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc, December 14, 2004 Page 3 Field Observations The portions of the site that are not already developed with single family homes and associated lawn, landscaping and driveways consists primarily of deciduous forest on the east, and on the north, an area of mixed forest and shrubs and small saplings on the north. The eastern forested area is a mix of alder, big leaf maple, scattered hemlock, salmonberry, Indian plum, sword fern and Himalayan blackberry. Soil pits excavated within the site revealed a well drained gravelly soil with a 1 "-4" A - horizon of 10YR 3/2 loam over a B-horizon of 10YR 3/4-3/6 gravelly loam. No hydric soil indicators were noted, and excavated test pits on the site that were 6' deep were dry to the bottom. No indication of wetland hydrology is present on the site. The two northern parcels include a forested area on the extreme north, and a shrub area just south of that parcel. The forested area includes a mixed third growth forested area with a mix of Douglas fir, big leaf maple, red alder, sword fern, Indian plum., hazelnut and salmonberry. Soils are dry with high chroma soils colors and hydric soil indicators. The shrub area contains large thickets of Himalayan blackberry as well as scattered cherry, alder, and Indian plum. Several small (100sf -400sD depressions are located within some tire rutted areas where vehicles and debris have been driven and stored. Some scattered patches of buttercup were found in these areas but no evidence of wetland soils or hydrology. Soils were similar to other areas of the site previously described. Off --site Areas I inspected the area of off -site forest to the north of proposed Lot 32 (see "Jessie Glen Conceptual Site plan — ESM Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1115104) for wetlands with the landowner's permission. This area has several large cottonwoods as well as some red - osier dogwood which looked like a potential wetland area. However, soil pits excavated within this area revealed only moist, non-hydric soils not meeting wetland criteria. I also inspected the area to the south of the site in just south of proposed lots 33, 36, & 37-41. This area has a subdivision proposed on it (KCLU L04S0003). Some very small depressions within old fill were noted with wetland flags on this site. Only one, just south of Lot 39 appeared to have any evidence of wetland hydrology or soils. This area is a small (approximately 500so area of scrub -shrub wetland. Since this wetland is <2,500sf in size it would not be regulated by the County within the urban area. Conclusion There are no jurisdictional wetlands, streams or buffers on the Jessie Glen site. The Herbrand Co. - Jessie Glen/#A4-366 B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. December 14, 2004 Page 4 If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at (253) 859-0515 or at ed@b1.2assoc.com Sincerely, B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist (PWS#212) King County Preferred Consultant t 0 King County Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217 ENGINEERING REVIEW CHECKLIST 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 1993 King County Road Standards For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name Activity Number L-�D �Fz� Project Number UOO f)? Development Number DDES Review Engineer f-77� ccc Q •0 Qr Date /�-Z% - C � Notes 4vif�l LO�j SC)�p 3brh�s1-�e roQc 0pj. ❑ Hearing Examiner's Report ........ Date �ES- Revised Report ...... Date ❑ Plat Ordinance Number Date ❑ Preliminary Plat Map .......... Date Approved by Hearing Examiner ❑ Revised Preliminary Plat Map ....... Date Approved by DDES 211 5-year Expiration ....... Date S 20 /O (Show an engineering cover sheet) ROUTING TO OTHER KING COUNTY SECTIONS OK ^•j� [� Wetland Report/ Plans Route Date Geotechnical Report ! Plans Route Date iA [; Grading Report 1 Plans Route Date Response Date Response Date Response Date Structural Designs / Calculations / Civil Plans 1 Soils Report (Vaults, Retaining Walls, Bridges) Route Date Response Date �� ❑ Landscape / Recreation / Street Tree / Plan Route Date Response Date Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07h 212005 1 of 16 1 Activity Number: (Continued) 0A, 21 Traffic Improvement Plan / Report Route Date Response Date Tree Retention / Forestry / Plan Route Date Response Date ❑ Other Report! Plan Route Date Response date ❑ All required routing stations shown and updated on PRMS Notes _K1_0 GENERAL SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS OK Site plan layout matches preliminary plat approved by Hearing Examiner (Check for same lot count, tract configuration, road alignments, etc.) ❑ Compliance with conditions of preliminary approval Tompliance with Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance ract Table if three or more tracts. Identify name, size and purpose. Show and label all SAO tracts, buffers, and 15' BSBL. Review maximum height of 6-feet for rockeries and retaining walls per KCC 21A.12.030, 110-170, 220) Also show standard note per policy on Web site. V]" lse updated cover sheet showing designation for highly critical sites per Appendix, D44, Determine if HPA fisheries permit required — contact CAO staff. ❑ Tree Retention Plans - Show standard plan note (see section policies). SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (1998) CORE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OK SWDM 1.2.1 Core #1 — Evaluate diversion of drainage within subbasins and/or tightline requirements for landslide hazard drainage areas. ❑ 1.2.2 Core #2 — Off -site analysis. Evaluate adequacy and conclusions. ❑ 1.2.3 Core #3 — Flow control. Determine design standard based upon mapping and/or off -site analysis. Evaluate exemptions from flow control if applicable. 1.2.6 Core #6 —All drainage facilities and road access shall be located in public tracts, right-of-way and/or drainage easements dedicated to King County. For private facilities, specify the required Declaration of Covenant and drainage easements for final recording. ❑ 1.2.8 Core #8 — Water Quality. Determine design standard based upon mapping and/or off -site analysis. Evaluate exemptions if applicable and untreated areas per page 1-57. [ 1.3.1 Special #1 —Area specific requirements. Perform P-suffix search on computer, evaluate grading code restrictions, and review for shared facility drainage plan. ❑ 1.3.2 Special #2 — Floodplain boundaries shown on plans. Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07112/2005 2 of 16 DRAINAGE VARIANCES ❑ 1.4 Activity No. Design Issues TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT OK SWDM 2.3.1.1 Section 1 — Project Overview Figure 1: TIR Worksheet Figure 2: Site Location Activity Number: Approval Date Figure 3: Drainage Basins a. Acreage of subbasins b. Identify all site characteristics c. Show existing discharge points to and from the site d. Show routes of existing, construction, and future flows at all discharge points and downstream hydraulic structures. e. Use a minimum USGS 1:2400 topographic map as a base f. Show and cite the length of travel from the farthest upstream end of a proposed storm system in the development to any proposed flow control facility. Figure 4; Soils a. Show the project site b. The area draining to the site c. The drainage system downstream for the distance of the downstream analysis Section 2 — Preliminary Conditions Summary with responses Section 3 — Off -Site Analysis Section 4 — Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) Performance Standards (Part C) Flow Control System (Part D) Water Quality System (Part E) Section 5 — Conveyance System Design and Analysis Section 6 — Special Reports and Studies — Geo, Wetlands, Floodplain analysis (4.4.2) Section 7 — Other Permits (HPA, Special Use, WSDOT, etc.) Section 8 — Erosion ! Sedimentation Control Design Section 9 — Bond Quantities Worksheet and R1D Facility Summary Section 10 — Maintenance and Operations Manual (Section 10 for privately maintained or special non- standard features Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/12/2005 3 of 16 Activity Number: SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS OK SWDM ❑ 2.3.1.2 ®� Vertical Datum NAVD 1988 — show benchmark Horizontal Control NAD 1983/91 ❑ 2.3.1.2 General Plan Format (1) Sheet size 24" x 36"; quality reproducibles ❑ (2) King Co. Standard Map Symbols; existing / proposed (Reference 7A) ❑ (3) Project Information ! Cover Sheet a. Title: Project name and DDES file number } b. Table of Contents if more than 3 plan sheets c. Vicinity Map ❑ d. Name & Phone of Utility field contacts and One Call Number: 1-800-424-5555 (water, sewer, gas, power) e. Preconstruction / Inspection notification requirements ❑ f. Name & Phone of erosion control supervisor ❑ g. Name & Phone of Surveyor ❑ h. Name & Phone of Owner / Agent ❑ i. Name & Phone of Applicant ❑ j. Legal description 1 }� —❑ k. Plan approval block for DDES ❑ I. Name & Phone of engineering firm preparing plans ❑ m. Fire Marshal's approval stamp (if required) y ? ^❑ n. Mailbox location approval by U.S. Postal Service ❑ o. List of conditions of preliminary approval on all site improvements ❑ (4) An overall site plan if more than three plan sheets are used ❑ a. The complete property area development ❑ b. Right-of-way information ❑ c. Street names and road classification ❑ d. All project phasing and proposed division boundaries ❑ e. All natural and proposed drainage collection and conveyance systems with catch basin numbers shown ❑ (5) Each sheet and TIR is stamped, signed, and dated by a Professional Engineer licensed in Washington State ❑ (6) Detail Sheets Provided ❑ (7) Title block on each sheet ❑ a. Development title ❑ b. Name, address and phone number of engineering firm ❑ c. Revision block ❑ d. Page numbering ❑ e. Sheet title (e.g., road and drainage, grading, etc.) ❑ (8) King County approval block on each plan sheet ❑ (9) The location and label for each section or other detail shall be provided ❑ (10) Critical Area Setbacks per K.C.C. 21A.24 ❑ (11) All match lines correspond to the sheet reference ❑ Division phase lines with limits of construction �] g o7Es `�u6Eb(12) (13) Standard Plan Notes — General, Drainage & Structural notes (Reference 713) ❑ (14) Survey control plan sheet stamped by licensed PLS in Washington State Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/1212005 4 of 16 Activity Number: SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS (continued) OK SWDM ❑ 2.3.1.2 Plan View: Site Plan and Roadway Elements ❑ (1) Property Lines, R1W lines, roadway widths shown ❑ (2) Existing A Proposed road features; CL, edge pavement, edge shoulder, ditches, curb, sidewalk & access pts ❑ (3) Existing I Proposed topographic contours @ 2', 5515% slope, 10-540% slope ❑ (4) All affected utilities are shown; utility poles marked ❑ (5) All roads and adjoining subdivisions identified ❑ (6) Existing / Proposed RAW dimensioned and shown ❑ (7) Existing I Proposed surfacing shown ❑ (8) Scale generally 1"=50' (1"=100' for lots >1 Acre) ❑ 2.3.1.2 Plan View: Drainage Conveyance ❑ Sequentially number all catch basins and curb inlets ❑ Show length, diameter, and material for all pipes, culverts, and stubouts ❑ Label catch basin size and type ❑ Show stubout locations for roof drains ❑ Label all drainage easements, access easements, tracts, and building setbacks ❑ Provide flow arrows for drainage direction ❑ 2.3.1.2 Plan View: Other ❑ Show all buildings, property lines, streets, alleys, and easements ❑ Verify condition of public right-of-way ❑ Show structures on abutting properties within 50 feet ❑ Identify fencing for drainage facilities ❑ Provide section details of all retaining walls and rockeries ❑ Show all wells on -site and within 100-feet of site. For well abandonment, include notes referencing DOE procedures. ❑ 2.3.1.2 Profiles: Roadway and Drainage ❑ Existing I proposed roadway centerline (CL) at 50' stations increasing, reading from left to right. Show stationing of points of smooth vertical curve, with elevations ❑ Show vertical curve data including stopping sight distance ❑ Show all pipes and detention tanks with slope, length, size and type ❑ Show all pipe inverts and elevations of catch basins or lids ❑ Minimum cover dimensions if less than 2.0' ❑ Indicate roadway stationing and offset for all catchbasins ❑ Show vertical and horizontal scales (vertical 1 "=5') ❑ Label all profiles with street names and reference numbers to plan sheet ❑ Show all property boundaries and match line locations ❑ Provide profiles for conveyance systems of 12" and larger pipes or channels other than roadway ditches ❑ Catch basin lids are flush with ground line Engineering Review Checklist FORMA= le-ckkercheck.pdf 07/1212005 5 of 16 Activity Number: SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS (continued) OK SWDM ❑ 2.3.1.2 Plan Details ❑ Provide scale drawing of each pond, vault, or water quality facility. Include all pipe details for size, type, slope, length, etc. ❑ Show existing and final grade contours at 2-foot intervals. Show maximum design water elevation. ❑ Dimension all berm widths ❑ Provide two cross sections through pond, including one section through