Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA-04-117
',j'" ", NE.!,/4,:,,:;·j/4,S£C.:'.f,Ta'f'. :.;:~'-,.~..... AFELICANT ~.: '.! ! '';''''; ------------------------------------==-"'-"-' !IT'EvENeI!!CIC. I_~ , :'!I12'!1&.E 1"!lTHe.T~ET II ' I . '. I ~t.:TOJojUlA~'!!I I, , [~j;E~J~~ ..... T~~ ::"C~,{~ "",,,,,;,~,,,, N:~: AT~ ST. " . '~T:;'::';"t:;~ 2813.81 fwt:AlI) NO. l~a IUIt ~ Sl~ \:7 r H~'2nV'W \fC~~ 1122 47 "f~'; 1U2.JJ (~CAS) f ... t, "" .. lUJ" ClnOl"~[NTON),O,)) UII.t=. Iw&~ / _~,~: _ __~__ _ ~'.!......:--/_ __~ ~ \1 'U""'" -'-""-,1-, '."''' 'l'-' ... ,., "': "'" ,'''' ........ (S.E. '28TH ST.) B~5orIlt'MIN~ IS 114 I' .: I ~\,::,~-'~ ,~ ~ ~'I ,G-";,-,,, -','~~' =--::-:~::~"-.:'.-::+ .. -=-.c=i.;~ ...... I ~ rn I "~!'''' -' .. ' "", I •• ''I' '" -1'\."""_ -< 21 21 ~ .... (4) X \, f'I, " I\U'WXU." I w " ·,t-L-~, r--,-'~, r~-"'J I'· / u-= :l I I I • 'I '. I'· -'/r-7---'" r-------, I Z -< I" I I' I ~ , -, • r : .. ,,-'1/ I • '>. I , F I 0;8 rj /1 , I .1,1 , I !... • I I f I I ~~~ 'I: !I, '~"'·2.-:1.1,,'.31· ~I 4 ---,1'1'.' 5 '_ C/Iz J I I erleF ,~ :~.'.'c::leF ~ i,.lao:,.."If I: em2eF Jli &4,r.eF~ if I -~,.J~tI!lIl ~ , , I ~ •• 1 '3'1 : I ." : ,'1 f I I II I d dj''<Jj'''I''I'''1 (I 11 ... ,111 " ~ , 21 21 l,p 1 I' , I I I I I I' ~ , I ' ~~~--~ L _____ -I L_~ ___ .J L ______ ,Ij l"-;. ___ ' ___ j ~j~,~~ ,~~~~~;,.~,! .~,,-~_i. ___ : 1,-.• ~-~:l-:-':~-l"., ... , LE4AL OOOC-"'ETlO< •. , .,.;:l". cc,:~ ___ ,~ r, '."r"~ :~0:i~~/" -'K I ~i. 1 .1/: r, ,. i I : -:" 'I \" i ~r.",'9' :, ~ :."', ')"~""er=: I 1 I I I ,I r, I /..', .:1}~~~~~~~.:~~=-1 ~f~~~~~'~~=lJ 0 L.OT ! Of' 1C!Ne. c.c::o.ITT .~~t ~"'T NIJ"1eEIII: JOl!>O!!J ... CCOIItOJNC. TO 5I-IORT P\. ... T ~CORDED NOYEMBE~ 4. I'!I'. IoNDEQ ~COIIaO!N6 1'U1eER '.I!O"'~ ,:i£~t"!\ -:'IF ~~ CG\.NTY. UIASI-IIN6TON ~.t.RCeL. e L.OT 1 a' KING COUNn' ~ PL.A' t-UMeEI'I: IO'~!~. AC.~~ING TO ~ ~"'T M:COIIU'EO NOve:HCeI't "'. I'!I'" l.N:lel't 1'tf':::GIIItC~ 1'U1eE!R '.1!04~4, RECO~'~ OF IClNdo CCJI..t.lTT, UJA$I-I!NGoTON PAIQCEL C Tfoe NORTI-lI-IAlP OF THE NORTI-lEA~T OU ... IltTEIIt a' Ti-IE! NORTI-W:~T OUARTel't CF !lECT!CN I"', TOJ.N!.I-I!" 23 NORTI-l. RANCsE ~ EMT. UJM. IN KING CD.I<ITT.UJ.t.lII-IJNC.TON. ·-mICEISOI"W -.... "" !)(!!oT!NG eT!'I:lJCTU!'I:f& TO e:: II;;EMC /'oD (T,:"~.; e:XCE,.., TI-IE EAeT 1I".0! FeeT l~!EOF. A!t MEAeUR£O..t.LONCio TI-le NOI'tTI-IL1N!:TI-IE!'t!~: AtO E)(C£I"'T TI-IE N~I-I "'2 FEET TI-IE~OF CONveTED TO KlNCO Co.J'ojTT POI'Ii: IItOAO ~E~ CT PEEO I'tE!COI'tDEP I.N:'JEI't Rl!!CORClNCo 1'U1ee:R~'!o"'" N<IO E)(CEr-T !"'\JGoeT!O.NO ~III: A"Cl L16l-IT CO'1PANT RlCoI-IT-OF·UJ.AT TItACT ~ ... LAT OF AI"1e£IfW::IOO, AC~lNdo TO TI-IE r'LAT TI-IEIltEOI" I'te~EP ,N VOU,.,E '0' ~ ~."~. "4',o::~ "0 TI-IIII!C" 1:'",'" "1. "'':":::~e OF Kn16 CCUITT, UJ.&.!.I-liI'6TON. I ~ ~ EB -Y1,CIt'11LMAP I • ~"lil '''n,'~·""L I 1 I \il/""'"'. i'=~;,,~ -+~~~'4'~--~:;:~+ " "". I ~ \' ''';, I ". I I.. I ~I~ -T·' I le,,, eF ... I t · ... 1 '-i'l~ 51' I . i'" I ~; trc~,c:-J ·_L~,J ; nJ.lC1'/YIIOM"~~a I. 'If ')-4',', ., . .-... :~::r~~~I I I I 1 :'[-': -::-::";':---,-,.' .. ,"vA ':1'-' .. ' , > -::,1;. UT!L!TY ~ .4CCI:e61 : : i ! J ,.,.,., r I·i "I II 1 ,1 l' ,- I -... 12 i 1·::·:'~"ijt·:~ : ~ I ~.lI~&I= ~ I,ll. e2069' ~ =tR:s~~~ 'CUI[ »IZr' ~T ClJIIIOI _~' l' "0' ~ ".' 1 -_I --,-' ! "~ru"" I . r "''''''''".;, ·'''''.''IJ-, ,n I I ',i I r I '-----,:J!!,b"t-----! ........ . :"'-. '0 . . ....... ' .... -' ~t'~ '."1'" ' .... " '0' //, ..... - '" ' ... '. ~e 14~23_~ ,,, .. ~\"" i £ t 6A&I& OF 6EARINc:.& ~ENCHMAIO!K&, J: l' i ~ '" SCALE: 1" = 40' ~ N&I·n'!l~ eETll.EEN TIoE 1"ICNI"ENT ~ lSI ~ 1e!>2.I'0LN0 IN !"LACE AND PEeGlIII:!~D eELQW PEI't C!TT OF R£NTG"'I I-IORIZONT AI.. CClNTP:OL. NET~ I"'l.IaL!N-I!!:P NOvt:MeE~!!J. I~. PTote&2 • ). ~ au,:a:ACE D!eG IN TI-lE INT. 1'£ -111-1 ~T (~!:, l.eTI-I ~T J , l<leTI-I A\o£ !I.E. EL "'!)"'" 0I'i! (I) •• !", HET;:R!I) """110) • ~N e!ltA~ ~ACF O!eG. IN TI-/! :-.IT. (1).1: 12.TI-I ~T .• ~6TI-l AV'£ &.E !L.!04'.~0A:(~1.t:'!)METEIII:!I) D A TUM: r~.o,vt'l!'!IN! DA TL1'1 FER C!TT CIF ~NTON !olJJitVET -~~ -~ '. ;~~~cro~A"~! ! II~OI([Nl W/'I'UNQ< VI I ~I f,1 I I 4 I ~ I -e ffi I 'i'. , ' OUNER ~ II ! i I II eAl..Ee. LIMITED ,...,~~""f~!'" Vl~ i I :! l ! ~eo)(3oe. ihll!1111 RENTON WA.eIolINCOTQN YO!>6 :so Ii: : I . ("'!lJ471-0I-4'!1 I I 1 i ' CONTACT, RoerN eALE& 'I i I \: ri~:.R£'N6INEER'5URVE.r9..E~---- ""11 NJ!!. 7'!rTI-I ,.,.~ 6iJITE 100 eELLE\o'\IE!.II.I45I-I!NGoTON ¥IeO-: ("'2!H88!>·'." CCWTACT. LM'E e. I-IE~~N -!"L~R O.Av!["J E e"..ATTC)Oo.I -.E. -E-.Ar:sNEEI't eTE"",",E"" J. 6C1oIRE1. 1"'1..&.' ~"OR &ITE &TATI5TIC5 1D1 ..... tllTE A~'" ~-2C' «£.0,-': _ ]0' ~IOE -~'. 10' ." J'cO'!O"!. \D Hrel~'. &<\,1-401 ~" AVE!lltACiI!!: LOT ~IZE ;,'!!Ie' ~r ""E~!1TEO OEN&tTT. E)(!~TlNG ZOlft':> ~DZONING TRACT ' .... _ ~TORM OETENTION 3O"¥.I1 !'IF DEN&ITi CALCULATION& ~~.A,IIiE.o,OF-~jqT"', .~rc!IIt·o·w • !"'IIlI:ly.o,TE ACCE~ TRACT!!o • u.ETLANOe. "IET!!o!T£.I.I't£A" 16-4.''''0'~ 3O!>~1Y. ,,. :1 LOT~ IIOA.O lQEelJLT N.o, NET OEt-'!!IITT~' '/'O:::>IIEU 'Nt'~ !.I'IIT'!""t ... ACRE NElc.~eOR~OOD DETAIL MAP I, I, I Q Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S !". ·1 I ~\I i \;l: • t---'-'--'i I , I i ::I~ I I~ C ~ !~ C ~ ~ I i:!: C f.,; ~ ~ ~ Q:~6 ~ ~~~ Q.; ". ).. ~ Q,,~ ~ ~~~. illllJ :;:;: 1; ~ CQ 0::: ~ ~ ~ ~ Q; c: !I) ~~ ~ I II , i~' i ! ::", 'I~i. I I ! ~~ (t.' .~ i ~!, !~i ;'i!~1 i l..j;~ k '.' < ~H'" ~:E I :>' -:' 1 !e .. ··! i ~iE·;·.~ __ . ! ",t",: .. H i . 04027 I -'-\ . ' I .\ . , ., . " ,\ " (. \ , , ", \ 't, , , !,1. .'\. ) \ .., ~, \' . t i.. ~ '.~ '. ·\ -.\ -) a3A13~3Y 1zOQZ" Z , l~O NO.LN3~ :10 All:> 9NINNYld J.N3WdO'3ta~ . '" \ \ , " , '. \ '. ~ , (, , ' . , , . ;-\ . ) , , ' ,\ , . .\ I hr=o------- =2::---~~=-=-i C,h 'I' ii! ;if ,I; Iii , II 11 ,:i -::, , ~l~~~i:~~;;';~i;:<;, t,w, ',,, '"'" '" '[ r;1~ x .',Hl" U' .... , fORN£R ~', 53 : '""--.::'" , .. ·W j~/4'. 112 :1/4 SEC. .~ .. I, TKP. 2::" .' /IGi:: b· ~: ..... :.M. --:. ~~~ .. _ 4-'j:f sr-(s-:-lr.-f2e'l~r -ST.r--;----------- Jon" "f~i: ~6n3J ("LAS) i ' H'~--~-----:r ' ',,,,~~~ '-~ "-"- "\ --Po ..J',.-e~I')N '~\'.' ~.~"'-...-. Oiwl'1~I\'iINrl1i'l ,,"~~eo. f<.- 6,<.N1":",",1 e£u .. " f"RCPOt •.•• t.>:. IL.AfElIll"IAf,;(~) ~ 1 SCALE: ," = 40' LU j REFE8E~ICES 1..::no:M~ __ Tr;p-..ux:o"T"'TD._\ 1I"IILI.~ ... ~"'-_t:If'_Te.._"fC).3.~CP UQCCUoITY._to< BENCI-lMARKS, ~,)·-'-IIUII'.IIa!DIIC.INNIINT.1t!! .m.t.( .... u1'U..,J.I4TJ.I~ ... &L..a4..., cn_W~) !"'T'IIOJ· __ ... AalOIk:.Nn.e_. ta.UlWIT.' "1);""",,, DATUM .... \o_DA1\I"I_c:rTTCP~ ~ BASIS OF BEARIN"'S " _·2J'F1'III~~MClI'U'OIT"""_MC"'.~N ~MC)~~_ClTYCP_~.ti. ~~~-•. - REFERENCE MONUMENTS, R/It' 42' "'" T> I $.0' 16' (' '6' ~ O· ~ ~ ,--. ~ I !)~ -5' -.-uj"-, 11" Ii! f ;;;;;;;:;;;*:; J~,,*' ·:C:CcM£NT CDlCNr CONCR£TC ~ ~ CONCReTe SIOflt'ALK Io(RnCAL Cl.H<ti. GUTlUI--.' TYPICAL ON-SITE ROAD SECT/ON NO SCALE '. [ <2' ;~;:;""''''''' '" '.ri' ().1EJfI)~rofW~ilo : _H', f" aM"" 1lA1tHD..S/It/; ~i fi/i-.l;f;FffAP'" CMINCfKW}--... 1_ .-l~·!r.-. _ ..... __ NTDIODl.SJ".iI,a.~ --,<'W"{":<""~hl::i"V'~~~''T\'''''-:~.~<" ,~, ,~~-~ ~ . / \'''--S'CDVf'~ll"sa~ 1<!l1iJIAVAif ilfi!l J!.rl JJW.1i/. ' \ (I" fIti! n!ll/lOOllj " ,'/«K /l.ilIIlY.i MrA TO IftiJt« A SUTAIU SIJ8-/JA!ii ~ aJltNT CfICI£l[ IOIICAL aMI "" .. "'" ;,;N.~E~4~TH,;,;S~T.~. H.~.4~LF~-S_ THEET IMPROI'£t.1EMS .. v vC/IL£ rm t; p •• d a . ~ > , ~ i z < \~)ii r-J--l I~ gl I Cl: ~i~ ~ ~I~ §~~ ~o:::.-: ~!) ~ Q::~i ~ c ~li!, ~ ~ ~lll! \:l ~ I!::!~~ ,:... :'-;;;: ~ Ie.: -~ ,:!'I: Q::I-.I I~ ~I'~ ,,~-... ~~~ ~~ ~~ I( '"'I' 81 I ~ ~,f, '. ~ ,I:: ~Il !l:: Cl ~ ~ ~ > tM =l ~ ....; I.J t .~..: c:; t..i ~ '~I" ~'" ",el ~ 8 1~: ~I·' w ~ ~I ~I ~I ~ 111 <I a. <I 1,11Y 'I tl' on 0( SI-1EET . OF 1---;A=i.,.,:. I 1 ;; ... , -:" ~. 03At3:l3H ~ooz E Z d3S NOlN31::1 ::IO,..Qf::> 8NINNVld IN::!Vlld0131\30 " ~ '-.: .. \'~ ,-, \ ' \ " , ' \ \ ' , " ' '. " '. , \' ..•. ". ~~-----:3 OHIAiA.ns . OHINN't'ltl . ONIUl/'HOf'04~ ND'S3C1~ DO:;) ----- ~. ~~ i~ ~i ~: 'b r.; ... ~~! we ..r ] j. ~~~ I~ 'D! .. '-.~ w ~ i~i ~; ., '3; ...J ~ ~ ~ i~i « ~ ~~ () (I) i!s ii ~ al~ ~ ~:g ~ ~~~ I.! ~I~!~ ~OB6 · .... M 'NOlN3H ~J(}f"" XOS ·f)·ri dIHSH3N.LHtfd 03.J.IWI7 S37tfB 1 " c:::ICJlC>~~3E#1AI~ '!3/1l1ns :JIHclVtJDOclO.l. AliVONnOE! 1------=:;;-;-==;0;;;;;1 • ~! , " ~" ~ d, 1-~i ~ehf .-rd i~ ~! !q I, id .= ~'I I ~ hI! i .:,:;~~ ~-.. a Ii ~::I . " ~"i • ~d ~~ .~ I i~ " ~~ ~:l ~ !J::; :~ i ~ ~;-., ~ ." ." S~! .; • .~ i~ .. ~ . ifq;, iq !ilU ., !;-'.~. "e' • ~ " w ~ ! i 2 21 ~ ~ e ~ ~ S I • , !=I: :s; .. ~ r; .. ~; ~ ~~~ Ii : ~~ ~ I ' l= e;.-1: W ~ -~~::I ~~ ~ nln~~a!d&d~~ C!~ ~~iHn i!~ -~ :!j e{)D~ .*--;~lI8lPlu!l~ ~. h --r c :: ~ j 03A13:l3l:1 _ £·z d3S NOlN3~ ::iO ,AJ.lO £)NINNVld .ltII3~dO'31\3a , , , .1 \ '. , . . , . '. " . \ . \ . . ,. ~"~~ ( ;'. ~ . , " . . " . . ' . , . " 80 "li&-_ (;) ~ 5 ~ (;) @ ~ 'l.lsq 0 ~ ® CO> Maplewood NciO hborho::od Pork 1.!I;u.a=:a'\C6ii' clJ UI -t-ITE '" J, f--If-~ I--!_""fi....=...j I' 80. '1,0' 1---+--+ '! " 1---+--+1 I 0 • AMBERWOOD DIVISIONlf 'c .. \ ., (\ \ .. ~.\ t . \ , ....... : . , ~). :" . ... .'\ '\ \ , ... . \" \ • < ,. > (. ". -, -.\ \ DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON SEP 23 200't RECEIVED , . -___ L __ _ J l' , " r-·-~-< ,! ' !l. [1 \ ~, ,'." ~<~:~~ - -.ir \:i ,.'1 ~:.{/r- 1-- NE¥4, NW:.:/4, SEC.U, TWP.23N., RGE. 5E., W:.:::,M.'--______________________ --rrTT"l".,..,...,..,.., '-~ 11111111 ,;. ~ I ."v' ,1"1" ',.. " 1[ .... :.: ... ,'-: C~'C.··'·~ r,-r.:J· -'! t' r~~t, (~1.!; .. ~~~!~ ; ,,' N.E. 4TI-I ST. (S.E. 12aTl-li~) _ L_i _' _I _ _ ___ _ ;T~"<"; --,-. \ ~iii' i"r"~!.:.i .. "':.::-'_-...;'_--:i~:---.:..~.:--.-. __ .,-____ _ .,.J):!}"; A~A M ~~ :tLM~b" '''1'i·'<,· ' ,( -', :::: .As"*"j~",*,#,~: ___ _ I '" . t SC,:'LE: ,.' = 50 LJ-i T ~ DATUM-!'Up I!!!! P"'f\I'Il"PI! GlTT Of' RENTOot!UI!yeT eASIS OF eEAp;tINGsS "..·la""Wel!"nLe!NlI-II!~~.IMI..,,.,II6'.IfIiOI..t<CN !"'LACE .."., tlUCRIRD I!IEI...O.II f'ER CITT CIt' AENtc::N. WORIzc;.n.&l... ~~I"'!..eLI8I-eD~.,,",,. eENCHI"'I~, ~·'T· ... n • s· ~ 8UW'ACa OtIC. N nc INT. Ie 4TW aT. (aL Il.TW 6U I 141'101 ... \11 ae. EL ... ." OR (aa.14 1'eTEJIt&, ~1CU • ~ MAN ..... ..-cz Pile. III n.e INT. ta 12.1'101 ST. I IMfI.I ... 'v1! • .11. EL.HU40111.(!t1DIlI'1l!'TVt5) LEG ....... 1o.. DE&C~IFiIO, , 1.0T I ~ Q"IQ caI'ffT 8WOIIrT iRL4f 1'U"ee" ~, AGC:ClNDf'U TO IUIJQlIUI R!~!D NMm 4, 111& JroCM liJ!~mw~ 1.1I~, IIII!COIIID6 "" lOG COlM'Y, WA6IoIttlITCIN. """""'" . LOT] C1Pl(JIdco..Hn" 6I-iORTI"'LA.T~IGI1tOIt,ACCOAP.fia TO 6I-IORfl"'l..AT IllECQIIIt)EP~"."'.I.tOtIllIllECOIIIOINI::iN.t'eEJll 1.1I~, ~6 01' ICMl COIHTT.IIIA8I-IH:iTCN. ne~I4AU'C1P"fl.ENQIItTI.EA.6TQ.IAIIIttI!lII:Of'neNOlt~tT QUAIIItEIIlOl'eec:r'ClNI4.T~2SNOftTW,lItNt:Zte:A6T.W11.N IC./HI:l COIHTT, ~TON. ~ ne: BA6T , .... Dt FeET bE"lllEc::P, A6 I"eAtlUfeO ~ ne ~LlNBneRElOI'. NC)1!XC2l"'TfI..II!NOIItTW-'lI"l!aTneJllEOI'~mTOKlHClt~TT !'OR ""AD l"'\IIIP"OeEa aT PImP I"IECOfIIOEC \ICIEfit AECOACINCi 1'f.I'1ISI!JII:!t ...... , NC) I!XC2I'"'T I"O:IeT to.H) ~ AfC) LIC»lf COI"'P,ANT ~-Qf'-II.lAT I"Alltl2L.O. TJltACT!I'SS,P'LAT OI'~,ACCORCItCti TO ne I"'LA.T ~ "I!GOI'IDI!CIIH~]01CP~T&,I"~a'flO~!I,],~e 01' IC.D'oIG;. CQIHTY, ~TOH. w!;,'i"_;.------ ~DOXXltt IG!NTON.~TClNYONo (4:t)4:1-()1.4!1 ec:M'ACT. 1iII::IOI'I!UU!1!i AFFLICANT ''';.&II!I!CIC. .Il~ ~e.IA!>1'IoI 6TRE1!T ~GH.IUA~ FL.ANNERIENGINEEIYSURYETOR COAl! pe:l!i1CJN INC. 14111 HE. "T,.. I"L. eurre IOC ~,II/A&I-IlNCiT04YOOT (.0421)"·"" ec:M'ACT,l.M'I!B.I-E~ .. ·I"'....u+E'" C ... VIO E. ~Tl~. I".E • ENr:oIhGER. .leVEN J. &CI4tI!1. ,..u. -r....tvIiTGofi. T~~ LEC1END ; ;--.---;--;- ~ i ; It' u u • ; ~ > ~ q~ ! 0 ~ II' ! (s)i r~ I ::: ~ ~Q ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ill 0 Q:: ~ ~ ~~~ !e ~ ~~~ 'q: ,." t"oIcs~ ~ 1.1" ;::",~ § lu ~ ~ tI m '-I !!l ~ ~ I!:C ~ ~~ . I "'I ~ ~~ ~ ~I Bl i ~ ~ ~ l.j~ ~; ~.~ ;)~I v, z" ~I ~ ~ ~ L _____ . __ _ -----_._----, ~. ~ ~ I 1-Go271 .' " -\ \ ~ , " \ Q3AI3!l3H IJOOl E l d3S NOlN3H :10 AJJ8 9NINNVld .LN3V11d013J\30 -, ;\ \\ " \ " \ ' -', ,\ .\ '. '- -,-\ ' -\ --" -. '. \ \ ' \ \ , , Jam Free Printing -J..I-") , 3<'""'") Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® ..,..,-L--t ~ --www.avery.cC)m 1-800-GO·AVERY Felipe & Ofelia Ramales 6008 NE 3rd Ct , Renton, W A 98059 Florendo Cabudol Jr. Lilyb Balais-cabudol 5948 NE 3rd Ct Renton, W A 98059 Ngoc-hang Dang 323 Quincy Ave NE i Renton, W A 98059 I "-( i \ '> ! , > Keith Ly 302 Quincy Ave NE Renton, W A 98059 Steven & Debra Beck 19129 SE 145th St Renton, W A 98059 David & Rita Cabanilla 6015 NE 3rd Ct Renton, W A 98059 Long Classic Homes 4441 S Meridian Puyallup, 373 Randall & Rosemary Leifer 5127 S Fountain St Seattle, W A 98178 Bumstead Const Co 1215 120th Ave NE Bellevue, W A 98005 Lee & Erin Thacker 6018 NE 2nd Ct Renton, W A 98059 e09~S ®AU3IAY ~~ " I KhanhHuynh , 6002 NE 3rd Ct Renton, W A 98059 , '",- , , I Long Classic Homes 4441 S Meridian Puyallup, WA 98373 John & Jessica Zahn 319 Quincy Ave NE Renton, W A 98059 Robert & Judy Shaw 308 Quincy Ave NE Renton, W A 98059 Andy Chiem 320 Quincy Ave NE Renton, W A 98059 KhoaNguyen 9000 Southside Blvd Jacksonville, FL 32256 Harbour Homes Inc 1300 Dexter Ave N #500 Seattle, W A 98109 King County 500 4th Ave Seattle, W A 98104 Stephen & Kathleen Tessier 6006 NE 2nd Ct Renton, W A 98059 Joel & Sheree Snook 6024 NE 2nd Ct Renton, W A 98059 AH31\ "-09-008-~ WOl'AA8JU!'MMM Ii I I' \., i ; I " ' I , I l ~ AVERY® 5160® Peter Adcock 5954 NE 3rd Ct Renton, W A 98059 Timothy Pham 327 Quincy Ave NE Renton, W A 98059 Long Classic Homes 4441 S Meridian 373 Long Classic Homes 4441 S Meridia 98373 KieuDang ,,~ 324 Quincy Ave NE Rento.~, W A 98059 t ,1: ~ Thonfus & Meredith Drummond 354 ®incy Ave NE Rent6h, WA 98059 fj';;! -~, ~ f.', ~ Irvin Leifer 15223 SE 128th St Renton, W A 98059 King County 500 4th Ave A 98104 Clifford Buisan & Bern Bemardo-buisan 6012 NE 2nd Ct Renton, W A 98059 Greg & Patti Garcia 270 Quincy Ave NE Renton, W A 98059 e09~S 3l\f1dWU r/tJ81\~ 8Sn 6u!~U!Jd 8a'&:::1 wer '\ " \ l ~ , 13 Harbour H 00 Dexter A alTles Inc Seattle ~: N, SUite #500 , ,., 98109 --------I , ---~, - --- 1-----~-----, , 1 f Kacy L Howerton I 6113 NE 4t" PI I Renton, WA 98059 I \. I i Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Jose & Julie Gomez-elegido 264 Quincy Ave NE Renton, W A 98059 Soon Look & W S May 579 Pasco PI NE Renton, W A 98059 I I " I , i ~ 1\. ! , ! , 1 -- Geoffrey & Karen Nelson 2401 Westwind Dr NW Olympia, W A 98502 Amedeo & Mary D'ettore 6013 NE 4th PI Renton, W A 98059 AH3/\V-09-008-l WOYNaAe"MMM ~"avery"com 1--800-GO-AVERY \ . ~ AVERY® 5160® Wai-kuen Tong 603 Pasco PI NE Renton, W A 98059 I --1 ®09~5 31VldllllU ®N9A'rJ asn 6u!~U!Jd aaJ:t wer I 3ales Limited Partnership PO Box 3015 Renton, WA 98056 tel: 425-427-0149 (owner) Keith K. Ly 302 Quincy Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-227-5345 (party of record) PARTIES OF RECORD AMBERWOOD PHASE II LUAC>4-117, PP, ECF, R M iichael Chen Core Design, Inc. Steve Beck Amberwoo d II LLC 4735 NE 4-t:h Street Renton, W A 98059 tel: 425-227-9200 (applicant) 14711 NE 29th Place s'te: #101 Bellevue, WA 98007 tel: 425-885-7877 erTll: mc@coredesigninc:.com (contact) J j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j \v j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j ______ .L __ ,Sohn t.$CoW' < Name: Steve Beck Phone: 425-227-9200 Fax: 425-227-5224 c" REAL ESTATE Email: stevebeck@johnl:scott.com Web: www.johnlscott.com/stevebeck Address: Renton Office . 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 IB REALTOII" ~Jf! ~?n£..~ JohnL Scott""oRenton ~ . HOllE ...... CH THIS ClIFfICE INDEPENDENTlY OWNED & OPERATED E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 y -1 ... ~ e .-c· r"'"! 1.1 J ....• __ .. (,t.} . .. _---.c c:-; ·T [I .J 1... _; ; .. -\\)1, \ ' \\ )) II \\ Jl c- Ld (/) <u > <I: S I ~ U) :1: .,..,.. Sf 120th SI ..------==, ---~ R-4 VJ '" > <t: Sf ~" .. ... ., \, ~, 'l. j i' ~l\<:,/ ". -.~ .. , "' ,', '\ ., " " , • ~ i • t. ' \'b~~~\ \1\ ~~~ --- ...,.-/' w ;z ~ ~ r} ii, \ Exhibit B Map Exhibit Amberwood 2 / NE 4th Street Vacation ui 2· ~: ~ 3:: 8' 0(, :.t;< ~I J ,--J1JJ;~·(r.!:L$L3 i ' i. _SEJ28JJ::I.S)' r" I w! ;z' 'Si <I Q c:: ~ Wi 0' l i ~I """,","._,./IlE,~RD.CJT __ """. '+--.-"~ .! ,---< IC) %003 ICing CO" nt)' I I:\Admin\Amb~rwood II Street Vacation Petition.doc $f)1 o 1.-'~f="";-..","",<~'r-"l';~':",'H':"':::',"'f. ::,'::,:,':)f{"~«,,"~-?,~.-)-?"'/;' c-r-/;l' '~-:d 100ft * Proposed Vacation 5~""f>rt 8 Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 E2193974 03/22/2006 09:01 KING COUNTY, lolA TAX $10.00 PAGE001 OF 001 .41 111111111111111" ~T~!9§!~D060~?050 35 PAGE001 OF 002 . 03/06/200616 ·14 KING COUNTY, UA E2190880 03/06/2006 16: 11 KING COUNTY, lolA TAX $10.00 SALE $0.00 PAGE001 OF 001 SALE $0.00 ----_ .. _---.,-------------------_....:....-_----, DEED OF DEDICATION Property Tax Parcel Numbers: 142305-9068; 020090-0200 Project File #: PRM25-0045 Project Name: NE 4th Street Vacation, VAC-04-006 Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. Bales Limited Partnership 1. City of Renton, a Municipal Corporation 2. Amberwood LLC LEGAL DESCRlPTION: A portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. (Please see attachmentfor complete legal description.) The Grantors, for and in consideration of mutual benefits convey, quit claim, dedicate and donate to the Grantee(s) as named above, the above described real estate situated in the County of King, State of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal the day and year as written below. Approved and Accepted By: Bonnie I. Walton It>. '010 P:\PRM-25 -Street Vacations From 1990 and Forward\0045\Dod0905.DOC Page I Notary Seal must be within box i.': . f; ,:',',. REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE.OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I c~rtify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ~~(I, tI. Bet L.R-4 I -----------.......... r------:::~-signed this instrument, on oath stated that 6i)she/they ~)were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the and of -------------_______ ~----to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the use~_.Jlurposes mentioned in the instrument. otary Pu ic in and for the State of Washington Notary (print) L//) O~ ZOgs.~·~ My appointnymt e)'pires: 7"-I 0 --o=} . Dated: i ~/17 /fJr REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT Notary Seal must be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS /! _:'" . ,'" / . , ! . COUNTY OF KING ) ____________ -=-_______ signed this instrument, on oath stated that dWYshe/they @/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the and of -------------_____________ to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the· instrument. ~ otary P lic in and for the State of Washington Notary (print) L-/~Oqz.e,dS6,..J My appointment ex ires:· -7 -10 . ..,-0 '1 Dated: I r. {Cj 0 S- P:\PRM-25 -Street Vacations From 1990 and Forward\0045\Dod0905.DOC Page 2 , SEPARULES WAC 197-11-970 Determination of non-significance (DNS). DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: AMBERWOOD 2 WATERMAIN EXTENSION CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 300 LINEAL FEET OF 12-INCH DUCTILE IRON WATERMAIN, ONE (1) FIRE HYDRANT AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES. Proponent: KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 LOCATION OF PROPOSAl, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT APPROXI~TELY 6135 NE 4TH ST, IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, RENTON, WASHINGTON. Lead agency: KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. [] There is no comment period for this DNS. [X] This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340 (2); the lead agency will not act e>n this proposal for 20 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by Responsible Official: TOM HOFFMAN PositionlTitle: DISTRICT MANAGER Address: 15606 SE 128TH ST. . RENTON, WA. 98059 Date: _-,--140-10_. ·~+-}_O_b ___ _ [X] There is no agency appeal. F:I0021100224IDESIGNlPermil #253461SEPA chklsl 013106 emd.DOC· 1 Phone: (425) 255-9600 Signature: ----'--8lA_· Yl1 -¥--+--ff-l~-. _ L VA oLt -ll:r ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governrTlental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of . the environment. The purpose .of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help· the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This envir<>nmental 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. • n most cases, you should be al:>le to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans witho.ut 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 a~swers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning,· shoreline, and landmark designations. Arlswer 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 h~lp describe your proposal or its environmenta I effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers to provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. -. Use of Checklist F<Jr Non-project Proposals: Complete th is checklist for non-project proposals, even though questions may be a·nswered "does not . apply." IN ADDITJON, cornplete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON-PROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be t:"ead as "proposal,"_ and "affected geographic area," respectively . • 1 ! F:lOO211002241DESIGNlPermit #25346\SEPA chklst 013106 emd.DOC-2 ·. • A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: AMBERWOOD 2 WATERMAIN EXTENSION 2. Name of applicant: KING CC>UNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 15606 SE 128TH ST .. RENTON, WA. 98059 (425) 255-9600 TOM HOFFMAN, DISTRICT MANAGER 4. Date checklist prepared: JANUARY 31,2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: CITY OF RENTON 10558. GRADY WAY RENTON, WA.98055 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): WINTER, SPRING 2006 .:.,( .. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to, or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. THE 12-INCH WATERMAIN WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN CONJUCTION WITH ADDITIONAL 8-INCH WATERMAIN FOR THE PLAT OF AMBERWOOD 2. .~ .~ .. ~~~ 8. List any environmenta 1 information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared~ directly related to this proposal.· jA UNKNOWN. 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. . UNKNOWN. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. THE PROPOSED WATERMAIN WILL REQUIRE A CITY OF RENTON RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT AND CITY OF RENTON FIRE MARSHAL APPROVAL. 11. Give brief, comple1:e description of your proposal; including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeaUhose answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 300 LINEAL FEET OF 12-INCH DUCTILE IRON WATERMAIN, ONE FIRE HYDRANT AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES. F:\0021\00224\OESIGNlPermit 1125346\sEPA chklst 013106 emd.OOC-3 I • 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, inclue! ing a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area , provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans req uired by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any applications related to this checklist. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 6135 NE 4TH ST, IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, . TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, RENTON, WASHINGTON. F:I0021100224\OESIGNlPermit #253461SEPA chldst 013106 emd.OOC· 4 I SEPA Rules. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): IFLAlj, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ( ). b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? LESS THAN 1 PERCENT. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand; gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. ALDERWOOD GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM (AGC), 6 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. KING COUNTY GIS INFORMATION SHOWS NO INDICATION OF SEISMIC, ERIOSION OR LANDSLIDE ACTIVITY IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED 12-INCH WATERMAIN. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. THE PROPOSED WATERMAIN INSTALLATION WILL REQUIRE TYPICAL TRENCH CONSTRUCTION. SUITABLE NATIVE SOIL EXCAVATED FROM THE TRENCHES WILL BE USED AS BACKFILL WHERE POSSIBLE. IMPORTED FILL MAY BE NECESSARY IF THE NATIVE SOILS ARE UNSUITABLE IN SOME AREAS .. THERE WILL BE NO NET INCREASE OR DECREASE IN FILL OR GRADING AT THESE SITES AS A RESULT OF THE WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION. No CHANGE OF ELEVATION OR CONTOUR IS PLANNED. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. CONSTRUCTION IS PLANNED WITHIN PAVED RIGHT OF WAY, MINIMIZING THE POSSIBILITY OF EROSION. SLIGHT EROSION COULD OCCUR AS A RESULT OF SOME TRENCHING ACTIVITIES ALONG THE ROAD SHOULDER. EROSION CONTROL MEf-SURES WILL BE UTILIZED IN ALL AREAS. THE KING COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY INSPECTOR MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL DEPENDING ON SITE CONDITIONS. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? F:1OO21100224IDESIGN\Permit #253461SEPA chklst 013106 emd.DOC· 5 Part Eleven-197 -11-960 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY I NO ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREAS WILL BE ADDED. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other'impacts to the earth, if any: . EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEAS'URES WILL BE IN EFFECT FOR ALL AREAS WITH POTENTIAL EROSION HAZARDS. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposaJ (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. DUST AND ENGINE EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL BE PRESENT DURING CONSTRUCTION. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, g'enerally describe. . . NO. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. 'STANDARD EMISSION CONTROLS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED, AS WELL AS STREET SWEEPING AND WATERING FOR DUST CONTROL_ 3. WATER a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. NO. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. NO. F:10021\00224IOESIGN\Pennil #25346\SEPA chklst 013106 emd,OOC-6 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONt Y 0, (. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NONE. 4) Will the. proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. NO. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. NO. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, des.cribe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NO. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. SHALLOW GROUND WATER MAY BE WITHDRAWN AS NECESSARY TO DEWATER THE GROUND WHERE WATERMAIN PIPE INSTALLATIONS ARE AT OR BELOW THE WATER TABLE. ANY WITHDRAWN WATER (QUANTITY UNKNOWN) WILL BE ROUTED THROUGH A SEDIMENTATION/DEWATERING FACILITY TO REMOVE EXCESS SEDIMENT AND THEN WOULD LEAVE THE SITE VIA THE EXISTING NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSE OR THE EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 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 num- ber of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applica- ble), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NONE. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): F:lOO211002241DESIGNlPermit #25346ISEPA chklst 013106 emd.DOC· 7 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of cOllection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? . If so, describe. NO ADDITIONAL STORM RUNOFF WILL RESULT FROM INSTALLATION OF THE PROPOSED WATERMAIN PIPES. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NO. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground. and runoff . water impacts, if any: RUNOFF CONSISTING OF STORM WATER AND TEMPORARY DISCHARGE FROM DEWATERING ACTIVITIES RESULTING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT WILL NOT PERMANENTLY CHANGE THE HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSAL SITE. RUNOFF QUANTITY A.ND QUALITY . CONTROL· MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND BEFORE RESTORATION EFFORTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED TO REDUCE AND CONTROL RUNOFF WATER IMPACTS. ALL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATERMAIN WILL BE RESTORED TO PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS OR PER AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. RESTORATION WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROAD. SURFACES WILL RESULT IN ·NO NET INCREASE OF STORM WATER RUNOFF. DURING CONSTRUCTION, RUNOFF QUANTITY AND QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED TO REDUCE AND CONTROL WATER RUNOFF IMPACTS. 4. PLANTS THE PROJECT SITE IS ROAD PRISM, WHICH CONTAINS NO VEGETA. TION. THE . FOLLOWING VEGETATION CAN BE FOUND ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE. a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder IMAijLij, IASPEij, other ("-. .'--_) X evergreen tree: ~ CEO ,pine, other ( ... :. ) X 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 F:1OO21100224IOESIGNlPermil #25346\SEPA chklsl 013106 emd.OOC· 8 , EVALUATION FOR· AGENCY USE ON~Y b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? NONE. 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, if any: THERE SHOULD BE NO IMPACTS AS CONSTRUCTION WILL TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE EXISTING ROAD PRISM. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle,lSoNGBIRD~, other ( ) mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other ( ) 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 of a migration route? If so, explain. UNKNOWN. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: DOES NOT APPLY. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL TAKE PLACE IN EXISTING ROAD PRISM AND WILL HAVE NO LONG TERM, SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON ANY SPECIES PRESENT, 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds bf energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL HAVE NO ADDITIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? ·If so, generally describe. F:I0021100224IDESIGN\Permil #253461SEPA chklsl 013106 emd.DOC-9 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY NO. c. . What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: DOES NOT APPLY. 7.. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a,. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic . chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. FUEL AND OTHER MACHINE FLUIDS COULD SPILL DURING CONSTRUCTION. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. NONE ARE ANTICIPATED. IN THE EVENT OF A CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATIONAL EMERGENCY, LOCAL FIRE, AID, OR RESCUE SERVICES AND PERSONNEL MAY BE REQUIRED. THE EXISTING EMERGENCY SERVICES SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health . hazards, if any: TRENCH BOXES, BRACING, SUMP PUMPS, AND OTHER ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES WILL BE UTILIZED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR PERSONAL INJURY. SOUND ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES WILL ENSURE THE GRAVITY SEWER, WATER MAIN, AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES ARE INSTALLED PROPERLY. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area that may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? NONE. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by, or associated with, the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation; other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site . . SHORT-TERM F:\OO21\00224IDESIGNlPermil #2S346ISEPA chklsl 013106 emd.OOC·l0 , . EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ON~Y / " • CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WOULD BE OPERATED DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROPOSAL, UNLESS APPROVED OTHERWISE BY PERMITTING AGENCIES. LONG-TERM THERE WILL BE NO LONG-TERM NOISE IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THIS PROJECT. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WILL BE OPERATED DURING REGULAR WORK HOURS THROUGH <JUT THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE. ALL OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT NOISES WILL BE WITHIN ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL LIMITS. 8. LAND AND SHORELI NE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME VACANT LOTS. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. UNKNOWN. c. Describe'any structu.-es on the site. NONE. THE SITE IS ROAD PRISM. d. Will any structures b-e demolished? If so, what? NO. e., What is the current :zoning classification of the site? R-1, RESIDENTIAL, ONE (1) DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? URBAN. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? DOES NOT APPLY. h. Has any part of th e site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specit=y. F:1OO211OO224IDESIGNlPermit #25346\SEPA chklst 013106 emdDOC-11 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE DNL Y , l '~',' UNKNOWN. i. Appr-oximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? . NONE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROPOSAL. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? " NONE. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: DOES NOT APPLY. I. Proposed measures to ensure t"e prop'osal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS I~ COMPLIANCE WITH THE KING COUNTY AND DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units ""ould be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, orlow-incorne housing. . NONE ASA RESULT OF THIS PROPOSAL. THE' PROPOSED AMBERWOOD 2 PLAT WILL PROVIDE 17 MEDIUM-INCOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS. b. Approximately how many units, iF any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NONE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROPOSAL. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: DOES NOT APPLY. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s}, not including antennas: what is the principal exterior building matenal(s) proposed? DOES NOT APPLY. b. . What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NONE. F:lOO21100224IDESIGNlPennil #253461SEPA chklsl 013106 emd.OOC-12 . EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONL'Y c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: DOES NOT APPLY. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare 'Nill the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? NONE. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NO. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?- NONE. d. Proposed measures to recl uce or control light and glare impacts, if any: DOES NOT APPLY. 12. RECREATION a. What deSignated and i·nformal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? THERE IS AN UNNAMED PARK IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE PROJECT LOCATION AND IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE PROJECT LOCATION. COALFIELD PARK IS LOCATED LESS THAN ~ MILE TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE PROJECT LOCATION. MAPLEWOOD PARK IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ~ MILE TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROJECT LOCATION. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recre.ational use? 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: DOES NOT APPLY. F:lOO21100224IDESIGN\Permil #253461SEPA chklsl 013106 emd.OOC-13 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ( ) 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. NONE KNOWN. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. DOES NOT APPLY. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: DOES NOT APPLY. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and' describe proposed access to the exis1ing street system. Show on-site plans, if any. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON SE 128TH STREET (NE 4TH STREET), WHICH IS A MAJOR ATERIAL STREET ANI) CAN BE ACCESSED VIA 156TH AVE SE TO THE EAST AND 144TH AVE SE TO THE WEST. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT ROUTE 111 cAN BE ACCESSED AT THE INTERSECTION OF SE 128TH STREET 9NE 4TH STREET) AND 156TH AVE SE, APPROXIMATELY .2 MILES TO THE EAST OF THE PROJECT SITE. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? NONE. 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 publi c or private). NO. e. Will the project use (or occur in 1he immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. F:I00211OO2241OESIGNlPermil #253461SEPA chklsl 013106 emd.D<lC-14 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONL1( NO. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. NONE. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: DOES NOT APPLY. TRAFFIC FLOW ISSUES WILL BE ADDRESSED BY THE PLAT. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the p-roject result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. NONE AREAl\liICIPATED . . b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. DOES NOT APPLY. . 16. UTiLITIES a. Circle utilitiEs currently available at the site: LECTRICI ,natural gas, IWATEij, !REFUSE SERVlcij, tTELEPHONij, ANITAR.Y SEWE , 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. WATERMAII\I INSTALLATION WILL REQUIRE EXCAVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4-FOOT TO 6-FOOT DEEP TRENCHES, WATERMAIN PIPE AND HYDRANT INSTALIAT10N, ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES, BACKFILL AND RESTORATION. UTILITY SE RVICE WILL BE PROVIDED KING COUNT"Y WATER DISTRICT NO. 90. c. SIGNATUJRE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I. understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. F:\0021\00224IOESIGN\Permil #253461SEPA chklsl 013106 emd.OOC· 15 EVALUATION FOR AG~NCY USE ONLY . ~--Sig':lature:~ ... Date Submitted: z.-/Z / 0 (a F:lOO21100224IDESIGNlPe:nni1 #25346ISEPA chklsl 013106 emd.DOC-16 . EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ; • ~E}! :I: ~ tr= I VI .... 144TH AVE SE ~t ,: r /1 < 1 I~ I! I L SE 145TH AVE S 1 ~ < '" " 146TH AVE SE < G~Ff~;~" r 0 I! VI '" VI I I ;;\ <:> '" I (J)"'U p Q or 147TH PL SE I 0 i VI =1;0 I 148TH AVE SE ~ j [E-~ 148TH AVE SE· 14~TH AVE SE : 0:;JJl ~ I m~ '49TH AVE SE II ~ J~ lD~Hn5L' 1~ ~ m z JI ~ I---f!1 I, 'VI () 150TH PL SE /l'l = .. ISOTH AVE SE I .... .... VI ~ ~ :r '" -co ~ .... _ V> tn to I ~ ~ jL'" 1l "'I r ~ , Z r-- -r-I , o ~ .,.. "'0 I -1J 0,.... ~ ~r--I IS2ND AVE SE I 152ND AVE SE VI J ~. -~ I '" , -, j'54TH AVE SE N , ~ 1 ~ VI ; I -.-J '" !DI )(l ,~ SE 15STH AVE SE r)(l ~ C; I I ~ ~ '" <:> 156TH AVE SE VI IS6TH AVE SE .... 