HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-04-062CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING / BUILDING / PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 2, 2004
To: City Clerk's Office
From: Stacy M. Tucker
Subject: Land Use File Closeout
Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City
Clerk's Office
Project Name: Earlington Ridge Plat Addendum
LUA (file) Number: LUA-04-062, ECF
Cross-References:
AKA's: Earlington Ridge SEPA Addendum
Project Manager: Jennifer Henning
Acceptance Date:
Applicant: City of Renton
Owner: Lakeridge Development, Inc.
Contact:
PID Number:
ERC Decision Date: June 15, 2004
ERC Appeal Date:
Administrative Approval:
Appeal Period Ends:
Public Hearing Date:
Date Appealed to HEX:
By Whom:
HEX Decision: Date:
Date Appealed to Council:
By Whom:
Council Decision: Date:
Mylar Recording Number:
Project Description: ADDENDUM TO EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (MDNS)
COMPLETED BY KING COUNTY. WHILE PROPERTY IS OUTSIDE CITY OF RENTON LIMITS, COUNTY
HAS AUTHORIZED THE CITY TO ASSUME LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN ORDER TO ALLOW AN
ENLARGEMENT OF THE SEWER LINE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (KING COUNTY
FILE NO. LOOP0025). THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF 41 RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO
BE SERVED BY CITY OF RENTON SEWER & WATER.
Location: NW corner of the intersection of S 134th St & 88th Ave S
Comments:
,
PARTIES OF RECORD
Earlington Ridge Plat Addendum
LUA-04-062, ECF
Wayne Jones, Jr.
Lakeridge Development Inc.
PO Box 146
Renton, WA 98057-0146
(applicant)
Greg Borba
King County DDES
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
(contact)
Roger E. Gratias
8426 S 134th
Seattle, WA 98178
(owner)
Fereshteh Dehkordi
King County DDES
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
(contact)
To:
From:
Meeting'[)at~:
Time:
Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator
Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator
Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief
Jennifer Henning, Development Planning
tuesqay; June, 15, 2004 '
9:00. AM ,., .' .... q " L,
Location:' . Sixth~loo~tonference Rci0I'n'#620.,
Agenda listed below.
THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA
Earlington Ridge SEPA Addendum
LUA 04-062, ECF
(Henning)
Proposal for the subdivision of 6.27 acres and six tax parcels into 41 lots single family
residential lots in King County. City of Renton is providing sanitary sewer to the project. The
original SEPA threshold determination evaluated the proposal with 8-inch diameter sanitary
sewer lines. The addendum evaluates upsizing of the sewer lines as follows:
• 10-inch line from the existing City of Renton manhole located in Stevens Ave SW and SW
Langston Road for 200.1 linear feet;
• 15-inch diameter line from the new manhole at the intersection of 88th Ave South
(Stevens Ave SW) and S 134th Street, west 142.6 linear feet to a new manhole located in S
134th Street; thence, 260.9 linear feet north through a proposed utility easement to a new
portion of South 133'd Street.
• 16-inch diameter from the new easternmost manhole in the new South 133'd Street, west
729.9 linear feet to the terminus of the new sanitary sewer main.
cc: K. Keolker·Wheeler, Mayor
J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
A. Pietsch. EDNSP Administrator ®
B. Wolters, EDNSP Director ®
J. Gray, Fire Prevention
N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ®
F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
S. Engler, Fire Prevention ®
J. Medzegian, Council
S. Meyer, P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director
R. Lind, Economic Development
L. Warren, City Attorney ®
CITY OF RENTON
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M)
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 (4) (c) and WAC 197-11-625
Addendum to Plat of Earlington Ridge (King County File No LOOP00251
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPAl
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
Date of Addendum: June 15, 2004
Date of Original Issuance of SEPA Threshold Determination: September 24, 2002
(by King County)
Proponent:
Application File:
Project Name:
Lakeridge Development Inc.
Wayne Jones Jr
P.O. Box 146
Renton, WA 98057-0146
LUA-04-062 (City of Renton)
LOOP0025 (King County DDES)
Earlington Ridge Plat Addendum
Proposal I Purpose of Addendum: Proposal for the subdivision of 6.27 acres and six
tax parcels into 41 lots single family residential lots in King County. City of Renton is
providing sanitary sewer to the project. The original SEPA threshold determination
evaluated the proposal with 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer lines. The addendum
evaluates upsizing of the sewer lines as follows and shown on the attached maps:
• 10-inch line from the existing City of Renton manhole located in Stevens Ave
SW and SW Langston Road for 200.1 linear feet;
• 15-inch diameter line from the new manhole at the intersection of 88th Ave
South (Stevens Ave SW) and S 1341h Street, west 142.6 linear feet to a new
manhole located in S 1341h Street; thence, 260.9 linear feet north through a
proposed utility easement to a new portion of South 133rd Street.
• 16-inch diameter from the new easternmost manhole in the new South 133rd
Street, west 729.9 linear feet to the terminus of the new sanitary sewer main.
Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of South134th Street and 881h
Avenue South
Lead Agency: City of Renton, Planning/Building/Public Works Department -
Addendum; King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
(DOES) -SEPA Mitigated Determination of Significance.
Review Process: King County DOES conducted SEPA environmental review for the
Earlington Ridge preliminary plat. City of Renton is processing the SEPA Addendum for
upsizing of the sanitary sewer lines.
Additional Information: If you would like additional information, please contact
Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, City of Renton, Development Services Division,
Planning/Building/Public Works Department at (425) 430-7286.
Lead Agency: City of Renton, Planning/Building/Public Works Department-
Addendum; King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
(DOES) -SEPA Mitigated Determination of Significance.
Review Process: King County DOES conducted SEPA environmental review for the
Earlington Ridge preliminary plat. City of Renton is processing the SEPA Addendum for
upsizing of the sanitary sewer lines.
Additional Information: If you would like additional information, please contact
Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, City of Renton, Development Services Division,
Planning/Building/Public Works Department at (425) 430-7286.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
SIGNATURES:
n",,,,,.tm,,,nt' nf/lPI"nKiinn/RII ilding/Public Works
Dennis Culp, Administr r
Community Services D partment
Renton Fire Department
6
~ I) ~
DA E
DATE
I I I I
SW SUNSET BL VD
/ /
VICINITY MAP
I--'-------+-
R£!ltrO!lt --~;::----~
AVE
The purpose of the addendum is to increase
the size of the originally approved 8" diameter
sanitary sewers to the sizes shown above.
This addendum to the original SEPA checklist is for increasing the proposed 8" diameter sanitary
sewers to the following larger sizes.
10" diameter
(200.1 linear feet)
IS" diameter
(403.5 linear feet)
16" diameter
(729.9 linear feet)
From the existing City of Renton sanitary sewer manhole located in
Stevens Ave. SW (located approximately 170 feet north of the
intersection of Stevens Ave. SW and SW Langston Rd) 200.1 linear
feet north to a new manhole at the intersection of 88'h Ave. S (Stevens
Ave SW) and S 134'" St.
From the new manhole at the intersection of 88'h Ave. S (Stevens Ave
SW) and S 134'h St., west 142.6 linear feet to a new manhole located in
S 134'h st. Thence 260.9 linear feet north through a proposed utility
easement to a new portion of S 133 ,d St.
From the new easterly most manhole in the new S 133'" St, west 729.9
linear feet to the terminus of the new sanitary sewer main.
SEPA Rules
SEPA CHEC"LIST:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EARLINGTON RIDGE
A. BACKGROUND
I. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
EARLINGTON RIDGE.
2. Name of applicant:
WAYNE JONES -LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT, INC.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
LAKERIDGE DEVELOPMENT, INC.
WAYNE JONES
P.O. BOX 146
RENTON, WA 98057
425·228-9750
4. Date checklist prepared:
November 20, 2000
S. Agency requesting checklist:
KING COUNTY.
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, ifapplicable):
SUMMER/FALL 2001.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal. If
yes, explain.
THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR FUTURE ADDITIONS.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this
proposal.
STREAM STUDY: BY: J. S. JONES AND ASSOCIATES
DATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2000
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: BY: NELSON-COUVRETTE AND ASSOCIATES,INC.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS: BY: CASEY ENGINEERING
DATED: NOVEMBER 2000
PRELIMINARY STORM PLAN: BY: CASEY ENGINEERING
DATED: NOVEMBER 2000
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the
property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
A ROAD VARIANCE HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR. THE VARIANCE FILE NUMBER IS LOOVOI08.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
THE FOLLOWING APPROVALSIPERMITS WILL BE NEEDED FOR THE PROPOSAL:
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FROM KING COUNTY.