restrictor ❑ Specify soils and compaction requirements ❑ Show location and detail of emergency overflows, spillways, and bypasses ❑ Specify rock protection / energy dissipation details ❑ Provide inverts for all pipes, grates, etc., and spot elevations on pond bottom ❑ Show location of access roads to control manholes and pond / forebay bottoms ❑ Provide plan and section views of all energy dissipaters. Specify size and thickness of rock. ❑ Show bollard locations (Typically at entrance to drainage facility and walking trails) ❑ Restrictor and control structures must have section and plan view drawn to scale ❑ 2.3.1.2 Structural Plan Details El Notes: Verify that designer is a licensed structural P.E. for vaults or bridges EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (SWDM Annendix D OK SWDM ❑ 2.3.1.3 General Specifications ❑ Separate plan sheet showing entire site w/features ❑ Show critical areas and buffers in separate tracts ❑ Show existing contours and final grades if scope or work includes grading ❑ Pertinent information from soils report is added to plans ❑ Drainage features identified (streams, wetlands, bogs, springs, seeps, swales, ditches, pipes & depressions) ❑ Utility corridors other than roads shown ❑ Show drainage divides and flow directions ❑ Specify best management practices ❑ Show cut and fill slopes with catch lines indicated ❑ Sufficient conceptual details to convey design intent ❑ Standard ESC plan notes shown on plans (Page D-69) ❑ For grading and structural fill within lot areas — show standard notes for geo hazards (see section policies for geo notes) ❑ D.4.1 Clearing Limits ❑ (1) Delineate clearing limits — colored survey tape maybe used. Critical areas require plastic / metal safety fence or stake and wire fences. ❑ (2) Provide detail of fencing Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-errheck.pdf 07/12/2005 6 of 16 Activity Number: 2.3.1.3 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (SWDM Appendix D) rcontinvedl OK SWDM ❑ D.4.2 Cover Measures ❑ (1) Specify the type and location of temporary and permanent cover measures. (Mulch, erosion control nets, blankets, plastic, seeding and sodding) ❑ (2) Specify the seed mixes, fertilizers and soil amendments to be used and application rates ❑ (3) Areas receiving special treatment are specified (jute netting, rock lining or sod) ❑ (4) Soil cover practices and locations of disturbed areas ❑ D.4.3 Perimeter Protection ❑ (1) Specify the location and type of perimeter protection to be used — silt fence, brush barriers, and / or vegetated strips ❑ (2) Provide details and specify type of fabric for silt fence ❑ 13.4.4 Traffic Area Stabilization ❑ (1) Show construction entrance with detail (Figure DA,G) ❑ (2) Show proposed construction roads and parking areas. Specify details for stabilization. ❑ D.4.5 Sediment Retention ❑ (1) Show location of sediment pond or sediment trap. Very small areas can be treated with only perimeter protection (see D.4.3). ❑ (2) Sediment Trap — Can be used for drainage areas of 3 acres or less. Calculate surface area using 2-year design storm. Show detail per Figure DA.H. ❑ (3) Sediment Pond — Determine pond geometry and show details on plan for required storage, depth, length and width ❑ (4) Show sediment pond cross section and detail (Figures DA.J and K) ❑ (5) Provide details of cell dividers and stabilization techniques for inlet I outlet ❑ (6) Specify mulch or recommended cover of berms & slopes ❑ (7) Specify the 1-foot marker for sediment removal ❑ (8) Indicate catch basins for protection and show design details (Figures D.41 and M) ❑ D.4.6 Surface Water Control ❑ (1) Show conveyance of all surface water to a sediment pond or trap ❑ (2) Discharge location shall be downslope from disturbed areas ❑ (3) Show details for conveyance with interceptor dike, swales (Figures D.4.0, P). ❑ (4) For ditches, determine capacity for 10-year storm with 0.5 feet freeboard. Show details for check dams (Figure DA,R). Determine check dam spacing and as needed, show inverts and minimum slopes of open channels. Also show direction of open channel flow. ❑ (5) For pipe slope drains, determine capacity for 10-year storm. Show details per Figure D.4.Q. ❑ (6) Determine level of protection for outlet (rock pad, outfall design, or level spreader). See requirements in D-38 through D-40. ❑ (7) Evaluate off -site flows entering the site and assure bypass of disturbed areas Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ek]-ercheck.pdf 07/1212005 7 of 16 Activity Number: 2.3.1.3 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (SWDM Agoendix D) (continued) OK SWDM ❑ D.5.1 ESC Report ❑ (1) Show detailed construction sequence (page D-70) ❑ (2) All required calculations and soils reports contained in TIR ❑ D.5.2 Wet Season Requirements ❑ (1) Provide a list of all applicable wet season requirements (details on page D-42) ❑ D.5.3 Critical Area Restrictions ❑ (1) Consider phased construction during the dry season. See special recommendations on page D-43. ❑ D.5.4 Maintenance ❑ (1) Plans shall list the name, address and phone number of the ESC Supervisor. A sign shall also be posted on the construction site with information for contacting the ESC supervisor. ❑ (2) Determine if site is Highly Critical (Soil Types C or D, 5 acres of disturbance, large areas with slopes >10%, proximity to streams, wetlands, or lakes) ❑ (3) On cover sheet of engineering plans, designate if highly critical site ❑ D.5.7 NPDES Requirements ❑ (1) Determine if project will disturb more than 5 acres ❑ (2) If disturbed area is greater the 5 acres, show the following note on the plans: "No construction or site disturbance for this project may begin before the applicant first obtains a General Permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)_ For more information or application form, please visit DOE's website at http:llwww.