156TH AVE SE ~ ~ I VI VI I I I L , '" '" -C; N ~ < :r I! ~ 158TH AVE SE ! ;;\ I VI 1 I " )(l , r , 0 C; , ' 1 VI , '" N I I 60TH 160TH LE SE r z <:> 160TH AVE SE 160TH AvE SE ~ . .c-J ~ DU· [JDn~)) r/E t"1 t"1 rr1 f'T1 til "' SE I i:: t:; ;; ;::. ~ ~ in ~ N ~ 162ND AVE SE .;; L..J;; ~ , , ~ .y s I ' [}~;'"" '"' ;01 " bd C , 1'i6 : I C; ~ 63RD AVE IF= ! /:UEYL:]! ,"""",,, I i~ ./164 TH AVE SE 1)== l'==-- Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor April 22,2005 Steve Beck 4735 NE 4th St. Renton, W A 98059 CIT-A>F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 111812005, regarding the Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat; File No. LUA-04-l17, PP, ECF, R. Dear Appellant: At tne regular Council meeting of April 1 1, 2005,. the Renton City Council approved the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee regarding the referenced preliIIlinary plat and appeal, changing the zoning on this parcel from R -1 to R -4 and appr<lving the preliminary plat with a deI1sity of 17 lots, subject to certain changes in the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendation. A copy of the Planning and Development Committee report is enclosed. Unless theapproppate land use appeal from the decision of the City Council is filed ~ith King County SuperIor Court as indicated in Ren~on Municipal Code (copy ofRMC 4-,..8-110;G enclosed), the decision of the City Cou:ncil will be final. For information regarding continuation of the land, use application process, call the Development Services Division at 425-430-7200;· Pursuant to RCW, a final plat meeting all requirements of State law and RentoI1 Municipal Code shall be submitted to the City for approval within five years of the date of p~eliminary plat approval. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide further information or assistance. Sin-cerely, ~J.LJ~ BQI1Ilie I. Walton Cit.y Clerk Enclosures cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Council President Terri Briere Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Kayren Kittrick, Dev. Engineering Supervisor Larry Warren, City Attorney Amy L. Kosterlitz, Buck & Gordon LLP, 2025 First Ave., Ste 500, Seattle, WA 98121 Bales Limited Partnership, PO Box 3015, Renton, W A 98056 --:-1-=-=05:-:"5-=S=-o-u-t=-h -=G:-ra---:d-y=W,-=-a-y --R--e-n-to-n-, W,-=-=--as-=-h-in-gt-o-n -9-=-80=-5-:-="5 --(---:4-=-25=-)-:-43"""0--6-=-=5:-:-1O=-j-=F:-AX-=-:( 4-:-:2--5-) 4-3-0--6-51-:6:----~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • April 11, 2005 APPEALS Appeal: Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat, Steve Beck, PP-04-117 - Renton City Council Minutes Page 123 Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the appeal filed by Steve Beck on the Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat (PP-04-117). The Committee heard this appeal on 4/7/2005. After reviewing the record, the written appeal and hearing oral argument, and having heard about background from staff, the Committee found that the evidence submitted by the appellant justifies partially reversing the Hearing Examiner and granting R-4 zoning for this parcel with R-5 density and development standards. The Committee therefore recommended that the. Council change the zoning on this parcel from R-l to R-4, and approve the preliminary plat with a density of 17 lots subject to the following changes in the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendation: 1. Findings should be added on page 6 of the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendations, those findings to read: 25. The issue of zoning this property to R-5 was submitted to the voters as part of the annexation vote .. The R-5 zoning was defeated in that vote. Subsequently, the Council received letters from two of the voters indicating that they were confused and wished to vote for the R~5 zoning. These two votes, if they had voted for R-5, would have resulted in a favorable vote for R-5. However, the vote was over and complete and the Council was compelled to rezone the property to R-l, when it was annexed. However, the Council did encourage the property owners to approach the City about a . rezone to R-5. Before that progress was complete, the City had eliminated the R-5 zone and rezoned all R-5 zoned property to R-4. 26. At the time the application for rezone was filed, it should have been reviewed under residential low density policies LU-26 through LU-33.1, not the R-4 overlay policies nor the new Comprehensive Plan policies for 2004. The new text that sets up the R-4 zoning does not apply to this parcel as the parcel is excluded from the hatched area in the zoning map that follows policy LU-33.5. Exclusion of this parcel was done intentionally, in 2003, because a number of properties were annexing and a commitment was made for R-5 zoning to those parcels, including the subject parcel. At the same time, the Council was making policy commitments to the residents of the potential annexation area supporting a downzoned R-4 for the remainder of the area upon annexation. This led to the creation of an overlay with a low-density designation but only mapping the overlay where there were not existing commitments. In 2004, the Comprehensive Plan was again amended to eliminate the overlay, rescind the R-5 zone, and use R-4zoning exclusively to implement these policies. Even if this property was not excluded from the R-4 zoning, as set forth in the overlay map, it would be excluded from the R-4 density and development standards because of Renton Ordinance 5100, Section XIII, page 26, which states in relevant part: "For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to 11110/2004, and for the Mosier II, Maplewood East, and Anthone', the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within five years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum density-5 dwelling units per acre." As stated in finding 24, the applicant submitted the application to change the zoning from R -1 to R -5 prior to the date of 11110/2004. • April 11, 2005 Appeal: Park Place Preliminary Plat, Heritage Homes, PP-04-126 Renton City Council Minutes Page 124 The conclusions of the Hearing Examiner for the rezone should be modified as follows: 1. Conclusion 1, the last sentence should be amended by adding the phrase "but should approve R4 zoning subject to R-5 density and development regulations. " 2. Conclusion 3 should be modified. All of that conclusion after the fourth sentence should be stricken and it its place substituted the following: "For the reasons set forth in findings of fact 25, 26, and 27, R-4 zoning should be approved, subject to R-5 density and development standards." 3. Conclusions 4, 5, 6, 9, and 11 should be stricken. 4. Conclusion 10 should be amended by striking the last sentence thereof. The Hearing Examiner's conclusions concerning the preliminary plat should be modified as follows: 1. Conclusion 12 should be stricken and in its place the following language should be added: "The proposed preliminary plat is appropriate based on the rezone of this parcel to R-4 with R-5 density and development standards." 2. Conclusion 13 should be modified by changing the term R-4 to R-5. 3. Conclusion 19 should be stricken. In the Hearing Examiner's recommendations starting on page 9, the following _ changes should be made: 1. The preamble to the recommendations should be stricken and in its place should be added the following language: "The City Council should reclassify the subject's site from R-I to R-4, subject to R-5 density and development standards." "The City Council should approve the 17-lot preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:" 2. Recommendation 3 should be modified by adding at the end of that sentence the phrase "If possible, because of the small lots. " 3. Recommendation 7 on page 10 should be modified by adding the phrase "The applicant shall comply with the R-4 landscaping requirements." MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the appeal filed by Heritage Homes on the Park Place Preliminary Plat (PP-04-126). The Committee heard this appeal on 41712005. The appellant argued that the City should consider only the one lot that it sought to subdivide. However, this lot was part of a larger lot, which had been platted within the last five years. According to City Code, the entire parcel must be replatted. If the entire parcel is replatted, the replat would be denser than permitted by City Code. • PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT April 11, 2005 t'r~~OVED BY "l c;rll'F COUNCIL I Date .I.f-//-AOOS: The Planning and Development Committee heard this appeal on April 7, 200S. After reviewing the record; the written appeal and hearing oral argumeIit, and· having heard about background from staff, the Committee finds that the evidence submitted by the appellant justifies partially reversing the Hearing Examiner and granting R-4 zoning for this parcel with R-S density and development standard,s. The Committee therefore recommends that the CoUncil change !hlizoning',QIl~PUs parcel from R-l to R-4 and approve the preliminary plat with a:densityof1710ts"subject to the folloWing changes in the Hearing Examiner's reportandrec.?mm~p.dation:": ' ~" . 1. Findings,should be added on p~ge 6 of the Examiner's'feportand recommendation,' those findings to read:' " ,~fc" " 2S.The issue ofZO~ingthis:pr6p~~ta'~:~~assUPmitted:;to the voters as part of thearinexatloIi vote. The R·;S zpning 'W~,g~f~ted:ili that yote~;I"SulJsequently, the CoUIicil received letters from two ofthe\voters~in~~~atiligi~at they;{vere coiifused and wished to vote forthe R-Szoning:"The~~,,~ovbtes/ifthey~i:idvo~¢d'f~~ ~r5, would have resulted in a favorable vote forR-S.However, the vote was over~<ic6mplete and the CoUIicil was corripelled to' rezone the property: to R-l ,. when it was:ann~xed;;tJHowever" the' C~lincil did encourage the property owners to approachth~ ci~y'aQ,out;axe;zone toR-So Before that process wascompi'ete, the City ha4 eli.nlimit~dthJ':R-5'~~)Jilt and rezoned all R-S zoned ,propertyto R-4.., .,:':'" ,::.' 26. At thetirrie.the applicationfor rezone was filed, it should have been n!viewed under tesidentialloW-density poliCies LU-26 through LU-33.1, not the R-4 overlay' policies nor the hew Comprehensive Plan policies for 2004.' The new text that sets up the R-4 zoriingdoes not apply' to this parcel as the parcel is excluded from the hatched area in the zoning map that follows policy LU-33.S. Exclusion of this parcel was done intentionally, in 2003, because a number of properties were annexing and a commitment was made for R-S zoning to those parcels, including the subject parcel. At the same time, the Council was making policy commitments to the residents of the potential annexation ?fe~supporting ~ down zoned R-4 ~or the remain~er oft.he ar~a upon annexatio~_ This lelO'to the creatlOn of an overlay With a low-denSIty designatlOn but only mappmg the overlay where there were not existing coinmitments. In 2004, the Comprehensive Plan was again amended to eliminate the overlay, rescind the R-S zone and use R-4 zoning exclusively to implement these policies_ I Planning and Development CC"I~ittee Report Page 2 2. Even if this property was not excluded from the R-4 zoning, as set forth in the overlay map, it would be excluded from the R-4 density and development standards because of City Ordinance Number 5100 Section XIII at page 26 which states in relevant part: '~For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to November 10,2004, and for the Mosier II, Maplewood East and Anthone, the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within five years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. . Maximum density-5 dwelling units per acre." . A.s stated in finding 24 age¥e-, the applicant submitted the application to change the ioning fromR-l to R~5 prior to the date of November 10,2004., . . . The conclusions of the Examinerfor the rezone should be modified as follows: ;;:c"-~ .• -.-. , ,: -',; .':- ~'~\ :,'~ 1. ConClUSIon 1, the last sentence 'should be amended byadcfuJ.g the phrase ~'but should ... approve RA zoning subjecqo R.;~density,anddev~lopmentiregqlations". . . :. . ~ '" . . . .'--, .;-. " :." 2.· Conclusion 3 should be modified. All of that conclusiori aft~r the fourth sentence should be stricken and in .its place s~bstitutedthe(611dWirig~,.;: .' '.\ ~ . . (. ~ '-;;'" .. -":}.. \ '- . "Fortlle reasons:setforth ininidili~~'6t;:ii~i~25':26 ~d 27;,R4 zoning . shouldb~ approved, subj~ct t9R~~.;<!enSiiy.and development~tandards." -: • > •• ~-••• ~:;.'~; ••• ':~. :~~~<\~:~ -. . ~. :.~ ,1"t\,-" ~ .:\'. / . 3. Conclusions 4, 5, 6, 9 and 1 r~h()uld be stricken. 2/ ~ ~ ~~/ A. Conclusion 10 should be aIIJ,endedbystrikil1g thel~tSetite~ce thereof. The Examiner's conclusions c()nc~imng,tp~ preliInWary·~i~t·should be modified.as follows: . .' ~ . . -", _./.: -<." :. . . -, . 1. Conchlsion 12 should be stricken and in its place thy following language should be added: . . "The proposed preliminary plat is appropriate based on the rezone of this parcel to R~4 with R-5 density and development standards." 2. Conclusion 13 should be modified by changing the term R-4 to R-5. 3. Conclusion 19 should be stricken. , In the Examiners recommendations starting on page 9, the following changes should be made: > .' Planning and Developmen mmittee Report Page 3 I. The preamble to the recommendations should be stricken and in its place should be added the following language: "The City CoUncil should reclassify the subject's site from R-I to R-4, subject to R-5 density and development standards." "The City Council should approve the 17-lot Preliri:rinary Plat subject to the following conditions:" 2. Recommendation 3 should be modified by adding at the end of that sentence the phrase "If possible, because of the smitH lots"~ > > > 3. Recommeridation 7 on page 10 should be modified by adding the phrase "The applicant > shall comply with the R -4 landscaping requirements". Dan Clawson, Chair ~ •• penisW,. Law, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member > Tl0.42:46 ~e: Neil Wa.fts J'eJllnif.'er He.r.YU'", Fr~r1 > Kaufman ,.>." . _~ .~Fe 'Y~/ ~1\-,\\'1( CITY :IF RENTON Renton City Council Kathy Keolker-Whee1er. Mayor CITY OF RENTON March 24, 2005 APR 0 5 2005 ' RECEIVED APPEAL FILED BY: , • CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Steve Beck, represented by Amy L. Kosterhtz, Attorney RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision dated 111812005 regarding subdivision ofa 4.24 acre parcel located at 6135 NE 4th Street into 17 single-family lots, known as the Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R) To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above-referenced item on the following date: Thursday, April 7, 2005 2:00 p.m. 7th Floor/Council(:~ambers City of Renton 1055 Sou.liGraclY' Way Renton;Waship.gton This CouncilCoIIlIilittee meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning, & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. Ho\Vever, the parties are,expected to 'attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or Qvertum the decision of the Hearing Examiner. , , , , , , If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555.' , Sincerely, ([d~~ Dan Clawson, Chair Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council ----lO-5-5-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y--R-e-n-to-n-, W-as-h-:-in-gt-o-n-9-80-5-5---(4-2-5)-4-30--~65-0-1----~ * This paper contains 50% recyded material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • Stev~"Beck 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, W A 98059 David Clayton Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 Amy L. Kosterlitz Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 First Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, W A 98121 Susan Fiala Development Services Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 City Attorney March 14,2005 Co' Plat: Elle Rain, NE 17th St, FP-04-144 EDNSP: HoteVMotel Tax Revenue Allocation to Renton Visitors Connection, Chamber of Commerce Con:1:ract Planning: Highlan:ds Sub-Area Plan Municipal Court: Collection Services, AllianceOne Receivables Mana.gement Vacation: Alley, Burnett Ave S & S 2nd St, McLendon Hardware, V AC-04-004 Transportation: SR -169 Corridor Improvements, Supporting Legis1.ative Funding CORRESPONDENCE Citizen Commen ... : Kosterlitz - Arnberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat Appeal, Steve Beck, PP-04-117 Added Citizen Comment: DeMastus - Sunset Court Park Problems Renton City Council Minutes PageS3 Development Services Division recommended approval of the Elle Rain Final Plat; ten single-faffi1ly lots on 1.78 acres located in the 3400 block area of NE 17th St. (FP-04-144). CounCil concur. (See page 85 for resolution.) Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic:: Planning Department recommended approval of the Renton Lodging Tax Advisory Committee recommendation to allocate $116,000 of hoteVmotel tax collections to the Renton Visitors Connection for its 2005 tourism rnark:eting efforts. Approval was also sought to execute a contract with the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce for mana.gement of the campaign. Refer to Finance Committee. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic:: Planning Department recommended approval to develop the Highlands Sub-Area Plan to stimulate investment and redevelopment in the Highlands area. Refer to Planning and Development CoIIll31ittee and Planning Commission. Municipal Court recommended approval of an agreeIrlent in the approximate revenue amount of S180,OOO annually with Alliance<>ne Receivables Management, Inc. for collection services. Refer to Fi:nance Committee. Technical Services Division reported receipt of appraisal performed for the McLendon Hardwa..re alley vacation (VAC-04-004) for portions of the alley located east of Burnett Ave. S. and north of S. 2nd St-, and requested Council accept the appraisa1., set compensation at $25,500, and accept the right-of-way dedication across the petitioner's property in lieu of a part of the compensation. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Transportation Sys.ems Division recommended approval of a resolution in support of legislative funding from the 2005 Washington State Legislature for certain road improvement projects on SR-169 to sign3.ficantly increase the level of service. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Corrnnittee. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCn.. APPROVE THE , CONSENT AGE~A AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. A letter was summarized from Amy L. Kosterlitz, BlICk &. Gordon LLP, 2025 1st Ave., Suite 500, Seattle, 98121, regarding the An::1berwood Phase IT . Preliminary Plat appeal (referred to Planning and Development Committee on . 2114/2005) that was received after the submission deadline and concerns new evidence. A memorandum was also read from Larry Warren, City Attorney, recommending referral of the letter to Planning and Development Committee. His memo stated that if the Committee decides to reject any of the information, it can do so by ruling at the Committee meeting. MOVED BY CLA. WSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCn.. REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND UEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. An e-mail wasreadfromSandelDeMastus.l137 Harrington Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, describing various problems at Sunset Court Park located at 1150 Harrington Ave. NE. Ms. DeMastus relayed the adjacent neighbors' desires for closure of the park at night and enforcement of the ~ark rules. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNClLREFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIDN. CARRIED. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler assured that the Administration is already working on the matter. .-.~ .' , .... ~ .i:"'~ {~ ,1:.1'" .j. fo: CITY OF RENTON ~'f.KJA~"'T\A..-J-r 1-os • MAR 0 4 2005 CI:T-"~F RENTON Kathy K-eolker-Wheeler, Mayor RECEIVED 8W1' geefiil1('i 9rrH,. To: From: Date: MEMORANDUM Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Lawrence J_ Warren, City Attorney March 3, 2(>05 Office ofthe City Attorney LawrenceJ. Warren Assistant City Attorneys Mark Barber Zanetta L. Fontes Ann S. Nielsen Sasha P. Alessi. Whitney A. Faulkner ~j.pl~r [)~ .. oS-Ii/-OS Subjec.: Correspondence regarding Amberwood II Preliminary Plat Appeal I have had a chance to tallc with the . Chair of the Planning and Development Committee, COlmcilman Dan Clawson, about the motion to suppler::nent the record in this matter. ProcedUrally, he has decided that it would. be best if the information was forwarded to the CommIttee and Council. Parts of the information are subject to judicial notice by the Committee and the information will be conveniently availaple through the motion. The remainder of the information is information. that staff will be relying uPon in makiIig its presentation to the CollllIlIttee .. Again, having the information in one place will be convenient for the Committee. If the,CoInmittee decides to rejeCt any of the itiformatio~ it will do sohy ruling at the Planning and Development Committee mee~ing. . Thank you for your diligence in enforcing the City Code. LJW:tIllj .. TIO.42:33 cc: Jay Covington Neil wa1:ts Jennifer Henning Lavvrence -1. Warren -Po-s--'-t O-ffi-lc-e-B-o-x -62-6-.-R-e-nt-on-,-Vrf;-a-sh-j-ng-t-on-9-g0-S-7---( 4-2-S-) 2-S-S--g-6-78-/-F-A-X-(-42-S-)-2-SS-.-S4-7-4-R E N TON * This paper contains 50% recycled material,30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CUR..;vE DATE: TO: FROM: CC: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM February 25, 2005 Terri Briere, Council President Members, Renton City Council ~ Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502 Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Larry Warren, City Attorney Correspondence regarding Amberwood II Preliminary Plat Appeal (Referred to Planning & Development Committee on 2/1412005) Correspondence for each Councilrnember was received in the mail 2/2312005 from Amy L. Kosterlitz, attorney for the appellant in the referenced appeal. The subject of Ms. Kosterlitz's letter is "Motion to Supplement the Record in Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Recommendation dated 1118/2005 regarding the Amben;vood Phase II Preliminary Plat." In the letter, Ms. Kosterlitz asks that twelve documents be added to the record. Concern regarding this correspondence includes: the admissibility of the new documentation, and the timeliness of the correspondence, as the deadline for submission of additional letters regarding this appeal was February 14th. rherefore, upon the advice of the City Attorney office, I am holding this correspondence until the City Attorney has reviewed it. Once the review is complete, the City Attorney office will brief Council regarding the correspondence. If so advised, the correspondence can be placed on the following Council agenda for action. For Council's information, the following section from R.enton Municipal Code, 4-8-110.F, regarding appeals to Council is provided: 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or ndditional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the 1ime of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall rem a nd the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of -Lldditional evidence. The cost ortranscription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon rhe record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or .additional evidence or testimony~ and a remand to the If earing Examiner for receipt of such ..evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has heen accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the Jzearing record before the Hearing Examiner. cc: Jay Covington, CAO Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner ~th Anniversary ~ Buck@ GOrdOnLLP Attorneys at Law Dan Clawsc> n, Chair Denis Law, Vice-Chair Marcie PalrTIer, Member February 22, 2005 City Counci I Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 CoNl~h! 311Y/~Dfh ~ ~ --fD f~. '1J'1 u' J A"1'l ~ 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 VVV-..... ....... r Seattle, WA 98121-3140 206-382-9540 206-626-0675 Fax www.buckgordon.com CITY OF RENTON FEB 2 3 2005 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Motion to Supplement the Record in Appeal of Hearing Examiners Recommendation datec:l1/18/2005 regarding the AmberWood Phase II Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R). Dear Mr. Clawson, Mr. Law, and Ms. Palmer: We represent Steve Beck and the Bales Family with regard to their request for Preliminary Plat and Rezone approval of the Amberwood Phase II project, a 17-lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24-acre site located at 6135 4th Street. The site was recently annexed arid zoned by default as Residential-1 (R-1), from which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes. The Amberwood Phase II site is part of the former Bales Annexation area. This area was designated Residential Low Density (RLD) un der Renton's Comprehensive Plan, for which the following Lones were allowed: RC, R-1,. R-4, and R-5. The proposed prezoning for the Bales Annexation area was R-5. As you may know, at the time of the annexation.. election Randy and Rosemary Leifer, one of the property owners in the annexation area, misunderstood the process and failed to support R-5 zoning. See Attachments I -K. Si nce the R-4 zoning regulations were under development, the City was forced to bring the annexation into the City with R-1 zoning with the understanding thai: the applicants would request a rezone to R-5 zoning in the future. This understanding that the property would be brougl-lt in with R-5 zoning is documented in Resolution No. 3624, calling for annexation ofthe area. See Attachment A. Mr _ Beck completed an application for Preliminary Plat and Rezone approval on October 1 5, 2004. On November 10, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5100 replacing R-5 zoning with the R-4 Zoning District. See Attachment B. The Ordinance contained a provision that grandfathered the parcels which previously vested an application or developed as R-5 with R-5 zoning. The Amberwood Phase II site could not benefit from this grandfathering provision because the site vvas only vested to request R-5 at the time the Ordinance was issued, on account of the procedural error made during the annexation election and the default zoning. However, because Mr. Beck's application was completed prior to Y:\WP\CUlBALES,"CClETTER21505.DOC November 10, he does retain a vested right to request R-5, which all parties found appropriate, as set fo rth below. . Mr. Beck has several documents that show that the City of Renton, including both the· .: City Council and the Planning Department, all felt a rezone of the Amberwood Phase II site to . R-5 was appropriate. This is reflected in the Resolution, the Council Hearing Handout, the Preappli cation Staff Report, the Staff Report submitted to the Hearing. Examiner, the City Council Minutes, and letters drafted by Rebecca Lind to Susan Fiala.1 Mr. Beck's application received the support of the City Planning Department, which recommended approval of the Plat and Rezone to the Hearing Examiner in its Staff Report. The Staff Report found that a rezone to R-S meets the relevant rezone criteria in part because the properties surrounding the site have already been developed at R-S densities so a rezone would meet the Community Design Element Objective CD-D which sta~es that "New neighborhood development patterns should bE consistent with Renton's neighborhoods and have an interconnected road network." Because Mr. Beck received such W"idespread support from the City and because the rezone \/Vas unopposed by local residents, ~he Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny a rezone oT the site to R-5 came as a surprise _ Mr. Beck was not expecting his right to request R- 5 as opposed to R-4 to be an issue.2 Consequently, we did not include documents relevant to this issue J raised for the first time by the Hearing Examiner, in the record. We hereby submit a Motion to Supplement the Record to include the omitted documents. Because this is not new evidence but represents material in the City's files that responds to a new issue raised by the Hearing Examiner, this matter should not be remanded to the Examiner. Council is the best judge of "",hat it intended in its own Annexation Resolution, which is one of the documents we have submitted. Tne Amberwood Phase II preliminary plat proposal is designed for the R-5 zoning that was available when Mr. Beck submitted the application. This is the density at which the Amberwo cd Phase I project, across the street, was developed. In fact, all of the parcels surroundi ng the site, with the exception of county-owned open space to the South, appear to have been developed at R-5 and R-6 densities. See Attachment H. Mr. Beck is in a unique position (i~ is our understanding that Ambervvood Phase II is the only site with a vested right to request R-S) so allowing R-5 would not create a precedent, undercutting theR-4 zone. It vvould be unfair and unnecessary to deny the proposed R-5 rezone after Mr. Beck was advised by the Planning Department to submit his plat application according to R-5 standards. See Attachment D. A rezone to R-5 is already a compromise from the R-8 zoning Mr. Beck originally requested. See Attachment C. A denial of the rezone would require Mr. Beck to draft a nevv preliminary plat proposal and would reduce the number of lots available to him for development. This is not only unfair to Mr. Beck but is contrary to the City's policies. R-5 zoning of the Amberwood Phase II site is consistent with the City's residential policies in the Comprehensive Plan, which call for infill development, efficient land utilization, and an urban density of at least 4 dwelling units per n et acre for most residential uses. See Renton Comprehe nsive Plan, LU-BB, LU-123, and L tJ-130. Additionally, Mr. Beck has agreed to the 1 Rebecca Lind explains in a July 3, 2003 letter to Susan Fiala that R-8 zoning would allow for too much density on the site and that R-S is the appropriate zoning. 2 In fact, R-4 was not even a zoning district at the ~ime of annexation or when Mr. Beck submitted the complete application. Y:\WP\ClJ\BAlES\CClETlER21505.DOC 2 SEPA. mitigation measures issued by the Environmental Review Committee, which include some of the R-4 development standards. In summary, because the Hearing Examiner introduced discussion in his Reco mmendation regarding the advisability of a rezone to R-4, we would like to add the docu ments set forth in the attached Motion to the record for review by the City Council: A. Resolution No. 3624 (annexing the Bales Annexation area) B. Excerpt of Ordinance 5100 (replacing R-5 with R-4) C. Letter from Rebecca Lind to Susan Fiala, July 3, 2003 (discussing R-5 versus R-8 zoning of the site) D. Preapplication Review Report by Susan Fiala, July 10,2003 E. Council Hearing Handout for Bales Annexation Public Hearing to Consider R-1 Prezoning, March 1, 2004 F. Excerpt of Renton City Council Minutes, January 26, 2004 (discussing eventual rezone of annexation area to R-5) G. Excerpt of Renton City Council Minutes, March 1, 2004 (discussing eventual rezone of annexation area to R-5) H. Map of "built out" surrounding zoning I. Excerpt of Renton City Council Minutes, November 10, 2003 (correspondence read by Randy and Rosemary Leifer stating they mistakenly voted against R-5 zoning); J. Excerpt of Renton City Council Minutes, December 15, 2003 (discussing assignment by default of R-1 zoning in the annexation area); K. Letter from Randy and Rosemary Leifer to Mayor Tanner explaining how they mistakenly voted against R-5 zoning; and L. Petition by Irvin Leifer to the Renton City Council calIing for an annexation election. As mentioned above, these documents are not new evidence but represent material in the City's files that evidence ongoing support by the City of Renton for R-5 zoning of the Amberwood Phase II site. We appreciate your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, Y:\WP\CU\BAlES\CCLETTER21505.00c 3 I \ALK cc: Robin Bales Steve Beck Susan Fiala, Planner Jennifer Henning, Planner Lawrence Warren, City Attorney Clerk, Renton City Council Members of City Council Y:\WP\ClJ\BALES\CCLETIER21S0S.DOC 4 f r. . r ,. 1 2 3 4 5 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL 6 ) ) 7 INRE: ) No. LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ) 8 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER ) RECOMMENDATION FOR AMBERWOOD ) 9 PHASE II PROJECT ) ) 10 ) ) 11 ) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For reasons set forth below and in the attached letter to the City Council, the Appellant, Steve Beck of the Amberwood Phase II project, located at 6135 4th Street, moves to supplement the record to include the following documents: A. Resolution No. 3624 (annexing the Bales Annexation area); B. Excerpt of Ordinance 5100 (replacing R-5 with R-4); C. Letter from Rebecca Lind to Susan Fiala, July 3, 2003 (discussing R-5 versus R-8 zoning of the site) D. Preapplication Review Report by Susan Fiala, July 10,2003; E. Council Hearing Handout for Bales Annexation Public Hearing to Consider R-1 Prezoning, March 1, 2004; F. Excerpt of Renton City Council Minutes, January 26, 2004 (discussing eventual rezone of annexation area to R-5); MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD - 1 Y:\WP\Cu\BALES\M21605.DOC Buck~ Gordon LLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle. WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 G. H. 1. J. K. L. Excerpt of Renton City Council Minutes, March 1, 2004 (discussing eventual rezone of annexation area to R-5); and Map of "built out" surrounding zoning. Excerpt of Renton City Council Minutes, November 10, 2003 (correspondence read by Randy and Rosemary Leifer stating they mistakenly voted against R-5 zoning); Excerpt of Renton City Council Minutes, December 15, 2003 (discussing assignment by default ofR-l zoning in the annexation area); Letter from Randy and Rosemary Leifer to Mayor Tanner explaining how they mistakenly voted against R-5 zoning; and Petition by Irvin Leifer to the Renton City Council calling for an annexation election. These documents are attached to the letter to City Council as Attachments A -L. This matter should not be remanded to the Hearing Examiner because these documents represent material in the City's files that responds to a new issue raised by the Examiner in his Recommendation and do not present new evidence to the Council. The Appellant Steve Beck respectfully requests that the Council grant this Motion to Supplement the Record to include those documents listed herein and attached to the letter as Attachments A -L. MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD - 2 Y:\WP\CU\BALES\M21605.DOC Buck~ Gordon llP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 r· . J -• 1 DATED this 22nd day of February, 2005. 2 BUC:K & GORDON LLP 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD -3 Y;\WP\CU\BALES\M216C>5.DOC BY __ ~L--A~-= __ ==~~~~~_ .11710 Buck~ Gordon LLP 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle. WA 98121-3140 (206) 382-9540 1 .... :. I' o . '~ CITY OF RENTON, WASmNGTON RESOLUTION NO .. 3624 A RESOLUTION OF THE 'CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON~ CALLING FOR THE ANNEXATlO.N, BY ELECTION, OF· CONTIGUOUS UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF RENTON LYING IN AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY THE CITY . OF RENTON CORPORATE BOUNDARY, INCLUDING SE 128TH . STREET TO THE NORm; &E 130TH STREET, IF EXTENDED, TO THE SOUTH; 156TH AVENUE SE, 1F EXTENDED, TO THE EAST; AND 1'JIE : MIDDLE OF 152ND AVENUE SE, TO THE 'WEST. (BALES ANNEXATION) WHEREAS, the City Council e>:fthe city of Renton, washington, has determined that it would be in the best interests and general,we1filre of the city of Renton to annex the property generally bOunded bY the City of Renton corporate boundary, including SE" 12Slh S1:Ieet to the nOrth; SE 13(fh Street, if extended, ~o the south; IS()'h Avenue'SE, if extended, to the east; and the middle of 15tlll Avenue SE, to the ""W'est; legally descn"bed in Exbtbit "A" attached hereto and incorpora~ by reference as iffu1ly set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Council is; desirous to call for an eJection fur this annexatic»n; NOW, ~REFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF R.:ENTON, WASIDNGTON, DO RESOL VB AS FOLLOWS: SECTlONL . The above findings are true and correct in all respects. SECTlONll. The best interests and general we1&reofthe City ofRen.tcJn would be served by the annexation of contiguJus' unincorporated territory lying generally im. the area bounded by the City of Renton corporate boundary, including SE 12Slh Street to the morth; SE 1301h Street, ifextended, to the south; ·lS~ Avenue SE, ifextended, to the east;, and file middle of 15200 Avenue SE, to 'the west; legally descn"bed in Exhibit' "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set :forth. ATTACHMENT A , . RESOLUTION NO. 3624 SECTIONID. As nearly as can be determined the number of voters residing in the aforesaid territory is four. SECTION IV. The City Council hereby caDs for an election to be held pursuant to Chapter 3SA14 RCW to submit to the voters of the aforesaid territory the proposal for annexation .' .,. -BEC'fIOlS v. There shall also be submitted ~o the electorate of the territory sought to be am.exed a proposition that an property located· VIithin the tCrritory to be annexed shall, upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property located within the City of Renton is assessed and taxed to . ply for all or any portion of the outstanding incle:btedness 'of the City of Renton, which inde"edneSs has been approved by the voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to or existing ~ the ~e of anneXation. SECTI(»N VI • . There shall also be submitted 10 the electorate of the territory . sought to be amnexed a proposition that an property located within the territory to be annexed .. ' shaD, ~us with the 1IJJJleXJdion, have imposed the City Qf Renton' zoning regulations, prepared under ::RCW 3S.A14.340, with a Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Rural (RR) BJJd a zonhlg designationofR-S (Residential single fiIIDily, 5 dwelling units per acre). SECTIONVll. Th<; cost of said annexation e1ec~n shall be paid by the City of Renton. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this Resolution with the . King County C€>uncil and with the King, County Bo~ Re-view Boaid. SECTIClN-IX. The City Clerk shall also filo with the King County Boundary Review Board a Notice of Intention hereof as required·by RC"W 36.93.090 et seq. 2 I • ..; .. • t' .'. RESOLUTION NO. 3624 PASSED BY TIIE CITY COUNCIL ili.s 17th day Of_~M~a.=.r~chu.......... ___ --,' 2003. APPR.OVED BY THE MAYOR this :J. 7 th day of ___ M--,a..;:..r...::...c;;.;;...h ____ -J' 2003.. Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RES.952:11127102:ma 3 Jesse BDDer, Mayor Proposed Bales Annexation Site Figur~ 1: Vlcnity Map e Economlo DmlOJ'llletlt, Ne/ghbodJoocIs a: SlraIqIc Planning + • Al"'PI-,-,~ O. Delilando 20 IlooImbar2002 - --Existing City Limits 'IIIIJ Proposed Annexation Boundary I ~ ~-I '-I o 1000 2000 ' I t I I l : 12000 ORDINANCE NO. 5100 to 50 ft. 50.1 to 51 ft. 11 ft. 51.1 to 52 ft. 12 ft. 52.1 to 53 ft. 13 ft. 53.1 to 54 ft. 14 ft. 54.1 to 55 ft. 15 ft. 55.Ho 56 ft. 16 ft. 56.1 to 57 ft. 17ft. 57.1 to 58 ft. 18 ft. 58.1 to 59 ft. 19 ft. 59. 1ft. and greater 19 ft. R-4 or R-B ZONE Less than or equal 10 ft. to 50 ft. 50.1 to 52 ft. ·11 ft. 52.1 to 54 ft 12 ft. 54.1 to 56 ft. 13 fl 56.1 to 58 ft. 14 ft. 58.1 ft. or greater 15 ft. However, in no case shall a structure over 42~ in height intrude into the 20' clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. SECI'ION XDI. Notes 10, 11, 12 and 13 of Section 4-2-110.D, Conditions for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby added, to read as follows: 10. In order to serve as a transition between the lower density R-4 zone and higher density development, "small lot clusters" of up to a maximum of 50 lots shall be allowed withim. 600 feet of the Single Family Land Use Designation as shown on the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan, when at least 30010 of the site is pemianently set aside as "significant open space." Such open space shall be situated to act as a visual buffer between small lot clusters and other development in the zone. The percentage of open space required may be reduced by the reviewing official to 200./0 of the site when: a) Public access is provided to open space, b) Soft surface trails are provided within wetland buffers, and ATTACHMENT B .. - • ORDINANCE NO. 5100 c) Stonn water ponds are designed to eliminate engineered slopes req'-liring fencing and enhanced to allow passive and/or active recreation. Special architectural features shall be provided on all dwelling units in small lot cIusters. These shall include decorative hip or gable roofs wit::h a pitch equal to or greater than one to two (1 :2), windows and do<>rs with decorative trim at least four inches (4") in width, and eaves projecting at least eigh.teen inches (18") from the face of the building on at least seventy-1ive percent (75%) of the building's exterior perimeter \Vith horizontal fascia at least ten inches (10") deep on all sides of the structure. All portions of a site that are not dedicated t~ platted single-family lots shall be set in a separate tract and/or tracts to preserve existing viab~e stands of trees or other native vegetation. Such tracts shall be shown and recorded on -:the face of the plat to be preserved in perpetuity. Such tracts may be included in contiguous open space for the purposes of qualifying for small'lot clustered de"Velopment. Where trees are removed, landscaping designed to replace the functions of existi:ng trees is required. 11. Lot size, width, and depth may be reduced by the Reviewing Official wh.en, due to lot configuration Dr access, 4-clwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved. The reduction shall be the minimmn needed to allow 4-dwelling -:units per net acre and shall be limited.. to the following minirnwn dimensions: Lot size -7,200 sq. ft Lot width -60 feet Lot depth -70 feet 2S ORDINANCE NO. 5100 12. When lot size is reduced for the purpose of achieving maximum density, setbacks may also be reduced by the Reviewing Official. Setback reductions shall be limited to the following: Front -20 feet. Side yard along a street -15 feet primary structure, 20 feet attached garage with a..ccess from the side yard. Side -Minimum side yard combined setback -15 feet. Minimum for one yard - 5 feet. 13. For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to Nov. 10,2004, and for the Mosier II, Maplewood East and Anthone, the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within 5 years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum Density - 5 dwelling units per net acre Minimum Lot Size -7,200 sq. ft Minimum Lot Width -60 feet for interior lots, 70 feet for comer lots MinimlUll Lot Depth -70 feet Minimum Front Yard -15 feet for the primary structure, 20 feet for an attached <>r detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage, the front yard setback for the pritnary structure may be reduced to 10 feet if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot ~th access from a public right of way or alley. Minimum Side Yard Along a Street -15 feet Minimum Side YanI - 5 feet SECTION XIV. Section 4-2-11 O.E, Illustrations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts ~ Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 em.titled 26 I I .. / CITY: OF RENTON .E CONOMIC ,DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND 'STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: PROK: STAFF CONTAct: StJBJBCI': Ju1y3,2OO3 SusanFiaJa Rebecca Lind Don Ericbon Amberwood Division n The CQ!U'eJlt proposal is pumy speculative' at this ~ in time since the site is not located within the qie.y of Renton aDd is part of an 8.S2-acre 8IUlexation currently being processed by the City. The siEe is within Rcuton'g Potenti21 Annexation Area and is designated on the ~ehensive Plan Land Use Map ResideiillaI Rural ~ which ,would allow R-5. uot:R-8. zoning 'on it at the " time it is annexed into,the Qty. Tn fact, Resolution 3624. adop~ by the City Councll OD March 17, 2003 Slated that the pzOpose4 azmexatiOn would' f?e su1?mitted·to the electorate to, consider R-S zcming at the SQIlC ~.~ consi4er whedJer to support or not the aunexation itself. '!be subject site is .also located. in the East Renton Plateau PM Study AIel where aty staff am cucreutly reviewhg the existing land usc designations for this area' as pat of the aty's Comprehensive Plan update. '.' Analysis: ' The proposal inconsisWnt with the ae, of Renton Comprebtmsive Plan Land Use Map designation ~of RR for this site. ~ 3.73-acre site could theoretically accOmmodate apl'roxiiinately IS lots with R-S zoning rather. than the 29 lots shown. & a consequence it is premat:me to even consider this applioation or COtl'!J1leltt on it further. Reco~dation: Do not rmpport this preapplication for the following reasons: 1) it is inconsistent with Renton"s Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the area. 2) R-8 zoning is different from what the City sabmitted to the King ~ Boundary Review :P~d which reviewed and.approved the 8.52-acre annexation on June Sib of this year. and, 3) R.~ zoning is in conflict with the approved election ballot for the ~g Bales Annexation election which is scheduled to held September 16,2(03. ATTACHMENT C ~. --..' / • DATE: July 10,2003 PlanninglBulld.ingl M~MORA TO: Pre-Application Fife No. 03-076 FROM: Susan Fiala» Senior Planner. x7382 SUBJECT: Amberwood DI\lfsto~ II Preliminary bile Works DUM General: We have completed a preliminary revi w of the pre-.application for the above- referenced development proposal.' The following mmel1ts on development aAd permitting issues are based on th~ pre-appJica~on submittals ade b the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes In effect ~n the date of. review. T e ap~licant is cau~oned that information contained In this summa.-y may. be subject to m dlfication and/or concurrenc.e by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning AI inistrator. Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Worns, and CltyCotJncll). Review comments y also need to be.revlsed based on site planning and other desl9 n changes required by Ity staff or made by the applicant. The applioant is encouraged to review all applicable se 'ons .of the Renton Municipal Code. The Deyelopment Regulations are available for purcha e for. $55.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor OT City Hall. Project Proposal: The subject property 1~ currently der tile jurisdiction of King Cc:>unty. The proposal iscurrenUy undergoing the annexatio process to be incorporated Into the City Limits of Renton·. Rezoning of the site from King Co nty zoning to City of Rentor-.'s R-5 would also occur. The applicant has Indicated in the pre-application co er letter that the site would be R-B, this is . incorrect. The proposed zoning would be R .. 5. The s mltted plat is to be re-designed to comply with the R-5 development standards. The proposal is to subdiVide a three parcel site, a total of 3.73 gross acresin'lo 29 lots for eventual development of single family homes, All of e e>eisting structures and oLrtbulldings are proposed to be removed. Zoning/Density Requirenlents': The pre,:,application ate rials submitted are designed to the R- 8 standards, the plat must be redesigned to meet. R-5_ This would most likely reduce the proposed number of lots. The subject property will be located Within the Resl entia I - 5 dwe.lling units par acre zoning designation. Net density is calculated after deductln designated critical areas, aTeas intended for dedication to public rights-of-way, and/or private tree'l.s serving more than three units from the gross E\reEj of the site 6 • The' R~5 zone has no minimum density but a maxi urn of 5 dwelling units per 1 net acre is required. The net density for this parcel w.ould be oal lated after deductions for txlth public and private streets. ATTACtiMENT D Development Standards: Minimum Lot Size. Width and Depth -The mlnlmu lot size in the R-5 :zone Is 7,200 square feet, The minimum lot width is 60 feet fc>r Intenor 10 and 70 feet for corner lots. A minimum lot depth of 70 feet Is also required. Byllding Staodards -The R-6 zone allDWS a maxim buDding coverage (lnclLldes primary and acoessorybLrildlngs) of 35% or 2,500 square feet, hlchever is greater, for lots greater than '5,000 feet For lots less than 5,000 square feet; rnQ Irourn building coverage Is 50%. Building height Is restricted to 30 feet and two s'tories. SetQacks -S'etbacks are measured fron the props lines to the nearest point of the structure. The required setbacks In the R-5 zone are as folio s: Minimum front yard .w-Ith street acc.ess garage Is 15 feet far the primary stnJct..,re and 20 fa t for attached garages wIlich access from the front yard street. For side yards along a street. e' primary structure is setback 15 feet with 20 feet setback for attached garages which access fr m the side yard along a street. Side yards (interior lots) have five (5) foot setbacks and the rear ard is a minimum of 25 feet setback. AcceSs, Parking and CIrculation: Each lot is requl d to accommodate off st..-eet parking for a minimum of two vehicles per lot In addition, app opriate shared maintenance and access agreement/easements will be required lJetween lots Ith shared ~ooess. A f~rmal request for a modification to street stand~rd would be required to be sUbmHted by the appHcant for the proposed reduced right-of-way (fro 50 ft. to 42 ft.). The mod.ification would be reviewed admInistratively. . Private streets are allowed for access .to six or les lots, with no more than 4 of the lots not abutting a public right..of-way. The street Is to include a minimum eas~mentwldth of 26 feet with 20 feet of paving. Private driveways· may serve maximum of two lots and must have a minimum easement width of 20 feet with 12 feet of pa Ing. Addresses of lots along private streets are to be vis' Ie from the public street by provision of a sign stating all house numbers and Is to be located t the .Intersectlon of ~e private street and the. publi~ street . . Driveway Grades: The maXimum drlvew~y slo~s can not exceed fifteen percent (15%), provided that driveways exceeding el~ht percent (8% are to pro\l.lde sI~tted d rains at the lower end ·of the driveway. If the grade exceeds 15%. a alianeE} from the Board of AdiustmSRt is requIred. ' SEPAl Environmentallssues= The proj~would re uire SEPA review basea on me number of dwelling units of the-development (al)ove four unit ). Tht? proposal would be brought to the Environmental Review Committee .or review as It is 1helr charge to make threshold determinations for enVironmental chec:ldfsts, . Sensitive Areas; Based on the City's Critical Areas aps, the site does not appear to contain any critical areas. However, a Gao'l:echnical Rapo may be required to be prepared that addresses solis. geology and other pertineniissues . . permit Requirements: The project would reqUire P elimin81)' Plat and Environmental (SEPA) Review. The review of these applications would be process concurrently w1thln an estimated time frame of 12 to 16 weeks. After the required 1'10 Ication period, the Envi ronmental Review Committee would Issue a Tt;lreshold Determinatlo,n fo the project, When t\1e nqulred twlJooweek appeClI period Is completed, the project would 0 before the Haartng Examiner for a recommendation 10 the City Cou.-.clJ' on the' Pr IImlnary Plat .The Hearing Examiner's recommendation, as well as fhe decE slon Issued by e Olty Council. would be subject to two- week qppeal periods. . \~AEDALUS\SYS2ISHARBD\DiYisiolU\Dcv.,lDp.s~cv&pl.n.Ins\SAF\J' ps\2003\076Ambetwood_2.doc The application fee would be $2,000 for the Preliml ary ~Iat and % of full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) which Is dependent on pr ~ect value: less than $100,000 Is $200 (1/2 of $400.00 full fee) arad project value over $100,00 is a· $500.00 fee(112 of $1000.00 full fee) plus $0.37 per mailing label required for notification to slirrounding property owners wIthin 300 feet of the site. The applicant will be required to Ins llei pUblic information sign on the property. Detailed information regarding the land use applicatf n suhmittal requirements is provided In the atte.chBd handouts. Once Preliminary Plcat approval is obtained, th applicant must complete the required improvements and dedications, as well as satisfy ny conditions of the preliminary approval before submitting for Final Plat revIew. The Final Plat process also requires City Council approval. Once final approval Is received, the plat ay be recorded. The newly created lots may be sold only after the plat has been recorded • . Fees: In addition to the applicable building and con cti«ln permit fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the recording of the pi L' • A Transportation Mitigation Pee bas,ed on $75.00 per each ~ average dally trip attrlbuta,ble to the proje ; • A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $53~. 78 per new Single family lot; and, • A Fire Mitigation Fee based on 88. ~o per ~ Single family lot. A handout listing all of the City's Development rela d f.ees is Included in the packet for your reView. Additional Cornmants: Prior to submitting the full a pli~tion paokage, applicants are strongly encouraged to bring it1 one copy of each application aterla! for informal review to help ensure that the application is complete. co: Jennifer Henning \\DAEPALUS\sYS2\sHAIUlP\Plvislon.a\Dcvclop.se~v&plBn.itJgl$A.F\Pre s\2003\076Ambcrwood_2.doc BALES ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER R·l PREZONING " ,March 1, 2604 The subject site is within the City's Poteatial Annexation Area and is designated as Residential Low Density on th.e City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Because the site currently has King County R-4 zoriing. it was the City's intent to prezo~e it R-S~ 5 units per net acre. Such zoning would have been applied at the time the site was annexed into the City. A special" election was held on September Hlt 2003 'for residents to approve or reject the annexation. its propo$ecl R-S prezoning. and whether to assume a proportionate share of the City's oUtstanding indebtedness. Although residents approved of the annexation and agreed to assUme their fair share of the City'S outstanding indebtedneSs. they failed to approve the proposed R-S prez.oning. As a consequence. the City must now consider another zone allowed " under the Residem.tial Low Density land' use designation for prezoning. 'since this is required before this annexation can be brought into the City. The IUD land use desi~tiC)n allows fo~ zones: RC -Residential Conservation allowing one unit per ten acres; R-l allowing one detached unit per net acre; R-4 allowing four units per net acre; and, .R~5 tillowing five detached ~~ per n~t aqre. Staff is recommending R-l prezomng since those voting have already ruled out the R-S zone and the R4 regulations are oUITently under developm.eat. The site would accom.nlodate approximately 8 single-family dwelling units under this zOlling.. Tonight's public hearing win be the second of two required hearings on the; proposed R-l prez;omng. ' " " A map showing tbe location of the 8.52-acre annexation site is attached to the backside of this ~~d.Ollt. ' It is assumed that once the site is officially within the City the residents within the annexation will file for reclas:sification to theR-5 zone. " ATTACHMENT E Q CI ~- \)/lJo NE 2n o d St o h p~ h sJ ~ of;:;: 0 'fl. SE ~}3 Proposed Bale~ Annexation Site ___ ExlsfingCItyLlmlts Figure 2: Existing Structure Map _ Propos,aU AnlWxstfon . Bounda'l' ", EXisting S1ructu~ e. ~cD=riClapmmI,.N~ /l;stmqioP!maing • ~1ldJ;;b,.>etbE~ . . G.l>tl P"";;' . :D~;oQ • o 300 600 r f 1 ~ 3600 Jan uary 26, 2004 M<>nday, 7:30 p.m. C~LTOORDER ROLL CALL OF CoUNCILMEMBERS C£TY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE PUBLIC HEARING Annexation: Bales, SE 128th St RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUIES f Council Chambers Renton City Hall Mayor Kathy KeoIker-W1:Ieeler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton. City Council to order. DON PERSSON, Counc:il President; RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSO~; DEl'nS LAW; TERRI BRIERE; MARCIE PALMER KATHY KEOLKER-WIlliELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ZANETT A FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, Ci -ty Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; NEIL WATTS, Development Services Director; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER CHARLES MARSALISI, Police Department. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor KeoIker-Wheeler opened thepubbic hearing to consider the proposed R-l prezoning for the Bales Annexation 8.52- acre site, generally bounded by SE 128th SLto the north, SE. l30th St., if extended, to the south, 1 56th Ave. SE, if extended, to the east, and the middle of 152nd Ave. SE, to the vvest. Don Erickson, Senior Planner, stated that this is the first of two public hearings on the prezoning for the proposed Bales Annexation. He reviewed the location . and existing conditions of the site, noting the essentially flat topography and lack of environmental constraints. In regards t'o public seIvices, the site is served by Fire District #25, Issaquah School District, Water District #90, Renton sewer, and it abuts 14 acres or King County designated parklands. Mr. Erickson pointed out that current King County zoning is R-4 (Residential - four dwelling units per gross acre). The site is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) under R.enton's Comprehensive Plan, for which the following zones are allowed: RC (Resource Conservation), R-l (one dwelling unit per n-et acre), R-4 (four dwellin.g units per net acre), and R-5 (five dwelling units per n.et acre). He reported that although voters approved the annexation at the Speciu Election on September 16,2003, the proposed R-5 prezoning was defeated. Since R-5 prezoning has been ruled out, staff recommends R-l prezoning, as the R-4 zoning regulations are currently under development. Upon review of the fiscal impact analysis, Mr. Erickson noted that at full development, assuming a potential of eight single-family homes and a new horne value of $300,000, the City will realize a deficit of $462. He concluded that prezoning is required before the site can be brought into the City, and noted that R -1 prezoning is consistent with the RLD land use designation. Mr. Ericksoa added that property ovvners within the proposed annexation area can apply hI R- 5 zoning once it is officially part of the City. ATTACHMENT F March 1, 2004 Monday, 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE PUBLIC HEARING Annexation: Bales, SE l28th St & SE l30th St RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES Council Chambers Renton City Hall Mayor ICathy Keolker-Wheeler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. DON PERSSON, Council President; RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON; DENIS LAW; TERRI BRIERE; "-ARCIE PALMER. KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; RUSSELL WILSON, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works A.dministrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic De"Velopment Administrator; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; COMMANDER rIM TROXEL, Police Departn:::::J.ent. TIus being the date set and proper notices having been ::posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker-"VIheeler opened the public hearing to consider the proposed annexation and R-l (one dwelling unit per net acre) prezoning of8.52 acres generally bounded by SE 128th St. to the north, SE l30th S. t., if extended, to the south, l55th Ave. SE, if extended, to the east, and therniddle of 152nd Ave. SE, to the west (Bales Annexation). Senior "planner Don Erickson noted that this is the second of two public hearings, and explained that the subject site contains four single-family dwellings and an abandoned heavy equipment maintenance facility. The topography of the site is essentia.lly flat with a modest slope to the southwest. Reviewing the public services, Mr. Erickson stated that the area is served by Fire District #25, Issaquah School District, Water District #90, and Ren.ton sewer. He pointed out that 14-acres of King County designated parklands ab-'I..lt the site. Mr. Erickson explained that existing King County zoning is R-4 (four dwelling units I>er gross acre). R-l zoning is recommended for this Residential Low Density land use designated site, as R-5 (five dwelling units per net acre) zoning was defeated by voters at the September 16, 2003, Sp ecial Election, and R-4 (four dwelling units per acre) zoning regulations are currently being developed. Contin..uing, Mr. Erickson reviewed the fiscal impact analysis, assuming a new home "Value of$300,000 and an increase to eight singIe-farnily homes at full development. The City will realize a deficit of$I,083 at current development, and a deficit of $462 at full development. He also ne>1:ed the estimated one-time parks development expense of $20,245. In conclusion, Mr. Erickson stated that R-l zoning is consistent with the Resid~ntial Low Density land use designation, and would allow the site to come into the City. He reported that property owners with1n the proposed annexation area are apt to apply for R-5 zoning upon annexation. Public comment was invited. There being none, it Vl.7as MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CA.ltlUED. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE R-l PREZONE FOR THE 8.52-ACRE BALES SITE, ACCEPT THE ATTACHMENT G ""' .. ..,.. , <IV ~I . r ~ 2 ~ o W III ill ~ '00 ~:3 ~ 87.46 133.13 13~:1~ N 4 l?l r- w' 133.74- > \-... ~ADQ~4 .~<t . J:I Gf II 133:7S. I-10 'l' '~J 60.97 ' .... '~ ~ .10 .. ~ 20 ;:; ... 89 89 ~ ~C\J9 ! '! al 0 .. I II -I I! 22 , 8' . • I II ... ... ..... 7~i '~23 , If -~ I li~24 ' . 6~1 I I , .... fi~1 1~25 , 14 '_13 WI-I ---\ z ' ....... ';7 w~ll~ >-m 1= 7 'it '13a:75 -I I ,I '0\1 ,lil26 , CJ ~~~~~'~=~='''~ . z 4·1 I· 27 ':5 ~I ;:! 8 9 60 13a:76 '~~"l':: (555.09-) - i I 3 I I 27 " I , g 2 I 1 28 g 89 ' I 89 .. 1 -r U 29' .. 60 \ 11 60 .. , .. I!. I! 0 31 ~BZ, III '2.36 Ac. 90.uI 39 g 211129 g 89 I I 89 6ZS.14 7 163:16 CORPORATE 1&3.'~ LIMIT 90JoIII ~t. ,'. ~. ....... ST. ~" I· 6 ........ .... ~ ].... 230.55 147.45 • ~ 42 95.56 ~ ~ 5 I .0 .::r C'! 3. J ~I:t .::r 0 cO C'I .; ~-' '" ... :;:; .., 4 . e2' @I 1&3.60 ® ~"t.5 163. 0 16'.80 cJ c3 . .:! « '" c.5: ~~ il 01 U'I It\"; <;t. ~ I CI ~~ , 0 ~ 0 0 0 on . on 3~ -C'I N I TRACT C @: ®, \ : . --163.62 ·2SS.41 ;':":-f=i=iiT.':.+H+i;!tfi=O'.:+;iii;H+i=t:.:±rHi~;';~;~o\H±H;~:·:*S. E·.*,·:~· , i ____ i , i ~ .. " .. ( .. """''' i ~.n,,·i .",.1 ( .. ,. i ..... i ....... ~.I.' 2ND 60 ta9.l4 ~ I00-;j 1= 102 I 50 I ....,. ISO . 103 100 " fl...;' ~~' 5 26 ~/f()t4- /' 'j?eveLor;Il . \..! ~500 Y -6.62 Ac. ~t>J:S ~ 6 25 1 241z48 8 23 24 23 . zz 9 221Z4EJ ~ I' 10 2.1 ... Ii] ~ .~ I . ~ 'V = 12 19 '" !!l 18 IP " n 60 1&5 ... I., I'" .79 Ac. . p~~ 7 @ l·.~9 Ac.. _.@ @) 1.35Ac. j I • I .: . ~ ! 4 . • " 4Jo7A NE I Gt-H30R1400P '. PET All MAF AMBERWOOD ~ ~ AnACHMISNT P IVTSI 0 N · November 10, 2003 Airport: Building Utility Conversion, W &H Pacific Utility: ROW Dedication at N 34th St, Daniel Dahlquist CAG: 97-139, Maplewood Well 12 Well Head Construction, Omega Contractors CAG: 02-010, Maplewood Water Treatment hnprovements Design, Economic & Engineering Services CORRESPONDENCE Citizen Comment: Leifer- Bales Annexation R-5 Zoning OLD BUSINESS Utilities Committee Utility: Wastewater Treatment Plant Agreements & Mitigation, King County Finance Committee Connnunity Services: Maplewood Golf Course Fees Renton City Council Minutes Page 399 Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of funds in the amount of $100,000 to convert Airport buildings from the existing Boeing-owned power system to City-owned utilities, and approval of a contract with W &H Pacific, Inc. in the amount of $79,794.76 for this conversion. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Utility S. ysterns Division recommended acceptance of dedication of additional right-of-way for a 20-foot wide by 227-foot long strip ofland located near the 1300 block ofN. 34th St. from Daniel N. Dahlquist. Council concur. Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-97-139, Maplewood Well 12 Well Head Construction; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final payesti.rDate in the amount of $207.60, commencement of60-day lien period, and release <:>fretained amount of $15,425.45 to Omega Contractors, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Utility Systems Division recommended approval of Addendum #3 to CAG-02- OlD, contract with Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., for unanticipated additional design work for the Maplewood Water Treatment facility in the amount: of $90,000. Council concur. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Correspondence was read from Randy and Rosemary Leifer, 5127 S. Fountain St., Seattle, 98178, owners of the property located at 15311 SE 128th St., which is part of the proposed Bales Annexation. They stated that they mistakenly voted agains-t R-S zoning at the Special Election, and emphasized that they do want the prop~ to be zoned R-S. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO COM:rv1ITTEE OF THE WHOLE. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Vice Chair Briere presented a report recommending concurrence with the recommendation of staff that City Council authorize the Mayor and Citv Clerk to execute the interlocal agreement with King County for the South Plant (Wastewater Treatment Plant) electrical cogeneration project, and the amendment to th~ -Wastewater Treatment Plant sewage disposal agreement with King County. The Committee also recommended that the $2,216,000 in mitigation:fi.uids identified in the electrical cogeneration project agreement be referred to the Comn:rittee of the Whole for appropriation. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding the amendment to the King County sewage disposal agreement be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE CO:MMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 401 for resolution.) Finance Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff and Park Board recommendation to increase golf course fees from $22 -to $24 for 18-hole weekday green fees, from $28 to $30 for weekend (Friday -Sunday) I8-hole green fees, and from $22 to $24 for 18-hole golf cart rental. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. ATTACHMENT I . December 15, 2003 OLD BUSINESS Committee of the Whole Legislature: 2004 Council Legislative Priorities Annexation: Bales, SE 128th St Community Services Committee EDNSP: Regional Affordable Housing ~ogram (SHB 2060) Funds), King County Committee on Committees Council: 2004 Committee Assignments R...enton City Council Minutes Page 469 developed as part of permits for other land use activities. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 8.c. AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. (See page 470 for resolution.) Council President Keolker-Wheeler presented a Committee of the Whole report regarding COUD.cil's 2004 legislative priorities. The Committee trlet on December 15 and concurs with the following basic legislative premises: sUI'Port for flexibility and control by local governments, and opposition to unfunded mandates and! <>r imposition of new or increased fees on municipal services to fund state regulatory activities. Specific priorities for the 2004 legislative session include: Muni.cipal Finance, Transportation Funding, Economic Development Tools, Annexa.tion Reform, Protection of Water Rights, Growth Management Act, Lawand Justice, Liability Reform, Gan1bling Activities, Parks, Affordable Housing, and Social and Human Services. MOVED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR. IN THE COMMIITEE REPORT. CARRIED. Council President Keolker-Wheeler presented a Committee of the Whole report regarding the Bales Annexation zoning. The Committee recornr:nended that Council adop"t R-l (Residential-one dwelling unit per acre) zoning under the Residential Lc::lw Density Comprehensive Plan land use designation. This recommendation is based upon the City Attorneys letter ofSep-:t:ember 26, 2003, in which he opines that since the R-5 (Residential -five dwelling units per acre) . zoning regulation was rejected by the electorate at the September 16, 2003, Special Election, it can no longer be considered as part of the same annexation. If the property owners desire consideration ofR-5 zoning after the subject properties are annexed into the City, they can request such a zoning change through the Hearing Examiner. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WH:EELER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN TIIE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report concurring with the staff reconunendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign. the interlocal agreement with King County for the Regional Affordable Housing Program. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITrEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 470 for resolution.) Councilman. Persson presented a Committee on Committees report recommending the fo1lowing Council committee chairmanships and committee assignments for 2004: Community Services Committee: Toni Nelson, Chair; Marcie Palmer, Vice Chair; Randy Corman, Member. . Finance C<>mmittee: Randy Corman, Chair; Denis Law, Vice Chair; Toni Nelson, Member. Planning and Development Committee: Terri Briere, Chair; Dan Clawson, Vice Chair; Denis Law, Men1ber. . Public Safety COD1IDittee: Denis Law, Chair; Toni Nelson, Vice Chair; Dan Clawson, Member. Transportation (Aviation) Committee: Marcie Palmer, ChaiY; Randy Corman, ATTACHMENT .. l. • November 3. 2003 Mayor Jesse Tanner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ,.' RECEIVED NuV 05 200a .e~CE CI'TY OF RENTON NOV 0 5 2003 01 RECEIYED My wife and I are the owners oftbe property at lS311 SE 12S1h. I grew up in Renton ataOlEAK S OFFICE worked for the city ofR.en.bn for a number of years. My parents were part owners in a Renton clothing store. My father taught and coached at Renton :High School for thirty years, and my wife currently teaches at Sierra Heights, a Rentom school. Our ties to Renton are many. We recently voted to annex to the City ofRen1on. We look fcn;yard to the annexation but would like to be annexed at R .. S. When we voted against the R-S mning, we mistakenly thought we were voting for :R-6 zoning. We now realize that th:is was not the case and would like to ~uest R·S for our property. Thank you for your considerati~ and we look forward to being part of the City of Renton. Sincerely~ ~~u~ Randy Leifer -~r . J . , ~~ Rosemary Leifer 5 J?-? 5 Fou.ntain Sf SeP-H/~ WA 98J 7B ATTACHMENT K , , . J , V, PETITION TO THE RENTON C lTY COUNCIL CALLING FOR AN ANNEXATION ELECTION Pursuant to'RCW 35A.14.020, the undersigned (the "Petitioner") hereby calls upon the City Council of the City of Renton. a Washington municipal corporation (the "City"), which. is a code city, to authorize and an-allge for an election to vote upon the annexation to the City of that certain portion of u.'lincorporated King County. Washington the boundaries of which circumscribe the property that is legally-described 01~ Exhibit A attached hereto and all existing .street rights-~f-way adjacent thereto (the "Proposed . Bales Site An.nexation Area"). A map of the Pr<>posed Bales Site Annexatie> n Area and surrounding properties is attached hereto as Exhibit B, The Proposed Bales She Annexation Area is contiguous to the City. I am one of not mOre than four registered voters curJ'ently residing within the Proposed Aru~ exation Area. Name and Address Date of Signing "'-....c...:~~~:::.¥~~U-/. ·.:Iev41 ~/~.e //-/..G..aL~ • -~ --,C,L Ii>. 12 S .Jr.c-:-/.:?~I?Y ,2ri.vN .. V ?e .. =<:K ~ tpPO~? WARNING Every person who signs this petition with ~y other than his or her true name. or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions. or signs a petition seeking all election when he is or she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he 01" she is o"therwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be. guilty of a misdemeanor. ., ATTACHMENT L , l I: L I. k r. I. I. ~ I: f: r i~ r. f. I: i· ~ I. I: r. ~ , 1 r ii I: ~ r I. r r I· 1. f. I.: j: I. ~ r t ~ j. t· r L: ~ I: ~ !: r L ~ t ,. L r I" \ EXHIBIT B to PETITION ',rs 31\'" 'H.ut1O I ,~oozlrl .... , .. 0400 " .-U" CoI"MI. I. ~~~ .. @ \~ ~ .' I -. . -q • . ~ ,; 0 9 I ~ I .0 t: t ; It; ,. ~ ; ts p.; .. IIJ ..l ~ 0( ~ u ~ ~ t a-t: :r::. :;; . " Ii!. l ... !:O . i -Q li! !,D I ~ ~ : j%. r '" 1. I ·1 I I ....... n"u .® J\ .. I~ .. .. .. ~. .. ... '1 6i.l'!ill ~1fU.:nl -r/le-... ,... • _______ ~"l ~---- • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION P~CELA: 14-23-05 9065 6867 :I423 05 LOT 2 KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT 1075010 AF 7611040904 S-D PLAT DAF WEST 150 IT OF EAST 1166.01 FT OF N ~ OF NE ~ OF NW !A AS MEASRED ALO N SO SEC PARCELB: 14-23-05 9068 6867 142305 PP ACT 39922653 NOBILE HOME N ~ NE1I4 OF NW % LESS EAST 1166.01 fT MEASURED ALD N LN & LESS CO. ROAD PARCELC: 14-23-05 9094 6867 142305 LOT 1 KC SHORT PLAT 1075011 S AF 7611040904 SD PLAT DAF WEST 1 SOFT OF EAST 1166.01 FT OF N ~ OF NE Y4 OF NW ~ AS MEASURED ALG LN SD SEC LESS CO ROAD PARCELD: STR 142305 TAX LOT 70 WEST 150 OF EAST 1016.01 IT MEASURED ALGN LN OF Nl/2 OF NE ~ OF NW ~ LESS CO ROAD. PARCELE: STR 142305 TAX I-OT 64 EAST 866.01 FT OF NO ~ OF NE ~ OF NW ~ MEASURED ALG NLNLESS PORNNB~OFNE : February 14,2005 CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2005 Appeal: Park Place Preliminary Plat, Heritage Homes, PP-04-126 Appeal: Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat, Steve Beck, PP-04-117 CAG: 05-001, Sunset Sewer Interceptor Phase II, RCI Construction Group CAG: 04-113,200 Mill Building Chiller Replacement, MacDonald-Miller Facility Solutions Public Works:' Sound Transit Quit Claim Deed, BNSF Easement Transportation: 1-405 Mainline Alignment Concurrence, WSDOT Transportation: 1-405ISR-167 Interchange 5% Design Concurrence, WSDOT Utility: Springbrook Creek Wetland & Habitat Mitigation Bank Concurrence, WSDOT Renton City Council Minutes Page 51 of woody debris and logs from the river due to the beneficial habitat the debris provides for the fish. Pointing out that the fallen tree poses a safety hazard, Mr. Zimmerman reported that the City has scheduled a meeting with WDFW on February 16th to discuss the matter. He noted that the City will remove the fallen tree if a permit from WDFW is obtained. Mayor Keolker-Wheeler assured Mr. La Rue that the City will inform him of the outcome of the meeting. Councilmember Corman thanked Mr. La Rue for his concern regarding the safety hazard created by the fallen tree. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion \Vhich follows the listing. Approval of Council meeting minutes of February 7, 20() 5. Council concur. City Clerk repo~ed appeal of Hearing Examiner's recoIIllIlendation on the Park Place Preliminary Plat (PP-04-126); appeal filed on 1121..12005 by Michael Witek, 100f4th Ave., Suite 4200, Seattle, 98154, representing Heritage Homes, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Plannin g and Development Committee. . City Clerk rep()rted appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat (PP-04-117); aP'Peal filed on 2/112005 by Amy L. Kosterlitz, 2025 1st Ave., Suite 500, Seattle, ~8121, representing Steve Beck, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. . ity Clerk reported bid opening on 2/812005 for CAG--05-001, Sunset Sewer Interceptor Phase II; 14 bids; engineer's estimate $2,323,479.49; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the 10"'V bidder, RCI Construction Group, in the amount of $1,915,867.90. Council co~cur. Community Services Department submitted CAG-04--113, 200 Mill Building Chiller Replacement; and requested approval of the -project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of $69,604.13 conu::nencementof 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $5,588 to MacDonald-Miller Facility Solutions, Inc.,contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. PlanninglBuildinglPublicWorks Department reconnnended acceptance of a quit claim deed from Sound Transit and approval of Sound Transit's request for an easement across City-owned property located in the vicinity of Oakesdale Ave. SWand SW 27th St. with Burlington NortheTIl and Santa Fe Railway Company. Council concur. . Transportation Systems Division recommended concurrence with the Washington State Department of Transportation's 1-405 mainline alignment from the western Renton City limit to SR-169. R..efer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Transportation Systems Division recommended concurrence with the Washingtl:m State Department of Transportation. ~ s five percent design for the 1- 405 and SR-167 interchange. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Utility Systems Division recommended concurrence with the Washington State Department of Transportation regarding the cre.ation of the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank. Refer to Utilities Committee. Cl l'Y OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL I AID: 51 C. Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 02/14/2005 Dept/Div/Board. _ AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact.. . .. . Bonnie 1. Walton Agenda Status Consent .............. Subject: Public Hearing .. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation dated I Correspondence .. 1/18/2005 rega.rding the Amberwood Phase II Ordinance ............. Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-04-117, PP) Resolution ............ Old Business ........ Exhibits: New Business ....... A. City Clerk"s letter (2/412005) Study Sessions ...... B. Appeal-Steve Beck (2/1/2005) Information ......... C. Hearing Examiner's Report & Recommendation (111812005) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Legal Dept ........ . Finance Dept. .... . Other .............. . Fiscal Impact: . N/A Expenditure Required .. . I'ransferl Amendment ...... . Amount Budge-red ...... . ::Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Rudget ·City Share Total Project .. SUMMARY ~F ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner recommendation on We Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat was filed on 2/1/2005 by Steve Beck, represented by .Amy L. Kasterlitz, Attorney, accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council action on the Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Flat and appeal. RentonnetJagnbilll bh X CIT~F RENTON Kathy KeoIker-Wheeler. Mayor February 4, 2005 APPEAL FILED BY: Steve Beck, represented by Amy L. Kosterlitz, Attorney City Clerk Bonn~e I. Walton RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner'srecornmendation dated 1118/2005 regarding subdivision of a 4.24 acre parcel located at 6135 NE 4th Street into 17 single-family lots, known. as the Amberwood Phase U Preliminary Plat. (File No. LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R) To Pa.rties of Record: ' Pursu-ant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal ofthe bearing exam.:iner's recommendation on the Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat application has been filed ""With the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal CQ-<ie Section 4-8-llOF, within five daysofteceiIltofthe notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt ofthe appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions within te::n (10) days of the date of mailing of the notific~tiondfihe filing of the appeal. The deadline for subIrl.ission of additionalletters is February 14i2005. , " NOrICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the "'-'fitteri appeal and other pertinent documents will be revie;::wed by the Council's. Planning and Development Cominittee."The Council LiasoI1 will notiEy all parties of record of the, date and time <>ft4ePlarinirtg and, Development COlllIDittee mee~ing. If you are not listed in local tel-~ph6hedirectories arid wish to attend themeet:ing, please call the, Council Liaspnat 42543(:);-650'1 forinf()tJ;i1ation. Thetecommendation, of the CoInmittee will be presented forcorisideratiot).:by the full, Council at a subsequent COUDcil meeifing. ':' . , . , Attached are a copy of the appeal and a copy'ofthe Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing'Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that,the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon thewrittenreco~dpreviously establisb.ed. ,Unl-ess a showing can be, made thatadditionaleviderice couldnot reasonably have been available at tb~ prior hearing held by the Hearing -:Examiner, no. further evidence or testimony on this .·matterwill be acCepted by the City Cou:nciL . ' , '. . For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425~430-6502 . . Sin.cerely, B~nnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments cc: Council Liason -I 0-5=-5-=S'-ou-t-=-h-=G'-ra-:d'-y7.:W.-=-a-y -:-R=-e-n-to-n-:", w.C:-:a'-s-c-hi'-ng-to-n-. -9-=-8=-=0-=55-=---(:-:-42-:-5=-) -43:-:0-6--::-:::5-:-:IOO-:/=FAX~-:-(4:-2-=5)-:4-=-30-6:--:-:5:-1-:-6 -R E N TON ~ Thispape..-contains 50% recycled material, 30% posl ~umer AH. EAD OF THE CURVE City ofRento~ Municipal ClJue; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appe ... ., 4-8-IIOC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658,9-13-82) 4-8-llOF: Appeals to City Council-Procedures I. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or Sta.te law providing for review of decision of the Examiner r-equires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to J>~rties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the re-eeipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other part:ies of record may submit letters in support of their positi<>ns within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. TransmittaJ of Record to Council: Thereupon tile Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all ofthe pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions coa:tained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party ofrcring the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearin.E before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or t~stimony, and a remand to the Hearing ~xaminer for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council EvaIuation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, .he notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-J.-OSOFI, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision oftl:le Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 aad F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendati::on of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proofshall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658,9-13-1982) 10. Council ActioD Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unl ess appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) 02101/05 09:28 FAX 206 626067!5 BUCK & GORDON LLP @002 APPEAL .. HEARING EXAMINER. .. "" ' 3:JI:HO S.>ll::J31~ All~) 'WRlTI'EN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECJSJO~/RECOMMENDATION TO RE~ OOUNC~. ~ FILm NO. tvA Q4-1J7, p~ UZP B ::JOOl L 0 83.:!JS, 51(;. APPLICATION NAM& AliBDw():9P l!UASE II \t .. ~ f . IQ01"''9M :ID All8 TheundersigniMi interested party hereby files ita Notice of Appeal :froJn the ciccUion or recmnmendaDOIl of " tile Land Use Hearing Ezamfoer, dated " JSlluaq 18 20 OS ". 1. mEN'I'Ili1CATIO.N OF PAInY APPEU.AN'l'; ~Rl!SNTA"l'MC (llI' .ANY) Name: Steve Beck Address: 4735 ME 4th Street:: _ NQTDe'~~' Kosterlitz, Buck & Gordon LLP ~ 2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 . . Rt;nton VA . 98059 Seattle WA 98:121 TWephone No_ (425) 444-0461 'Mepbane No. (206) 38Z .. 9~40 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRQRS (Attat:h pddiHana1 sheetsr if I1UCeSsaryt Set forth below-~ tho spccI& eaors or law ~ ract: upoI1 wblcb. tl:ds appeal 1& based~ FINDING OF FACT: (Please deelgoate ll'Ilmber as dmwted:ln the Examiners'report:) ~'~'------------------------------------------- CONCLUSIONS: No.~ "En'or: SEE AnA.CHE» "'---I.!--. ~~~~'---------------------------------------------------- OTHER No._ Eaar. _________________________ _ Cm7~o~~ ____________ ~ ________ ~ ____ ~ __________________ ___ Fgbruaiv 3-' 2005 Date PlE!qQ reftt to Title tV. ~. Chapt ... 8, of tho R8J\~ "",I,at"l tDdo, fItd 91111tiOl1 4-'-t1DF, f~1.ecitf~ ~l " .... ~ .. ,\. - CC: ,u~l JJ4tfs h ..... l.daclfl1l'Jlfl Cd-y II~~V J-J.edyl""~ bJ,.qH-( I~ RECEIIJED ZOO5-fEB-01 09:Z3AM FROM-Z06 6Z6 0615 TO-John L Scott Renton PAGE OOZ 02/01105 09: 29 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP • APPEAL -HEARING EXAM1NER. WruTrEN APFEAL OFHE.AiuNG EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCll. FILENO. LUA 04-117, PP, ECF,R 2. SPECJF:ICATION OF ERRORS Set forth below ~ the specific errors of law and fact llpcm which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACf: No.6 bt: Fmding 6 fails to state that at the time the applic~ submitted this plat application a11o...vable low density included R,-5 zoning. Corrootion: Find that the map element of the Comp:mherJ.Rive Plan designates the area in which the subj eel site is loCated as suitable for the development of low -density tesidential uses. incluWng uses compatible with R-5 zoniDg. No. 11 Error: Finding 1 I falls to state that the applicant agrees to abide by the SEP A mitigation measures. . Cortection: Find 1hat the applicant agrees to abide by all SEPA mitigation measures. . . .... No. 21 ' Bn:or: Finding 21 fails to state that the properties stJm)unding the subject parcel have been developed at R-5 densities. Couection: Find that parcels SUDO~ding the subject site bave been developed at R-S densities. No. 23 ~ Finding 23 .:fails to state that the applicant agrees to plant two trees ill the front yard of each lot. Com:ct1on: Flnd tImt the ilPPIi(;Wlt agrees to plaQt two trees in the :front yard of each lot. . ~~ . Error; Finding 24 £ails to ~ that R-S was an appropriate -density for the subject site at the time the applicant 5llbmitted this plat application. Correction: Find that R-5 was an appropriate densi1;y for the subject site at the time the applicant submi-:tted this plat application-. 1 RECEIVED 2005-fEB-0! 09:23Alf FROM-206 626 0615 TO-John L Scott Renton PAGE 003 l@oo.3 02/01105 09: 29 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP CONCLUSION (Note: Decision calls these :Recommendations); NQ.l En'or: Conclusion 1 inappropriately constrl.1es the rezone criteria. Correcti.on: Conclude that the City Council should approve the pmposed . reclassi£ication of the subject site fromR-l "f:o R-S because the applicant bas satisfied the l'eZDnC criteria found in Section 4-9-180F. No.2 En2I: Conclusion 2 enoneously inteqJrets and applies the law governing vesting and noncon£orming uses. CorreCtion: Conclude that the applicanthas a vested right to request a rezone ~ftb.e subject site to R-5. Conclude that a rezone ~f the subject site to R-S is in confOTD1ance with the Comprehensive Plan and rezone criteria and the R-S development already established in the area... No.3 Etrot: Conclusion 3 inappropriately applies the criteria for a rezone to conclude that R-4 is a. more appropriate density than R-5. ConcIusi0ll3 also misinterprets he Comprehensive Plan. Correction: Conclude that a remne of the srnbject siteto R-S is appropriate gi1r-en the R-5 development aheady established in the area Conclude that R-5 is a low residerwtiaJ density awl is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and rezone c::riteria. Hg. 4 Error: Conclusion 4 misinterprets the public interest and erroneously appJiest:he Jaw governing nonconfomling uses. Couec=tion: Conclude that it is in the publi.~ iI¥rest to rezone the subject ~ to R-S to allo"VI for development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and IttUlJle cmtena and the development aheady established im. the area. No. S :&ror: It is beyond the scope of jurisdicti.o1D. of the Hearing Examiner to propoose a rewne to R-4. R-4 zoning was not avai:la1>le at the tDne the ~plicant submitted the plat application and was not requested by t:'he applicant or the City. Correction: Reco1lUQend a rezone of the n.lbject site to R-S. ~.5 . Error. It is beyond the scope of jurisdicti<>n of the Hearing Examiner to propose a rezone to R-4. R-4 zoning was DDt available at the time the applicant submitted the plat qlplication and was not requested by fie applicant or the City. Conclusion 6 is also legally and factually inaccurate. Correction: Conclude dud a IeZODe of the-subject site to R-S is appropriate gh-en the R-S d.evelopment already established in be area. Conclude that R-S is alow residential density and is consistent with tlle Comprehensive Pian and rezone criteria. RECEIVED Z005-FEB-O1 09:23AM FROM-206 626 0615 TO-John L Sc:ott Renton ~J\GE 004 ~004 02/01/CJ5 09: 29 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP No.7 EUOl: Conclusion 7 erroneously interprets Comprehensive Plan objectives. Correction: Conclude that R-5 is a low residential density and is consistent with Comprehensive Plan objectives and rezone criteria. No.8 Error: It is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Hearing Exmniner to propose a rezone to R-4. R-4 ZOIring VlnlS not available at the time the applicant 6\lbmitted the plat application and was not requested by the applicant or the City. Conclusion 7 also misapplies the "materially detrimental" standatd. Correction: COnclude that a.rezone of the subject site to R-5 wonld not be materially detrimental to either the public welfare or other properties in the area. NO.9 ~ It is beyond the scope cfjurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner to propose a rezone to R-4. R-4 zoning was not available at the time the applicant subDlitted the plat application and was not ~ed by the applicant or the City. Correction: Conclude that a rezone of the subject site to'R-5 is appropriate given the R-5 development aheady established in the area. Conclude that R-S is a low residential density and is cons;istent with the ~ensive ~lan and rezone criteria. No. 10 lmm: It is beyond the scope of jurisdiction oftbe Hearing Bxaxninerto propose a rezone to R-4. R-4 zoning was not available at the time the appJicant submitted the plat application and was not tequested by the appliCant or the City . • -.~ . .-~"~." .-•. " :: ••.• "C' .=--C.,.. .... -eorteetion: Conclude-that R':'S would increase the density pOtential-ot·the ~ site and take advantage of the new-i:nfrastructu.r No. 11 Error: It is beyond the scope Otf jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner to propose a rezone to R4. R-4 zoning was not available at the time the applicant submitted the plat application and was not ~ by the applicant or the City. Correction: Recommend a:re2";ODe of the StIbject site to R-S. H2.12 Error: Conclusion 12 is improper given the legal and :61ctual errors cited above. Conection: Conclude that the proposed PreliminaIy Plat is appropriate given the above recommendation that the subject site be rezoned to R-5. No. 13 Error. Conclusion 12 is impIoper given the legal and. Actual crrolS cited above. CoIrection: Conclude that the proposed Preliminary Plat is appropriate given the above recommendation that the: subject site be ~ to R-5. 3 RECEIVE'll ZOOS-FEB-OJ 09:23AM FROM-20G GZ:;S om TO-John L S~ott Renton PAGE 005 IdJ005 --.~ .---•....• ~-.--.::...:;:....;Jt.._--: __ .02/01/05 «)9: 29 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK &; GORDON LLP No. 14 Error: Conclusion 12 is improper given the legal and factual errors cited above.. Correction: Conclude that the proposed Preliminary Plat is appropriate given tl1e above recommendation that the subject site be rezoned to R-S. No. 15 ~: Conclusion 12 is improper giYeIl the 1egal and 1iwtual enoIS cited above. Correction: Conclude that the proposed PreHminary Plat is appropriate given fte above recommendation that the subject site be rezoned to R-S. ~. 16 Error. Conclusion 12 is improper given the l.egal and factual emrrs cited above. Correction: Conclude that the proposed Pretiminary Plat is appropriate given "the above recommendation that the subject site be rezoned to R-S. NQ.. 19 Error: Conclusion 12 is improper given the legal and factual errors cited above. Correction: Conclude 1hat the proposed Preliminary Plat is appropriate given "1he above recommendation that the SIlbject site De rezoned to R-S. 3. SUMMARy OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant 1he following relief I1J 006 Reverse the recommendation. and grant the following relief: Rezone of the -,-,.c~&t1bjeci·$lte to-R-S':mnapprovatofUIe-proposed PreIinriDary Plat -... -.. -. . ~----. . 4 REc:EIVED 2005-FEB-Ol 09:23AM FROLt-206 626 0616 TO-John L Scott Renton 1PAGE 006 Minu"tes APPI.,3CANT: OWNER: LOCArION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: 'BUMMARYOF ACTION: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Steve Beck Aml>erwood II LLC 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 Bales Limited Partnership PO B<>x 3015 Renton, WA 98056 Amberwood LLC 4735 NE 4th Street RentoIl, WA 98059 File No.: LUA 04-117, PP, ECF, R 6) 35 1'1E 4th Street January 18. 2005 Approval for a 17-lot subdivision of a 4.24-acre site intended for detached single-family homes and a Rezone to R-S. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditiDns DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on November 30, 2004. PUBLIC HEARlNG: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES Thefollowing minutes are a summary cfthe December 14,2004 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The heariBg opened on Tuesday, December 14,2004, at 9:()1 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City HaJJ. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The follo\Ving exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original E::xhibit No.2: Preliminary Plat with Rezone application", proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Amberwood II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R 1anu ary 18, 2005 Page 2 Exh ibit No.3: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Ex" ibit No.5: Neighborhood Map Ext.ibit No.7: Zoning Map with markings • Exhibit No.4: Freliminary Landscaping Plan Exhibit No.6: 20nin_gMap Exhibit No.8: Road profile showing 4111 St:-eet and Rosario The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055_ The site is currently zoned Res idential-I dwelling unit per acre, the applicant is requesting a rezone t<> R-5 dwelling units per acre. The site is approximately 4.2 acres and it is located in the east portion of the City of Renton, offNE 4th Street which bor<lers the northern property line ofthe three parcels and one tract site. The eastern boundary is also two parcels which are within the City of Renton. To the west is Rosario Aver.ue NE which extends and terminates at NE 3rd Court which serves Amberwood Division I. This project is vested under the old zoning ofR-5 was in effect prior to N ~vember 10, 2004 and that is what the applicant is requesting to rezone. The properties that were R-5 have bee ... rezoned to R-4. Surrounding the site, the properties are zoned R-5 and were developed under that zoning designation. Staff did not look at the differences between R-4 and R-5 zoning. The categories are very similar, the R-4 does require a larger lot size of 8,000 square feet compared to the R-S which requires 7,200 square feet. When the ne~ zoning went into effect on November 10, there are different methods of calculating lot size as you deduct the area required for easements and any setbacks are measured from private access easements. Tht; R-4 zoning requires additional landscaping along the arterials and non-arterial roads and requires landscaping of two trees peT lot. This site is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) and both the R-J and R-S are permitted within this designation. There has been no public comment with regard to the proposed rezone. The majority of the lots in the vicinity of the subject site are equal to or smaller than the lots included with this proposed subdivision. The proposed development is subject to code requirements and SEP A imposed mitigation measures that would attempt to diminish any potential adverse impacts jfthe rezone is granted. The majority ofthe lots in the vicinity of this site are equal to or smaller than the lots proposed for this subdivision. Suff recommends approval of the rezoning of the subject site from R -1 eto R -5. The applicant is proposing 17 lots, based on the approval of the rezone. The net density would be 4.9 dulacre afler the deduction of public rights-of-way as well as private access easements serving three or more lots. NE 3 sd Court will be extended and a new road extending south from NE 3rd Court terminating in a cul-de-sac of vvhich a private access easement would serve Lots II, 12, and 13. Tract A would support the storm drainage Tacilities. This is a three-parcel site and Tract999 from Amberwood Pt.ase I that provides a portion of proposed Lot 1 of Amberwood Phase II. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated for the project, vvhich included six mitigation measures. No appeals of the determination were filed. Amberwood II Preliminary Pldl File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R Januaryl8,2005 Page 3 .J A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement is suggested for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts wi..-hin the plat. Traffic, Park and Fire Mitigations fees are proposed. The proposed development complies with the Residential Low Density policies for both land use and hOlIsing elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum permitted density in the R-5 zone is 5.0 du/acre. Minimum density requirements do not apply. After deductions the proposed site arrives at a net density of' 4.9 du/acre. The proposed plat complies with density requirements for R-5 zoning. All lots appear to comply with the standards for dimension, sizes, setbacks and building standards and would be verified at the time of individual building pennit review. There are several single-family residences and outbuildings on the existing site, staff recommends that the applicant obtain demolition penn its and remove all buildings located on the property prior to recording ofthe fio al plat. Each of the proposed lots satisfies the minimum lot area and <limension requirements of the R-5 zone. Lots 1,6 and 17 would be located at the intersection of public rights-o:C-way and the proposed radius for each 0f these comer lots meet code. Primary access to the site is proposed via NE 4th Street to Rosario Avenue NE to NE 3rd Court. NE 3rd Court would extend to the east and be stubbed for future extension. A 26-foot wide access easement would provide access to new Lots 10-13. Lots 1-9 and 14 -17 would gain access directly to public streets. Surrounding properties are developed under the R-5 zone, they are single-family residential on lots that are of similar size. This plat fronts NE 4th Street which is designated as a major arterial. To insure that these lots are adequately buffered from the street, staff recommends that the: applicant submit a landscape plan providing a minimum of 5-feet of irrigated landscaping maintained by the HOA and a fence design for review and appr-oval. The Examiner inquired as to why the entire site was being cleared, why some of the natural vegetation and some of the larger trees are not being retained. Larger lots should al low saving some of the larger trees. Ms. Fiala stated that she would check the tree clearing and Ian c;lscaping plan to see ifthere are some trees ttLat could be saved. It appeared that most of the trees are located 'VIhere the building pads would sit. The site is located within the boundaries of the Issaquah School District. The storm drainage system would be located in Tract A which has been designed to meet the Level 2 standards and water quality of the ]990 King County surface Water Design Manual. The project drains to Orting Hills Creek. Tract A should be fenced along the entire perimeter and landscaping is to be provided along the Tract's frontage with the cul-de-sac. The development is within the water service area of Water Dis"1:rict 90. The applicant submitted a Certificate: of Water Availability. The District can provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm of available fire flow per fire hydran~_ New water service stubs to each Jot must be installed. The site is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special assessment District and Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges. If the Hearing Examiner approves the rezone classification, staff recommends approval of this plat with conditions. Amberwood II Preliminary ~ .~t File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18,2005 Page 4 Steve Beck, 4735 NE 4th Street, Renton stated the property was originally in King County and zoned R-6 with a conditional use family run business since 1977. The con<litionaluse came up, the family business applied for another conditional use, the City of Renton appealed it, tile Bales family agreed to file for annexation and come in under single-family zoning. When filing for annexation, they were caught up in the State Court rul ing which tied them for almost a year and a half. They were held to come into the City of Renton under the R-I zone. As many trees as possible will be retained on the proposed site. Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101, Bellevue, WA 98007 stated they ccmcur with the staff report. Regarding Condition 4 with the irrigated landscaping would drought tolerant planting be included in place of irrigated landscaping? The Examiner stated that they might be limited by code_ Susan Fiala stated that current code stateg that it must be irrigated landscaping. The new code effective November 10 does allow for drought resistant, stafT would be willing to look at drought resistant as well. David Cayton, Engineer Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101, Bellevue, WA 98007 sta.ted that he would be happy to answer any questions regarding storm drainage or utilities. Plans at this time do ~ot show saving trees, but it is quite possible during building construction to maintain as many as possible. The largest trees on the site are on NE 4th Street in the rear yards or Lots 4 and 5. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that the only outstanding question is about the discuss ion going on with transportation about a swap of vacating a portion ofNE 4th in exchange for dedicating a portion ofNE 4t\ a per square footage sh.light up swap, there are working on it now. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing t<> speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Steve Beck, filed a request for a zoning reclassification of 4.24 acres of property from R- 1 (Single Family Residential-1 dwelling unit per acre) to R-5 (Single Family Residential - 5 dwelling units per acre) together with a request for a 17 -lot Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered int<> the record as Exhibit # 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERe), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located 6135 NE 4th Street. The subject site is located south ofNE4th and east of Rosario A venue NE. Amberwood II Preliminary PIal File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January J 8, 2005 Page 5 6. The map element ofthe Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of low density residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies ofthe Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-J (Single Family -1 dwelling unit/acre). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5064 enacted in March 2004. 9. -rhe subject site is approximately 4.2 acres or 184,740 square Feet. The subject site is generally rectangular with a slight jog to the west at the northwest corner ofthe parcel. The parcel is approximately 295 feet wide (east to west) along NE 4th Street. It is approximately 611 feet deep. 10. The subject site has a slight slope downward to the south. The site drops about 15 feet over the 600 I inear feet presenting a grade of approximately 3 percent. 11. The applicant has proposed removing all trees and other vegeta"tion from the subject site. There are I arger trees located on the site in the northwest corner and the southwest comer. 12. As noted above, the applicant has requested that the subject site be reclassified from R-J to R-5 to accommodate a 17-lot single-family plat. 13. A ccess to the subject site would be south from NE 4th to a T-intersection with a new easterly extension o£NE 3rd Court. Then a cul-de-sac would be created that runs south to access the majority of the site. N-E 3rd·Court would ,have a stub ending at the eastern edge of the plat to allow its evenhial ccutinuation' fLI rther to the east. 14. A tier of lots would lie between NE 4th Street, a major arterial, aIld NE 3rd Court. Access would be taken to the south, NE 3rd Court, and no access would be permitted to NE 4th. There would then be a tier of lots on each side of the cul-de-sac roadway. Access for Lots 11, 12, and 13 would be via a private utility easement located in the southeast comer of the site_ The proposed lots would range in size from 7,276 square feet to 9,254 square feet. 15. Th e subject site is located in the Issaquah School District. The Ci ty has adopted the Issaquah District's impact fee for new homes built within the district's boundaries. Tllat fee is $2,937.00 per home. 16. The density for the plat would be 4.9 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roadways. 17. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per u-nit or approximately 170 trips for the 17 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 17 additional peak hOlI'r trips will be generated in the morning and evening. 18. Stormwater will be contained in a Tract A, which is located in the southwest comer of the subject site. This will continue to drain to an offsite wetland. The plat will mee1:Level 2 standards for stormwater con"trol. Staff has recommended that the tract be screened with fencing around its entire perimeter and landscaping adjacent to the roadway. 19. The subject site is served by City of Renton sewer utilities and a main runs along NE 4th and along the wes"t: side of the plat and can be extended to serve the site. 20. The subject site is located in Water District 90. The applicant has obtained a certificate of availability. Amberwood II Preliminary hu< File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 6 21. The subject site is basically at the eastern limits afthe City. Property to the north and east is generally low-density single-family uses in both the: City and County. The City zoning near the subject site is either R-J like the subject site or is R-4, recently reclassified after the City eliminated the R-5 district and created the R-4 district. The R-4 district requires a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet whereas the R-5 zone required a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Staff noted that there are otller differences in things like easement, landscaping and setbacks. 22. As noted above, the subject site is not quite rectangular. The subject site extends slightly to the west and north creatingjogs in those property lines. Rosario Avenue NE will be located along the western edge of the site. The applicant and the City are discussing a swap of property along NE 4th to create a smooth boundary. The City would vacate approximately as much property along NE 4th S -treet as the applicant would dedicate. Staff has recoIl1mended that the applicant landscape and fence the northern property line and that a homeowners association maintain this property. 23. Staff has recommended that the applican t plant two trees in the front yard of each lot. 24. The City Council has adopted legislation that has eliminated the R-5 Zoning District. In its place the Council has created the R-4 Zoning Dist:rict. In this action the zoning of R-5 parcels was changed to R- 4. As noted, there are lot size differences and any parcel that does not meet the current, larger or changed standards would be considered a legally, non-conforming use. The change occurred on November J 0,2004. The applicant submitted the application to change the zoning from R.-J to R-5 prior to that date and, therefore, staff considered the request under the prior standards. Staff indicated . ·.-0' 'that the application vested the appiication t6 the'R-5 zoning:'· RECOMMENDATIONS: -Rezone I. A property may, at the discretion of the: City Council, be reclassified from one zoning district to another if it generally meets the criteria found i Il Section 4-9-180F(2). Those criteria include: a. The rezone is in the public interest, and b. The rezone tends to further ~he preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the publ ic welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and d. The rezone meets the revievv criteria in subsections FI band Flc ofthis Sectio.u (Amd. Ord. 4794,9-20-1999) It also must meet the criteria of 4-9-180F( I): b. The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the polices set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and c. At least one of the followiBg circumstances applies: i. The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subj ect property, authorized public im provements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Amberwood II Preliminary PI", File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 1 8, 2 <)05 Page 7 For re-asons cited below, the City Council should not approve the proposed reclassification of the subject site from R-I to R-5. 2. The City Council has substantial discretion when it comes to applying zoning categories to properties. While there are limits to that discretion such as not approving spot zones, their discretion allows them to achieve uniform standards that are in compliance with the comprehensive plan. There are a few fundalT.1ental concepts in law use law. One of them is that the law £rowns on non-conforming !.Ises. It encourages their early and reasonable termination. (Citations omitted). Therefore, the firsf question is why iIrJ mediately create non-conforming lots? Why zone property R-5, a classification that no longer exists, fJlat it at that density and then immediately change the zoning to R-4 and make the plat's basis non-coIlforming. Staff has suggested in its reasoning and analysis of this rezone request that it is governed by vesting. In dealing with this rezone request, vesting usually follows zoning and permits an applicaTit who has already submitted an application to develop or use property in a manner allowed by that current zoning or the zoning regulations in place when the application was submitted. That is an applicant may develop the property with the zoning and under regulations that existed when they submitted their application. This office is not aware of any particular case where this doctrine requires that zon jng that has been eliminated still be applied to a site because an application for a zoning change was submitted prior to the change. The vesting doctrine generally is not applied outside of land use regulations that change under zoning and not to the initial zoning itself. 3. Zoning is only justified ifthe request is appropriate. The City Council as noted has almost complete d iscretic> n in the area of zoning as long as it does not attempt to spot zone a parcel.. Zoning ,~," .. -' .".~,-·~-·.classificatioris·aregOverned by the City Councirandtheir ability·to practiceit appropriate1y. The Council 11 as the rightto decide ifzoning is appropriate given the parcel, its circumstances, its surround ings and the comprehensive plan's policies and goals. Seeing that the City Council in its judgmen-t has determined to eliminate the R-5 zoning District and in i"1:s stead create an R-4 zoning District, it is probably inappropriate to agree that this site, at this time~ should be reclassified to R-S. The comprehensive plan calls for rural residential or low residential densities on this site. The current R-I zoning fulfills that objective. While R-5, at one time was considered appropriate, cJeady the City Council in eliminating the R-5 zone determined that it was not compa-tible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Council determined that R-4 with its larger lots and uncons1:rained front yard setbacks unhampered by easements was more appropriate for th.e area at the eastern edge of the City. It would appear that the R-5 zoning that the applicant has requested seeks additional densities that the City Council h as determined are inappropriate for sites that the comprehensive plan designates for rural residential uses. This site has sheet flows that feed a wetland and then a creek. Larger lots preserve the more nattJral storm water conditions found on lots in this area. There is less pavement in the form of roads when there are fewer lots and less proportional home footprints on larger lots. The subject site should no. be developed at the R-S density in light of those characterirtics. 4. It is not in the public interest to change the zoning on a property that has a current and valid zoning category, in this case, R-I and change it to a category that no longer exists, in this case, R-S. It is not in the public interest to create a series of lots that immediately become non-conforming. S. This office would like to take the tact that the City Counci! should consider R-4 zoning for the subject site at this juncture. R-4 zoning would probably be appropriate but since the legal notice was for R-S zoning, it rTlayor may not be an appropriate stance. It might be something that staff and the City Attorney can consider and reflect upon given a bit oftime that allows for further analysis. Amberwood II Preliminary I-Iat File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R.. • January 18, 2005 Page 8 6. For the reasons noted above, a rezone ofthe subject site from R-I to R-5 is inappropria-te. A rezone of the site to R-4 would be appropriate. First, it would avoid creating immediately non-conforming lots. It \;Yould match the R-4 zoni.,g that now attaches to nearby property and would be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies of protecting sensitive lands. It would allow just a bit less intensive reuse of the subj -ect site, lessening storm water impacts, enlarging lots and I ira iting the impediment of access easements decreasing front or side yard usability. 7. Clearly, allowing more in"tense use of the site than now permitted in the R-I zone furt~ers the property rights of the property ow ... er. Although, the R-I zone does permit the use of the subject site and is fully compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's low density housing objectives. 8. A rezone of the subject si"1:e to R-4 would not be materially detrimental to either the pu blic welfare or other properties in the area. Again, though, keeping the site R-l would also not prove materially detrimental to the public Vie I fare or other properties. 