B. ROAD AND STORM DESIGN APPROVAL FROM KING COUNTY.
C. WATER AND SEWER DESIGN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF RENTON.
D. H.P.A. FROM TilE WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISIIERIES FOR A STORMWATER OUTFALl.
ADJACENT TO THE STREAM AT THE BOTTOM OF THE RAVINE.
SEPA Rules
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site.
There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe aspects of your proposal. You do not need to
repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific infonnmion on
project description.)
THE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE SIX TAX PARCELS OF APPROXIMATELY 6.27 ACRES INTO 41
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE EXISTING RESIDENCES ON LOTS 38 THROUGH 41 ARE TO
BE RETAINED. NEW RESIDENCES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS I THROUGH 37. TIlE EXISTING
RESIDENCE ON LOT 3 WILL BE DEMOLISHED. ACCESS TOTHE MAJORJTY OF THE SITE WILL BE
FROM 88n, AVE S. S. 133RD ST WILL BE DESIGNED AS AN URBAN SUB-COLLECTOR WITH A
TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS. TRACT "A" IS TO BE A SENSITIVE AREAS
TRACT TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. TRACT "B" IS
PROPOSED TO BE A COMBINED STORMWATER DETENTION FACILITY AND OPEN SPACE TRACT. THE
WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION VOLUME WILL BE PLACED IN AN UNDERGROUND YAUL T WITH
RECREATION AREA ON THE TOP AND ADJACENT AREAS.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient infonnation for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed
project, including a street address, ifany. and section, township and mnge, if known. If a proposal would occur over a
range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map and
topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
THE SITE IS LOCATED TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE S 134TH STI 88TH AVE S INTERSECTION IN
UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY. THE SITE IS WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SW Yo OF THE NW Yo OF
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
SEE VICINITY MAP ATTACHED TO SHEET I OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
2
SEPA Rules
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one or bold and capitalize one): flat. ROLLING,
hilly. STEEP SLOPES, mountainous, other . Describe location and
areas on the site that have different topography.
THE SITE HAS A HILLTOP IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER. THERE ARE
STEEPER SLOPES ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF TIlE SITE. THE FAR
WEST SIDE OF THE SITE IS NEARLY FLAT. IN BETWEEN THE WEST AND
EAST BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE THERE IS MOSTLY HILLY TERRAIN. THE
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE IS SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT MAP.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Describe location and
areas of different topography.
THE STEEPEST SLOPE WITHIN THE PROPOSAL IS LOCATED WITHIN THE
NORTHWEST TO NORTHCENTER PORTION OF THE SITE WHERE THERE ARE
SLOPES OVER 100%. THIS AREA WITH AND ASSOCIATED BUFFER AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT WILL BE PLACED
WITHIN A SEPARATE S.A.T.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay. sand, gravel, peat,
mUlch)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any
prime fannland.
ACCORDING TO THE KING COUNTY SOIL SURVEY THE SITE IS UNDERLAIN
WITH BEAUSITE (BeC & BeD) SOILS. THE UPPER PORTION IS BeC AND THE
STEEP SLOPE AREA IS BeD. BAUSITE IS A GRAVELY SANDY LOAM SOIL
WITH A DENSELY CONSOLIDATED LAYER WITHIN A FEW FEET OF THE
SURFACE.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
SOME PORTIONS OF THE STEEP SLOPE HAVE EXPOSED. NEAR VERTiCAL
FACING. SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WITH
THIS APPLICATION.
e. Describe the purpose, type, location and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
MINOR GRAOING WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TilE
ACCESS ROAD, STORM DETENTION FACILITY AND RESIDENTIAL
FOUNDATION EXCAVATION. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT. THE
GRADING QUANTITIES WILL BE MINOR. ALL MATERIAL IS ANTICIPATED
TO REMAIN ON THE SITE.
r. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use. If so, generally describe.
THERE IS ALWAYS THE POSIBILlTY OF MINOR EROSION DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PROJECT.
g. About what percentage of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
WHEN THE HOUSES AND ROADS ARE CONSTRUCTED, APPROXIMATELY
70% OF THE SITE WILL BE COVERED WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACES.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, ifany.
THE ENGINEERING DESIGN OF THE PROJECT WILL CONTAIN A SEPARATE
GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN. THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN
WILL INCORPORATE A SEDIMENT TRAP(S), SILT FENCES. INTERCEPTOR
SWAl.ES. AND OTiIER MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT EROSION IS MINIMIZED
AND CONTAINED WITHIN THE SITE. DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF STEEP
SLOPES. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE PARTIALLY COMPLETED STORM
FACILITY AND OUTFALL WILL BE UTILIZED FORA SEDIMENT POND.
3
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONL)
SEPA Rules
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile,
odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction Wld when the project is
completed? Ifany, generally describe and give approximate quantities ifknown.
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THERE MAY BE SOME DUST OENERATED BY THE
ORA DING ACTIVITIES. THERE WILL BE SOME EMISSIONS FROM THE
EQUIPMENT USED TO BUILD THE ROAD AND INSTALL THE UTILITIES.
ONCE THE HOUSES ARE CONSTRUCTED, THERE MAYBE EMISSIONS FROM
FIREPLACES AND WOOD STOVES.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
NONE KNOWN.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impact to air, ifany.
DURING CONSTRUCTION, MOST CONTRACTORS HAVE ACCESS TO WATER
TRUCKS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR DUST. SOME JURISDICTIONS
DO NOT ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF FIREPLACES AND WOOD STOVES
UNLESS THEY ARE E.P.A. CERTIFIED.
3. Water
a. Surface
1) Is there Wly surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe
type, location and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows
into. Provide a sketch ifnot shown on site plans.
YES. THERE IS A SMALL, PERENNIAL, UNCLASSIFIED STREAM THAT
RUNS APPROXIMATELY PARALLEL OUTSIDE OF THE NORTH
BOUNDARY OF THE PROPOSED SITE. THIS STREAM APPEARS IN THE
KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS MAP FOLIO ON PAGE 4 OF THE
STREAMS AND 100·YEAR FLOODPLAINS SECTION.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Note
approximate distance between surface waters and any construction, fill, etc.
ORA DING FOR THE ROAD, UTILITIES, STORM DETENTION FACILITIES
AND SOME OF TilE BUILDING LOTS (FOUNDATIONS, HOUSES, ETC.)
WILL BE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SMALL, UNCLASSIFIED STREAM
THAT RUNS APPROXIMATELY PARALLEL OUTSIDE OF THE NORTH
BOUNDARY OF THE PROPOSED SITE.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source offill material, if from on site.
NONE.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose and approximate quantities, if known.
NONE.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note the location on the
site plan.
NO.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharge 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 wilhdraYlTl, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
4
SEPA Rules
NONE
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals ...• agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system.
the number of such systems. the number of houses to be served (if applicable). or the
number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
NONE
c. Water Runoff(includiog storm water):
1) Describe the source(s) of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection,
transport/conveyance and disposal. if any (include quantities. if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? rfso, describe.
THE ONLY STORMWATER RUNOFF LEAVING THE SITE ORIGINATES
WITHIN THE PROPERTY. IN THE DEVELOPED CONDITION,
STORMWATER RUNOFF WILL BE COLLECTED IN AN UNDERGROUND
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM THAT WILL DIRECT THE STORMWATER INTO A
DETENTION FACILITY PROPOSED FOR TRACT "B". THIS STORM WATER
WILL THEN BE GRADUALLY RELEASED IN A CONTROLLED MANNER
INTO THE STREAM NORTH OF THE PROPOSED SITE.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? Ifso, generally describe.
IT IS UNLIKELY THAT CONTAMINATED WATER MATERIALS WILL
ENTER THE GROUND WATER TABLE GIVEN THE TYPE OF SOIL THAT IS
UNDER THE SITE. BEAUSITEO SOILS GENERALLY HAVE A DENSELY
CONSOLIDATED LAYER WITHIN A FEW FEET OF THE SURFACE.