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/ecY02085.htmi" 100 6 e D.5.8 Forest Practices Permit (1) Determine if project needs FPA permit. Contact DDES grading section. (2) Provide a reference note on the cover sheet indicating whether or not an FPA permit has been obtained. Early Start Plan Review (1) Standard cover sheet included with Title for Phased Early Start (2) List the scope of work for early start (scope of work will vary for each project — evaluate clearing, grading for roads, lot grading, utility installation, vault construction, off -site work) (3) Update the sheet index to identify all plans with updated page numbers (4) Include standard ESC plan prepared in accordance with all requirements listed above for erosion and sediment control (5) Include detailed construction sequence and identify ESC supervisor (6) Show standard erosion control notes (7) Show early start activity number on all plain sheets Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/1212005 8 of 16 Activity Number: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OK SWDM ❑ 3.2 Runoff Computation ❑ Rational Method required for on -site conveyance (See Table 3.2) ❑ KCRTS used for flow control design ❑ Evaluate correct data: Rainfall region, scale factor, time step, record type, acreages, soil cover groups, and percent impervious ❑ 3.27 For urban areas, unprotected forest modeled as pasture or grass ❑ For rural areas, unprotected forest assumes 50% grass, 50% pasture ❑ All pre -developed grassland modeled as pasture ❑ All post developed grassland modeled as grass ❑ Impervious coverage calculated based upon specific project — clearly summarize types and amounts of impervious ❑ For urban development, impervious for each lot, >= 4,000 sq ft or maximum allowed in zoning code ❑ For rural development, impervious for each lot, >= 8,000 sq ft or maximum allowed in zoning code ❑ Evaluate requirements for modeling with effective impervious area ❑ 3.3.6 Point of compliance — evaluate for on -site bypass and off -site closed depression ❑ 3.3.7 On -site closed depressions and ponding areas ❑ 4.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design ❑ Conveyance systems are in easements with BSBLs ❑ Off -site easements must be recorded using standard forms (Reference 8H) ❑ Determine which easements are public and private, label and dimension ❑ Pipes are parallel to and alongside property lines ❑ 4.5 Minimum pipe size 12-inch, for private systems may allow 8 inch ❑ Easements for pipes outside of right of way ❑ 4.7 For connecting pipes at structures, match crowns, 80% diameter, or inverts ❑ 4.9 Minimum velocity at full flow 3.0 feet per second ❑ 4.9 Minimum cover for pipes 2 feet ❑ 4.10 Debris barrier for pipes 18-36 inch ❑ 4.27 Outfall design criteria ❑ Surcharges (backwater analysis may be required) ❑ 4.35 Maximum headwater allowed for culverts ❑ 4.51 Bridge design ❑ 4.69 Floodplain analysis ❑ 4.53 Open channels ❑ 5.0 Flow Control Design ❑ 5.3 Mandatory requirements for roof downspouts in order of preference. Must evaluate feasibility of each. * Infiltration * Dispersion * Perforated stubouts ❑ 5.9 Dispersion system criteria including vegetated flow path ❑ 5.11 Perforated stub out, if used show detail per Fig. 5.1.3.A Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckkercheck.pdf 07112/2005 9 of 16 Activity Number: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (continued) OK SWDM ❑ 5.14 Forested open space flow control BMPs • Show tracts or easements for FOS ♦ Show required notes on plan for plat recording ❑ 5.15 Roadway dispersion BMPs, check design criteria ❑ 5.17 BMPs for reducing facility size. Note: Facility sizing credit allowed for dispersion only if flowpath from roofs ultimately drain to R1D facility. ❑ 6.3 Detention Facilities ❑ Emergency overflow — Evaluate flow path for safe and adequate conveyance ❑ Setbacks ❑ Flow -through system ❑ 5.3.1 Detention Ponds ❑ Dam Safety Compliance ❑ Two cross -sections through pond (one x-section to include control structure) ❑ Review pond details in Figures 5.3.1.A and B ❑ Designed as flow -through system ❑ Side slopes interior 3H:1 V or fenced ❑ Vertical interior retaining walls Stamped by licensed structural civil engineer ❑ For pond walls, min. 25% of perimeter vegetated and no steeper than 3:1 ❑ Berms greater than 4 feet require key excavation ❑ Minimum berm width of 6 feet ❑ Primary overflow (control structure with riser). ❑ Secondary Inlet to the control structure ❑ Emergency Overflow Spillway, 100 year developed peak flow ❑ Soil and compaction requirements described (95% modified proctor) ❑ Access road min, turning radius, maximum grade, min. width, fences or gates ❑ Pond sign (Figure 5.3.1.D) ❑ Fencing and planting requirements ❑ Setbacks — 5 feet from tow of exterior slope or 5 feet from water surface for cut slope ❑ 5.3.2 Detention Tanks ❑ Flow -through system required ❑ 6" of dead storage in tank bottom ❑ Minimum pipe diameter of 36" ❑ Materials and structural stability ❑ Control structure per Section 5.3.4 ❑ Buoyancy ❑ Access risers and CBs are spaced properly with max. depth from finished grade to tank invert shall be 20 feet and accessible by maintenance vehicles Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/12/2005 10 of 16 Activity Number: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (continued) OK SWDM ❑ 5.3.3 Detention Vaults ❑ Structural package submitted for approval ❑ Flow -through system required ❑ Review design details per Fig. 5.3.3.A. Note: Grate over sump with 2' x 2' hinged access door ❑ Access positioned a maximum of 50 feet from any location. (if over 3 foot cover use cone riser) ❑ Access required to inlet pipe and outlet ❑ Removable 5x10 panel if vault greater than 1250 sq. ft. floor area ❑ Maximum depth from finished grade to vault invert to be 20 feet ❑ Minimum internal height shall be 7 feet, min. width shall be 4 feet min ❑ Ventilation pipes provided in all four corners ❑ 5.3.4 Control Structures ❑ Section and plan view shown to scale ❑ Orifice size and elevation on plans match calculations. Minimum orifice 0.5", (Note: Information Plate details are no longer required — see policy on Web site.) ❑ 5.4 Infiltration Facilities ❑ Appropriate soils logs and testing procedures in TIR ❑ Pond bottom at least 3 feet above seasonal high water ❑ Permeable soil extends minimum 3 feet below bottom of pond ❑ Geotechnical report states suitability and determines design infiltration rate ❑ Overflow route identified with 100-yr overflow conveyance ❑ Spill Control device upstream of facility ❑ Presettiing ❑ Review setback requirements, page 5-60. Design water surface setback of 20 feet from external tract, easement or property lines ❑ Show the standard note regarding public rule for in operation facility (see section policies) ❑ 6.0 Water Quality Design ❑ 6.1 Water Quality Menus ❑ 6.2 Water Quality facilities ❑ 6.2.2A Water Quality Sequencing ❑ 6.2.3 Setbacks, slopes and embankments ❑ 6.2.4 Facility Liners ❑ 6.2.5 Flow Splitter Designs ❑ 6.3 Biofiltration Facility ❑ 6.3.1 Biofiltration swales and soil amendments ❑ 6.3.1.1 Methods of Analysis ❑ 6.3.1 Swale geometry, plantings, flow conveyance, high flows, velocity ❑ Road access requirements, page 6-43 ❑ 6.3.4 Filter strip geometry (slopes) Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/12/2005 11 of 16 Activity