9. The Comprehensive Pia ... would allow either R-I, the current zoning, or R-4, a more intense but still permitted residential zon jng for the subject site. The area is in the eastern or moreruraJ portion of the City and could be served by either the R-l or the R-4 zoning. 10. When the subject site was recently annexed some of the intrastructure improvements "VIere not available such as the new roads west of the subject site. R-4 zoning would increase the density potenti'llofthe subject site and take advantage of the new infrastructure . •. -. 5-·····,:····+f~·;·-· . Therefore; it if wereto De de{ermined-thaUhelega:1 issues can be appropriately satisfi-:ed by the published legal notice, it: might be appropriate for the City Council to approve the rec lassification of the subjectsite from R-I to R-4. A reclassification to R-5 is not justified at this time and should not be approved. Preliminary Plat 12. The proposed Preliminary Plat would not be appropriate given the above recommendation that the subject site be rezoned .0 R-4 since approximately half of the proposed lots would not meet the 8,000 square foot lot standards of the R-4 zone. A change in the plat's proposed number of lots is quite different from the zoning change proposed in this recommendation. A plat's layout, lots and roadways may be changed as an inherent part of plat review and is incorporated into any legal Tlotice that involves a public hearing for a plat. So a division of the subject site into a similar fashion as .hat now proposed but that would meet the density requirements and lot area standards of the R-4 zone 'Would be appropriate under the existing legal notice. If such a plat mirrors the current plan aBd has rectangular lots, lot lines at genera] Jy right angles to streets, appropriate access and storm water containment, it would be appropriate. 13. A plat that meets the density and lot standards of the R-4 zone would serve thepubl ic use and interest. It would provide additional housing opportunities to the community. It would be i ... an area where urban services can be provided. It would avoid urban sprawl. It would increase the tax base oftl-ae City. 14. The plat would still have to provide an appropriate dedication so that NE 4th Street could be developed with a consistent and safe, non-jogging alignment. 15. Similarly, the plat we> uld have to make appropriate provisions for landscaping and screening the rear of new lots that would line NE 4th Street to protect the single family amenities of those residents. Amberwood II Preliminary PIal File No.: LUA-04-1 17, PP, £CF, R January 18, 2005 Page 9 16. A Iso, the Comprehensive Plan calls for low-density, larger lots. Part of that objective was to preserve some of the rural, open or wooded character ofthis more remote corner of the City. There are trees that already add to the character of this community and ifprotected, could preserve some of that character. Not every tree on lots in the R-4 zone should be removed so that the entire site is altered to urban standards. Therefore, working with staff, the applicant should p~serve some of the larger trees that do not immediately lie in the way of building pads or road rights-of-~ay. 17. Stormwater contaimnent is still important since the subject site feeds a wetland and ultimately a creek system. Those natural features downstream of the subject site need to retain their natural flow of water. The pond created tho ugh must be screened and fenced to provide for both public safety and to preserve the property values of homes adjacent to it. Fencing and screening as recommended by staff is appropriate. 18. The subject site lies ""ithin the Issaquah School District and shall pay the appropriate fees ~s building permits are submitted _ 19. In conclusion, a plat of the subject site that meets the R-4 zone's criteria would be appropriate and could be approved by the Ci1:y Council if the Council decides it can rezone the subject site to R-4. RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Council sholJ Id deny the request to reclassify the subject site from R-l to R-5 but should .=.-....• ~ .. -"~'-." .. consider-reclassifytog"tlte subject site from R-1 toR4'tf pernirssibl eOhdef·ttre'TegaJ' notices' already'''''"=' published for this appJ ication. The City Council shou Id approve a Preliminary Plat that meets the zoning standards for the R-4 zone subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The applicant shall dedicate sufficient property to allow a consistent alignment along 4th Street adjacent to the piaL 3. In consultation wid .. staff and a certified arborist, the applicant should preserve some ofthe larger trees that do not imnlediately lie in the way of building pads or road rights-of-way. 4. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the DevelopI11ent Services Project Manager. 5. A sign shall be installed at the stub road, NE 3rd Ct., that informs residents of the plat that the road would be extended to the east in the future and carry through-traffic. The sign shall be installed prior to recording ot the final plat. 6. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements, including fences, landscaping, utilities, private easements, etc. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of RentoTl Development Services Division Amben .• vood II Prelinlinary bat File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R ,January I 8, 2005 Page 10 for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final pIaL 7. The applicant shall install a modulated, decorative fence, with irrigated landscaping along the entire plat's frontage with NE 4th Street. All fencing shall be located and designed to not interfere with sight distances required at the intersections of public streets. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design to the City's Development Services Divisi<>11 for review and approval prior to installation. The fence and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall install a fence <>f a quality material (no chain-l ink, if possible) with a landscaped visual barrier that includes plant Inaterials which would provide a year-round dense screen within three (3) years from the time of planting along the entire perimeter of Tract A (storm drainage facility). The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design to the City's Development Services Division for review and approval prior to installation. A.II fences and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the :final plat. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Issaquah School District Nitigation Fee of $2,937.00 per new single-family lot. The fee sh all be paid prior to building perTTlit approval. ORDERED THIS 18th day of January 2005. FRED J. KA HEARINGE TRA...NSMITTED THIS] 8th day of January 2.005 to the parties of record: Susa.n Fiala \05S S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Micllael Chen Core Design, Inc. 147 11 NE 29th Place, Ste. 10 I Bellevue, W A 98007 Steve Beck 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, W A 98056 David Cayton Core Design, Inc. 14711 N~ 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue,. W A 98007 TRANSMITTED THIS] 8th day of January 2005 to the following: Ma.yor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Stan Engler, Fire Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Jul ia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Gregg Zimmennan, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Amberwood I] Preliminary hell File No.: LUA..-04-1 J 7, PP, ECF, R January J 8, 2005 Page II Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe Ci"ty'sCode, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 1,2005. A T1y aggrieved person feeling that the decision oft~e Examiner is alTlbiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of neW evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (1 4) days from the date of the Examiner's decision_ This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors c::Iiscovered by such appellant, and the Examiner rIlay, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requiremen"1:s. Copies of this <>rdinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 1, 2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants~ the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Councilor final processing of the file. You may contact th.s office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex.. parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that lJarties to a land use decision may not cOll'nltlnicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal_ Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing ExaIlliner and members of the City Council. All communicati ons concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits '··>--illtereSte<fparties. loknow-tlie'conteJits Mthe communication ancrwoiJld·a:Jlowtliem tb'""operily-tebuttne· evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. all The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing butto all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. .. .\ r 4" ) rt':;uJ,Li i<U~ SE i2Bth S~ I' ./ ~ L~-qrl,-rN~1iN:-& ' , I J IL-l -~~) r---- E==--i--L~=-: f It ~----1 L___ I ~ II f====cl ~----j:: t-.--! V .~ -----; ~--. -----.." --R~t.f - SE 13Bth Pl. SE 140th Pl. E 145th Pl. ZONING PIBIPW TECIINICAL SI!JlVICES lUOfIO) 1 SE 132nd SL s SE 136th SL SE 138t.h SE 139t.h 142nd St. SE 143rd SE F7 14 T23N R5E W 1/~14 ·, ~ --------_. ""( ~"S ~v Hl~1 I ~I I Iii l-!!! .... I-~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ a 12:. 1°" ,.1 . JII II I i i I®- February 4, 2005 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 4th day of" February, 2005, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Steve Beck of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Pla"t:. (File No. LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 4th day of February, 2005. Deborah I. Evans Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Bothell. _______ _ ~. , ". Steve Beck 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, W A 98056 Amy L. Kosteriitz Buck & Gordon, LLP 2025 First Ave, Suite 500 Seattle, W A 98121 Dav:id Cayton Core Design, Inc. 1471..1 NE29th Place,Ste.101 Bell evue, W A 98007 Mic hael Chen Core Design, Inc. 147 11 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bel1evue, W A 98007 City of Ren-ton Municipal _Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -APP. 4-8-110C4 The notice <:>f appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Drd. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-11OF: Appeals to City Council -Proc'edures 1. Time rClr Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review· thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decisIon or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by th,e City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date or the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record <)f the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of -the dates of mailing of the notification ofthe filing of the n<>tice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members ofthe City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recoIr1mendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appea.l, and additional letters submitte,d by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of aa order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to tIle Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testirn.ony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the C:ity Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Kearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. CouDcil Evaluation Criteria: The coasideration by the City Council shall be based solely upoa the record, the Hearing Examin'er's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. FindIngs and Conclusions Required: ~f, upon appeal ofa decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F 1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a. substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to ExaIrriner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. COUI1cil Action: If, upon appeal from a. recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an applIcation submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recoIIlmendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. DeCIsion Documentation: In any even.t, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. COlIncii Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of tbe Examiner shall be final and c40nclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of ~his Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) 02/01/05 09: 28 FAX 206 e26 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP IaI 002 '. . APPEAL ~ HEARING EXAlMINER. .;' . " • 4 • 3~1::I::IO S.)U:!31Q A1JQ 'WRlT'I'IDN APPEAL OF H:EARlNG BXAMIND'S DECJSJO~/RECOMMENDATION TO RE~ . COUNCIL. L FILE NO. 1.1A 04-117, p~ ttF B SOOl ~ 0 83:fJ~:::\4(f'" APPUCATION NAME: tAa:DDWQgp 'fUASE II Iq01N~t1·.=::K) AJJQ \t The undersigned interested party hereby files ita Notice of Appeal frnJn the dcciaiQD or recmnmenda:tion of . the Land Use Healing E:zaminer, dated . Jan.uarY,18 20 05 1. IPENTlIi7CATION OF PARlY APPEU.ANT: ~ATIVB (IEI' ANY) Name: Steve Beck Name' Amy ·L. Kosterlitz, Buck &: Gordon LLP . Adc.'lreBs: 4735 HE 4th. Street AddreaB: 2025 First Aveuue, Suite 500 • i !!ntou VA 98059 Seattle VA 98121 Telephone No. (425) 444-0461 Te1epbJcne No . .1l06) 382 .. 9~40 2. SPECIFICATIONOF ERRORS (Attach CJddjtinnal ~ ifI16DeSsary) Set forth below ~ t:bo specific eao:rs or law ~ fact upo:a which this appeal is: based.~ FINI>INQ OF FACT: (Please deslggate JJumbez' as dmmtetd:ln the Examiners' report) No._ Error: SEE UtA CHlm ~~03a.~: ______________________________ ~ ____________ __ CONCLUSIONS: No,_ Ettor: SEE ATTACHED I"'-....u_. vuu~.~.~ ______________________________________________ _ OTHER No. ___ ~_: ________________ --== ____ ~ ________________________ __ Cone~o~. ___________________________________ ~ __ eooo-____________________ _ 3, SUMMARY OF AC'l"CON REQWBTBiD= The City CounciL is requested to grant the following :relief: (Attach explana.~. if desb'ed) X Reverse 1:I.xc decimon OJ' recommendation and grant the foll.owin.g relief: See Attaebed Modify the d.eai.sicm or ~mC1ldation as fo1Lowa: . __ 0 ~ to the ETa,.".mElr" for fartber ~~'tion as follows: :~t::l.44 -&IN¥'" loW". 1 . 200' ellant/Repreaenta:f%Ve Signature Date NorIS: Pl~Ii' ref..-to Tt 'ell! tV, ChaptGll' B. of thlil a.n_ Hunfaftal Caodo atd 9gatf-~ S,,-f .... off' .' proGlHIUres. • ' -. -. ur, DI"~.~1 Q ~~ C c: ,u~ l JJ 4 tfs h._al.~cJfol"lJQ C,f-y IIf1c.,NY J~lrr~ bkqU{,~ RECEIVED Z005-FEB-Ot 09:Z3AM FROM-Z06 626 0675 TO-John L Scott Renton PAGE OOZ 02/01/05 09:29 FAX:206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP APPEAL -HEARING E.XAMINER. ~ APPEAL OF HEA.1IDlG EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO RENT~N CITY COUNm FILE N<J. LUA 04-117, PP, ECF, R 2. SPEC1FICATION OF ERRORS Set forth below are the specific errors of law and fact upon which this appeal is based: Ng. 6 " ~: Finding 6 fails to state that at the time the applic~ submitted this plat application allowable low density included R,-5 zoning. COITeQ1:ion: Find that the map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable f~:r the development oflow-density residential uses, inclucling uses compatible with. R-5 zoning. No. 11. ~ Finding 11 fails to state that the applican.t agrees to abide by the SEP A mitigation measures. " Correct:ion: Find thirt the applicant agre~ to abide by all SEP A mitigation measures. No. Zl Error: Finding 21 fails to state that the properti.es 5\1lIOunding the subject parcel have been developed at R-5 densities. Correction: Find that parcels SUIrOundjng the subject site have been. developed at R-S densities. No. 23 Error: Finding 23 fails to state that the applicant agrees to plant two trees m the front yard c:Jf each lot. CoIIeCtlon: Find that the applicant a.grees to plant two trees in the front yard of each lot. - ~~ " Error; Finding 24 fails to ~e. that R-5 was an appropriate density for the subject site at the time the applicant submitted this plat application. Correction: Find that R-S was an appropriate density for the subject site at the time the applicant submitted this plat application. " RECEIVED 200S"-FEB-Ol 09:23AM FROM-206 626 06T5 TO-John L Scott Renton PAGE 003 IaI003 / / 02/01105 09: 29 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP 10004 CONCLUSION (Note: Decision. calls these Recommendations): H2. 1 . ~ Conclusion 1 inappropriately construes the rezone criteria. Correction: Conclude that the City Council should approve the proposed. . reclassification oftbe subject site :from R-l to R-5 because the applicant has satisfied the rezone criteria found in Sec~on 4-9-1S0F. No.2 :8nm: Conclusion 2 erroneousl.y interprets and applies the law governing vesting mel nonconforming uses. CorreCtion: Conclude that the ~licant has a vested right to request a rezone of the subject site to R-5. Conclude tbat a rezone of the subject site to R-5 is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and rezone criteria and the R-S development already established in the area. No.3 ~: Conclusion 3 inappropriately applies the criteria for a rezone to conclude that R-4 is a more appropriate density than R-5. Conclusion 3 also IIrisinterprets the Comprehensive Plan. Correction: Conclude that a rezone of the subject site to R-5 is appropriate given the R-5 development aheadyestablished in the area. Conclude that R-5 is a, low residential density md is consistent with. the Comprehensive Plan and rezone criteria. Hg. 4 Error: Conclusion 4 misinteIptets the public interest and erroneously applies the law governing nonconforming uses. Couection: COIWlude that it is in the public ~erest to rezone the subject si~ to R-5 to allow for development coasistent with the Comprehensive Plan and ~ne criteria.. and the development already established in the area. No.5 Enor: It is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner to propose a I"eUlne to R-4. R-4 zoning w-as not available at the time the applicant submiUed the plat application and was not requested by the applicant or the City. Cm:rection: Recounnend a rezone of the subject site to R-S. H2.6 . Error. It is beyond the scope of jurisdiction olthe Hearing Examjnerto propose a rezone to R-4. R-4 zoning 'Was not available at the time the applicant submitted the plat application and was not requested by the applicant or the City. Conclusion 6 is also legally and factually inaccurate. Correction: Conclude that a rezone of the sc.bject site to R-S is appropriate given th.e R,-; development already established in the area. Conclude that R-5 is a low residen.ti.aI density and is co~istent with the Compreherurlve Plan and rezone criteria. 2 RECEIVED 200S-FEB-0! 09:23AM FROMr-206 626 06T5 TO-John L Scott Renton PAGE OIU 02/01/05 09:29 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP No.7 Error: Conclusion 7 erroneously interprets Comprehensive Plan objectives. COITecti.on: Conclude that R-S is a low residential density and is consistent with Comprehensive Plan objectives and rezone criteria. No.8 bI: It is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner to propose a rezone to R-4. R-4 zomng was not available at the time the applicant submitted the plat application and was not requested by the applicant or the City. Conclusion 7 also misapplies the "materially detrimental" standard. Correction: COnclude that a rezone of the subject site to R-S would not be materially detrimental to either the publi.:c welfure or other properties in the area. NO.9 !mQ!: It is beyond the scope ofjmisdiotion of the Hearing Examiner toP'Opose a rezone to R-4. R-4 zoning was not available at the time the applicant Slibmitted the plat application and was not requ.ested by the applicant or the City. Correction: Conclude that a :rezone of the subject site to R-S is appropriate given the R-S development already established. in the area. Conclude that R-S is a, low residential density and is comsistent with the Comp~ensive Plan and rezone criteria. No. 10 mm: It is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner tD propose a rezone to R-4. R-4 zoning 'VIVas not available at the time the applicant submitted the plat application and was not ~uested by the applicant or the City. cOrrection: Conclude that R-S would increase the density potential of the subject site and take advantage oftha new in:frastru.cture. Nsl·11 Error: It is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner 00 propose a rezone to R4. R-4 zoning "",as not available at the time the applicant submitted the plat application and was no~ requested by the applicant or the City. Correction: Recommend a rezone oftbe subject site to R-S. HR. 12 Error: Conclusion 12 is iIDproper given the legal and factual errors cited above. Coxrection; Conclude that the proposed Preliminary Plat is appropriate given the above recommendation that the subject site be rezoned to R-S. No. 13 ~: Conclusion 12 is improper given the legal and factual errors ci.ted above. Correction: Conclude that the proposed Prelimjnary Plat is appropriate given the above recommendation that the subjeCt site be rezoned to R-S. 3 RECEIVED ZOOS-FEB-O! 09:23AM FR~~Z06 6Z6 06T5 TO-John L Scott Ran ton PAGE DOS IaI 005 __ .02/01105 09: 29 FAX 206 626 0675 BUCK & GORDON LLP No. 14 EtmI: Conclusion 12 is improper given the legal and factual errors cited above.. Correction: Conclude that the proposed Preliminary Plat is appropriate given the above ICCODmlendation that the subject site be rezoned to R-S. No. 15 ~: Comclusion 12 is improper given the legal and fiwtual errors cited above. Correction: Conclude that the proposed Preliminary ~lat is appropriate given the above reco~endatiOJl that the subject site be rezoned to R-5. liQ. 16 Error. COIlClusion 12 is improper given the legal and factual errors cited above. Correctiom.: Conclude that the proposed Preliminary Plat is appropriate given the above recommendation tbat the subject site be rezon..ed to R-S. NQ.19 Error: Conclusion 12 is improper given the legal am.d factual errors cited above. Correctiop: Conclude that the proposed Preliminary Plat is appropriate given the above~<>mmendation that the subject site be rezoned to R-S. 3. SUM;MARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: R..everse the recommendation and grantthe :following relief: Rezone of the subject site to R-S and approval of the propC)sed Prelimium:y Plat. 4 RECEIVED 2005-FEB-Ol 09:23AM FROM-206 626 0675 TO-John L Scott Renton PAGE 006 .-----.. - III 006 Minutes APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATI()~: SUMMAR.. Y OF REQUEST: SUMMAR.. Y OF ACTION: OFFICE OF 'THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Steve Beck Amberwood II LLC 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, W A 98059 Bales Limited Partnership PO Box 3015 Renton, W A 98056 Amberwood LLC 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, W A 98059 FileNo.: LUA 04-1] 7, PP, ECF, R 6135 NE 4th Street January 18,2005 Approval for a 17-lot subdivision of a 4.24-acre site intended for detached single-family homes and a Rezone to R-5. ~! . Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on November 30, 2004. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as fol1ows: MINUTES Thefollowing minutes are fZ summary of the December 14,2004 hearing. The fegar record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Ren -ton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The follovving exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Preliminary Plat with Rezone applicatioI1, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation Rertinent to this request. I Amberwood II Preliminary Pial FileNo.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 2 Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit No.5: Neighborhood Map Exhibit No.7: Zoning Map with markings Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Lands.caping Plan Exhibit No.6: Zoning Map Exhibit No.8: Road profile showJlng4111 St:-eet and Rosario The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is curren~lyzoned Residential-l dwel] ing unit per acre, the applicant is req uesting a rezone to R-5 dwelling units per acre. The site is approximately 4_ 2 acres and it is located in the east portion of the City of Renton, offNE 4 ~h Street which borders the northern property line of the three parcels and one tract site. The eastern boundary is also two parcels which are vvithin the City of Renton. To the west is Rosario Avenue NE which extends and terminates at NE 3rd Court wh ich serves Amberwood Division I. This project is vested under the old zoning of R-S was in effect prior to November 10, 2004 and that is what the applicant is requesting to rezone. The properties that were R-S have been rezoned to R-4. Su:rrounding the site, the properties are zoned R-S and were developed under that zoning designation. The project was submitted based on approval of the R-S zoning and with that there is no plat available showing the current R-l. A basic estimate showed that there coul d be 3 - 4 lots on the 4 acre site and it would be affected by the access to those lots which would normally be deducted for density as well as "",hat would be provided for the storm drainage tract. Staff did not look at the differences between R-4 and R-S zoning. The categories are very sim ilar, the R-4 does require a larger lot size of 8,000 square feet compared to the R-5 which requires 7,200 square :feet. When the new zoning went in~o effect on November 10, there are different methods of calculating lot size as you deduct the area required for easements and any setbacks are mea.sured from private access easements. Thl~ R-4 zoning requires additional I andscaping along the arterials and nO"Il-arterial roads and requires landscaping of two trees per lot. This site is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) and both the R-I and R-5 are permitteci within this designation. There has been no public comment with regard to the proposed rezone. The majority of the lots in the vicinity of the su bject site are equal to or smaller than the lots included with this proposed subdivision. The proposed development is subject to code requirements an<i SEPA imposed mitigation measures that would attempt to diminish any potential adverse impacts if the rezone is granted. The majority of the Jots in the vicinity of this site are equal to or smaller than the lots proposed for this subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning ofthe subject site from R-I to R-S. The applicant is proposing 17 lots, based on the approval <If the rezone. The net density would be 4.9 dulacre after the deduction o:f public rights-of-way as well as private access easements serving three or more lots. NE 3rd Court will be extended and a new road extending south from NE 3rd Court terminating in a cul-de-sac of which a private access easement would serve Lots 11, 12, and 13. Tract A would support the storm drainage facilities. This is a three-parcel site and Tract999 from A:mberwood Phase I that provides a portion of proposed Lot 1 of Amberwood Phase II. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated for the project, which included six Jll. itigation measures. No appeals ofthe determination were filed. Amberwood II Preliminary 1-. __ _ File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 20()5 Page 3 A homeowner~ s association or maintenance agreement is suggested for the development, which \Vould be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat. Traffic, Park aJld Fire Mitigations fees are proposed. The proposed <Jevelopment compl ies with the Res i dential Low Density policies for both land use and housing elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum permitted density in the R-5 zone is 5.0 du/acre. Minimum density requirements do not apply. After deductions the proposed site arrives at a net density of 4.9 du/acre. The proposed plat complies with density requirements for R-5 zoning. All lots appear to comply with the standards for dimension, sizes, setbacks and building standards and would be verified at the time of individual building permit review. There are several single-family residences and outbuildings on the existing site, staffrecommends that the applicant obtain demolition permits aIld remove all buildings 10ca1:ed on the property prior to recordin-g of the final plat. Each of the proposed lots satisfies the minimum lot area and dimension requirements of the R-5 zone. Lots 1,6 and 17 would be located at the intersection ofpul> lic rights-of-way and the proposed radius for each ('fthese corner lots meet code. Primary access to the site is proposed via NE 4th Street to Rosario Avenue NE to NE 3rd Court. NE 3rd Court would extend to the east and be stubbed for future extension. A 26-foot wide access easement w<)uld provide access to neW' Lots 10-13. Lots 1-9 and 14 -17 vvould gain access directly to public streets. Surrounding -properties are developed under the R.-S zone, they are single-family residential on lots that are of similar size. .his plat fronts NE 4th Street which is designated as a major arterial. To insure that these lots are adequately bLlffered from the street, staff recoml11l ends that the applicant submit a landscape plan providing a minimum of 5-feet of irrigated landscaping maint::ained by the HOA and a fence design for reviev.r and approval. The Examiner inquired as to why the entire site vvas being cleared, why some of the natural vege1:ation and some of the larger t:rees are not being retained. Larger lots should allow saving some of the larger trees. Ms. Fiala sta"t:ed that she would check the tree clearing and landscaping plan to see if there are some trees that could be saved. It appeared that most of the trees are located where the building pads would sit. The site is I~cated within the boundaries of the Issaquah School District. The storm drainage system would be located in Tract A which has been designed to meet the Le"Vel 2 standards and water qlIality of the 1990 King County surface Water Design Manual. The project drains t<> Orting Hills Creek. Trac<t A should be fenced along the entire perimeter and landscaping is to be provided along the Tract's frontage wit" the cul-de-sac. The develoJ>ment is within the water service area of Water District 90. The applicant submitted a Certificate of Water Avail ability. The District can provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm of available fire flow per fire hydrant. New water service stubs to each lot must be installed. The site is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special assessment District and Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges. If the Hearing Examiner approves the rezone classification, stafl' recommends approval of this plat with conditions. Amberwood II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-1 17, PP, ECF, R January 18,2005 Page 4 Steve Beck, 473 5 NE 4th Street, Renton stated the property was originally in King County and zoned R-6 with a conditional use Family run business since 1977. The conditional use came up, the family business applied for another conditiOIlal use, the City of Renton appealed it, the Bales family agreed to file for annexation an·d come in under single-F41mily zoning. When filing for annexation, they were caught up in the State Court ruling which tied them for aIrrlOst a year and a half. They were held to come into the City of Renton under the R-l zo-ne. As many trees as possible will be retained on the proposed site. Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101, Bellevue, WA 98007 stated they concur with the staff report. Regarding Condition 4 with the irrigated landscaping would drought tolerant planting be included in place of irrigated landscaping? The Examiner stated that they might be limited by code. Susan Fiala stated that current code states that iet must be irrigated landscaping. The new code effective N<>vember 10 does allow for drought resistant, staff would be willing to look at drought resistant as well. David Cayton, Engineer Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101, Bellevue, WA 98007 stated that he would be happy t<> answer any questions regarding st<>rm drainage or utilities. Plans at this time do not show saving trees, but it is quite possible during building construction to maintain as many as possible. The largest trees on the site are on NE 4th Street in the rear yards of Lots 4 and 5. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that the only outstanding question is about the discussion going on with transportation about a swap of vacating a portion ofNE 4th in exchange for dedicating a portion ofNE 4th, a per square footage straight up swap, there are w<>rking on it now. The Examiner ca lIed for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comme:nts from staff. The hearing closed at 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDA. TION Having reviewed 'the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Steve Beck, filed a request for 2 zoning-reclassification of 4.24 acres of property from R- 1 (Single Family Residential-1 dwelling unit per acre) to R-5 (Single Family Residential-5 dwelling units per acre) together with a request for a 17 -lot Prel iminary Plat. 2. The yellovv file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC:>, the City's responsible official issued a Determinati <>n of Non-Signi :ficance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located 6135 NE 4th Street. The subject site is located south ofNE 4th and east of Rosario A venue NE. Amberwood II Preliminary f'. __ File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 5 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development oflow density residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-] (Single Family - I dwelling unit/acre). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5064 enacted in Marcll 2004. 9. The subject site is approximately 4.2 acres or 184,740 square feet. The subject site is generally rectangular with a slight jog to the west at the northwest corner of the parcel. The parcel is approximately 295 feet wide (east to west) along NE 4th Street. It is approximately 611 feet deep. 10. The subject site has a slight slope dDwnward to the south. The site drops about 15 feet over the 600 linear feet presenting a grade ofapPToximately 3 percent. 11. The applicant has proposed removing all trees and other vegetation from the subject site. There are larger trees located on the site in the northwest corner and the southwest corner. 12. As noted above, the applicant has requested that the subject site be reclassified from R-I to R-5 to accommodate a 17-lot single-family plat. 13. Access to the subject site would be south from NE 4th to a T-intersection with a new easterly extension ofNE 3rd Court. Then a cul-de-sac would be created that runs south to access the majority -of the site. NE 3rd Court would have a stub eIlding at the eastern edge of the plat to allow its eventual cClltinuation further to the east. 14. A tier of lots would lie between NE 4th Street, a major arterial, and NE 3rd Court. Access Vlould be taken to the south, NE 3rd Court, and no access would be permitted to NE 4th. There would then be a tier of lots on each side of the cul-de-sac roadway. Access for Lots II, 12, and 13 would b-e via a . private utility easement located in the southeast corner of the site. The proposed lots would range in size from 7,276 square feet to 9,254 square feet. 15. The subject site is located in the Issaquah School District. The City has adopted the Issaquah District's impact fee for new homes built ~ithin·the district's boundaries. That fee is $2,937.00per "borne. 16. The density for the plat would b-e 4.9 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roadways. 17. The development will increase .raffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 170 trips for the 17 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 17 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. 18. Stormwater will be contained i ~ a Tract A, which is located in the southwest corner ofthe subject site. This will continue to drain to an offsite wetland. The plat will meet Level 2 standards fDr storm water control. Staff has recommended that the tract be screened with fencing around its entire perimeter and landscaping adjacent to the roadway. 19. The subject site is served by City of Renton sewer utilities and a main runs along NE 4tll and along the west side of the plat and can be extended to serve the site. 20. The subject site is located in '\.Vater District 90. The applicant has obtained a certificate of availability. Amberwood II Pre J iminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 6 21. The subject site is basically at the eastern limits of the City. Property to the north and east is generally low-density single-family uses in both the City and County. The City zoning near the subject site is either R-) like the subject site or is R-4, recently reclassified after the City eliminated the R-5 district and created the R-4 district. The R-4 district requires a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet whereas the R-5 zone required a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Staff noted that there are other differences in things like easement, landscaping and setbacks. 