MATERIALS THAT ARE ILLEGALLY DUMPED INTO THE STORM
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM COULD EVENTUALLY MIGRATE INTO SURFACE
WATERS.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, groW1d and flUlOff water impacts. if any:
THE DESIGN OF THE DETENTION FACILITY WILL PROVIDE STORAGE FOR
THE DEVELOPED CONDITION RUNOFF FROM THE SITE WITH A RELEASE
RATE EQUAL TO THE PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION FOR EACH OF THE
DESIGN STORMS USING THE 1998 KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER DESIGN
MANUAL. WHEN THE STORM CATCH BASINS ARE INSTALLED. THE INLET
GRATES ARE STAMPED WITH THE WORDS "DUMP NO POLLUTANTS -
OUTFALL TO STREAM"
4, Plants
a. Check andlor circle (or bold and capitalize) types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: ALDER, MAPLE, ASPEN, other: MADRONA
evergreen: FIR, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup. bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily. eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation (please list)
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
DUE TO THE SMALL SIZE OF THE LOTS, THE MAJORITY OF THE
VEGETATION WITHIN THE SITE WILL BE REMOVED
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
NONE KNOWN.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, ifany:
WHEN THE HOUSES ARE CONSTRUCTED, LANDSCAPING WILL BE
PROVIDED IN THE REMAINING AREAS. THE LANDSCAPING WILL MORE
THAN LIKELY CONSIST OF LAWNS AND LOW GROWING SHRUBS AND
TREES. THE OPEN SPACE WILL BE LANDSCAPED TO SATISFY THE COUNTY
5
SEPA Rules
REQUIREMENT FOR PROVIDING ON-STIE RECREATION. THE RECREATION
PLAN WILL BE PREPARED AT THE TIME OF ENGINEERING DESIGN.
5. Animals
a. Circle (or bold and capitalize) any birds and animals which have been observed on or
near the site or are known to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, SONGBIRDS, other: =="'"" __ _
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: RODENTS
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: ____ _
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
NONE KNOWN.
c. Is the site part ofa migration route? Ifso, explain.
NONE KNOWN.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
NONE PROPOSED.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood, stove, solar) will be used 10 meet
Ihe completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
THE ENERGY NEEDS OF THE PROJECT WILL BE MET USING EITHER
ELECTRIC OR NATURAL GAS, OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH.
h. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY COVERED WITH A MIX OF SECOND GROWTH
TREES. THE TREES ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE WITHIN THE
TRACr'A" SAT WILL BE RETAINED. AS A RESULT, THE PROJECT WILL
NEITHER IMPROVE OR AFFECT THE POTENTIAL USE OF SOLAR ENERGY BY
ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?
List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, ifany.
ALL OF THE HOUSES WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE INSULATED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT ENERGY CODES. ALL OF THE UTILITIES
WILL MEET MINIMUM ENERGY EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk
or fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this
proposal? Ifso, describe.
NONE KNOWN
I) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
N.A.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, ifany.
N.A.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (Le. traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
THERE IS TRAFFIC NOISE FROM RENTON A V S (TO THE NORTH OF THE
SITE) WHICH MAY HAVE A MINOR AFFECT TO THE PROJECT
6
SEPA Rules
OTHER POTENTIAL NOISE MAYBE ASSOCIATED WITH THE AIRPORT IN
RENTON NORTHEAST OF THE PROPERTY.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on
a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation,
other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
IN THE SHORT TERM THERE WILL BE NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT USED TO BUILD ROADS, INSTALL
UTILITIES, AND BUILD HOUSES.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
THE CONSTRUCTION NOISE WILL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS
ALLOWED BY KING COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCES. CONSTRUCTION
HOURS WILL BE INDICATED ON THE ENGINEERING PLAN SET, AND ON
THE BUILDING PERMITS.
8, Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
PART OF THE SITE IS BEING USED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND THE
REST OF IT IS MOSTLY VACANT.
THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE MOSTLY VACANT WITH SOME STEEP
SLOPES. THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST ON THE EAST SIDE OF 88TH AVE S
ARE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ARE
EITHER SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS OR PART OF THE CEDAR RIVER
PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PROPERTIES ON THE WEST ARE SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLINGS.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? Ifso, describe.
IT SEEMS THAT PART OF THE SITE HAS AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST BEEN
USED AS A PASTURE. THERE ARE A FEW SMALL FRUIT TREES CURRENTLY
ON THE SITE.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
THERE ARE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON LOTS 38 THROUGH 41 WHICH ARE
TO REMAIN. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE (RENTAL) ON LOT 3 ID TO BE
DEMOLISHED
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
TIlE RENTAL STRUCTURE ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF PARCEL A
(WITHIN PROPOSED LOT 3)WlLL BE DEMOLISHED.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
R-8-P
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
UM: URBAN MEDIUM.
g. Ifapplicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
N.A.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
ACCORDING TO THE KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO, NO KNOWN
PORTION OF THE SITE HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS AN "ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE" AREA. HOWEVER, THE STEEP SLOPE PORTION OF THE SITE,
AND THE STREAM TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE WOULD BOTH BE
CLASSIFIED AS SENSITIVE AREAS AS DEFINED BY KING COUNTY CODE.
L Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
USING A VALUE OF 3.2 RESIDENCES PER ADDITIONAL HOUSEHOLD, IT IS
ESTIMATED THAT 118 NEW PEOPLE WILL RESIDE IN THE COMPLETED
PROJECT. NOTE THAT THE EXISTING 4 RESIDENCES WAS NOT INCLUDED
IN THE CALCULATION.
7
SEPA Rules
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
ONE. THE PERSON IN THE RENTAL HOUSE ON PARCEL A.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts. irany.
NONE PROPOSED.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, irany.
THE PROPOSAL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING AND PROJECTED LAND
USES FOR THE GIVEN ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low income housing.
37 UNITS OF MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSING.
h. Approximately how many units. if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
ONE. LOW-INCOME HOUSING.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any.
NONE PROPOSED.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height or any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
THE NEW RESIDENCES WITHIN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL MORE
THAN LIKELY BE CONSTRUCTED OF WOOD PRODUCTS TO A MAXIMUM
HEIGHT OF 30'. ALL NEW RESIDENCES WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH
CURRENT COUNTY BUILDING STANDARDS IN PLACE AT THE TIME THE
RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY FOR REVIEW,
h. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
NO KNOWN VIEWS WILL BE ALTERED OR OBSTRUCTED.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
NONE PROPOSED.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day or night would it
main Iy occur?
THE LIGHT PRODUCED BY THE PROPOSAL WILL BE LIMITED TO
RESIDENTIAL AND STREET LIGHTS. LIGHTS ARE GENERALLY ON AT
NIGHT.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT LIGHT FROM THE FINISHED PROJECT WOULD BE A
SAFETY HAZARD OR INTERFERE WITH ANY VIEWS.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
NONE KNOWN.
d, Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any.
NONE PROPOSED.
8
SEPA Rules
12. Recreation
B. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
THE NEAREST DESIGNATED RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IS
EARLINGTON PARK. THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF EARLINGTON PARK IS
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1/4 OF A MILE SOUTHEAST OF A SOUTHERN
BOUNDARY OF THE PROPOSAL. THE NEAREST INFORMAL RECREATION
OPPORTUNITIES ARE: THE APPROXIMATELY 64' WIDE, GRASS, CITY OF
SEATTLE CEDAR RIVER PIPE LINE RIGHT OF WAY WHICH IS JUST SOUTH OF
THE PROJECT; THE BLACK RIVER ALTERNATIVE HIGHSCHOOL AND
SCHOOL PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE PROPOSAL; AND THE
RENTON HIGHSCHOOL AND SCHOOL PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE EAST OF
THE PROPOSAL
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe?
NO.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any.
IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING AT THIS TIME. THAT ON-SITE RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES WILL BE REQUIRED SINCE EARLINGTON PARK IS WITHIN THE
CITY OF RENTON. THE CITY AND COUNTY CURRENTLY HAVE NO
MECHANISM FOR A FEE-IN-LiEU.
13. Historic and Cultural Presen'ation
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.
NONE KNOWN.
b, Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scienlific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next 10 the site.
NONE KNOWN.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any.
NONE PROPOSED.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans., if any.
THE SITE WILL BE SERVED BY 88nl AVE S (STEVENS AV SW -IN RENTON)
WHICH INTERSECTS WITH SW SUNSET BLVD. S 133'" PL WILL SERVE THE
RESIDENCES WITHIN TIlE PROPOSAL. SEE COPY OF PRELIMINARY PLAT.
h. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
THE SITE IS NOT CURRENTLY SERVED BY PUBLIC TRANSIT. THE TWO
NEAREST TRANSIT PICK-UP LOCATION ARE AT:
I. THE STEVENS AVE. SW 1 SW SUNSET BLVD. INTERSECTION. THE BUS
ROUTE IS #101. ROUTE 101 RUNS EAST AND WEST ALONG SW SUNSET
BLVD. THE STEVENS AVE SW 1 SW SUNSET BLVD INTERSECTION IS
APPROXIMATELY 0.33MI WALKING DISTANCE FROM THE SITE.