Number: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (continued) OK SWDM ❑ 6.4 Wetpool Facility Designs ❑ Wetpool geometry, 2 cells, minimum depth of first cell 4 feet ❑ Flowpath length to width ratio 3:1. Note: If flow path achieved with berms or walls, top of berm must be at 2-year water surface elevation. ❑ 6.4.1.2 Berms, Baffles, Slopes ❑ Inlet/Outlet Design ❑ 6.4.1.1 Access, setbacks, and plantings ❑ 6.4.2 Wetvaults ❑ 6.4.1.1 Sizing basic or large ❑ 6.4.1.1 Berms, Baffles, Slopes ❑ 6.4.2.2 Two cells separated by wall or removable baffle ❑ Vault bottom forms a broad "V" with 5% sideslopes ❑ Inlet is submerged and outlet pipe designed for 100-year overflow ❑ Gravity drain provided if grade allows ❑ Minimum 50 square feet of grate over second cell ❑ 6.4.3 Stormwater Wetlands ❑ 6.4.3.1 Methods of Analysis ❑ 6.4.3.2 Design Criteria - Wetland geometry, liners, access, plantings ❑ 6.4.4 Combination Detention and Wetpool facilities ❑ 6.4.4.1 Methods of Analysis ❑ 6.4.4.2 Design Criteria - Detention and wetpool geometry, berms, baffles, slopes ❑ 6.4.4.2 Access and plantings ❑ 6.5 Media Filtration Facility Designs ❑ 6.5.1 Presettling/pretreatment ❑ 6.5.2 Sandfilters — Basic and Large ❑ 6.5.2.1 Methods of analysis ❑ 6.5.2.2 Design Criteria — Geometry, overflow/bypass, underdrain, and access ❑ 6.5.3 Sandfilter Vaults ❑ 6.5.3.2 Design Criteria — geometry, pretreatment, flow -spreading, energy dissipation ❑ 6.5.3.2 Overflow/bypass, underdrain and access Notes Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/1212005 12 of 16 • Activity Number: KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS ('1993) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS KGRS 1.03 A. B Off -site and frontage improvements determined by reviewing agency Note: For grading permits, the required extent of road improvements must be determined during engineering review. For subdivisions, the requirements are determined during preliminary review. 1.03 D Subdivisions must have recorded public access except for private roads DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 1.08 Road Variances Activity No. Design Issues Approval Date ROAD CLASSIFICATION TABLE Name of Roadwa KCRS Classification 3 �.� `r Ce.�• U6C4V( d C„ ^ ti p ,� 6 �c.e.ss 7—c��" e O IV I )747 I�1 / I t, o r rrj[ t !.t__�_ ,a�tGJr h ito� (-0 C a 14 V� © :: OK KCRS ❑ 2.03C Maximum Superelevation (2.05) ❑ 2.031D Horizontal curvature (2.05) Gq-' 2.03E Maximum grade (2.11) ❑ 2.03F Stopping Sight Distance (2.05, 2.12) ❑ 2.03G Entering Sight Distance (2.05, 2.13) Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckkercheck.pdf 07112/2005 13 of 16 Activity Number: KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (1993) DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (continued) OK KCRS ❑ 2.03H Minimum pavement width (Note: Footnote 9 - Neighborhood collectors require 36-feet at approach to intersections with arterials) �- ❑ 2.031 Minimum roadway width ❑ 2.03J Minimum R/W width �,. ❑ 2.03J Min. R/W width (Footnote 12 and 2.196 - include 1 foot extra ROW behind curb or sidewalk) d 2.03K Curb or shoulder type road (2.01) ❑ 2.03L Minimum Half -Street width ❑ 2.06 Private Street Design Standards Q 2.0667 Verify maximum potential of 16 lots ❑ 2.07 Half Streets 2,08A Minimum Cul-de-Sac diameters j 2.0813 Maximum Cul-de-Sac length [� 2.08E Maximum Cross Slope 6% ❑ 2.08F Bulb island shall be offset 2-feet ❑ 2.09 Alleys —❑ 2.09B Private Access Tracts (Note: Must meet all standards for minor access street, except curb cut driveway .•.;�tsr�i-' design is allowed with property line radii dedication) [ 2.10A Angle of intersection between 85 and 95 degrees ❑ 2.10A Intersection curb radius ��❑ 2.10A Intersection right-of-way radius ❑ 2.10B Intersection spacing 2.10C Intersection landing 2.10E Low Speed Curves 2.11A Maximum Grade - Use AC for grades >12%, Use PCC for grades >20% ❑ 2.11 B Grade Brakes —maximum 1 % at intersections 2A2D Intersection stopping sight distance (126' SSD allowed for local access streets) ❑ 2.16 Bus zones - For arterials and neigh. collectors, the designer shall contact metro �,� 1❑ 2.18 Intersections with State Highways ❑` 2.20 Single access serving more than 100 lots N's B- 3.01 Driveways ❑ 3.01 Joint Use Driveways '=`'SP ❑ 3.02A Sidewalks (both sides for subcollectors and higher classification) -. -- ❑ 3.0213 Location and width p,) L ❑ 3.05 Handicapped access ramp (Use updated detail from KC Road Engineer, 3/26/04) 'K iyta�wn Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/12/2005 14 of 16 Activity Number: KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (1993) DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (continued) OK KCRS ❑ 3.09 School Access - asphalt walkway, sidewalk, or delineated shoulder ❑ 3.10 Bikeways ', " ❑ 3.11 Equestrian Facilities y.❑ 4.01 Road Section and Surfacing (drawings 1-001 — 1-006) Note: Neighborhood collectors require 3-inch asphalt concrete. ❑ 4.01 F Perform saw cut of pavement at fog line po — ❑ 4.01 F Pavement overlay for widening and channelization (show special note as approved by Development Engineer - see section policies) [f' 4.02 Residential street design 0 4.02 Poor subgrade evaluation ❑ 4.03 Arterial pavement design ❑ 4.05 Pavement markings, channelization, and tapers {Requires DOT review) �J/) [ 5.01 Rock facings (Dwg. Nos. 5-004 -- 5-007) [�] 5.02 Side slopes, generally 2H:1 V ❑ 5.03 Street trees and landscaping p ,tpP� -❑ 5.04 Mail boxes (Dwg. Nos. 5-010 — 5-012) Do ❑ I ti 6'Nt 5.05 Street illumination ❑ 5.06 Survey Monuments to be disturbed are shown ❑ 5.07 Roadway Barricades ❑ 5.08 Bollards for walkways or maintenance roads ❑ 5.11 Roadside obstacles (Note: If variance required for utility pole, the utility company must apply for the variance.) [ 6.00 Bridges (minimum width 28-feet) 7.02A-D Grass -lined, pipe or rock lined, special designed ditch ED- 7.03A Minimum pipe size 12-inch diameter ❑ 7.03L Beveled ends for culverts in ROW ❑ 7.04A Maximum spacing between catch basins ❑ 7.04E GBs taller than 5' (grate to invert) are Type 11, Max. depth 12-feet per Dwg. 2-005 ❑ 7.05A Vaned grates [r 7.05B Through curb inlet frames for sag curves and intersections > 4%. Notes: a) Through curb inlet not used on rolled curb b) See section policies for policy on three flanking inlets ❑ 7.05E All covers and grates shall be locking ❑ 8.02 Utility pole locations and other obstacles ❑ 8.03B Open cuts on existing roadways, patch requirements Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07112/2005 15 of 16 • Activity Number. 4- KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (1993) DESIGN REQUIREMENTS fcontinued) Notes Check out the DDES Web site at www.metrokc. ov/ddes Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/12/2005 16 of 16 REQUEST FOR ENGINEERING SHORT PLAT REVIEW SIGNIFICANT TREE RETENTION PLAN Date Routed: January 3, 2006 Date to be returned to Ted Cooper: February 3, 2006 (approximate) c% Routed to: Bruce Engell, Site Development Specialist III Forester Plat Number: Project # L05P0005, Activity/Charge # L05SR054 Plat Name: Jessie Glen Plat Plat Planner: Trisha Bull Design Engineer: Laura G. Cociasu, PE Phone: (253) 838-6113 Review Objectives (specify the type of information you need from me at this stage of review): 1. Review of Tree Retention Plan (sheet 18) per Hearing Examiner's Condition 19. Describe relevant issues for this plat: 1. Required number of trees to be retained: 154. 2. Number of trees to be saved: 62. 3. Number of trees to be planted: 92. Is a hearing required and date to be held? This plat has preliminary approval (with Examiner's Conditions). Comments: Conditions of Approval are not on plans reset. Enclosures: Engineering plan sheets 1, 2 and 14. Plan sheet 18 (Landscaping sheet L3, Tree Retention Plan) Hearing Examiner's Conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 November 3, 2005 Mr. Joe Singh J.P.S. Holding LLC 18124 Rivera Place SW Seattle, WA 98166 RE: Permit Fee Estimate Project: Jessie Glen File Number: L05SR054 Dear Applicant: Thank you for submitting the engineering plans for site development of the Jesse Glen subdivision. To implement the engineering review process, our office will use a new procedure for managing the permit application to provide applicants with an enhanced level of customer service. The Project Manager Program seeks to provide customers with increased predictability for the permit process and better accountability from County review staff. For permit applications using the Project Manager Program, a project manager is assigned to the permit to facilitate communication with the applicant and provide a fee estimate to cover the anticipated scope of review. The project manager will also monitor and manage the permit application throughout the review process to ensure that review schedules remain in line with performance standards and the overall work hours are within the range of estimated fees for the project. Your application for engineering review was received by our office on October 25, 2005 and will be processed using the Project Manager Program. The enclosed information provides a summary oftbe fee estimate for the anticipated work disciplines and also discusses the submittal process and disclaimers which may affect the final permit fees. The fee estimate includes the scope of work for engineering plan review only and does not evaluate other final plat requirements such as construction inspection and review of plat recording documents. Joe Singh November 3, 2005 Page 2 Based upon the current engineering submittal, several key documents including requirements for traffic illumination, pavement designs, and other technical information have not been submitted which are necessary to address site design issues and the preliminary plat conditions. Due to the missing information, the attached fee summary is a rough estimate and is subject to modification based upon the disclaimers noted in the fee estimate form. In addition to the engineering review documents, our Department must also review and approve the recreation space plan as required by plat condition 16. Please be aware that the recreation plan must be submitted to our planning section as a separate permit application with fee payment. For further information regarding the submittal process for recreation plans, please contact Kim Claussen at 206-296-7167. Once the attached fee form is signed and submitted. to my attention in the Land Use Services Division, your project will be assigned for further review. A payment plan for the estimated fees is acceptable using 50% down payment and 6 monthly installments. Since your engineering submittal already included a fee deposit of $17,000, your initial payment is satisfactory. To provide an efficient and timely review process, it is recommended that the additional design information noted in the disclaimers also be provided with your submittal. If you have any questions regarding the permit fees or other aspects of the engineering review process, please contact the project manager, Pete Dye via email pete.dyc� metroke.gov or by telephone at 206-296-7185. S' cerely, Pete D e, P.E. Senior Engineer Enclosure cc: Laura Cociasu King County Land Use Services Division Permit Fee Estimate Activity Estimate Number: L05SR054 Date: 11/03/05 Permit Title: Jessie Glen Plat Permit Type: SITEREVP — Engineering Plan Based on permit information submitted by the applicant, the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) has determined the amount of review fees for the subject application. The fees shown below do not include ancillary permit fees, recording fees, project -related mitigation fees, or other fees that are passed through to the applicant from other agencies or as part of the project's environmental review. Fixed Fees: Counter Service Fee for Application Intake $205.28 Base Review (first 4 hours) Fire Flow and Access Other Fixed Fees —Tree Retention Plan Review $2,898.00 Total Fixed Fees: $3,103.28 Estimate for Hourly Fees: (193 Hours x $144. SOU) $27,965.70 Total Permit Fee Estimate: $31,068,98 Note: The estimate for hourly fees stated above is based on the total estimated number of hours not to exceed 193 hours for the disciplines listed below, and is calculated using the department's hourly rate in effect at the time the work is performed. Based upon the financial disclosures found on page 2, the number of hours required may be modified. The total estimated hours reflect work performed by the following disciplines: Engineering Review, Survey Coordination, Project Management, Traffic Review, Planning, Forestry, and Constructability. After receiving the fee estimate from DDES, the applicant has ninety (90) days to complete the application submittal. Please call 206-296-6797 to set up an appointment with the Permit Center to complete your application and payment. If the application is not received within ninety (90) days, the applicant may be required to obtain a new fee estimate or this activity may be cancelled, For further questions on this fee estimate or for other requirements about this permit application, please contact Pete Dye via email pete.dye cl,metrokc.gov or by telephone at 206-296-7185. ill Pete Dye, Senior En sneer Land Use Services Division