22. As noted abo"e, the subject site is not quite rectangular. The subject site extends slightly to the west and north creatingjogs in those property lines. Rosario Avenue NE \ViII be located along the western edge of the sit:e. The applicant and the City are discussing a swap of property along NE 4th to create a smooth bound'ary, The City would vacate approximately as much property along NE 4th Street as the applicant wou ld dedicate. Staff has recommended that the applicant la:ndscape and fence the northern property line a-nd that a homeowners association maintain this property_ 23. Staff has recommended that the applicant plant two trees in the front yard of each lot. 24. The City Council has adopted legislation that has eliminated the R-5 Zoning District. In its place the Council has created the R-4 Zoning District. In this action the zoning 0:£ R-S parcels was changed to R- 4. As noted, there are lot size differences and any parcel that does not meet the current, larger or changed standards wou Id be considered a legally, non-conforming use. The change occurred on November 10, 2 004, The applicant submitted the application to change -the zoning from R-I to R-5 prior to that date and, therefore, staff considered the request under the prior standards. Staff indicated . that the application vested the application to the R-5 zoning. RECOMMENDATIONS: Rezone I. A property may, at the discretion ofthe City Council, be reclassified from one zoning district to another if it generally meets the criteria found in Section 4-9-180F(2}. Those criteria include: a. The rez<me is in the public interest, and b. The rez<>ne tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the peti.ioner, and c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or 1:he properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsections FIb and Flc of this Section (Amd.Ord. 4794,9-20-1999) It also must meet th -e criteria of 4-9-180F( I}: b. The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the polices set t<>rth in the Comprehensive Plan; and c. At least OIle ofthe folJowing circumstances applies: i. The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or , ii. Si nce the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning ofthe subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affec-ting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. Amberwood n Preliminary f-._. File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 7 For reasons cited below, the City Council should not approve the proposed reclassification of the subject site from R-I to R-5. 2. The City Council has substantial discretion when it comes to applying zoning categories t<) properties. 3. While there are limits to that discretion such as not approving spot zones, their discretion .allows them to achieve uniform standards that are in compliance with the comprehensive plan. There are a few fundamental concepts in law use law. One of them is that the law frowns on non-conforn-:. ing 'lses. It encourages their early and reasonable termination. (Citations omitted). Therefore, the firsf question is why immediately create non-conforming lots? Why zone property R-5, a classification t~(1t no longer exists, plat it at that density and then immediately change the zoning to R-4 and make the plat's basis non-conforming. Staff has suggested in its reasoning and analysis of this rezone request that it is governed by vesting. In dealing with this rezone request, vesting usually follows zoning and permits an applicant who has already submitted an application todevelop or use property in a manner allowed by that current zoning orthe zoning regulations in place when the application was submitted. That is an applicant may develop the property with the zoning and \.I. nder regulations that existed when they submitted their application. This office is not aware of any particular case where this doctrine requires that zoning that has been eliminated still be applied to a site because an application for a ::zoning change was submitted prior to the change. The vesting doctrine generally is not applied outside of land use regulations that change under zoning and not to the initial zoning itself. Zoning is only justified if the request is appropriate. The City Council as noted has almc>st complete discretion in the area of zoning as long as it does not atteITlpt to spot zone a parcel. Zoning . classifications are governed by the City Council and their ability to practice it appropriately. The Council has the right to decide if zoning is appropriate gi ven the parcel, its circumstances, its surroundings and the COIn prehensive plan's policies and goals. Seeing that the City Council in its judgment has determined to eliminate the R-5 zoning District and in its stead create an R..-4 zoning District, it is probably inappropriate to agree that this site, at this time, should be reclassi -tied to R-5. The comprehensive plan calls for rural residential or low-residential densities on this site. The current R-I zoning fulfills that objective. While R-5, at onetime was considered appropriate, cleady the City Council in eliminating the R-5 zone determined that it w-as not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Council determined that R-4 with its larger lo-t:s and unconstrained front yard setbacks unhampered by easemen~s was more appropriate for the area at the eastern edge of the City. It wou Id appear that the R-5 zonir.g that the applicant has requested seeks additional densities tha"t the City Council has determined are inappropriate for sites that the comprehensive plan designates for rural residential uses. This site has sheet flows that feed a we1:land and then a creek. Larger I <>ts preserve the more natural stormwater conditions found on lots in this area. There is less pavement in the form of roads when there are feV\.7er lots and less proportional h01ll1e footprints on larger lots. The subject site should not be developed at the R-S density in light ofth<)se characteristics. 4. It is not in the public interest to change the zoning on a property that has a current and valid zoning category, in this case, R-l and change it to a category that no longer exists, in this case, R-S. It is not in the public interest to create a series of lots that immedia."tely become non-conforming. S. This office would like to take the tact that the City Council should consider R-4 zoning for the subject site at this juncture. R-4 zoning would probably be apt> ropriate but since the legal notice was for R-S zoning, it mayor may n<)t be an appropriate stance. It might be something that staff and the City Attorney can consider acnd reflect upon given a bit of ti me that allows for further analys is. ,. Amberwood II Preliminary Pial. File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECf, R January 18, 2005 J>age 8 <5. For the reasons noted above, a rezone of the subject site frorn R-l to R-5 is inappropriate. A rezone of the site to R-4 would I:>e appropriate. First, it would avoid creating immediately non-conforming lots. It would match the R-4 z<>ning that now attaches to nearby property and would be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's .£oals and policies of protecting sensi -t:ive lands. It would allow just a bit less intensive reuse of the subject site, lessening stormwater impacts, enlarging lots and limiting the impediment of access easements decreasing front or side yard usability. 7. Clearly, allowing more intense use of the site than now pennitted in the R-1 zone furthers the property rights of the property o--wner. Although, the R-I zone does permit the use of the subject site and is fully compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's low density hous ing objectives. S. A rezone of the subject site to R-4 would not be materially detrimental to either the public welfare or other properties in the area. Again, though, keeping the site R-I would also not prove materially detrimental to the public welfare or other properties. 9. The Comprehensive Plan would allow either R-I, the current zoning, or R-4, a more intense but still permitted residential ZOI1 ing for the subject site. The area is i., the eastern or more rural portion of the City and could be served by either the R-I or the R-4 zoning_ l-«}. When the subject site was recently annexed some of the intrastructure improvements were not available such as the new roads \Vest of the subject site. R-4 zoning would increase the density potenti"'ll ofthe subject site and take advantage of the new infrastructure . . _] "] -:-c-. Therefore, it if were t~ be determined that the legal issues ca~ be appropriately satisfied by the published legal notice, i~ might be appropriate for the City Council to approve the reclassification of the subject site from R-I to R-4. A reclassification to R-5 is not justified at this time and should not be approved. Preliminary Plat 12. The proposed Preliminary Plat would not be appropriate given the above recommendation that the subject site be rezoned to R-4 since approximately half of the proposed lots would not meet the 8,000 square foot lot standards of the R-4 zone. A change in the pin's proposed number of lots is quite different from the zoning change proposed in this recommendation. A plat's layout, lots and roadways may be changed as an inherent part of plat review and is incorporated into any legal notice that involves a public hearing for a plat. So a division ofthe subject site int:·o a similar fashion as that now proposed but that would meet the density requirements and lot area stan <lards of the R-4 zone would be appropriate under the exi sting legal notice. If such a plat mirrors the current plan and has rectangular lots, lot lines at generally right angles to streets, appropriate access and storm water containment, it would be appropriate. 13 _ A plat that meets the density and lot standards of the R-4 zone would serve the public use and interest. It would provide additional housing opportunities to the community. It would be in an are:t where urban services can be provided. It would avoid urban sprawl. It wou Id increase the tax base oft~e City. 14 _ The plat would still have -:to provide an appropriate dedication so that NE 4th Street could be developed with a consistent and safe, non-jogging alignment. 15_ Similarly, the plat would "ave to make appropriate provisions Eor landscaping and screening the rear of new lots that would line NE 4th Street to protect the single farnily amenities of those residents. Amberwood II Preliminary PI~. FileNo.: LUA-04-117, FP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 9 16. Also, the ComI> rehensive Plan calls for low-dens ity, larger lots. Part of that objective was to preserve some of the rural, open or wooded character of tt-. is more remote corner of the City. There are trees that already add to t he character of this community and if protected, could preserve some of that character. Not every tree on lots in the R-4 zone should be removed so that the entire site is altered ~o urban standards. Therefore, working with staff, the applicant should preserve some of the larger trees that do not immediately lie in the way of building pads or road rights-of-way. 17. Storm water containment is still important since tlle subject site feeds a wetland and uitirlllately a creek system. Those natural features downstream of the subject site need to retain their natural flow of water. The pond creat,ed though must be screened and tenced to provide for both public safety a.nd to preserve the property va. lues of homes adjacent to it. Fencing and screening as recommended by staff is appropriate. 18. The subject site lies within the Issaquah School District and shall pay the appropriate fees ':is building permits are submitted. 19. In conclusion, a plat of the subject site that meets the R-4 zone's criteria would be appropriate and could be approved by the City Council if the Council decides it can rezone the subject site to R..-4. RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Council should deny the request to ree lassify the subject site from R-l to R-5 but should consider reclassifying the subject site from R-l '1:0 R-4 if permissible 'under the-legal notices already published for this application. The City Council should approve a Preliminary Plat that meets the zoning standards for the R-4 zone subject to the following conditions: 1. The appl i cant shall comply with the conditi ons imposed by the ERC. 2. The applicant shall dedicate sufficient property to allow a consistent alignment along 4th Street adjacent to the plat. 3. In consul-:t:ation with staff and a certified arborist, the applicant should preserve SOIne of the larger trees that do not immediately lie in the way of building pads or road rights-of-way. 4. The appl icant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Pr<>-.iect Manager. 5. A sign shall be installed at the stub road, 1'lE 3rd Ct., that informs residents of the plat that the road would be extended to the east in the future and carry through-traffic. The sign shall he installed prior to recording of the final plat. 6. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the record in.g of the final plat in order to estal> lish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improve:ments, including fences, landscap ing, utilities, private easements, etc. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division Amberw<>od II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-J J 7, PP, ECF, R January :J 8,2005 Page 10 for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall install a m<:>dulated, decorative fence, with irrigated landscaping along the entire plat's frontage with NE 4th Street. All fencing shall be located and designed to not inkrfere with sight distances required at the intersections of public streets_ The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design to the City's Development Services I>ivision for review and approval prior to installation. The fence and lao dscaping shall be installed pri or to recording of the final plat. 8 _ The applicant shall install a fence of a quality material (no chain-link, if possible) with a landscaped visual barrier that includes plant materials which would provide a year-round dense screen within three (3) years from the time o:f" planting along the entire perimeter of Tract A (storm drainage facility). The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design to the City's Development Services Division for review and approval prior to installation. All fences and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording oftl"le final plat. 9. The applicant shall pay the appTopriate Issaquah School District Mitigation Fee of$2,937.00 per new single-family lot. The fee shall be paid prior to building permit approval. ORDERED THIS 181h day of January 2005_ FREDJ. KA AN HEARING E MINER. TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of January 2005 to the parties of record: Susan Fiala 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, VV A 98007 Steve Beck 4735 NE. 4th Street Renton, VV A 98056 David Ca.yton Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue" W A 98007 TRANSMI"TTED THIS 18th day of January 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Stan Engler, Fire Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Gregg ZimrDerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietscb, Economic Development Jennifer He.·ming, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal AmberwGod II Preliminary PL File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January .. 8, 2005 Page II Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 1 OOGofthe City's Code, reques1: for reconsideration must be ::filed in writing ~n or before 5:00 p.m., February 1,2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision oftlle Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, orthe discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at tl,.e prior hearing may make a wri1:ten request For a review by the Examinerwitbin fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request s hall set forth the specific ambiglI ities or errors discovered by StIch appellant, and the Examiner may, after rev iew of the record, take furtheracif:ion as he deems proper. An appe al to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed ""ith the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor ofCity Hall. A::m appeal must be filed in writiJ_g on or before 5:00 p.m., Fet:.ruary 1,2005. If the E:xaminer's Recommendation or Decision contains the requir~ment for Restrictive Covenants, the execute-d Covenants will be required pTior to approval by City Cou'Ilcil or final processing of the rale. You may co.lfact this office for informatio .... on formatting covenants. The ApIJearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications IT:lay occur concer~ ing pending land use decisions. ihis means that parties toa lar.:d use decision may not cOJl1P.l~nicate in private ""ith any decision-maker concern ing the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process incl ude both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All co~munications concerning the proposal must be made in public. "This public communication perrrIits all interest·ed parties to' know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidatio!I1 of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the init'ial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeal s to the City Council. t :: ~ ,·t ':5 ~~ &i ~i ~1 '," U n "'l ~ n ~ to .. ., Ioi ., '!: ~ II: ~ .. >r I SE 140th PI. 145th PI. ZONING PIBIFW TECI£NJCAL SEJlVlC1!S I1IOfIOl SE ~28th . , ,~ ,~ ,~ .:: !v , ........... _--- SE 132nd St. SE 136th SL SE I 137th PI. 1 142nd St. SE SE 13Bth SE 139th 14 T23N R5E W 1/2 ?f:-----'.-' .. "I~"S "3I\V IIlllSl 'i.1 I '., ".5 I nl p ,., ,L /!ii -. h iI ~ ~ :'1'': ~I "l! '\ i I-~' --hL---f';lr---ff+-t EB i :; ~ ~ Ii :: I ~. ~ ,i z , if z ti z" 11 zZ Ii • II r ii J ~' ~ .. I ~ i 1:1 ! ~ .~ 1:1 8 ~ ':1 .J ~ r-. ~ .. ,~ ,.I 0 DCash D Check No. CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425~430-65l0 o 9>pyFee ~ppealFee )". Receipt N~ 253 Date 2/I,Io-r o Notary Service 0 _________ _ Description: 3"55"1 Apftll l ff)· fie J4.Mbv~()f)) Funds· Received From: Name I Amount $ "'1), a 0 I Address City/Zip ",' Application, Petition or Case No.: Notary Pub I ic ~nd for the State of Washington Residing at .f.1t e.11 , therein. Amberwood II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 04-117, ECF, PP, R The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. / l'-HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT ~ --------------,' .y " Minutes APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Steve Beck Amberwood II LLC 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, W A 98059 Bales Limited Partnership PO Box 3015 Renton, W A 98056 Amberwood LLC 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, W A 98059 File No.: LUA 04-117, PP, ECF, R 6135 NE 4th Street January 18, 2005 Approval for a 17-lot subdivision of a 4.24-acre site intended for detached single-family homes and a Rezone to R-5. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on November 30,2004. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the December 14, 2004 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, December 14,2004, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City HaiL Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Preliminary Plat with Rezone appl ication, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Amberwood II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 2 Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit No.5: Neighborhood Map Exhibit No.7: Zoning Map with markings Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Landscaping Plan Exhibit No.6: Zoning Map Exhibit No.8: Road profile showing 4111 St:eet and Rosario The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is currently zoned Residential-I dwelling unit per acre, the applicant is requesting a rezone to R-5 dwelling units per acre. The site is approximately 4.2 acres and it is located in the east portion of the City of Renton, offNE 4th Street which borders the northern property line of the three parcels and one tract site. The eastern boundary is also two parcels which are within the City of Renton. To the west is Rosario Avenue NE which extends and terminates at NE 3rd Court which serves Amberwood Division 1. This project is vested under the old zoning of R-5 was in effect prior to November 10,2004 and that is what the applicant is requesting to rezone. The properties that were R-5 have been rezoned to R-4. Surrounding the site, the properties are zoned R-5 and were developed under that zon illg designation. The project was submitted based on approval of the R-5 zoning and with that there is no plat available showing the current R-I. A basic estimate showed that there could be 3 - 4 lots on the 4 acre site and it would be affected by the access to those lots which would normally be deducted for density as well as what would be provided for the storm drainage tract. Staff did not look at the differences between R-4 and R-5 zoning. The categories are very similar, the R-4 does require a larger lot size of 8,000 square feet compared to the R-5 which requires 7,200 square feet. When the new zoning went into effect on November 10, there are different methods of calculating lot size as you deduct the area required for easements and any setbacks are measured from private access easements. Thl~ R-4 zoning requires additional landscaping along the arterials and non-arterial roads and requires landscaping of two trees per lot. This site is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) and both the R-I and R-5 are permitted within this designation. There has been no public comment with regard to the proposed rezone. The majority of the lots in the vicinity of the subject site are equal to or smaller than the lots included with this proposed subdivision. The proposed development is subject to code requirements and SEPA imposed mitigation measures that would attempt to diminish any potential adverse impacts if the rezone is granted. The majority of the lots in the vicinity of this site are equal to or smaller than the lots proposed for this subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the subject site from R-l to R-5. The applicant is proposing 17 lots, based on the approval of the rezone. The net density would be 4.9 du/acre after the deduction of public rights-of-way as well as private access easements serving three or more lots. NE 3rd Court will be extended and a new road extending south from NE 3rd Court terminating in a cul-de-sac of which a private access easement would serve Lots 11,12, and 13. Tract A would support the storm drainage facilities. This is a three-parcel site and Tract999 from Amberwood Phase I that provides a portion of proposed Lot 1 of Amberwood Phase II. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated for tile project, which included six mitigation measures. No appeals ofthe determination were filed. Amberwood II Preliminary PIal File No.: LUA-04-1 17, PP, ECF, R January 18, 200S Page 3 A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement is suggested for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and/or tracts within the plat. Traffic, Park and Fire Mitigations fees are proposed. The proposed development complies with the Residential Low Density policies for both land use and housing elements ofthe Comprehensive Plan. The maximum permitted density in the R-5 zone is S.O du/acre. Minimum de'lsity requirements do not apply. After deductions the proposed site arrives at a net density of 4.9 du/acre. The proposed plat complies with density requirements for R-5 zoning. All lots appear to comply with the standards for dimension, sizes, setbacks and building standards and would be verified at the time of individual building permit review. There are several single-family residences and outbuildings on the existing site, staff recommends that the applicant obtain demolition permits and remove all buildings located on the property prior to recording of the final plat. Each of the proposed lots satisfies the minimum lot area and dimension requirements of the R-S zone. Lots 1,6 and 17 would be located at the intersection of public rights-of-way and the proposed radius for each C'f these corner lots meet code. Primary access to the site is proposed via NE 4th Street to Rosario Avenue NE to NE 3'd Court. NE 3rd Court would extend to the east and be stubbed for future extension. A 26-foot wide access easement would provide access to new Lots 10-\3. Lots 1-9 and 14 -17 would gain access directly to public streets. Surrounding properties are developed under the R-S zone, they are single-family residential on lots that are of similar size. This plat fronts NE 41h Street which is designated as a major arterial. To insure that these lots are adequately buffered from the street, staff recommends that the applicant submit a landscape plan providing a minimum of S-feet of irrigated landscaping maintained by the HOA and a fence design for review and approval. The Examiner inquired as to why the entire site was being cleared, why some of the natural vegetation and some ofthe larger trees are not being retained. Larger lots should allow saving some of the larger trees. Ms. Fiala stated that she would check the tree clearing and landscaping plan to see if there are some trees that could be saved. It appeared that most of the trees are located where the building pads would sit. The site is located within the boundaries ofthe Issaquah School District. The storm drainage system would be located in Tract A which has been designed to meet the Level 2 standards and water quality of the 1990 King County surface Water Design Manual. The project drains to Orting Hills Creek. Tract A should be fenced along the entire perimeter and landscaping is to be provided along; the Tract's frontage with the cul-de-sac. The development is within the water service area of Water District 90. The applicant submitted a Certificate of Water Availability. The District can provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm of available fire flow per fire hydrant. New water service stubs to each lot must be installed. The site is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special assessment District and Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges. If the Hearing Examiner approves the rezone classification, staff recommends approval of this plat with conditions. . Amberwood II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 4 Steve Beck, 4735 NE 4th Street, Renton stated the property was originally in King County and zoned R-6 with a conditional use family run business since 1977. The conditional use came up, the family business applied for another conditional use, the City of Renton appealed it, the Bales family agreed to file for annexation and come in under single-family zoning. When filing for annexation, they were caught up in the State Court ruling which tied them for almost a year and a half. They were held to come into the City of Renton under the R-l zone. As many trees as possible will be retained on the proposed site. Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc., 1471 I NE 29th Place, Su ite 101, Bellevue, W A 98007 stated they concur with the staff report. Regarding Condition 4 with the irrigated landscaping would drought tolerant planting be included in place of irrigated landscaping? The Examiner stated that they might be limited by code. Susan Fiala stated that current code states that it must be irrigated landscaping. The new code effective November 10 does allow for drought resistant, staff would be willing to look at drought resistant as well. David Cayton, Engineer Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101, Bellevue, WA 98007 stated that he would be happy to answer any questions regarding storm drainage or utilities. Plans at this time do not show saving trees, but it is quite possible during building construction to maintain as many as possible. The largest trees on the site are on NE 4th Street in the rear yards of Lots 4 and 5. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that the only outstanding question is about the discussion going on with transportation about a swap of vacating a portion ofNE 4th in exchange for dedicating a portion ofNE 4th, a per square footage straight up swap, there are working on it now. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:45 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Steve Beck, filed a request for a zoning reclassification of 4.24 acres of property from R- 1 (Single Family Residential -I dwelling unit per acre) to R-5 (Single Family Residential-5 dwelling units per acre) together with a request for a I 7-lot Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located 6135 NE 4th Street. The subject site is located south ofNE 4th and east of Rosario Avenue NE. Amberwood II Preliminary Pia, Fiie No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 5 6. The map element ofthe Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of low density residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-I (Single Family - 1 dwelling unit/acre). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5064 enacted in March 2004. 9. The subject site is approximately 4.2 acres or 184,740 square feet. The subject site is generally rectangular with a slight jog to the west at the northwest corner of the parcel. The parcel is approximately 295 feet wide (east to west) along NE 4th Street. It is approximately 611 feet deep. 10. The subject site has a slight slope downward to the south. The site drops about 15 feet over the 600 linear feet presenting a grade of approximately 3 percent. 11. The applicant has proposed removing all trees and other vegetation from the subject site. There are larger trees located on the site in the northwest corner and the southwest corner. 12. As noted above, the applicant has requested that the subject site be reclassified from R-I to R-5 to accommodate a 17-lot single-family plat. 13. Access to the subject site would be south from NE 4th to a T-intersection with a new easterly extension ofNE 3rd Court. Then a cul-de-sac would be created that runs south to access the majority of the site. NE 3rd Court would have a stub ending at the eastern edge of the plat to allow its eventual cClltinuation further to the east. 14. A tier of lots would lie between NE 4th Street, a major arterial, and NE 3rd Court. Access would be taken to the south, NE 3rd Court, and no access would be permitted to NE 4th. There would then be a tier of lots on each side of the cul-de-sac roadway. Access for Lots 11, 12, and 13 would be via a private utility easement located in the southeast corner of the site. The proposed lots would range in size from 7,276 square feet to 9,254 square feet. 15. The subject site is located in the Issaquah School District. The City has adopted the Issaquah District's impact fee for new homes built within the district's boundaries. That fee is $2,937.00 per home. 16. The density for the plat would be 4.9 dwelling units per acre after subtracting roadways. 17. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 170 trips for the 17 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 17 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. 18. Stormwater will be contained in a Tract A, which is located in the southwest corner of the subject site. This will continue to drain to an offsite wetland. The plat will meet Level 2 standards for stormwater control. Staff has recommended that the tract be screened with fencing around its entire perimeter and landscaping adjacent to the roadway. 19. The subject site is served by City of Renton sewer utilities and a main runs along NE 4th and along the west side of the plat and can be extended to serve the site. 20. The subject site is located in Water District 90. The applicant has obtained a certificate of availability. Amberwood II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 6 21. The subject site is basically at the eastern limits of the City. Property to the north and east is generally low-density single-family uses in both the City and COllnty. The City zoning near the subject site is either R-l like the subject site or is R-4, recently reclassified after the City eliminated the R-5 district and created the R-4 district. The R-4 district requires a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet whereas the R-5 zone required a minimum lot size of7,200 square feet. Staff noted that there are other differences in things like easement, landscaping and setbacks. 22. As noted above, the subject site is not quite rectangular. The subject site extends slightly to the west and north creating jogs in those property lines. Rosario Avenue NE will be located along the western edge of the site. The appl icant and the City are discussing a swap of property along NE 4th to create a smooth boundary. The City would vacate approximately as much property along NE 4th Street as the applicant would dedicate. Staff has recommended that the applicant landscape and fence the northern property line and that a homeowners association maintain this property. 23. Staff has recommended that the appl icant plant two trees in the front yard of each lot. 24. The City Council has adopted legislation that has eliminated the R-5 Zoning District. In its place the Council has created the R-4 Zoning District. In this action the zoning ofR-5 parcels was changed to R- 4. As noted, there are lot size differences and any parcel that does not meet the current, larger or changed standards would be considered a legally, non-conforming use. The change occurred on November 10, 2004. The applicant submitted the application to change the zoning from R-I to R-5 prior to that' date' and, therefore, staff considered the request under the prior standards. Staff indicated that the application vested the application to the R-5 zoning. RECOMMENDATIONS: Rezone I. A property may, at the discretion of the City Council, be reclassified from one zoning district to another if it generally meets the criteria found in Section 4-9-180F(2). Those criteria include: a. The rezone is in the public interest, and b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, and c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsections FI band Flc of this Section, (Amd. Ord. 4794,9-20-1999) It also must meet the criteria of 4-9-180F( I): b. The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the polices set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and c. At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land lise analysis and area zoning; or ii. Since the 1110st recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. '. Amberwood II Preliminary PIa. File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 7 For reasons cited below, the City Council should not approve the proposed reclassification of the subject site from R-I to R-5. 2. The City Council has substantial discretion when it comes to applying zoning categories to properties. While there are limits to that discretion such as not approving spot zones, their discretion allows them to achieve uniform standards that are in compliance with the comprehensive plan. There are a few fundamental concepts in law use law. One ofthem is that the law frowns on non-conforming uses. It encourages their early and reasonable termination. (Citations omitted). Therefore, the first question is why immediately create non-conforming lots? Why zone property R-5, a classification that no longer exists, plat it at that density and then immediately change the zoning to R-4 and make the plat's basis non-conforming. Staff has suggested in its reasoning and analysis ofthis rezone request that it is governed by vesting. In dealing with this rezone request, vesting usually follows zoning and permits an applicant who has already submitted an application to develop or use property in a manner allowed by that current zoning or the zoning regulations in place when the application was submitted. That is an applicant may develop the property with the' zoning and under regulations that existed when they submitted their application. This office is not aware of any particular case where this doctrine requires that zoning that has been eliminated still be applied to a site because an application for a zoning change was submitted prior to the change. The vesting doctrine generally is not' applied outside of land use regulations that change under zoning and not to the initial zoning itself. 3. Zoning is only justified if the request is appropriate. The City Council as noted has almost complete discretion in the area of zoning as long as it does not attempt to spot zone a parcel. Zoning classifications are governed by the City Council and their ability to practice it appropriately. The Council has the right to decide ifzoning is appropriate given the parcel, its circumstances, its surroundings and the comprehensive plan's policies and goals. Seeing that the City Council in its judgment has determined to eliminate the R-5 zoning District and in its stead create an R-4 zoning District, it is probably inappropriate to agree that this site, at this time, should be reclassified to R-S. The comprehensive plan calls for rural residential or low residential densities on this site. The current R-l zoning fulfills that objective. While R-S, at one time was considered appropriate, clead)' the City Council in eliminating the R-5 zone determined that it was not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Council determined that R-4 with its larger lots and unconstrained front yard setbacks unhampered by easements was more appropriate for the area at the eastern edge of the City. It would appear that the R-5 zoning that the applicant has requested seeks additional densities that the City -- Council has determined are inappropriate for sites that the comprehensive plan designates for rural residential uses. This site has sheet flows that feed a wetland and then a creek. Larger lots preserve the more natural stormwater conditions found on lots in this area. There is less pavement in the form of roads when there are fewer lots and less proportional home footprints on larger lots. The subject si~e should not be developed at the R-5 density in light of those characteristics. 4. It is not in the public interest to change the zoning on a property that has a current and valid zoning category, in this case, R-l and change it to a category that no longer exists, in this case, R-S. It is not in the public interest to create a series of lots that immediately become non-conforming. 5. This office would like to take the tact that the City Council should consider R-4 zoning for the subject site at this juncture. R-4 zoning would probably be appropriate but since the legal notice was for R-S zoning, it mayor may not be an appropriate stance. It might be something that staff and the City Attorney can consider and reflect upon given a bit of time that allows for further analysis. ( Amberwood II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 8 6. For the reasons noted above, a rezone of the subject site from R-I to R-5 is inappropriate. A rezone of the site to R-4 would be appropriate. First, it would avoid creating immediately non-conforming lots. It would match the R-4 zoning that now attaches to nearby property and would be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies of protecting sensitive lands. It would allow just a bit less intensive reuse of the subject site, lessening stormwater impacts, enlarging lots and limiting the impediment of access easements decreasing front or side yard usability. 