2. THE SW SUNSET BLVD 1 RAINER AVE S INTERSECTION. THE BUS ROUTES
ARE 11101, #107 AND 11143. THESE ROUTES RUN EAST AND WeST ALONG
SW SUNSET BLVD, THE SW SUNSET BLVD 1 RAINER AVE S
INTERSECTION IS APPROXIMATELY MOM I WALKING DISTANCE FROM
THE SITE.
THESE ROUTES INTERSECT WITH OTHER BUS ROUTES THAT PROVIDE A
LINK TOTHE REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
9
SEPA Rules
USING A VALUE OF 4 PARKING SPACES PER NEW RESIDENTIAL UNIT, THE
COMPLETED PROJECT WILL PROVIDE A TOTAL OF 148 NEW PARKING
SPACES. NO EXISTING PARKING SPACES WILL BE ELIMINATED. NOTE, THE
FOUR EXISTING RESIDENCES TO BE RETAINED WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
CALCULATION. .
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private).
THE PROPOSAL WILL REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF S I33RD ST. TO
URBAN SUB-COLLECTOR STANDARDS. ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, S
I33RD ST IS SHOWN TO TERMINATE IN A TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC. SOME
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED ALONG 88TH AVE. S. THERE MAY BE A
REQUIREMENT FOR OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
A ROAD VARIANCE WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF
DETERMlNlNG THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS ALONG 88TH AVE S. AND
ANY OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS. THIS VARIANCE IS UNDER REVIEW AT THE
TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF TillS SEPA CHECKLIST.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail or air
transportation? Ifso, generally describe.
NO.
f. How many weekday vehicular trips (one way) per day would be generated by the
completed project? Ifknown, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
USING THE STANDARD MODEL OF 10 VEHICULAR TRIPSIRESIDENCEIDAY,
THE COMPLETED PROPOSAL WILL GENERATE 370 NEW VEIllCULAR
TRIPSIDA Y. THE PEAK VOLUMES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS GENERALLY
OCCUR IN THE MORNING AND AFTERNOON PERIODS. NOTE, THE EXISTING
4 RESIDENCES TO BE RETAINED WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
CALCULATION.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts. if any.
NONE PROPOSED. ANY REQUIRED WILL BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE
VARIANCE PROCESS AND THE REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPLICATION.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? Ifso, generally describe.
AN INCREASED NEED FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE SERVICES WILL INCREASE
AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSAL. THE INCREASE OF THE NEED IS
PROPORTIONAL TO THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT. THE EARLINGTON RIDGE
PROJECT WILL RESULT IN A MARGINAL INCREASE.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, ifany.
THE DEVELOPMENT WILL MITIGATE FOR THE INCREASED USE OF THE
SERVICES BY PAYING FOR HOOK-UP AND SERVICE FEES. A KING COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION MPS FEE WILL MORE THAN LIKELY BE ACCESSED TO
THE PROJECT.
16, Utilities
a. Circle (or bold and capitalize) utilities currently available at the site: ELECTRICITY,
NATURAL GAS, REFUSE SERVICE, WATER, TELEPHONE, SANITARY
SEWER. septic system. other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which
might be needed.
WATER AND SEWER WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF RENTON,
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT WILL PROVIDE THE ELECTRICITY, PUGET SOUND
ENERGY WILL PROVIDE GAS, US WEST WILL PROVIDE PHONE SERVICE.
THE UTILITIES PROVIDING THE SERVICE ARE LISTED ON THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT MAP.
10
SEPA Rules
c. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. ] Wlderstand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature: -<2 0-:1 ~ ~
C Q.5~'y £»5/;;;;"".9
DateSubm;tted: i/-ZO -LOOO
1\
,
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
850 Union Bank of California Building
900 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98164
Telephone (206) 296-4660
Facsimile (206) 296-1654
REPORT AND DECISION ON PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION
November 26, 2002
SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services File No. LOOP0025
EARLINGTON RIDGE
Preliminary Plat Application
Location: Northwcst Corner of South 134'h Strect and 88'" Avcnue South
Applicant: Lakeridge Dcvelopment Inc.
represented by David Casey
Casey Engineering
P.O. Box 1255
Fall City, WA 98024-1255
King County: Department of Development and Environmental Services,
Land Use Services Division
represented by Feresbtch Dehkordi
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
Telephone: (206) 296-7173
Facsimile: (206) 296-6613
SUMMARY OF DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION:
Department's Preliminary Recommendation:
Department's Final Recommendation:
Examiner's Decision:
EXAMINER PROCEEDINGS:
Hearing Opened:
Hearing Closed:
Approve, subject to conditions
Approve, subject to cond itions
Approve, subject to conditions
November 21, 2002
November 21, 2002
Participant\ at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes.
A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the King County Hearing Examiner.
LOOP0025-Earlington Ridge
KEY WORDS:
Traffic Sewer service
Safe walking conditions King County Road Standards
SUMMARY:
Grants preliminary approval to a proposed plat of 6.2 acres into 41 residential building lots.
FINDINGS OF FACT: Havjng reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters
the following: :"
FINDINGS:
1. Proposal. Wayne Jones of Lake ridge Development, Inc. ("Applicant"), represented by David
Casey of Casey Engineering, proposes to subdivide a 6.2 acre parcel into 41 residential building
lots. Four lots already exist on the subject property. Thus, the net increase (upon which impact
calculations are based) is 37 new lots. Both detached single-family residences and "zero side
yard setback" attached dwellings are proposed. At 6.5 dwelling units per acre development
dcnsity, the proposed plat of Earlington Ridge barely complies with the minimum density
standard established by the RA zoning classification within which it is located.
The Applicant's preliminary plat drawing depicts the arrangement of lots and tracts. It is
incorporated as exhibit no. 7 in this hearing record. It is also attached to the Department of
Development and Environmental Services ("DDES" or "Department") preliminary report,
entered as exhibit no. 2.
2. State Environmental Policy Act compliance. On September 24, 2002 the Department issued a
mitigated threshold determination of non-significance (MONS) for the proposed plat of
Earlington Ridge. A MONS imposes certain conditions to preclude probable significant adverse
impacts on the environment resulting from the proposed development. In this case, the MONS
requires the following:
a. Improvement of a segmcnt of Stevens Avenue within City of Renton jurisdiction, from
South 134th Street and Langston Road to a minimum 20 foot wide of paved roadway,
together with a pedestrian walkway on one side of the roadway.
b. Improvement of South I34th Street between 88th Avenue South and 84th Avenue South, to
provide a minimum 20 foot wide paved roadway section for two-way vehicle traffic.
c. Improvement/development of walkways to assure safe walking conditions for children
living in the proposed plat of Earlington Ridge and attending Demitt Middle School and
Campbell Elementary School.
These SEPA requirements are stated in their entirety as condition nos. 7 m through 7 s on pages 7 and 8
of this report and decision along with numerous other traffic and roads-related conditions. No person,
agency, tribe or other entity appealed the Department's threshold determination, which is based upon the
Department's review of the environmental checklist and numerous other relevant environmental
documents and expert consultation. The Department's environm"ental review record is incorporated in
this hearing record.
,
,. .~, .
2
, . ...
LOOP0025-Earlington Ridge 3
3. Department Recommendation. The Department recommends granting preliminary approval to
the proposed plat of Earlington Ridge, subject to the fourteen conditions of final plat approval
stated on pages 7 through 13 of the Department's Preliminary Report (exhibit no. 2)-with one
minor clarification. As stated in the Department's preliminary report, recommended condition
no. 7 q cross references two other conditions inaccurately. Recommended condition no. 7 q
should refer to recommended conditions nos. 7 m and 7 n.