Project Manager.dot 1126104 Page i (i) King County Land Use Services Division Permit Fee Estimate Activity Estimate Number: LOSSR054 Date: 11/04/05 Permit Title: Jessie Glen Plat Permit Type: SITEREVP — Engineering Plan Estimated Maximum Hours: 193 Applicant: Joe Singh Total Fee: $31 M68.98 The following disclaimers are attached and are part of the fee estimate for this permit. The applicant is required to submit a signed copy of this form with the application and fee payment acknowledging that the applicant has read the disclaimers stated below. Disclaimer Applicants are responsible for all fixed fees, reported hours performed in reviewing submittal materials and processing, up to the fee estimate. Changes in the scope of the project review will result in a revised review fee estimate. Fee estimates are based on information submitted to DDES by the applicant prior to finalization of the permit application. In addition, estimates are determined by utilizing historical data gathered from projects of similar type, size, and scope. The fee estimate will be the maximum fee charged unless the scope of the project changes. Should fewer hours be required to complete the review, then the applicant may receive a refund for those hours. If items are identified that are not originally disclosed or identified later in the process, a new estimate may be required. Applicants will be responsible for any additional hours identified in a new estimate because of: I) Changes in the project and unknown or undisclosed site issues. 2) Incomplete information, errors in applicant submittal, and design conflicts with code. 3) County code fee changes. 4) Fees for Forest Practices permit if needed 5) Coordination with City of Federal Way 6) Additional Review for documents not provided with the initial submittal: a) Illumination Plans required per KCRS 5.05, b) Pavement design for arterials per KCRS 4.03 c) TIR Section I- Summary and/or analysis of BMP's not provided ((Drainage Manual Chap.5.2) d) TIR Section 2 — Plat conditions with applicant responses not provided. e) TIR Section 4 — Evaluation of enhanced water quality not provided (Drainage Manual pg. 1-60) f) TIR Section 7 — Pollution plan referenced in TIR but not provided (Drainage Manual pg. 2-28) g) TIR Section 9 — Bond quantity sheets not provided Keeping review fees at or below the fee estimate will depend on the applicant's commitment to complete the process review. This commitment should include submitting materials which address all County codes, policies, previously approved conditions, and responding to the County's request for corrections or additional information in a timely manner, not to exceed 90 days. Applicant/Owner Signature, Acknowledged: Date: Project Manager.dot 1/26/04 Page 2 King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 November 3, 2005 Mr. Joe Singh J.P.S. Holding LLC 18124 Rivera Place SW Seattle, WA 98166 RE: Permit Fee Estimate Project: Jessie Glen File Number: L05SR054 Dear Applicant: Thank you for submitting the engineering plans for site development of the Jesse Glen subdivision. To implement the engineering review process, our office will use a new procedure for managing the permit application to provide applicants with an enhanced level of customer service. The Project Manager Program seeks to provide customers with increased predictability for the permit process and better accountability from County review staff. For permit applications using the Project Manager Program, a project manager is assigned to the permit to facilitate communication with the applicant and provide a fee estimate to cover the anticipated scope of review. The project manager will also monitor and manage the permit application throughout the review process to ensure that review schedules remain in line with performance standards and the overall work hours are within the range of estimated fees for the project. Your application for engineering review was received by our office on October 25, 2005 and will be processed using the Project Manager Program. The enclosed information provides a summary of the fee estimate for the anticipated work disciplines and also discusses the submittal process and disclaimers which may affect the final permit fees. The fee estimate includes the scope of work for engineering plan review only and does not evaluate other final plat requirements such as construction inspection and review of plat recording documents. Joe Singh November 3, 2005 Page 2 Based upon the current engineering submittal, several key documents including requirements for traffic illumination, pavement designs, and other technical information have not been submitted which are necessary to address site design issues and the preliminary plat conditions. Due to the missing information, the attached fee summary is a rough estimate and is subject to modification based upon the disclaimers noted in the fee estimate form. In addition to the engineering review documents, our Department must also review and approve the recreation space plan as required by plat condition 16. Please be aware that the recreation plan must be submitted to our planning section as a separate permit application with fee payment. For further information regarding the submittal process for recreation plans, please contact Kim Claussen at 206-296-7167. Once the attached fee form is signed and submitted to my attention in the Land Use Services Division, your project will be assigned for further review. A payment plan for the estimated fees is acceptable using 50% down payment and 6 monthly installments. Since your engineering submittal already included a fee deposit of $17,000, your initial payment is satisfactory. To provide an efficient and timely review process, it is recommended that the additional design information noted in the disclaimers also be provided with your submittal. If you have any questions regarding the permit fees or other aspects of the engineering review process, please contact the project manager, Pete Dye via email pete.dye(a?metroke.gov or by telephone at 206-296-7185. S' cerely, Pete D e. P.E. Senior Engineer Enclosure cc: Laura Cociasu 0 King County Land Use Services Division Permit Fee Estimate Activity Estimate Number: L05SR054 I Date: 11/03/05 Permit Title: Jessie Glen Plat Permit Type: SITEREVP -- Engineering Plan Based on permit information submitted by the applicant, the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) has determined the amount of review fees for the subject application. The fees shown below do not include ancillary permit fees, recording fees, project -related mitigation fees, or other fees that are passed through to the applicant from other agencies or as part of the project's environmental review. Fixed Pees: Counter Service Fee for Application Intake $205.28 Base Review (first 4 hours) Fire Flow and Access Other Fixed Fees — Tree Retention Plan Review $2,898,00 Total Fixed Fees: $3,103.28 Estimate for Hourly Fees: (193 Hours x $144. 