4. Applicant response. The Applicant accepts the Department's recommendation as described in
finding no. 3 above:)"
< 5. Neighborhood concerns. The following findings are relevant to concernS raised by neighboring
property owners.
a. The Department, Applicant and neighboring property owners all agree that a walkway
required to meet statutory "safe walking conditions for students" should be located along
thc south side of 134'" Street. The feasibility of this preferred route will depend upon
penn iss ion from the City of Seattle which owns the Cedar River pipeline right-of-way
which nllls parallel to, and abuts, the Cedar River pipeline right-of-way. If that route is
approved, then the Applicant probablY will seck King County Department of
Transportation (Road Services Division) approval to reduce the sidewalk/curb/gutter
urban standard improvements for those Earlington Ridgc lots which abut the north side
of South 134"' Street.
b. The City of Renton provides sewer service to the area. The present or future availability
ofthat sewer service for those properties neighboring Earlington Ridge necessarily will
depend on negotiations and agreements with the City of Renton.
c. South 1341h Street extending west to Langston Rd. from 381h Avenue South narrows to
become a posted one-way street. At the west end, at Langston, a sign says "do not
enter." Neighboring property owners express concern regarding the dangerousness of
that circumstance, which is exacerbated by many drivers who choose to ignore the "do
not enter" signage. This is not a problem created by the Applicant. Kristen Langley,
representing the Road Services Division, recommends that neighboring property owners
bring the South 134'" Street problem to the attention of the County Road Engineer,
Paulette Norman, at (206) 296-6596.
d. Some neighboring property owners question the traffic distribution projected by the
traffic impact analysis prepared by Christopher Brown, P.E. (exhibit no. 13). Mr. Brown
considered adjacent land uses, projected phasing, the neighboring street system and its
traffic characteristics, horizon year traffic, trip generation rates, traffic assignments,
capacity and entering site distance. He assumed 39 new homes, two more than actually
proposed. Thus, his traffic projections slightly exaggerate actual probable traffic
generation. He obtained current peak hour traffic volume data in the field-under both
dry and clear weather conditions. None of the intersections in the vicinity measure level
of service (LOS) lower than "A". DDES and Road Services Division accept and support
Mr. Brown's analysis.
,
r
LOOP0025-Earlinglon Ridge
6. Department report adopted. The facts and analysis contained in the Department's report are
accurate and adopted here by this reference. Copies of the Department's report (exhibit no. 2)
will accompany those copies of this report that are forwarded to the Metropolitan King County
Council.
CONCLUSIONS:
I. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the proposed subdivision will comply
with the goals and ~bjectives of the King County Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision and Zoning
Codes, and other official land use controls and policies of King County. ,
2. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, this proposed subdivision will make
appropriate provision for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, for
drainage ways, streets, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supply, sanitary wastes,
parks and recreations, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and safe walking conditions for
students who only w~lk to school; and it will serve the public use and interest.
3. The conditions for final plat approval recommended below are in the public interest and are
reasonable requirements to mitigate the impacts of this development upon the environment.
4. The dedications of land or easements within and adjacent to the proposed plat, as recommended
by the conditions for final plat approval or as shown on the proposed preliminary plat submitted
by the applicant, are reasonable and necessary as a direct result of the development of this
proposed plat.
DECISION:
The proposed plat of Earlington Ridge, as described by exhibit no. 2 is GRANTED PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL; subject to the following conditions of final plat approval:
I. Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code.
2. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final
plat a dedication that includes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No. 5952.
3. The plat shall comply with the base density requirements of the R-8 zone classification. All lots
shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the R-8 zone classification or shall be as
shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat, whichever is larger, except that minor
revisions to the plat which do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion
of the Department of Development and Environmental Services.
4. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the
King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187, as amended
(1993 KCRS .
The applicant must obtain the approval of the King County Fire Protection Engineer for the
adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, and fire flow standards of Chapter 17.08 of the King
County Code.
,
" ..
4
LOOP0025-Earlinglon Ridge 5
G. Final plat approval shall require full compliance with the drainage provisions set forth in King
County Code 9.04. Compliance may result in reducing the number andlor location of lots as
shown on the preliminary approved pia!. Preliminary review has identified the following
conditions of approval which represent portions of the drainage requirements. All other
applicable requirements in KCC 9.04 and the Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) must also
be satisfied during engineering and final review.
a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water
Design Ma1'lllal and applicable updates adopted by King County. DDES approval of the
drainage .arid roadway plans is required prior to any construction. ,
b. Current standard plan notes and ESC notes, as established by DDES Engineering
Review, shall be shown on the engineering plans.
c. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded plat:
"All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious surfaces such
as patios and driveways shall be connected to the permanent storm drain outlet as shown
on the approved construction drawings # on file with DDES andlor the
King County Departmcnt of Transportation. This plan shall be submitted with the
application of any building penni!. All connections of the drains must be constructed
and approved prior to the final building inspection approval. For those lots that are
designated for individual lot infiltration systems, thc systems shall be constructed at the
time of the building permit and shall comply with plans on file."
d. Core Requirement No. I: Discharge at the Natural Location.
The applicant has received approval for the requested diversion of surface water within
the project (See Adjustment File LO I V0060). The conditions for adjustment approval
shall be satisfied during design and review of the project engineering plans.
e. Core Requirement No.3: Runoff Control.
Storm water runoff control shall be provided using the Level One detention standard
outlined in the 1998 KCSWDM. The size of the proposed drainage tract may have to
increase to accommodate the required detention and water quality storage volumes. The
runoff control facilities shall be located in a separate tract and dedicated to King County
unless portions of the drainage tract are used for required recreation space in accordance
with KCC 2IA.14.180.
The conceptual drainage plan shows a detention vault within 200 feet of a slope greater
than 15%. A geotechnical report shall be submitted with the engineering plans to
address slope stability and other applicable requirements in the 1998 KCSWDM, Section
5.3.1.1.
f. , Core Requirement No.4: Conveyance Systems.
The outlet pipe from the detention facility is proposed to convey water over steep slopes
before discharge to the receiving water. Due to concerns for potential impacts by
LOOP0025-Earlington Ridge
drainage discharge onto the steep slopes, storm watcr shall be conveyed down the slopes
in an enclosed system constructed of high-density polyethylene pipe (e.g. Driscopipe).
The pipe shall be located presenting the least potential for erosion and which minimizes
disturbance to natural vegetation. Requirements as specified in Section 4.3.6 of the 1998
KCSWDM shall be used for design purposes. In addition, the following specific
considerations shall be addressed with the applicant's construction plans:
I. The pipe system shall be located on the ground surface within a King County
drainage easement (or other approved accessibility method), sufficient in width
fortJroper location and maintenance • •
2. Tht! method of construction and structural attachment of the system to the
ground shall be addressed on the plans. Adequate energy dissipation shall be
provided at the pipe outfall.
3. Detention pond overflow systems shall be designed for piped conveyance, rather
than open spillways. The overflow structures and conveyance pipe shall be
designed to accommodate flows for the 1 OO-year storm under developed site
conditions.
g. Core Requirement No.8: Water Quality.
The Basic water quality standard shall be provided as outlined in the 1998 KCSWDM.
h. Special Requirement No. I: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements.
The proposed plat is located within the Highline Community Plan which contains special
P-Suffix conditions (WH-P4) related to mass transit accommodations. The applicable P-
suffix requirements shall be addressed on the final engineering plans.
7. The final plat shall comply with the 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS). and the
conditions stated below. The SEPA mitigation conditions issued September 24, 2002 are
incorporated as conditions 7 m through 7 s.
a. During preliminary review the applicant submitted a road variance application (File No.
LOOVOI08) regarding urban frontage improvements, roadside obstacles, angle of
intersection and intersection landing. The variance received a partial denial and
conditional approval on August 1,2002. The final road improvements shall comply with
the variance approval requirements.
b. South 133'd Street shall be constructed to the urban subaccess street standard.
c. The connection of South 133'" Street to 88th Avenue South shall be constructed to KCRS
"low speed curve" standards with minimum 55-foot horizontal radius at centerline and
35-foot radius at curb line.
d. . 88th Avenue South shall be improved to the full-width, urban subaccess street standard
acrOss the frontage of the plat with urban frontage improvements (curb, gutter and
sidewalk) required on the plat (west) side.
,
6
...
LOOI'0025-Earlington Ridge 7
e. South 134'" Street is classified as a subacccss street. SOU1l1 134'" Street shall be
improved to the urban suhaccess half-street standard. Road improvements in front of the
intervening parcels along South 134'" Street (in front of Tax Lots 214480-0810,182305-
9214, -9229, -9232 and -9209) shall include widening to provide a 20-foot wide roadway
section with a minimum 4-foot wide pedestrian facility (see also option under item q
below).
f. A right-of-way radius of 25 feet shall be dedicated on the southeast comer of proposed
Lot #38 (intersection of 88~ Avenue South at South 134~ Street).
'r
g. A temporary cul-de-sac shall be provided at the western terminus of South 133,d Street.
J.
J.
k.
I.
Off-site street improvements for the southern extension of 88~ Avenue South, south of
South 134'" Street (called Stevens Way SW within the City of Renton) will be required
by the City. These improvements include a minimum of20 feet of pavement width and a
pedestrian sidewalk on one side. Review and approval of these off-site improvements
will be made'by the City of Renton during engineering review.
The proposed South 134'10 Street road improvements shall address the requirements for
road surfacing outlined in KCRS Chapter 4. As noted in section 4.01 F, full width
pavement overlay is required where widening existing asphalt.
Street trees shall be included in the design of all road improvements, and shall comply
with Section 5.03 of the KCRS.
Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered by King County pursuant
to the variance procedures in KCRS 1.08.
The developer shall coordinate roadway improvements with affected property owners to
address driveway modifications, transitions and continuous access issues as a result of
the new road improvements.
The City of Renton requires the applicant to improve Stevens Avenue, from South 134tl•
Street and Langston Road to a minimum 20 foot width of paved roadway, together with a
pedestrian walkway on one side of the roadway. ~:!!!Jm'm~Jl.t;1!~ttipl.!fruli!!1Jl'
~",.lyij.!l~~!'fffli1\-ea;a~~iileeo\liig'\i'ev'ltiW!9J his improvement shall be
completed and approved by the City prior to the final plat approval.
n. The Applicant shall improve South 134'" Street, between 88'h Avenue South and 84'h
Avenue South, to provide a minimum 20-foot wide paved roadway section for two-way
vehicle traffic. From 84'" Avenue South to Langston Road, the roadway is restricted to
one-way (westbound, only) operation. No additional roadway widening is required for
vehicle traffic.
o. The applicant shall construct a four (4) foot wide paved walkway, ~ith eX'iruded curb,
along the north side of South 134'" Street for the intervening frontage;·off,site.parce)s. ~\
located between Lots 209, 232,229,214, and 810.
r
LOOP0025-Eariington Ridge 8
p. From the southwest plat corner along the north side of South 134'" Street to 84'" Avenue
South and continuing along the north side of South 134'" Street to the intersection of
Langston Road SW, the Applicant shall also provide a four (4) foot wide paved walkway
with delineation (extruded curb or striping) approved by KCDOT.
q. As an alternative to conditions 7 m and 7 n, the applicant may construct a four (4) foot
wide separated paved path within the City of Seattle pipeline right-of-way on the south
side of South I 34th Street from 88th Avenue South to Langston Road SW. If required by
the City of Seattle, a gravel surfacing for this alternative may be substituted.
I
r. Along Langston Road SW from South 134th Street to South 132"d Street, the applicant
shall construct a four (4) foot wide gravel shoulder! walking surface.
s. Modification of these requirements shall be considered by DDES and KCDOT during
engineering review to address any future revisions to bus stop locations, or modifications
to the conditions described previously by Renton School District #403.
8. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise approved by the
King County Council prior to final plat recording.
9. The applicant or subsequent owner shall comply with King County Code 14.75, Mitigation
Payment System (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee and administration fee as determined by
the applicable fee ordinance. The applicant has the option to either: (I) pay the MPS fee at final
plat recording, or (2) pay the MPS fee at the time of building permit issuance. If the first option
is chosen, the fee paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of plat application and a note shall be
placed on the face of the plat that reads, "All fees required by King County Code 14.75,
Mitigation Payment System (MPS), have been paid." If the second option is chosen, the fee paid
shall be the amount in effect as of the date of building permit application.
10. Lots within this subdivision are subject to King County Code 2IA.43, which imposes impact fees
to fund school system improvements needed to serve new development. As a condition of final
approval, fifty percent (50%) of the impact fees due for the plat shall be assessed and collected
immediately prior to recording, using the fee schedules in effect when the plat receives final
approval. The balance of the assessed fee shall be allocated evenly to the dwell ing units in the
plat and shall be collected prior to building permit issuance.
II. Off-site access to the subdivision shall be over a full-width, dedicated and improved road which
has been accepted by King County for maintenance. If the proposed access road has not been
accepted by King County at the time of recording, then said road shall be fully bonded by the
applicant of this subdivision.
12. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the Sensitive Areas Code as outlined in
KCC 21 A.24. Permanent survey marking, and signs as specified in KCC 21 A.24.160 shall also
be addressed prior to final plat approval. Temporary marking of sensitive areas and their buffers
(e.g., with bright orange construction fencing) shall be placed on the site and shall remain in
place until all construction activities are completed.
13. Preliminary plat review has identified the following specific requirements which apply to this
project. All other applicable requirements from KCC 21A.24 shall also be addressed by the
applicant.
# '.
" .. '
Loor0025-Eariington Ridge 9
Stream: A Class 2/P stream crosses the northwest corner of the site.
a. Class 2/P stream shall have a minimum of 50-foot buffer, measured from the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM. A minimum building setback line of IS feet shall be required
from the edge of the tract.
b. Sensitive area tracts shall be used to delineate and protect sensitive areas and buffers in
development proposals for subdivisions and shall be recorded on all documents of title of
record for all affected lots.
·t
c. Prior to commencing construction activities on the site, the applicant shall mark sensitive ,
areas Tract(s) in a highly visible manner, and these areas must remain so marked until all
development proposal activities in the vicinity of the sensitive areas are completed.
d. Prior to final approval of construction activities on the site, the boundary between the
sensitive area Tract(s) and adjacent land shall be identified using permanent signs. Sign
specifications shall be shown on approved plans.
e. Any buffer impacts associated with the plat such as the construction oflhe detention out-
fall shall be re-vegetated. The clearing and construction of the out-fall shall be
completcd by hand labor only, no heavy equipment shall be allowed within the stecp
slopc or stream buffer area. A re-vegetation/mitigation plan shall be submitted during
final engineering review.
Geotechnical: A portion of thc site near the northwest of the site contains slopc of over 40%.
f. Encroachment into the steep slope buffer adjacent to the north side of the Plat, as shown
on the site plan dated May 200 I, is permitted subject to compliance with
KCC21A.24.310.
g. Up to 12 feet or more offill is present on proposed Tract B and Lots 27 through 34. This
material must be reworked to structural fill specifications in accordance with
recommendations presented in the project Geotechnical Engineering Report by Nelson-
Couvrette & Associates, Inc.
h: The applicant shall delineate all on-site erosion hazard areas on the final engineering
plans (erosion hazard areas are defined in KCC21A.06.415). The delineation of such
areas shall be approved by a DDES senior engineering geologist. The requirements
found in KCC 21 A.24.220 concerning erosion hazard areas shall be met, including
seasonal restrictions on clearing and grading activities.
The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded plat:
RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE
AREAS AND BUFFERS
Dedication of a sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer conveys to the public a
beneficial interest in the land within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. This interest
includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public
health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance
LOOP0025-Earlington Ridge 10
of slope stability, and protection of plant and animal habitat. The sensitive area
tract/sensitive area and buffer imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers
of the land subject to the tract/sensitive area and buffer the obligation, enforceable on
behalf of the public by King County, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation
within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. The vegetation within the tract/sensitive area
and buffer may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed or damaged without
approval in writing from the King County Department of Development and
Environmental Services or its successor agency, unless otherwise provided by law.
The comm<1h boundary between the tract/sensitive area and buffer and the area of
development activity must be marked or otberwise flagged to the satisfaction of King
County prior to any clearing, grading, building construction or other development
activity on a lot subject to the sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer. The required
marking or flagging shall remain in place un!il all development proposal activities in the
vicinity of the sensitive area are completed.
No building foundations are allowed beyond the required IS-foot building setback line,
unless othenyise provided by law.
14. The proposed combined recreationlstormwater facility shall be developed consistent with the
requirements ofKCC 2IA.14.180 and KCC 2IA.14.190 (i.e., sport court[s], children's play
equipment, picnic table[s], benches, etc.).
a. An overall conceptual recreation space plan shall be submitted for review and approval
by DDES, with the submittal of the engineering plans. The proposed stormwater vault
shall be placed under ground in such a way that it will not pose a conflict with the
development of the tract as a usable recreation space. The plan shall include location,
area calculations, dimensions, final grad, and general improvements including
landscaping in accordance with KCC 2IA.I6. The approved engineering plans shall be
consistent with the overall conceptual plan.
b. A detailed recreation space plan (i.e., landscape specs, equipment specs, etc.) consistent
with the overall conceptual plan, as detailed in item a., shall be submitted for review and
approval by DDES prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the final plat documents.
c. A performance bond for recreation space improvements shall be posted prior to
recording of the plat.
15. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction
ofDDES which provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the recreation, open
space and/or sensitive area tract(s).
16. Street trees shall be provided as follows (per KCRS 5.03 and KCC 2IA.I6.050):
a. Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet offrontage along all roads.
Spacing may be modified to accommodate sight distance requirements for driveways and
intersections.
b. Trees shall be located within the street right-of-way and planted in accordance with
Drawing No. 5-009 of the 1993 King County Road Standards, unless King County
,
. . . .