90) $27,965,70 Total Permit Fee Estimate: $31,068.98 Note: The estimate for hourly fees stated above is based on the total estimated number of hours not to exceed 193 hours for the disciplines listed below, and is calculated using the department's hourly rate in effect at the time the work is performed. Based upon the financial disclosures found on page 2, the number of hours required may be modified. The total estimated hours reflect work performed by the following disciplines: Engineering Review, Survey Coordination, Project Management, Traffic Review, Planning, Forestry, and Constructability. After receiving the fee estimate from DDES, the applicant has ninety (90) days to complete the application submittal. Please call 206-296-6797 to set up an appointment with the Permit Center to complete your application and payment. if the application is not received within ninety (90) days, the applicant may be required to obtain a new fee estimate or this activity may be cancelled. For further questions on this fee estimate or for other requirements about this permit application, please contact Pete Dye via email pete.dye�(a,metrokc.gov or by telephone at 206-296-7185. �,3 JYV Pete Dye, Senior EnIfinecr Land Use Services Division Project Manager.dot 1126!04 Page I (i) King County Land Use Services Division Permit Fee Estimate Activity Estimate Number: L05SR054 Date: 11/04/05 Permit Title: Jessie Glen Plat Permit Type: SITEREVP -- Engineering Plan Estimated Maximum Hours: 193 Applicant: Joe Singh Total Fee: $31,068.98 The following disclaimers are attached and are part of the fee estimate for this permit. The applicant is required to submit a signed copy of this form with the application and fee payment acknowledging that the applicant has read the disclaimers stated below. Disclaimer Applicants arc responsible for all fixed fees, reported hours performed in reviewing submittal materials and processing, up to the fee estimate. Changes in the scope of the project review will result in a revised review fee estimate. Fee estimates are based on information submitted to DDES by the applicant prior to finalization of the permit application. In addition, estimates are determined by utilizing historical data gathered from projects of similar type, size, and scope. The fee estimate will be the maximum fee charged unless the scope of the project changes. Should fewer hours be required to complete the review, then the applicant may receive a refund for those hours. If items are identified that are not originally disclosed or identified later in the process, a new estimate may be required. Applicants will be responsible for any additional hours identified in a new estimate because of: 1) Changes in the project and unknown or undisclosed site issues. 2) Incomplete information, errors in applicant submittal, and design conflicts with code. 3) County code fee changes. 4) Fees for Forest Practices permit if needed 5) Coordination with City of Federal Way 6) Additional Review for documents not provided with the initial submittal: a) Illumination Plans required per KCRS 5.05, b) Pavement design for arterials per KCRS 4.03 c) TIR Section 1- Summary and/or analysis of BMP's not provided ((Drainage Manual Chap.5.2) d) TIR Section 2 — Plat conditions with applicant responses not provided. e) TIR Section 4 — Evaluation of enhanced water quality not provided (Drainage Manual pg. 1-60) f) TIR Section 7 — Pollution plan referenced in TIR but not provided (Drainage Manual pg. 2-28) g) TIR Section 9 — Bond quantity sheets not provided Keeping review fees at or below the fee estimate will depend on the applicant's commitment to complete the process review. This commitment should include submitting materials which address all County codes, policies, previously approved conditions, and responding to the County's request for corrections or additional information in a timely manner, not to exceed 90 days. Applicant/Own.er Signature, Acknowledged: Date: Project Manager.dot 1/26/04 Page 2 =ie Ec.�' "rt:, Rz mrl--s Toois Hks =a;rariies Routing Project List ProjeCt Budget 5tfiedule Reports L45SR054 12.12712005 Project Manager. Dye, Pete Billable Hours Pemiit Type 5ITEREV i SITEREVP % Due at ApP Permit number 10SSR064 - JESSIE GLEN Number of Installments 6tidget Status LOCKED PM Statement for this I'eI TD Lca, n:ranct Tuesday, Dec 27, 2005 07:58 AM Aetiwly IL04S9U77 Loca6um 111634 SE 1S2nd ST Status: PENDING APPUCANT: RATHINAM,SFWRMIIA Date 11J1512004 RI green la Val Dasc EIHIN hoc QC ME1 ................... .....,,..., .,.»...,.. 3lil3`eildd 9f Ii ilk?,! y e'1 i045R077 Carrnent Received and L04S_R077 5commed Routed to Pot 3i LQ4BR077 Comwi 'm1Rt20105SHARI L04SR077 4i ;Comment Rested to Pal Si Type:Cn�enl l ext 'Signed mylar: and Sant to m8haw asdc�ton jr ......................... -1 gw New 1 hnai {%de1Cd 5 TICC Retcnt>an Plan. v Ei( horn Cara Visintainer B ardvwen 3 revised Entries a ked by — we curenlly in 0i10o1. Entered By; llsartd: ��� Effaclrre' 12/13J2"1145 Thu: 72/31i",�LC�O Erased: aide E ToqlEW Wo. . . .. .............. _. _. . ... Licensee: KING COUNTY, WA Serial Number: 6136 Usmv ISO Venion v. 4.7.77 Thursday, Dec 29, 2005 02:20 PM €e t=cEt 'c'+EF: �ar�ntes ;ads M>dp ��" B--A 1t� Seam a� tes §� to .':cesra�ie;pros2J �°s.as3 �: 60 Routing Project List I Project Budget SChedule I Reports Vail 2 4 SEND THIS PA,QE 12127,200i kft (D FERit Lfl5 RQ54 RELATED FIEFMTs _.... "� Search ievr Cornmenl . _ __ Print STATION ¢exsaN STATUS; v, TITLE CLOCK DAYS CLOCK CLOCK TYPE. SUBTYPE STATUS STATUS TARGET Land Use Enrn6�460a LING Entite ile QUEOEDW 9)2005.11`,fM0 )5 Land Use Trafhc Engineer LTRF Traffic Plan „J1 SEUP Land Use 1-1401?mds_R� LWET:Site Pian.'Goc ... ....... ....... P . ........ ....... Sires1 LSTM .Site PlawDoc. ........ .. ........ , ,IMP Land Use Gectech LGEO Site Plan Doc. S _.... ..... . P -SttVQtura1 PIES Site PlaniDoc .. . . .... SETUP J �dscace Rec Plan R-eJe•:, LREC Site PIaniCsoc � ; .... .......... Forest Practice or Clean FORS Site Plaiti,Qoc .....,.,, SETUP ' Land Use SurYev ReJe, SURV:Site Plans SEi?JP H d�-aulic Proi A.p;fzal HPA Documen taiion SETUP Laud Use lnnectw nevi LUIS Construction Re�ie: Finance & Plan Approval Local rt-antt Tuesday. Dec 27, 2005 08:05 AM