LOOP0025-Earlington Ridge II
Department of Transportation determines that trees should not be located in the street
right-of-way. .
c. If King County determines that the required street trees should not be located within the
right-of-way, they shall be located no more than 20 feet from the street right-of-way line.
d. The trees shall be owned and maintained by the abutting lot owners or the homeowners
association or other workable organization unless the County has adopted a maintenance
program. qwnership and maintenance shall be noted on the face of the final recorded
plat. : ,
e. The species of trees shall be approved by DOES if located within the right-of-way, and
shall not include poplar, cottonwood, soft maples, gum, any fmit-bearing trees, or any
other tree or shmb whose roots are likely to obstmct sanitary or storm sewers, or that is
not compatible with overhead utility lines.
f. The applicant shall submit a street tree plan and bond quantity sheet for review and
approval by DOES prior to engineering plan approval.
g. The street trees must be installed and inspected, or a performance bond posted prior to
recording ofthc plat. Ifa perfomlance bond is posted, the street trees must be installed
and inspected within one year of recording of the plat. At the time of inspection, if the
trees are found to be installed per the approved plan, a maintenance bond must be
submitted or the performance bond replaced with a maintenance bond, and held for one
year. After one year, the maintenance bond may be released after ODES has completed a
second inspection and determined that the trees have been kept healthy and thriving.
h. A landscape inspection fee shall also be submitted prior to plat recording. The
inspection fee is subject to change based on the current County fees.
ORDERED this 26th day of November, 2002.
TRANSMITTED this 26th day of November, 2002, to the parties and interested persons of record:
Kelly Bowen
315 SW Langston Rd.
Renton WA 98055
Susan & J6hn Bucher
525 SW Langston Rd.
Renton WA 98055-22t 1
,
Evelyn Brozozowski
8228 s. t 34th St.
Seattle WA 98178
David Casey
Casey Engineering
P.O. Box 1255
Fall Cily WA 98024-1255
Steve Brozozowski
P.O. Box 7022
Bellevue WA 98008
Pory Chhun
406 SW Langston Rd.
Renton WA 98055
LOOP0025-Earlinglon Ridge
William Cluckey
Seattle City Ught
700 -51h Ave., Sle. 3300, Rm. 3914
Seattle WA 98104-5031
Roger Dorstad
Evergreen East Realty
PO Box 375
Redmond WA 98073
Tony & Betty Jovanovich
8626 S. 134th SI.
Seattle WA 98178
Rebecca Lind
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
Linda Matlock
WA State Ecol. Depl.lWQSW Unit
PO Box 47696
Olympia WA 98504-7696
Ron Munson
623 Cedar Ave. S.
Renton WA 98055
Ralph Rutledge
252 Stevens Ave, SW
Renton WA 98055
Clark. Stires
8210 S. 134th SI.
Seattle WA 98178
Mark Bergam
DDES ILUSD
Engineering Review
MS OAK-DE-Ql00
Fereshteh Dehkordi
DDES/LUSD
Current Planning
MS OAK-DE-0100
Carol Rogers
LUSD/CPLN
MS OAK-DE-0100
\
Carol & Kevin Cohoe
B06 SW Langston Rd.
Renton WA 98055
Dorothy Driver
4919 S. Genesee
Seattle WA 98118
lakeridge Development Inc.
Attn: Wayne Jones Jr.
P.O. Box 146
Renton WA 98057-Q146
Cecilia Major
8600 S. 134th SI.
SeaHle WA 98178
Dan & Kay Moilanen
214 Stevens Ave. SW
Renton WA 98055
Elaine & Rick Ravston
318 Stevens Ave. SW
Renton WA 98055
Randy Rutledge
406 Langston Rd. SW
Renton WA 98055
Laird & Kathryn Thornton
285 Earlington Ave. SW
Renton WA 98055
Greg Borba
DDESIlUSD
MS OAK-DE-Q100
Nick Gillen
DDESIlUSD
Site Development Services
MS OAK-DE-Ol00
Steve Townsend
DDESIlUSD
Land Use Inspections
MS OAK-DE-OtOO
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Dennis & Glenda Corpus
13250 -84th Ave. S.
Seattle WA 98178
Roger Gratias
8426 S. 134th SI.
Seattle WA 98178
Sylvia J. Langdon
312 SW Langston Rd.
Renton WA 98055
Richard Major
3915 W. Prosper SI.
SeaUle WA 98199
Eleanor Moon
KC Executive Horse Council
12230 NE 61 st
Kirkland WA 98033
Lori Richardson
215 Stevens Ave. SW
Renton WA 98055
Seattle-King County Health Department
E. District Envirn. Health
14350 SE Eastgate Way
Bellevue WA 98007
Dale Wong
8632 S. 134th SI.
SeaHie WA 98178
Kim Claussen
DDESIlUSD
Current Planning
MS OAK-DE-Ql00
Kristen langley
Land Use TrafficIDDES/CPLN
MS KSC-TR-0222
Larry West
LUSD/SDSS
Wetland Review
MS OAK-DE-Ol 00
In order to appeal the decision of the Examiner, written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King
County Council with a fee of$250.00 (check payable 10 King County Office of Finance) on or before'
December 10, 2002. Ifa notice of appeal is filed, the original and six (6) copies ofa written appeal statement
specifYing the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King
,
v ,
12
,'" ..
LOOP0025-Earlington Ridge
County'Council on or hefore December 17,2002, Appeal statements may refer only to facts contained in the
hearing record; new facts may not be presented on appeal.
Filing requires actual delivery to the Office ofthe Clerk of the Council, Room 1025, King County Court-house,
prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the
Clerk does not occur within the applicable time period. The Examiner does not have authority to extend the
time period unless the Office of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date. in which event delivery
prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the filing requirement.
If a wrinen notice of appeal and filing fee are not filed within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of this report,
or if a written appeal statementlmd argument are not filed within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date of this
report, the decision of the hearrug examiner contained herein shall be the fmal decision of King County without the • need for further action by the Council.
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 21, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NO. LOOP0025.
R.S. Titus was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Fereshteh
Dchkordi, Kristen Langlcy and Mark Bergam, representing the Department; David Casey and Wayne
Jones, representing the Applicant; Richard Major, Steve Brozozowski, Tony and Betty Jovanovich, Dan
Moilanen, Pory Chhun and Susan Boucher also participatcd.
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record:
Exhibit No. I
Exhibit No.2
Exhibit No.3
Exhibit No.4
Exhibit No.5
Exhibit No.6
ExJ,ibit No.7
Exhibit No.8
Exhibit No.9
Exhibit No. 10
ExJlibit No. I I
Exhibit No. 12
Exhibit No. 13
Exhibit No. 14
Exhibit No. 15
Exhibit No. 16
Exhibit No. 17
ExJ,ibit No. 18
ExJlibit No. 19
Exhibit No. 20
RST:gao
LOOP0025 RPT
ODES File No. LOOP0025
DOES Preliminary Report Dated November 2 I, 2002
Application Dated December 8, 2000
Environmental Checklist Dated November 20,2000
Mitigated Declaration of Non-Significance dated September 24,2002
Affidavit of Posting indicating January 5, 200 I as date of posting &
February 8, 200 I as the date the affidavit was received by DOES
Revised Site Plan Dated May 2 I, 2001
Land Use Map, Kroll page 327W.
Assessors Maps SW & NW 18-23-05 and SE & NE 13-23-04
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation by Nelson-Couvrette & Associates, Inc.,
Dated September 26, 2000
Stream Survey Study by J.S. Jones and Associates, Inc. Dated
September 15,2000
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report by Casey Engineering Dated
December 6, 2000
Traffic Impact Analysis by Christopher Brown and Associates Dated
February 21, 2001
Accident Analysis Report by Christopher Brown and Associated Dated
March 5, 2001
Three Letters from Mrs. Brozozowski Dated February 12, 200 I, September 25, 2002
and October 22, 2002
Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Jovanovich Dated March 28, 2002
Letter from the Thornton Family Dated March 14,2001
Letter signed by Randy & Pamela Rutledge, Lori Richardson and
Ralph & Ruth Rutledge Dated February 8, 2001
Letter from Dan & Kay Moilanen Dated February 6, 200 I
Vicinity Map Prepared by King County Engineering Depicting Neighboring
Properties Showing the Sites
13
Date ofIssuauce:
Project:
Location:
JKJing ~OllJlnty
Department of Development and Environmental Services
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Mitigated Determination Of N onsignificance
for
Plat of Earlington Ridge LOOP0025
September 24, 2002
Subdivision of approximately 6.27 acres into 41 lots for single family
residential lots with associated road, drainage and recreation facilities.
Four ofthe lots already exist and contain residential buildings (Lots
38 through 4 I). The residential structures will be a combination of
detached and attached units.
At the northwest comer of intersection of South 134 Street and 88 th
Avenue South.
King County Permits: Subdivision, LOOP0025
SEPA Contact:
Proponent:
Zoning:
Drainage Subbasin:
Section/TownshiplRange:
Notes:
Fereshteh Dehkordi, Planner (206) 296-7173
Lakeridge Development Inc. (425) 228-9750
POBox 146
Renton, W A 98057
R-8-P
Black River
18-23-05
A. This finding is based on review of the project site plan dated May 3 I, 2001; environmental
checklist dated November 20,2000; Open Space Plan dated July 31,2001; Stream Survey
Report dated September 15, 2000; Level One Downstream Analysis received December 8,
2000; Preliminary Storm Drainage Report dated December 8, 2000, Traffic Impact Analysis
report dated March 5, 2001 and other documents in the file.
B. Issuance of this threshold determination does not constitute approval of the permit. This
proposal will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable King County codes which
regulate development activities, including the Uniform Fire and Building Codes, Road
Standards, Surface Water Design Manual, and the Sensitive Areas Regulations.
• ,. Plat of Earlington Ridge
LOOP0025
September 24, 2002
Page 2
C. A perennial stream flows at the bottom of a steep ravine across the northwest comer of the
site. The stream and its steep buffer will be protected within a Sensitive Area Tract (SAT
A).
Threshold Determination
The responsible official finds that the above described proposal does not pose a probable significant
adverse impact to the environment, provided the mitigation measures listed below are applied as
conditions of permit issuance. This finding is made pursuant to RCW 43.21C, KCC 20.44 and
WAC 197-11 after reviewing the environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency and considering mitigation measures which the agency or the applicant will implement
as part of the proposal. The responsible official finds this information reasonably sufficient to
evaluate the environmental impact of this proposal.
Mitigation List:
The following mitigation measures shall be attached as conditions of permit issuance. These
mitigation measures are consistent with policies, plans, rules, or regulations designated by
KCC 20.44.080 as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when this threshold
determination is issued. Key sources of substantive authority for each mitigation measure are in
parentheses; however, other sources of substantive authority may exist but are not expressly listed.
A. Off-Site Road Improvements
The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that an estimated 52% of the plat-generated vehicular trips
will impact Stevens Avenue SW (the southern extension of 88'h Avenue South) in the City of
Renton. To address the impact from traffic on substandard lane widths, off-site improvements on
Stevens Avenue SW between South 134th Street and Langston Road SW will be required (1993
KCRS).
I. The City of Renton requires the applicant to improve Stevens Avenue, from South 134th
Street and Langston Road to a minimum 20 foot width of paved roadway, together with a
pedestrian walkway on one side of the roadway. Walkway surfacing, striping, and signage
will be determined during engineering review. This improvement shall be completed and
approved by the City prior to the final plat approval.
The pavement width on South I 34th Street between 88 th Avenue South and Langston Road SW is
less than 20 feet. KCRS 2.07 indicates that the minimum width roadway (serving no more than 35
lots) is 20 feet.
2. The Applicant shall improve South 134'h Street, between 88'h A venue South and 84th Avenue
South, to provide a minimum 20-foot wide paved roadway section for two-way vehicle
traffic. From 84'h Avenue South to Langston Road, the roadway is restricted to one-way
(westbound, only) operation. No additional roadway widening is required for vehicle traffic.
SEPA Detennination.doc 7/27/99 cJc
.-
• Plat of Earlington Ridge
LOOP0025
September 24, 2002
Page 3
B. School Walkway Conditions
The pavement width on South 134th Street between 88th Avenue South and Langston Road SW is
less than 20 feet with no pedestrian facility throughout much of its length. This roadway currently
serves both Dimmit Middle School and Campbell Elementary School children who walk. Similar
conditions exist along Langston Road SW between South 132,d and 134th Streets for school age
children attending Dimmit Middle School. To address impacts to pedestrian safety the following are
required (KCCP-T534-535, RCW 58.17.110):
I. The applicant shall construct a four (4) foot wide paved walkway, with extruded curb, along
the north side of South 134'h Street for the intervening frontage, off-site parcels located
between Lots 209, 232,229,214, and 810.
2. From the southwest plat comer along the north side of South 134'h Street to 84'h Avenue
South and continuing along the north side of South 134th Street to the intersection of
Langston Road SW, the Applicant shall also provide a four (4) foot wide paved walkway
with delineation (extruded curb or striping) approved by KCDOT.
3. As an alternative to the above Conditions (1 and 2), the applicant may construct a four (4)
foot wide separated paved path within the City of Seat de pipeline right-of-way on the south
side of South 134th Street from 88th Avenue South to Langston Road SW. As may be
required by the City of Seattle, a gravel surfacing for this alternative may be substituted.
4. Along Langston Road SW from South 134th Street to South 132,d Street, the applicant shall
construct a four (4) foot wide gravel shoulder/ walking surface.
5. Modification of these requirements shall be considered by DDES and KCDOT during
engineering review to address any future revisions to bus stop locations,.or modifications to
the conditions described previously by Renton School District #403.
Comments. and Appeals
Written comments or any appeal of this threshold determination must be received by King County's
Land Use Services Division prior to 4:30 PM on October 18, 2002. Appeals must be
accompanied by a nomefundable filing fee. Please reference the file numbers when corresponding.
Appeals must be in writing and state the perceived errors in the threshold determination, specific
reasons why the determination should be reversed or modified, the harm the appellant will suffer if
the threshold determination remains unchanged, and the desired outcome ofthe appeal. If the
appellant is a group, the harm to anyone or more members must be stated. Failure to meet these
requirements may result in dismissal of the appeal.
SEPA Detennination.doc 7/27/99 clc
r
... Plat of Earlington Ridge
LOOP0025
September 24, 2002
Page 4
Comment/appeal deadline:
Appeal filing fee:
Address for comment/appeal:
Responsible Official:
Gre~U~~ing Supervisor
Current Planning Section
Land Use Services Division
Date Mailed: September 24, 2002
SEPA Detennination.doc 7/27/99 de
4:30 PM on October 18, 2002
$250 check or money order made out to the King
County Office of Finance
King County Land Use Services Division
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
ATTN: Current Planning Section
&~:;2.'I( z.Q;,2.
Date Signed
•
® Nd\ice
of Decision
D~partmel1t of Development and Environmental Services
Land Use Services Division
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Relllon, Washington 98055-1219
File No.:
Project Name:
DOES Planner:
Telephone No.:
Applicant:
Project Location:
Project Description:
Permits Requested:
(SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION)
LOOP0025
Earlington Ridge Subdivision
Fereshteh Dehkordi, Planner II
(206) 296-7173
Lakeridge Development Inc.
P.O. Box 146
Renton, W A 98057
Phone: (425) 228-9750
Located at the northwest corner of the intersection of South 134'h Street
and 88'h Avenue South.
Subdivision of approximately 6.27 acres into 41 single-family residential
lots with associated road, drainage and recreation facilities. Four of the
lots already exist and contain residential buildings (lots 38 through 41).
The residential structures will be a combination of detached and attached
units.
Formal Plat
SEPA Threshold Determination: Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS)
Comment/Appeal Procedure:
Comments on this SEPA detcnnination are welcome. This SEPA determination may also be appealed in
writing to the King County Hearing Examiner. A notice of appeal must be filed with the Land Use Services
Division at the address listed below prior to 4:30 p.m. on October 18, 2002, and be accompanied with a filing
fee of$250.00 payable to the King County Office of Finance.
If a timely Notice of Appeal has been tiled, the appellant shall also file a Statement of Appeal with the Land
Use Services Division at the address listed below prior to 4:30 p.m. 011 October 18, 2002. The Statement of
Appeal shall identify the decision being appealed (including the file number) and the alleged errors in that
decision. Further, the Statement of Appeal shall state: 1) specific reasons why the decision should be reversed
or modified; and 2) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope of an
appeal shall be based on matters or issues raised in the Statement of Appeal. Failure to timely file a Notice of
Appeal, appeal fee or Statement of Appeal, deprives the Healing Examiner of jurisdiction to consider the
appeal.
Appeals must be submitted to the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DOES) at the following
address:
September 24. 2002
Dale Mailed
DDES--Land Use Services Division
Attn: Permit Center
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, Washington 98055-1219
206-296-6600
[fyou have any questions regarding the appeal procedures, please contact the Land Use Services Division at'
(206) 296-6600. [fyou require this material in braille, audio cassette, or large print, call (206) 296-6600 (voice) or
(206) 296-7217 (TTY).