7. Clearly, allowing more intense use of the site than now permitted in the R-I zone furthers the property rights of the property owner. Although, the R-I zone does permit the use ofthe subject site and is fully compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's low density housing objectives. 8. A rezone of the subject site to R-4 would not be materially detrimental to either the public welfare or other properties in the area. Again, though, keeping the site R-I would also not prove materially detrimental to the public welfare or other properties. 9. The Comprehensive Plan would allow either R-I, the current zoning, or R-4, a more intense but still permitted residential zoning for the subject site. The area is in the eastern or more rural portion of the City and could be served by either the R-l or the R-4 zoning. 10. When the subject site was recently annexed some of the intrastructure improvements were not available such as the new roads west ofthe subject site. R-4 zoning would increase the density potenti11 of the subject site and take advantage of the new infrastructure. I I. Therefore, it if were to be determined that the legal issues can be appropriately satisfied by the published legal notice, it might be appropriate for the City Council to approve the reclassification of the subject site from R-I to R-4. A reclassification to R-5 is not justified at this time and should not be approved. Preliminary Plat 12. The proposed Preliminary Plat would not be appropriate given the above recommendation that the subject site be rezoned to R-4 since approximately halfofthe proposed lots would not meet the 8,000 square foot lot standards of the R-4 zone. A change in the plat's proposed number of lots is quite different from the zoning change proposed in this recommendation. A plat's layout, lots and roadways may be changed as an inherent part of plat review and is incorporated into any legal notice that inv,olves a public hearing for a plat. So a division of the subject site into a similar fashion as that now proposed but that would meet the density requirements and lot area standards of the R-4 zone would he appropriate under the existing legal notice. If such a plat mirrors the current plan and has rectangular lots, lot lines at generally right angles to streets, appropriate access and storm water containment, it would be appropriate. 13. A plat that meets the density and lot standards of the R-4 zone would serve the public use and interest. It would provide additional hOllsing opportunities to the community. It would be in an are:t where urban services can be provided. It would avoid urban sprawl. It would increase the tax base oftl:Je City. 14. The plat would still have to provide an appropriate dedication so that NE 4th Street could he developed with a consistent and safe, non-jogging alignment. 15. Similarly, the plat would have to make appropriate provisions for landscaping and screening the rear of new lots that would line NE 4th Street to protect the single family amenities of those residents. Amberwood II Preliminary PIct. File No.: LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 9 16. Also, the Comprehensive Plan calls for low-density, larger lots. Part ofthat objective was to preserve some of the rural, open or wooded character of this more remote corner of the City. There are trees that already add to the character of this community and if protected, could preserve some of that character. Not every tree on lots in the R-4 zone should be removed so that the entire site is altered to urban standards. Therefore, working with staff, the applicant should preserve some ofthe larger trees that do not immediately lie in the way of building pads or road rights-of-way. 17. Stormwater containment is still important since the subject site feeds a wetland and ultimately a creek system. Those natural features downstream of the subject site need to retain their natural flow of water. The pond created though must be screened and fenced to provide for both public safety and to preserve the property values of homes adjacent to it. Fencing and screening as recommended by staff is appropriate. 18. The subject site lies within the Issaquah School District and shall pay the appropriate fees 'is building permits are submitted. 19. In conclusion, a plat of the subject site that meets the R-4 zone's criteria would be appropriate and could' be approved by the City Council if the Council decides it can rezone the subject site to R-4. RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Council should deny the request to reclassify the subject site from R-I to R-5 but should consider reclassifying the subject site from R-J to R-4 ifpermissible under the legal notices already published for this application. The City Council should approve a Preliminary Plat that meets the zoning standards for the R-4 zone subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The applicant shall dedicate sufficient property to allow a consistent alignment along 4th Street adjacent to the plat. 3. In consultation with staff and a certified arborist, the applicant should preserve some of the larger trees that do not immediately lie in the way of building pads or road rights-of-way. 4. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all inspections and approvals for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 5. A sign shall be installed at the stub road, NE 3rd Ct., that informs residents of the plat that the road would be extended to the east in the future and carry through-traffic. The sign shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. 6. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the" recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements, including fences, landscaping, utilities, private easements, etc. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division Amberwood II Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-04-ll7, PP, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 10 for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording ofthe final plat. 7. The applicant shall install a modulated, decorative fence, with irrigated landscaping alon~ the entire plat's frontage with NE 41h Street. All fencing shall be located and designed to not interfere with sight distances required at the intersections of public streets. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design to the City's Development Services Division for review and approval prior to installation. The fence and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. 8. The applicant shall install a fence of a quality material (no chain-link, if possible) with a landscaped visual barrier that includes plant materials which would provide a year-round dense screen within three (3) years from the time of planting along the entire perimeter of Tract A (storm drainage facility). The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design to the City's Development Services Division for review and approval prior to installation. All fences and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Issaquah School District Mitigation Fee of$2,937.00 per new single-family lot. The fee shall be paid prior to building permit approval. ORDERED THIS 181h day of January 2005. FRED J. KA HEARINGE TRANSMITTED THIS 181h day of January 2005 to the parties of record: Susan Fiala 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 291h Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 Steve Beck 4735 NE 41h Street Renton, W A 98056 David Cayton Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 291h Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 TRANSMITTED THIS 181h day of January 2005 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Stan Engler, Fire Kayren Kittrick 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Amberwood II Preliminary PiaL File No.: LUA-04-117, PI>, ECF, R January 18, 2005 Page 11 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Februarv 1,2005. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by tile Examiner within fourteen (14) .days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 1, 2005. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Councilor final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not cOIPr!lunicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. ' All communications concerning the proposal must' be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. 't () "~"'~,' •• ~)r'Otr .. 1 I T .0 ~ is ~f'I ;'Q !~ t, > , • i o . i a " T olllMi: H ~ " .. ~ I ~ i'1 ~il'> . ~ " " ~ i ~ ~ ; ~ ~ , ~ ~ ;tl ~!i ~ ,,~ r'1~ s ,J,,, ..... 'oII1.'1t':IIl'0I~'1UfIJ'J ~nmltS".Dlr«QlI'JW . ~ IJOn:IIit 1M' ....,.oIt .... ",r:2r.t01D NOI.LJ3S OllOH :g.LISWO 7v:J1d).l .-lO.ll~.".,."tr:iJ • .J'I A'7MIIJI:MS'~ ,~_ :;NJnJ>J ! tL i;-~~~ "i,.,. ,IJl' ,'I --1;--," . ,()-r J .. ..-_ ...... ,. ... _0 ... _ ,........-~,-~ .. .... ~N .. "~NftI ... ·oIN-.v.""_.,.",.,.. ............. ·t~ t ...... " ..... lv:I k.,. • ., ........ "'..,'r'. Nfl""'~''''' ---~~..c .. u·~a;:5NiB J • \ '," '. ' "'" -;:~ -'t,_, "-.. -~ '.:,:'--' .... ~ -. '~'-----.:..' :..... -f.----_ ~ .,-\D ., ~ ~ IL" I ~L~~--~-= =f . 1= R!,1: ~ . c~c =-~: /~ I. ~ !j: ~ _~~)j ~ -~R-c-4 L ___ Iv ) -------------'t -----. ~*~ ~1 32nd st. v l/ ~ (]) :> ~Ij .-01 N -<-> '-co ~ m ~ ~ ffl -"" , SE 136th st. ~ '''' i;; i ' a .. II SEII137th PI. I ~ , ~ rh fL SE 138th Pl. f l5 fn ~ 139th PI. 1 '-' ~ ~::=======~ bD ;; " SE 140th PI. o ~ (/) A: ~ (/) A: h. _____ ~ o .-0 -+-> co -.::;to ....... .-0 -<-> m -.::;to ....... \.~ ~ 143rd PI ~ SE 1~5th P~ Os 0 -Wl§Y/'A~ .. 'tY ~ (/) (]) ~ .-0 -<-> co m ~ 142nd SLJ I L'\ y\.) ~ ,-,. '2l~ ~ SE ~ I 144th st. ~ECJ44th 'b-c!r' 4fO So48OO S SE 138th SE 139th SE 143rd r: (, lr F7 • ~ • PIB/PW 1'J!CJINJCAL SEllVlCES L. '0 ttl. 14 T23N R5E W 1/2 M S ~ J.~~~ ZONING _ t ----llenton dit, u.;m. ~ llI04IOl '''' '1 -5314 1!i#1~/1 It lS171NV'7d ·!JNJ>lV'15 ONV' DNJ1NV'7d 33~1 ,..,. M:"<::J~ 'CIPoII".no cw" tIC~tpGO.l.ll:" '" .. TIll'" Q'YalItw' 1.1 ..... • IN ~ ..... 01 oft.orL'"1 '.u1tNlQ ~ .. ~, .:I'OH ... .", .. 1.1 ...... 'CIMr'",,,-.... !1nU. .. ~ 1.1. ............. ... ·0 .... :;)1""'" ·~fID""'''..ow!) . '<lNOIJ. '11n:::>1'1:::> ..I.J.19N3Cl '~. IL',.", I<CJU4.I.I<:I....oJ..' ,." ~ l'JIoo· .. ~-,ww ,." ''Q.f1001C1~ ... 'lI ...... oIl~. ·oilQof.l.la ""'9 '0'",,',., U".," .. II .... O.~ •. 0t' •• ·.CIt ."'·111 ...... . oc· .LN:lllloi ... NO: ClHU •• IIQ ·~C.UII.lll .. ·.o...utNIQa .. ~ 'Irl.~'loP'III ..... " 'ILD'IC"OW 'I9nQiM~ ..,.,.,.J.lj, "'",Q1 9:::>IJ.SIJ.'9"J.9 ElJ.IS 1IIO..I.a.o.ame ~ ...,.. ,-....ot T ~ ... .... HlQG • '.0IIII 'N:) .... ~ .. 0"""0 • ...".,. • HltH'l' ....... ."., '.l::7r.uclO UIl· ... ''''1 LDOft f'C)J.ClNftWII ........ ". 001 1lI,ft ....... 1'\L .. ,"JOoIQI."1 W;.3N31'1M'l33Nl"NMiiNi#id In.'ClNI"""".L:It'.lNO:I '",,·U,.tt~) ..,..tol~lO~ -,.,."'" "I~" aau~' til,.. • ..,.. .. '"'~ .&.aau. PUt" Tt 1£51 'IO .. )GoO.. ... IN'ii'5I1Ci1Ci1'ii' ttWIl'" acn.", 1111) ",,"""II ... .-..m .. ,'.It.u'h'l'l '.&HI auNWtQa:w .... .."...fiCI)ICIMI· CClW.IIII (ftd1aI t'I",,~ 110 U ............. M.,. Nfit t fl. KLaa'ft)'al1it''''.\.N ..... N'::Jotjd 1:rt'IIIInI ...... C·""""" .......... ~CZIHtI"WI'W'JIIIIICIIN.1M~ ",UIttMJM N:lJ.ICIIII., ~ .... .".. a~1k !'Hra:w-w N~,""Q\WI.'WOtC~hHlll'N.hl"'LldL .... 9lJ:)NlQ'9"aii :10 919'1S 1 rn ,Ot • .1 ::31'9':>s 'r-:n-T.,4~~~~~....L,.Hk-I--;;;.J:;;;..,_ , , : ~'.-~'~'~·Mlr-~ L ________ _ .r~U] i: .. "t~:-.... " .,.",-' oQ t -.... 1, I I ClWfWJI __ 1)j1lOTlll "j ,- I " I L ~ __ ::::I.a.- GMQtiIQ~af'ItlI. ~~r 'It-~'"(J'I' t, __ 1-... ...... 1.n,lhC~ a.:..",l~~,= " "'11~" ... ·.au,\ ~ .. ·-·!~~~7P ~", .'., ,',' ,It " ·, .. ,,·,: ....... ·1)] ··:I~It,!\(lI\1 " r:l>''15~ __ .....,:.-:-'r:....;'''''-+-+-l M ~:4 tr.w~ I .r ~~'..Ll.M"II:)O'ON)I«J ~·.~oa~·u~~~,,,,,~ ... c.~,,,, .o"a1.L.L""'lrU.o.""",~·~tDl"""'M6~ 'CI"tI:IIIW. ... ~.utIIIM..."".~ """', ow ~ Qf'Ct.llQ'lol .w.DJ<1 Qofr ' ..... u .......... _~ "CN\~" aaa ..... ..,..... ClYo. MO. Jo.Uf'O:)ClHDto.a.~lCI':»., ... lrUa .. ".~I:~t ... ~~ aN ....,." ~.., '.tPaIaU .... IC7 •• ~ ... ..,. IrU. .£,,0111:11<' ltot)j.wl'IWn\'J.»t'IO':tOtonl M "WIll '.I." •• ."... 'kI-'H" .. MN1O. 'P1 I'QI.L":I'M ~ .a.wrc .&.twIt4.IaiON IrU. ., Id&atPT'O .I.",~ ItU «>.-Tnt ~ .... 1 ~ ,r.:wtJ'J "".l~'~QonI~.a.::t:I .. '~~ " ....... CIM~ "ICN\ .LII''''''~ ClJCWO:)..,., J.,"" aM:Il"It OJ. CIHI~ 'cOtLO\tIIIlKIIoI't4.l".......1IIICIt1I.4..I.t.rO:I AlII:. IID'.w, .~"'" 'WOJ.QoIIHWfI\'J..Ut\OOClM')ifID ,CIIIO:IaI"t<!Ut,,,u.L, "..,.. McaIOOaIIMlCN\ ~tI' .. ,,~ a~ ..... ,.,. ~ OJ. .... ~·.QtLDI~.&.",.. ~ ~ IDI'of)frO I,",' .. ...-.. Nolldll3::S~E!o l'ii'l!5E!l CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING· December 14, 2004 AGENDA ':Th~,ap'p'ication{~)listed,are in order.ofapl3licationnumber only and not necessarily the order in which they will be ,:;t1~a:f:(L'teiT(s'YliII':,be:ca,lIedJor heariQ9,at'tt\e discretion of the Hearing 'Examiner. ' "" ...... .,. " t. '," . A'., '~'~""" '.. .•.•• . . PROJECT NAME: Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17-lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24-acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single-family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single-family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de-sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. PROJECT NAME: Park Place Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-04-126, PP, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a two (2) lot subdivision of a 0.28 acre site. The site is within the Residential - 8 (R-8) zoning designation. The proposed lots are intended for the eventual development of one additional single-family home. The two lots would be 4,527 sq. ft. and 9,071 sq. ft. HEX Agenda 12-14-Q4.doc PUBLIC HEARING City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: Project Name: Owners: Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Description: Project Location: December 14, 2004 Amberwood Phase 2 Preliminary Plat Bales Limited Partnership PO Box 3015 Renton, WA 98056 Amberwood LLC 4735 NE 4th St. Renton, WA 98059 Steve Beck, Amberwood II LLC 4735 NE 4th St. Renton, WA 98059 Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc. 1.4711 NE 29th PL, Ste. 101 Bellevue, WA 98007 LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R Project Manager: Susan Fiala, AICP The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17-lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24-acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single-family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single-family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de-sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. 6135 NE 4th Street City of Renton PIBIPWDepartment AMBERWOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINAR 'f PLA T Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R PUBLIC HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2004 Page 20f10 B. HEARING EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Preliminary Plat with Rezone (dated 10/12/2004) Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan (dated 09/23/2004) Preliminary Landscape Plan (dated 10/12/2004) Neighborhood Map (dated 10/12/2004) Zoning Map: Sheet F7 West (dated 12/04/2003) C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owners of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: Bales Limited Partnership PO Box 3015 Renton, WA 98056 Amberwood LLC 4735 NE 4th St. Renton, WA 98059 Residential-1 (R-1) Dwelling Units per Acre 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density (RLD) 4. Existing Site Use: Single Family Residential and associated outbuildings. 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: 6. Access: 7. Site Area: 8. Project Data: North: Single family residential; R-4 zoning East: Residential; R-1 zoning South: Residential; King County zoning West: Single family residential-Amberwood Ph. 1; R-4 zoning NE 4th Street to Rosario Ave. NE to NE 3rd CT. 4.2 acres ( 184,740 sq. ft. -gross area) Area Comments . Existing Building Area: N/A All structures to be removed/demolished New Building Area: Total Building Area: D. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: N/A N/A Action Annexation Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Ordinance No. 5064 5065 5065 N/A N/A E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards Date 03/2412004 03/24/2004 03/24/2004 City of Renton PIBIPW Department AMBERWOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY PLA T Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R PUBLIC HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 14,2004 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations Page 30f10 Section 4-7-050: General Outline of Subdivision, Short Plat and Lot Line Adjustment Procedures Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivision Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan-General Requirements and Minimum Standards . Section 4-7-150: Streets -General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks -General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots -General Requirements and Minimum Standards 6. Chapter9 Procedures and Review Criteria 7. Chapter 11 Definitions F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element: Residential Low Density objectives and policies; Residential Streets objectives and policies; Subdivision of Land objectives and policies. 2. Housing Element G. DEPARTMENT ANAL YSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 4.2-acre, three parcel site into 17 lots and one tract, with the assumption that the requested rezone would be approved from the current zoning designation of R-1 to R-5. If not approved, the plat would need to be revised to meet the current· zoning of R-1. The lots are intended for the eventual development of detached single family residences. The site currently ·contairis single family residences and associated outbuildings proposed to be removed/demolished. Tract A would include the storm detention/water quality pond and be located at the southwest portion of the site. The lots are intended for the eventual development of detached single-family homes-lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. The single-family homes and associated outbuildings would be removed or demolished. The applicant submitted several studies including: a geotechnical report, a traffic impact analysis and a preliminary storm drainage report. Site preparation for development of the plat would include the removal of vegetation and trees for roadways, utilities and building pads. Primary access would be via NE 4th St. to Rosario Ave. NE to NE 3rd Court which would be extended eastward to the east property line. A new road extending south from NE 3rd CT. would terminate in a cul-de-sac. Street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting and right- of-way dedication are· required. The site is zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) dwelling units per acre. The R-1 zone allows residential densities that range from no minimum up to a maximum of 1.0 dulac. If the rezoning of the land City of Renton P/B/PW Department AMBERWOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2004 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R Page 4 of10 from R-1 to R-5 is approved, the proposed plat would arrive at a net density of 4.8 dulac after the deduction of public roadways from the gross acreage which would be within the allowed range of the R-5 zone. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Low Density (RLD). 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on November 16, 2004, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Amberwood Phase 2 Preliminary Plat. The DNS- M included six (6) mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on November 22, 2004 and ended on December 6, 2004. No appeals were filed. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of the probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M): 1. The applicant shall comply with the "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated May 20, 2004, regarding "Site Preparation and General Earthwork". 2. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Storm water Management Manual. 3. The project shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to· meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot. Credit to be given for the existing two lots. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. Credit to be given for the existing two lots. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot. Credit to be given for the existing two lots. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CRITERIA: Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been established to assist decision makers in the review of the subdivision: (a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation. The subject site is deSignated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The objective established by the RLD designation is to pres'erve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by limiting residential development in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space network, agricultural lands within the City, or in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. City of Renton P/B/PW Department AMBERWOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY PtA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2004 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R Page 5 of 10 The requested rezone from R-1 to R-5 does not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as both the R-1 and R-5 zone are permitted in areas designated Residential Low Density in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the R-1 zone is to provide and protect suitable environments for low density single family residential dwellings and limited farming uses associated with residential uses. It is further intended to protect open space, critical areas and resource areas, provide separation between urban uses and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that are detrimental to the residential or open space environment. The R-5 Zone is intended as an intermediate density residential zone applied to areas within one-half mile of the King County Urban Growth Boundary and to residential rural areas with no significant environmental constraints. Under the current R-1 zoning, a total of three and maybe four homes could be developed on the 4.2-acre site, since density is limited to a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per acre. If the rezone to R- 5 is approved, a maximum of 17 dwelling units is possible and is proposed. Land Use Element R~sidential Low Density Policy LU-26. Base Development densities should range from one home per 10 acres to five homes per acre in the RLD. The proposed plat has a net density of 4.9 dulacre which is slightly. below the maximum allowable density of the R-5 zone and complies with this policy. . Policy LU-32. Residential Low Density areas may be incorporated into community separators. The site's location within the RLD land use designation was within the Urban Growth boundary prior to its annexation. This site is two parcels west of lands under King County's jurisdiction and within the Urban Growth Boundary. Housing Element The proposal should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The addition of 17 new single family homes to a recently annexed area would increase the City's housing supply, thereby furthering an objective of the City of Renton. Policy H-9, .. Ensure sufficient and additional capacity for single family development by encouraging annexations," would be addressed by this project. b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation. The 4.2 -acre site (gross area) consists of three parcels designated Residential - 1 Dwelling Units per Acre (R-1) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The site was recently annexed into the City of Renton, effective on March 24, 2004 .. The proposed development would ·allow for the future construction of up to 17 dwelling units along with associated plat improvements, with approval of the R-5 rezone. The following staff report is based on the land use application submittal which designed the preliminary plat to the R-5 zone development standards. Where appropriate, discussion on the R-1 zone standards may be incorporated. Density -The maximum permitted density in the R-5 zone is 5.0 dwelling units per acre (dulac). Minimum density requirements do not apply. Net density is calculated after public rights-of-way, private streets serving more than three lots, and critical areas are deducted from the gross acreage of the site. After the deduction of 30,599 sq. ft. from the 184,740 gross sq. ft. site (184,470 gross sq. ft. - 30,599 sq. ft. total deducted area = 154,141 net sq. ft. I 3.5 net acres), the proposal would arrive at a net denSity of 4.9 dwelling units per acre (17 units I 3.5 acres = 4.86 dulac). The proposed plat complies with density requirements for the R-5 zoning designation. Lot Dimensions -The minimum lot size permitted in the R-5 zone is 7,200 square feet. A minimum lot width of 60 feet is required for interior lots and 70 feet for· corner lots. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of65 feet. Lot widths proposed range from 60 to 80 feet and lot depths are proposed from 119 to 136 feet. City of Renton PIBIPW Department AMBER WOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: DECEMBER 14, 2004 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R Page 6 of 10 Lot sizes would be equal to or greater than the minimum of 7,200 square feet; the smallest lot would be 7,276 square feet and the largest would be 9,254 square feet. All lots comply with the lot dimension requirements. The plat would create 17 lots and one tract with the following sizes: LotlTract Area (sq. ft.) Proposed Access 1 8,741 NE 3'u CT. 2 7,620 NE 3(0 CT. 3 7,523 NE 3'u CT. 4 8,092 NE 3,a CT. 5 8,475 NE 3'a CT. 6 8,514 Road A 7 7,282 Road A 8 7,279 Road A 9 7,276 Road A 10 7,295 Road A 11 8,206 Private Access Easement 12 8,112 Private Access Easement· 13 7,422 Private Access Easement 14 8,830 Road A 15 7,879 Road A 16 7,882 Road A 17 9,254 Road A ,. Tract A 18,457 N/A TOTAL 154,139 Setbacks -The plat plan includes setback lines for each lot showing potential building envelopes within the R-5 zoned parcels. . .. Building setbacks as required by the R-5 zone, include: front yard setbacks of 15 ft. for primary structure and 20 ft. for attached garages which access from the front yard street; side yard along a street setback of 15 ft. for primary structure and 20 ft. for attached garages which access from the side yard street; and interior side yard setbacks of 5 feet. The rear yard setback is 25 ft., All lots appear to comply with these standards and would be verified at the time of individual building permit review. Building Standards -The R-5 zone permits one single family residential structure per lot. Each of the proposed lots appears to support the construction of one detached unit. Accessory structures may also be permitted at a maximum number of tWo per lot at 720 square feet each, or one per lot at 1,000 square feet in size. Building height in the R-5 zone is limited to 2 stories and 30 feet for primary structures and 15 feet for detached accessory structures. Maximum building coverage for lots over 5,000 square feet in size is limited to 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater, and for lots less than 5,000 square feet in size coverage is limited to 50%. The proposal's compliance with these building standards would be verified prior to the issuance of individual building permits. Several single family residences and outbuildings are shown as existing on the site. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant obtain demolition permits and complete all inspections and approvals for the removal of all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. (c) Compliance with Subdivision Regulations. Lot Arrangement:· Side lot lines are to be at right angles to street lines, and each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement per the requirements of the Street Improvement Ordinance. City of Renton PIB/PW Department AMBERWOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2004 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R Page 7 of 10 The side lot lines of the proposed lots are at right angles to street lines. All lots would gain access to public roadways either directly, or via private access easements. As proposed, lots comply with arrangement and access requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Lots: The size, shape and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Each of the proposed lots satisfies the minimum lot area and dimension requirements of the R-5 zone. The plat plan does include setback lines for each lot showing potential building envelopes and when considering the required setbacks, as well as access points for each lot, the proposed lots appear to have sufficient building area for the development of detached single family homes. Property Corners at Intersections: All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of- way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of 15 feet. The proposed subdivision would create Lots 1, 6 and 17 to be located at the intersection of public rights-of-way. The proposed radius for each these corner lots meet code. (d) Reasonableness of Proposed Boundaries Access and Street Improvements: Primary access to the site is proposed via NE 4th Street to Rosario Avenue NE to NE 3i'd CT. NE 3rd CT. would extend to the east and be stubbed for future extension. A new public street terminating in a cul-de-sac is proposed extending south from NE 3rd CT. A 26-ft.wide private access easement would provide access to new Lots 10 through 13. Lots 1 through 9 and 14 through 17 would gain access directly to public streets. Staff recommends as a condition of approval the a sign is to be placed at the stub road, NE 3rd CT., that informs residents of the plat that the road would most likely be extended in the future and carry through-traffic. Staff recommends the establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for all common improvements, including but not limited to: utility and access easements, stormwater facilities and tracts, as a condition of preliminary plat approval. Topography: The primary topographic feature of the site consists of a gentle slope to the south. The maximum elevation change is 15 feet from the north down to the south at approximately a three percent (3%) grade. The site is primarily vegetated with grass and dense growths of blackberries with fruit trees and alders in the northwest corner and southwest corner. Several firs are scattered on the property. The tree cutting and land clearing plan indicates that all vegetation from the plat would be removed. The cleared land would accommodate the construction of homes, roads and storm detention as depicted on the tree inventory plan which also identifies the location of larger trees. Relationship to Existing Uses: Single family residential surrounds the subject plat as developed under both the City. of Renton and King County regulations. The proposed single family subdivision is compatible with these, existing uses. The site fronts NE 4th St. which is designated as a major arterial. To ensure that the lots abutting this frontage (no access/rear yards) are adequately buffered from the street as well as to reduce the barren appearance of solid fenCing along the street frontage, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a landscape plan, providing a minimum of five feet of irrigated landscaping, maintained by the homeowner's association and a fence design for review and approval. (e) Availability and Impact on Public Services (Timeliness) Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the applicant's provision of Code required improvements and fees. The Environmental Review Committee imposed a Fire Mitigation Fee in order to mitigate the project's potential impacts to emergency services. hexrpCAmberWD _Ph2.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department AMBERWOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2004 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R Page 8 of 10 Recreation: The proposal does not provide on-site recreation areas for future residents of the proposed plat. There are no existing recreational facilities in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and it is anticipated that the proposed development would generate additional users of existing City park and recreational facilities and programs. As required by the Environmental Review Committee, a Parks Mitigation Fee will be required prior to the recording of the final plat. Schools: The site is located within the boundaries of the Issaquah School District. As a condition of plat approval, the applicant will be required to pay the appropriate ISD impact fee of $2,937.00 per new single family lot prior to building permit approval. Storm Drainage/Surface Water: The storm drainage system has been designed to meet Level 2 standards and water quality of the 199B. King County Surface Water Design Manual. The applicant is proposing a detention and water quality pond. The project drains to Orting Hills Creek. The report indicates that there is no upstream tributary to the subject site. The downstream analysis indicates that there is no evidence of erosion or flooding. The site sheet flows to the southwest corner where the surface runoff enters a wetland area to the south of the project. This wetland area (off-site) flows into a well defined low area to an 18-inch culvert under NE2nd St. and then on to another well defined channel to the southwest. Furthermore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that Tract A (storm drainage) be fenced along its entire perimeter. Landscaping is to be provided along the tract's frontage with the cul-de-sac. The landscaping is to include plant materials that would provide a year-round dense screen within three (3) years from the time of planting. The remaining sides are to be fenced. The fence must be of a quality material, not chain link (if feasible), to reduce the impact of the drainage tract and the blank, continuous appearance of fencing. Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities: The proposed development is within the water service area of Water District 90(WD 90).' The applicant submitted a Certificate of Water Availability. According to the document, the District's system can provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm of available fire flow per fire hydrant. New water service stubs to each lot must be installed. Existing and new hydrants are required to .be retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings. There is an existing 24-inch sewer main in NE 4th Street, up to the west property line alignment. . There is also an B.-inch sewer main installed as part of Amberwood Phase 1. The sewer main is stubbed in NE 3rd Court and further south in lot 12 of Amberwood Phase 1.A seWer main extension along the whole extension of NE 3rd Court within Phase 2 and along proposed Lots 11 and 12 will be required. Separate side sewers stubs are required in each building lot. No dual side sewers are allowed. The site is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD) and Sanitary Sewer System . Development Charges (SDC) which are payable .at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 6. CONSISTENCY WITH REZONE CRITERIA: The following criteria has been established for the analysis of rezones not requiring an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: (a) The Rezone is in the Public Interest. The applicant contends the proposed rezone would allow for the development of quality new housing at densities compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. There has been no public comment received with regard to the proposed rezone. Although the intensification of the residential density in the area would assist the City In accomplishing goals of infill development, the City is not obligated to grant up-zones in order to City of Renton PIBIPW Department . AMBERWOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2004 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-117, ECF, PP,R Page 90f10 accomplish density projections that have already been addressed by the current land use designations established by the Comprehensive Plan. When determining whether the proposed rezone is in the public interest, the issues previously analyzed when adopting the Comprehensive Plan must be considered in conjunction with the concerns raised by the residents of the area. (b) The Rezone Tends to Further the Preservation and Enjoyment of Any Substantial Property Rights of the Petitioner. The. applicant maintains that the use of the property' in a manner consistent with surrounding properties would further the preservc;ttion and enjoyment of their property rights. The majority of the lots in the vicinity of the subject site are equal to or . smaller than the lots included with the proposed subdivision . . ' (c) The Rezone is Not Materially Detrimental to the Public Welfare or the Properties of Other Persons Located in the Vicinity Thereof. The applicant states that the rezone would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or other properties in the vicinity and would assist in carrying out policies established by the Growth Management Act. The proposed development is subject to: code requirements ,and SEP~. imposed: mitiga~(o.n measure~ thatwo~ld attempt to diminis,h, any potential adverse impacts is therezonei~ granted. (d) The Rezone meets the Review Criteria in Subsections F.1.b and F.1.c of this Section/as follows: .. (i) The Property is Potentially Classified fot the Proposed Zone Being Requested Pursuant to the Policies Set Forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject site is. classified Residential Low Density (RLD) on the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. Both the R-1 Zone (currently assigned to the property) and the R-5 Zone' (under' consideration).are permitted for properties designated Residential Low Density. " The requested rezone from R-1 to R-5 appears to be consistent with the Co'mmunity Design Element Objective CD-D which states that "New neighborhood development patterns should be consistent with Renton's neighborhoods and have an interconnected road network." The proposed lot sizes would be in keepi~ with the estabiished Amberwood Phase 1 plat abutting Phase 2. As well, NE 3 CT. would be further extended to the east and stubbed to provide to future development. (ii) At Least One of the Following Circumstances Applies: • The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or . • Since the most recent land use analysis for the area zoning of the subjeCt property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or , other circumstance~ affecting t~e subject property have undergone significant and material change. . . . ., . The subject site was'zoned as part of the recent annexation completed in March 2004. Prior to' that,' the subject. parcel and· two parcels to. the east were zoned· under King County classifications. The surrounding City of Rentonneighborhbods located directly to the:west, Amberwood Phase 1 was developed under the R-5 zone. To the. north, .,!cross NE 4th St., ttie area is zoned and developed under the City of Renton R-5 development standards. . Bot,h the R-1 and R-5 zones reflect the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan Land Use deSignation for the subject site. ' In June of 1995, City Council adopted Ordinance 4537 creating the R-5 Zone. The R-5 applies to the Residential Low Density land use designation. It is applied to residential single family areas within one-half mile of the King County Urban Growth Area Cine. On November 10; 2004, the R~5 Was replaced with th~ R-4 zone. However; the subject . land .' use application was submitted and accepted on October 15, 2004 and vested under the Development regulations at the time of its acceptance, which included the R-5 zone. City of Renton P/B/PW Department AMBERWOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINARy PiA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2004 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R Page 100flO The R-5 zone was specifically considered for the subject parcels of this application and additional parcels within the Bales Annexation. Specifically, roadway and utility improvements have been installed in the abutting Amberwood Phase 1 Plat including a road stub, NE 3rd CT. to the subject site. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the subject site from R-1 to R-5. H. RECOMMENDATION: If the Hearing Examiner determines that the change of the zone classification is advisable, in the public interest, tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan, and in such event the Hearing Examiner recommends that the City Council approve the change of the zone classification, staff recommends approval of the Amberwood Phase 2 Preliminary Plat, Project File No. LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and' complete all inspections and approvals ~or all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. The satisfaction of this requirement is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager. 2. A sign shall be installed at the stub road, NE 3rd CT., that informs residents of the plat that the road would be extended to the east in the future and carry through-traffic. The sign shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. 3. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements, including fences, landscaping, utilities, private easements, etc. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to recording of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall install a modulated, decorative fence, with irrigated landscaping along the entire plat's frontage with NE 4th Street. All fencing shall be located and designed to not interfere with sight distances required at the intersections of public streets. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design to the City's Development Services Division for review and approval prior to installation. The fence and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall install a fence of a quality material (no chain-link, if possible), with a landscaped visual barrier that includes plant materials which would provide a year-round dense screen within three (3) years from the time of planting along the entire perimeter of Tract A (storm drain'age facility). The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and fence design to the City's Development Services Division for review and approval prior to installation. All fences and landscaping shall be installed prior to recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Issaquah School District Mitigation Fee of $2,937.00 per new single family lot. The fee shall be paid prior to building permit approval. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Preliminary Plats (PP): Five (5) years from final approval (signature) date. LeOfrO !.;",~nN J.Olr~;'G ;~riiillC"'Il""1iI .'" .'" fi IGoM'CX "'Ot'L't1t\ ' ...... iUl9J.aN 9CJNt'"U8'II-.~L"8:J::Jl"IJ."''''IlIIooI· 111-0'" :t1"a'W • • ... UII~ rID .... .". 99QIM) 'ONOIJ.V'1n:::>1V':::> J..J.I'ON3Q '.e IL<;,'Ql HOllNilUO 1-aIOJ.9 • , ... l:rt'IU .v, ... .:x m-(J'''!)I''IQn"I : ... ..,t Ol \Wr.lIrr"r.ot ',Iii • JCh~ ,0[-""'" ..ot·.&NOaaoI 'o::NINO:z:a~ '')t .. tC/l.,....J.91Xi' '..u19H5d OBJ..l.I~'" : ... U(jPGC:I~ 'il'" .1.0' JOVW ........ "lO' 10 'ON '0:::>1 J.IOi J.V' J.'O 3J.1'O ;tfO.l.3oI\W'Ie -v,. ... 'I",=" 'r IG"""J,J.. lIIilihI~iI-'IJ"·I'''''''J..Y"'J ilClIA .... a .. ~,.... ~3I'I.Q ..... , '.I."J.HO:) La.'L·"."",) LOOfi ftCJ,""""';"'" 'iIY\i'T1iQ 001 aJ.,", ~ ... I1.!.W .~ 111..f1 ':;INNtII(jiCI~:::l n'1W'GN~'J,::JW'~ ,,\I1O'LCP('I'''' ~NCl1'1lNH9Y/II'NCI~ ""'''''''''''' "~""""'''Cl3J.II.a''I'TW'V S31'i110 ~'tI!I'...,1."'" .I';IAl19 I'Il ... 1 ' •• "Mo: ')CiJQ ........ il19 IN9511dd'V' r I ~ I 'n ... .,. Hi.,.. , '19 11J..O 'Il' '.l.NI iilHl I'll ':/910 ;a:)".tIl"ti "'AlGI N~'IiiII • ('01& .... r~:::!ull • .j t1 ... 0J Il1O I.L',"'I" "lI'if9 ;.0..,. HJ.'Irt , (J.; "l1fa '8"11'1' HJ.I' 'itj 'J.Ni iiII1J. HI ':;1910 iI:)y,QjJlQ: 00'r'W ., • Cft\o.Ld t· .... l) O~.o\.In. as OJ. 'illIWU:tnllU" QoU'11QI '~I7'WH5N3er L----...u-------------------------------------~?;;:V;':':~l..,.:/ . .' -:1!JIJ"t: £'. 'cIN.J 'I'; -:J:1S '':/TMN~, 3N ·1'MI·GlltII;a..I%Y'-ONallM9l"Kl"l.l~.L~~ ''f''J.HO%IlIIOH l'oO.LN1III «> )..1I:1I11Doo1 mo'N CliNAOOIIO 0N'r ~,. HI CH'OII'C", CINt' 1ft! 'VON ~ iIt11 NilirII.UIQ m.U.Ct.HI'I ,01" .L :31VOS .""",., ~~ dl7'''''X1INI~\J...- ... ,.,..·'O·!HOJIII J..N'r'.......o? .LH"" Qo/t" lIoaro.l CIN'CI9 lii1.",. J."lir::U(iI oc.' ..... , ..... !J8I.I'1t<I QoIC3IIIO:II111II1i1c:M'l OilClMO:t~ COlao J.. .. 9i1~ ~.., .. ,A.lN'O:) QoQ 01 O~ .oiPII!rtl. .lili .. C" Ha6CN it'll J."~iI Ctff' . """'1H1 iN' HalON iH.\. QoQ'11" CliJWln'ZJ V'I' 'lIOaliIH.1 J.I~ !O'4911lPI iHl.Ldi:lll(iI 't<JJ."""''"'"'tn'..I.1N''O'':) .,....~ MI"'\.Im 'J.9Y1 .. ~ 'H1lIIQN n .1l~J. '" rcu:roI9 .0 lIill.W¥'rO J.9i1Tt'ti..oN JH.L '" IIIIJ.lR"f'C .LWiHaION au .0 • ."..... HalON IIH.L l'oIOJ.">IIHt'f'm· .... "'rc:;t CNI::»/C~" '~.L iIII~ 9Na.o::~ illlilQo(\ .LIioI·"lIIiI;IW~ OilaillO:)iiIIII 1.,.'" J,¥OH; 0.1. QIII~~ 'liiIOQ.OI .aa.t'N loy ... .1.~ ..&.J,N'Q:) QIf':II'" t.l.O, zl j;;1 • rll si.V3JldAOHtlWI E3H1N71fH ".iSm? '3'N NO/l:J3S aVOH 3.l1stvO 7f1:)/t/Ai ,'-IOUM .. RWI:) 'h<?UM:J'I J :JJl.oNO:JJN1If3:) ,~r ll ... · I ...... 11_ r-.~·· ,61 ~~ .~ ...... -....a.Ga1eI ...... ~"ICIIIWCIO .... ~~.,~ .... ~~OfrIl:OJ"W MOft1.:,*,OfJ'I_'tON~"~.u.zr. _ _ . 'il"'NI~'I>'39 :::i6 919'1>'9 ,....,...,.,«J..,K\PI ... ......... IU. .. ,·"ttan ... ·,lNIHLNWIG.,...,.. ..... NIIIQIIII·IOIWooI ._t1_w,*, "" __ .,. ... _"' ... ,'u !'U.a ..... ·""''' ----=~.~INNise;;WH:5Ni9 1 ,Ot .L ::31110S (.u~ 'II':1Q1l.¥'ri.1N'1'9 :....~ .• C9t~ ',U.HM'!"l'IO I-W~~ • •. ..:#..I.tl~ .... ----------------------------------------------------------------~ :f''-''::-'-, i • i: -:&o/?o 1G91'!n" J,,:;))rO/,ld . i i iii i I I ., ,i I II ' 'I ! ~ , ! i I. r" I I iii iii. I Iii i! i I t-~~-1: J.SI7J.Ntf7d DNI}lIfJ.S aNIf DNIJ.Ntf7d 33~J. .. ~ ~.tI(';~OJ,NOI.I.~ "T1VSIllliaN'l CIN'IOW CliIJ.:19'~ ¥O U'9'Q c:1iI\iIiIIN.91CN1 NO ''''I'P'Q m ·'N:)IJ.'f'A'II':'l<iI O .. Nlt.l.OOW·O'P'liIIIIWi "tI.1OO:IIIbI~iIo:O~..l"'""""oe.lJ:ll39lll"N:>IIIIOI'nQN\f' -:'''I'P'Q.I.OOlI iIWQ:;)t iW:aNi'!'lJ'dj dNV vaa OiIri1fi iii' ~ '''''0 ,~ tiIWIL" C'lNV ""'liIl~ we HJ,aliICI aIa.91 OJ, 1109 XI"" iOijl:i'.."",,,,,,~,,.: ___ ~~,::'IoI.J.Y 't.:)LIOllliIc::j elSG 1CNU.H11a1 iIbI.,..,IDbIaI GM:;V' ~ .. " tIC) ~ 'ItfHII ~'" .'" oIil~OC '..l.UtNaa..LiJN ...u;t1 rID 'ON .....".1.1.1' .&»i .......,.... 'J.:1nU."~IJ."A"""· m·O·":lI'1IiIIW-'A../.aII~-«I'f''''''~ ""JorL'~ ':lIiI II.""" ICUNIllo 1-aIOJ.9 ..... , .1:InIJ. .. , ';;.COl moQ-., 01 ...... 41"" OQ.Ite:'Z~ 1-l1li 'QoIINOZ'O<IJ.91)(i1 -:rt'I'ITO t ·.l..utNaa 03JJ.II.a.I!. -:WinO".... ·.I.l.JfINICIo~ ' •• Ift'1. 'iI1'l' lDi 1IO'njw., ... .... "'IIIJ!t ... "'KlNI'.~.LaO .... ,o.-L'", _.,e ..lIl _.('pl ,O~ ',t • IICII' ,O(-Willi .oc·~ "J.D"I rID "OW 9:?IL9ILV'L93LI9 'in'faHltiilOlillJ.:'f'J.NO:J ....,·urr./!P') • .,... tcLQilHe9'!I 'teJ./Gilll --"'" ~~"CDJ.IWI',:a".. 83N1l0 IN'lf511C1Jd'i1 '~QC71."')"'K'Ltt.,. .......... tt.L" 1'.1.9 Hl'tl' .. .1.NI a-u NI ":)1110 B:)'fI'oM'II..,....~. COIWooI • (...uIoI I'I...a)., u:,....,. ... 80'''' twtH • ("J.I I'U'~ Tt)'Jo9 Hlp lIN '.LHIIIHI. HI '?ClIO J:I'r''''' 'II'r'WII.r· , ...... .......•... f/"j'm". "·a.I~1 =~ .. ,.,.-" ! ~'.' "toUI·.~cm«IIl"""')(IIOI'IIJ..""~ "ft"J.NQZaQtt NaJ.IIIaI rID J.JJ:t .... mcMIQ QlllilAIOVIC, "" ~ HI ~ '~'" CNP" I. -.oN ~ 8'U NI3ITU.h tIIoU.CLteN .Ot • ~ :31VOS 91J1NlgV'3a ::10 tDlWe .j, 'N'J.IINlHt'J'm'..I.J.M"Cr.)'QIIDifIQ 'caIO:)iIIII'~ ~QIi .iI'CIf' ....... .,.,.. olD LOC a.rnc:to\ It a;~ ., ........ "'¥"'WauO ... UrrI~;It"·~",l ... ,.. .... ~ 'O'1l:lWt'.I "''f'rII'"IP''~ AHr'tIIIIooIT.oI.I.HQ' CINf' ~ 0I"Q9.a.aaw,wa::D('ll aNt .' r ...... t~ Q.lClIIClOJaj ¥IJaM'I ~a. CIDCI .LSI eaeo.ww OY'C* ~ .l..IN"ICOlOHDto.a.~~"""·~8'I.L.wICllGlClHW' r.,3IIStJ, IH' HaIION ItUQoIO"1¥' ~",,·~ .. iiltUua.\CJ.etI .I.e.; ON. ~ • '('lIllNlHhf'Jl·J...lM'IO:IIDNDI )of "101m'.!."". tlilQfAl 'HaIOMG_ll'tlHTOJ. 'tt ~M fIQ~ l~lI'U.fIQ~l"'~lIIH.LoD~HAIOHIt4l lCIJ.WNHeYII\'..won;:t::I Q01fID'~ ",OiOtoeU"," .. .."..,QoIJCIlI/O:)iiIIII .. 8CN1~· .. ~~iIIIIJ.¥'''Wad(;:It1t OlllNl~ '.acLDI ~ 1.,..,.. aIOHI..uM'O':) CINr.M., C leT! . .,.,.,.. .. NOlldi&593Q lV"D31 S 114J\tx;I qill/ (fpPl/7IPlMali i ····-···--··-·-¥-···-·--··--..... ___ ~ ..... Ai-"'=fO." __ . ___ . ___ •.• _ ..• __ ._ •• __ I· I _.1 I I I I ·1- · i' I' :. a !!l ~ Co ") ~" ~V ~' :f ~-I~ .. ~;~ ~L~~tj ~. ~;~L --jf , , \~~j .t~\-\~- -L~R-",~ ___ ~__ i... . .'" SE 132nd St ' , '! ;.. . SE 136th' St. -, r:£I (/) 'Q) ~ ~ -+-' co LO .--! SEt [137th PI. 1 f ~=======:l bD II () ~---0 f;311 ~ P:II P:; h , .-----.. r------.. ~ -+-' co -.;;to .-I ~ -+-' Q:l -.;to ~ .--! ,~( 14~r~PI o ~E 145th P~ \0 _ \) ~u l§Y/'L1t:~> ,-.,. ZONING ----Benton d1ty Umlt.o r:£I (/) Q) ~ ~ -+-' co LO .--! I 6 200 "fO 1~O t =I S I': u <l~ j-~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ SE 138th '-' SE 139th -16'llt1611 F7 ~ m:BNICAL SEIlVICllS t No ff~ , 14 T23N R5E W 1/2 Lt , 5314 tbNING MAp BOrK RESIDENTIAL ~ Resource Conservation a Residential dulac ~ Residential 5 dulac §] Residential 8 dulac 8 Residential Manufaclured Homes 1.-10 I Residential 10 dulac I R-141 Residential 14 dulac I RM-li Residential MulU-Family Infill MIXED USE CENTER ~ Center Neighborhood- ~ Cenler Suburban- ~ Urban Cenler -North ~ Urban Center -North 2 ~ Center Downtown- [E§J Center Office Residential COMMERCIAL II'!I!USTRlAL ~ Industrial -Heavy 0 Industrial -Medium 0 Industrial -Ught (P) Publicly o1rlled ---Renton City Limits ___ Adjacent City IJmits _ Book Pages Boundary I RM-N I Residential Multi-Family Neighborhood Center IRH-C I Residential Multi-Family Suburban Center ~ Commercial Arterial- e§:] . Commercial Office- [££] Convenience Commercial KROll PAGE IRH-T I Residential Multi-Family Traditional I RH-U I Residential Multi-Family Urban Cente ... • May include Overlay Districts: ... See AppendiI maps. For additional re&1:llatiO:Ds in Overlay Districts. please see Rye '4-3 .... PAGE# INDEX SECTfTO\"INIRANGE -. , :.~4~ .. ,' ..11;'. KatIiy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor . December 7, 2004 • Michael Chen , 'Core Design; Inc;. 1471 t NE 29th Place #101 . Bellevue, WA98007 '. ,SUBJECT: ' . Amberwbod phas~U prelinjinaryPlat ' . -LUA04~f17,PP, ECF, H' . . , Dear Mr. Chen: .' . . CITY JF' RENr:rON PIanningmulldingtPoolicWorks DepartmeIlt Gregg Ziminerman P.E., Administrator This letter iSloinform. you' that. the, appeal period has . e~eJed;for the' Environmental Heview .. Committee's (ERG) Determination' ofNon~Significance -Mitigai~d for the, above-referenced project' .' .' .-,'. .. -'.., . ", ':. :~ .' No appeals were filed on the ERG det~r'rhination. -. ' ., . . . ..".. ' ~, . ., .... i.' This decision is final and application for the~ppidp-riately required permits may proceed:' The 'applicant must comply withaIlERGMitigatiori_MeaS~f~$; A Hearing Examirier Public Hearing hasbe,enscheduled for December' t4~2004. Pleas~ see, th~ encl0$ed, Preliminary Report to the , Heating Examlner~ >. • . " .' . - If you have ahy q~estlons, pleas~'fe~1 tree·tobbntcictmeat·(425)'430~7382. Susan A. Fiala' , '.' Senior Planner -' ,;".: . ..' '. . " c. . cc: . Bales Limited'P~rtnership, SteveBeck-Amberwoodll LLC / Owners Keith K. ~y / Party of Record .' ' .. . Enclosure ..... ~ •.• '. -'I _ ~~',' . " ,"' ~-----I-05-S-;-S-o-uth--'-,-G-ra-d-y-W:-a-'-y--R-e-n--'-to-n':-~W.-a-s"""bi-ng-to""'n-.-98-0-55-, -----:.-~ .• ~ ~ , .' AHEAD,.OF THE t:;URVE \V This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30"10 post consumer , , 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Lily Nguyen, being first duly sworn on oath that she is a Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact fonn annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement fonn) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on Monday, 11122/04 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $110.63 at the rate of $15 .50 per inch for the first publication and NI A per inch for each eqpent in ertion. Lily Nguyen Legal Adverti . g Representative, King County Journal Zd' d sworn 10 me Ih;s 22nd d,y ofNovemb", 2004. . ('l' \\\\\\\\11111111//1// LJ~---· ,,\ LI\f-AG/-fJ:oo II; ~::::. \"" ......... 'IY ~'l: Tom A. Meagher ~ '?-: .. ~\~(\ EXIJi>.. ~ Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in R~~~'Wa~t'Ori"" % Ad Number:847576 P.O. Number: :: f-: g ~~'\./ ; '6 :: Cost of publishing this notice includes an affidavit surcha~e. \ () ./. \'-> j f-2 . ~ ... Pl\~\":~'" C!J ~ ~ <.p'" '1"t;;,.,' ~ ~ ~~ .r .......... MA'( '2..~ ••• c..~. $:' 'l -7 r ........ ~ ... " /'-111/ ~ 0 F -..N \\\,\,\ 1/11111111 \ I 1\\\\ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE & PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Amberwood Phase 2 Preliminary Plat and Rezone WA04-117, ECF, PP, R . Location: 6135 NE 4th Street. The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17-lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-l). A rezone to R-5 is requested. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cuI- de-sac. Street improvements and right-of-way . dedications are required for the plat. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writ- ing on or before 5:00 PM on December 6, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of . Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on December 14, 2004 at 9:00 AM to consider the Preliminary Plat. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the pub- lic hearing. Published in the King County Journal November 22, 2004. #847576 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Amberwood Phase 2 Preliminary Plat and Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-117, ECF, PP, R LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is requesting EnvIronmental (SEPA) RevIew, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17·101 subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The alte was recently annexed and zoned Residential· 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 Is requested. The 17 1018 arG Intended for (uture development of detached single-family homes on lots ranging In size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9.254 sq. ft. All single-family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access Is proposed via the easterly extension of HE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating In a cukte-sac. Street Improvements and rfght-of·way dedications are required for the plat THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 6, 2004. Appeals must be flied In writing together with the required 575.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner. City of Renton. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City 0' Renton MunicIpal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's OffIce, (425) 431).6510, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON DECEMBER 14, 2004 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WIll. BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200, DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PI¥se.:lnclude the project NUMBER whIm-calling for proper file Identification. \ - CERTIFICATION - ( , ... ... ,"""'" .:-_--... ~\':::.t;J..~"tt •• .: ~"""~lI<\SS/O;'V"~Q"" .. '0'1" "'. ;;<. ~ : :"0 NOl: '+':\~~ :: ,"1-9 ~', -n ~ ~ en : '.).. :0: -n ~ ~ -I: ...0(1, ~ g; : ~ ~~~ 3 ~~~, 'EJI../C ... ; I, I, ~ereby' certify that. copies'~~~d~?9_07 ...... ~.! abovedOInent were poste~y me m:.g c2.li)lf0us places on oi'~~~''''''':':''\O ... --, ,..,/tDYVlf)jy L8;. II ~SH\~U' .... .. the descnbed property on VVV'l' 1<& II'\\~~~":~~"",,,,,,, MARILYN KAMCHEFF ,~v I!PPOINTMENTEXPIRES 6-29-07 r ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Amberwood Phase 2 Preliminary Plat and Rezone PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-117, ECF, PP, R LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17-lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Resldentlal-1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are Intended for future development of detached single-family homes on lots ranging In size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single-family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access Is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de-sac. Street Improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 6, 2004. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTI;i GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON DECEMBER 14, 2004 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. . .. . -... e-. I D • . , , . D· FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Agencies See Attached Bales Limited Partnership Owner Steve Beck Owner/Applicant Michael Chen Contact Keith K. Ly Party of Record (Signature of Sender)~~ ~ ''''''''' .. , ...... VA I, _ ....... ''''IN r..,,1\1. "" STATE OF WASHINGTON ) _.:"_<»\; •••••••••••• C~ " ) ss f ~\. .. ~SSION S'.to ... ~'", COUNTY OF KING ) ; /'8~ ~OTA.9y ~\"\'\ ~ i : -.._ CIl: ~ , . . ~ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker ~ ~ \. ,oUBUC ./ j signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free andvoluntary~~OWG.r:~_Wt~.~·~.,; purposes mentioned in the instrument. ",t oi::w' ... ·S·:p\~0 .. _.:"- . "" A ........ \\\\\" ...... " .. Dated: ~ lrV. 'L q \ ?l!O1 Notary (Print): ____ ...I.InaCl./.ill~R'ItLv~. NHlfAfAIblMlAeMloIic:eFF~------------- My appointment expires: MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6-29-07 Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat LUA04-117, PP, R, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) • 1 Dept. of Ecology· WDFW -Stewart Reinbold· Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section c/o Department of Ecology . PO Box 47703 3190 160th Ave SE Attn. SEPA Reviewer Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Bellevue, WA 98008 39015 -172"d Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region· Duwamish Tribal Office· Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW . King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert PO Box 330310 39015 172nd Avenue SE Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 US Army Corp. of Engineers· KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation· Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Jamey Taylor· Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services ". ~. Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 " Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities wiir need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application .• Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing . " Kathy Keolker-Wheder, Mayor November 18, 2004 Michael Chen Core Design; Inc. 14711 NE29thPIace #101 Bellevue, W A 98007·' CITY )FRENTON, PlanningtBUildinglPublic Works Department . Gregg Zimmerman P.E., AdminiStrator . SUBJECT: AmberWood Phase 2Preliminary PlatandRezone ' LUA04-1H, ECF, PP, R' . Dear Mr. Chen: . .." "'. This I~tteris written on behalf of the Environmental REwiewCommittee (ERG) Cl,ncfis toadvise.you that th,ey have cornpletedtheir review' of the'subject project The ERCissued a. threshold Determination 'of Non~Significance,Mitigated with Mitigation fI/1easures.'Please ~eferto the enclosed Mitigation' Measures document . . . .... """. ' .' . ., . . Appeals of the envirC)liine~tal d~tel'lTIination. ~ustbe fil~d 'in '~riting aFl or before 5:00 PM on December 6; 2004. Appeals must be filed ihwriting togethefwltl))he'recjuired $75,00 application fee with:. Hearing Examiner,City of'Rentol1, 1055 ·South Grady Way, Rentdb, WA 98055. Appeals to,the Examiner ,ar.e governed by. City of. Renton' MunicipalC6d~ Section 4-8-11 0:8.' Additional information regarding the appeal' proc~ss:: may be obtairied~fiom;' the~enton' City CI~rk's Office, (425) 430~65'1 0'. '. ~. ~ -, ' A Public Hearing will be heldt>y th'eRentonHearing;'Exami'ner in tile CouriCil' Chambers on the seventh floorof City Hall; 1055 South Grady Way, Rentpri: vVashington, on Dece'11ber 14, 2004 at 9:00AM to consider the Preliminary Plat. The applicanrorrepresentative(s) of the. appiicantis required to be present' ·at the public hearing. A copy o(theistaff report will be mailed to'you,one week before the hearing. If the' EnvironmentalDeterminationis appealed, the appeal will be. heard cis part of this publiche~uing~' The preceding information wjll assist }louin planning .tor irilplernentatibnof your project and enable you to '. eXercise your appeal rights more fully, if'y()u choose to'do' so: If you have any questions or desir.e clarification oHhe above, please call me at (425)'430-7382. . . . For the Environmental Review'Co~mittee, .',.h ......... '.' .... ,~ . . . . .' .. ~.' . · . . . . · Susan A. Fiala · Senior Planner cc: KeithK, Ly (Party of-Record Bales Limited Partnership I Owner Steve Beck IOymer/Applicant Enclosure, .. ~ ----.,--~l-=-OS-:-:S:-:S::-o-ut-::-h-=G-ra-:d::-y=W:-ay"'---R-e-nt-o-n;-W:--a-sh:-:in-=-gt-o-n-9-g:-:0-SS-'------RE NT' O'N "<is Thispapercontains?O% recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THECYRVE ~thy Kooiker-Wheeler, Mayor . November 18, 2004 Washington State Department of Ecology ,. Environmental ReView Section ". PO Box 47703 Qlympia: WA 98504~ 7703 CITY )F RENT.ON PIanningIBuildinglPublicWorks Department GreggZimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Environmental Determinations . Transmittedhetewith is a ~opy of the I;nvironmentalDetermination for the following projectreview~dbY . ,the Environmental RevieW Committee ,(ERC) on November 16, 2004: ., " " DETERMINATION OF NON~SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: •. PROJECT NUMBER: . , AmberWoodPhase 2 Preliminary Plat and Rezone LUA~04cl17,ECF, PP,H 6135 NE 4th Street··,· . LOCATION: " DESCRIPTION: The applicil~ti~ requesti~g'Environmental(SEPA)Heview, Prelimi~ary , Plaland RezonirigapprovalJor at7~lo~ subdivision of atljree parcel, . 4.24 acre site. The site was iecentlyanriexed and zoned Residential-1 .(R" 1) of which a rezone tC?H-5'i~ requested. The '17 . lots are'intended for future development ofdetachedsingie~farTiily tiomes on lots ranging insize·fr?~'.7,2l6:s9;ft,t~.~:254sq: ff AII.sing!e-fp.mily{esidencesan.d . all oLltbUllqlngs 'areprqposed to be demohshedor removed. Access IS proposed· via·the.easte,rWextens·,onof NE 3rd Stand a new pUblic ' 'street extending'/SQUlhfromsame street, .terminating in a cul·de~sac, . Street improvementsaQdright-o~-way dedications are required for the., ' plat. '. "':.' . 'Appeals:'of the environrrie.ntardetermination must be filedjnWritirig or,. or before 5:00 PM on ' . December 6, 2004. ' Appeals must pe filed in writing together with Jhe required $75:00 application fee . with: Hearing 'Exar:niner;City6f Rentoljl;1055 SOl,lthGradY Way: Hentori,WA98055. Appeals to the 'Examiner are governed by City of Renton Munici'pal CoCie' ,Section 4-8-11 O.B.Additional infor'i'nation rega~ding tlie appeal process may be obtained'from. the Renton Gity Clerk's "Office,' (425) 430-6510. . . . . .' '. . '", :' . Ifyouhaveque~tion~, please call me at (425) 430~7382, , ' . 'For the Erivironmerital.·8eview Committ~e, '. , ,Su~anA;Fiala " , , Senior Planner cc: Kirig County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW,Stewart Reinbold' D~vid F. Dietzman, Department'of Natural Resources' WSDOT, Northwest R~g.ion ' Duwamish Tribal Office' , Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian T'ribe (Ordinance) . Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural' Resources Program ,US'Army Corp,of Engine~rs Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation '~' ...tE::llnIClCIu:os:;\J"lU;re~-'---l-O-S-S -So-u:-..th-G-ra-dy,....· W.-a-y---R-e-nt-o-n,-W.-a-s-hi-ng-t-on-9-g0-S-S----------'-R E N TO" N * This paper contains 50"10 recycled ma~l. 30% Post consumer ,A H E ADO F THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-117, PP, R, ECF APPLICANT: Steve Beck, Amberwood II LLC PROJECT NAME: Amberwood Phase 2 Preliminary Plat and Rezone DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 -lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single-family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single-family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de-sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 6135 NE 4th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 6, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: NOVEMBER 22, 2004 NOVEMBER 16, 2004 DATEI DATE' DATE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): PROJECT NAME: APPLICANT: LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LUA04-117, ECF, PP, R Amberwood Phase 2 Preliminary Plat and Rezone Steve Beck, Amberwood II LLC 6135 NE 4th Street DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 -lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd Street and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de-sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. Fire 1. A fire hydrant with 1,000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 ft. of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3,600 sq. ft. in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 ft. of the structures. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20 ft. wide. Dead end roadways over 150 ft. in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Cul-de-sac is required to have a full 90-ft diameter driving surface, not 80-ft as shown. Lots that are over 500 ft. on a dead-end road are required to be sprinklered. This includes Lots 10 through 13). 3. Separate plans and permits are required for the sprinkler systems. 4. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. . Building 1. Demolition permits are required. Plan Review -Surface Water/Storm Drainage 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SOC) is $715 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Water 1. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings. Plan Review -Sanitary Sewer 1. A sewer main extension along the whole extension of NE 3rd Court and along the proposed lots 11 and 12 will be required. 2. Separate side sewers stubs are required in each building lot. No dual side sewers are allowed. 3. This parcel is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD). Fees are collected at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 4. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SOC) is $900 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Street Improvements 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting and street signs will be required along the new proposed street and along the frontage of the parcel with NE 4th Street. 2. Channelization will be required along the frontage of the parcels with NE 4th Street. - 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance . . Plan Review -General 1 . All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Property Services 1. Amberwood, LLC is required to submit a Land Use Permit Master Application form to the city. They are a vested owner in property included in this plat proposal, and said application was not found in the review packet we received. Staff has contacted them and will be signing an application. 2. The preliminary plat legal description for "Parcel C" includes an exception for "PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY". Said exception does not appear in the First American Title Insurance Company title report (File No. NCS-77315-WA1) Exhibit A legal description for Parcel C. Review and revise as needed. Information needed for final plat approval includes the following: 1. Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-OX-XXX-FP and LND-10- 0419, respectively, on the drawing sheets. Please note that the land use action number for the final plat will be different from the preliminary plat and is unknown as of this date. 2. Provide plat and lot closure calculations. 3. Note the date the existing monuments were visited, per WAC 332-130-150. 4. Complete City of Renton Monument Cards, with reference points of all new right-of-way monuments set as part of the plat. 5. Required City of Renton signatures, for plat approval, include the Administrator of Planning/Building/Public Works, the Mayor and the City Clerk. Also, an approval block from the city's Finance Director is also required. 6. Appropriate King County approval blocks need to be noted on the plat drawing. 7. All vested owners of the plat property need to sign the final plat document. Include notary blocks as needed. 8. Include a dedication/certification block on the plat drawing. 9. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. 10. On the final plat submittal, remove all references to trees, topog lines, building setback lines and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. 11. Note encroachments, if any. 12. Note all easements, agreements and covenants of record on the drawing. 13. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. 14. The city will provide addresses for the proposed lots after the preliminary plat is approved. The addresses will need to be noted on the plat document. .15. On the final plat drawing, rEo I/e the "DENSITY CALCULATION" block. Jte the number of lots and net site area data elsewhere on the drawing. Also remove from the "SITE STATISTICS" block the references to proposed density, permitted density, existing zoning, proposed zoning and setbacks. 16. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) from the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. 17. If there is to be a Homeowners' Association (HOA) for this plat, the following language concerning ownership of "Tract A" (storm drainage) applies to this plat and should be noted on the final plat drawing as follows: Upon the recording of this plat, Tract A is hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Amberwood Phase Ii Homeowners' Association (HOA) for a storm drainage facility. All necessary maintenance activities for said Tract will be the responsibility of the HOA. In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months, then each lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tract previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. 18. If no Homeowners' Association is created, then use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 17, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in 'Tract A". 19. The foregoing statement is to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tract serving the plat, or reference a separate recording instrument detailing the same. 20. An updated Plat Certificate will be required. 21. The new private access/utilities easement (noted over proposed Lots 10, 12 and 13) is for the benefit of future owners of Lots 11 and 12. Since the new lots created via this plat are under common ownership at the time of plat recording, there can be no new easement created until ownership of the lots is conveyed to others, together with and/or subject to specific easement rights. 22. Add the following Declaration of Covenant language on the face of the subject plat, 1!the previous paragraph applies: DECLARA TlON OF COVENANT: The owners of the land embraced within this plat, in return for the benefit to accrue from this subdivision, by signing hereon covenant and agree to convey the beneficial interest in the new easement shown on this plat to any and all future purchasers of the lots, or of any subdivisions thereof. This covenant shall run with the land as shown on this plat. 23. The new private access/utilities easement requires a "NEW PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT" statement noted on the plat drawing. See the attachment. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-117, ECF, PP, R PROJECT NAME: Amberwood Phase 2 Preliminary Plat and Rezone APPLICANT: Steve Beck, Amberwood II LLC LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 6135 NE 4th Street DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 -lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd Street and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de-sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section ......... 1. The applicant shall comply with the "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated May 20, 2004, regarding "Site Preparation and General Earthwork". 2. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 3. The project shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot. Credit to be given for the existing two lots. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. Credit to be given for the existing two lots. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot. Credit to be given for the existing two lots. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. STAFF REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE Project Name: Owners: Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Description: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area gsf: Site Area: RECOMMENDA TlON: Project Location Map November 16, 2004 Amberwood Phase 2 Preliminary Plat and Rezone Bales Limited Partnership PO Box 3015 Renton, WA 98056 Amberwood LLC 4735 NE 4th St. Renton, WA 98059 Steve Beck, Amberwood II LLC 4735 NE 4th S1. Renton, WA 98059 Michael Chen, Core DeSign, Inc. 14711 NE 29th PL, Ste. 101 Bellevue, WA 98007 LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R Project Manager: Susan Fiala, AICP The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 -lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24-acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single-family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. f1. to 9,254 sq. f1. All single-family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de-sac. Street improvements and right- of-way dedications are required for the plat. Continued on next page 6135 NE 4th Street All to be removed/demolished. Proposed New Bldg. Area: N/A 4.2 acres (gross area) Total Building Area gsf: N/A Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Comniittee Issue a Determination of Non-Signifi~~,!ce -Mitigated (DNS-M).' . \ · ""Ii 90 ! · . I Q: " , · Q. , · [ " t: I 411.<&.9 oW"", ~ City of Renton PIBIPW Department AMBERWOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINAf. LAT REPORT OF NOVEMBER 16.2004 Envir'ental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R Page2of7 Project description continued: The lots are intended for the eventual development of detached single-family homes- lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9.254 sq. ft. The single-family homes and associated outbuildings would be removed or demolished. The proposal is for the eventual construction of detached single-family residences. The site would be developed into 17 lots and one tract, dependent on approval of the rezoning to R-5. Otherwise, the plat would need to be revised to meet the current zoning of R-1. The applicant submitted several studies including: a geotechnical report, a traffic impact analysis and a preliminary storm drainage report. Site preparation for development of the plat would include the removal of vegetation and trees for roadways, utilities and building pads. Primary access would be via NE 4th St. to Rosario Ave. NE to NE 3rd Court which would be extended eastward to the east property line. A new road extending south from NE 3rd CT. would terminate in a cul-de-sac. Street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, lighting and right-of-way dedication are required. The site is zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) dwelling units per acre. The R-1 zone allows residential densities that range from no minimum up to a maximum of 1.0 dulac. If the rezoning of the land from R-1 to R-5 is approved, the proposed plat would arrive at a net density of 4.8 dulac after the deduction of public roadways from the gross acreage which would be within the allowed range of the R-5 zone. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Low Density (RLD). B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 da Ap eal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES DETERMINATION OF XX NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. XX Issue DNS-M with 14 day A peal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. 1. The applicant shall comply with the "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated May 20,2004, regarding "Site Preparation and General Earthwork". 2. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 3. The project shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot. Credit to be given for the existing two lots. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. Credit to be given for the existing two lots. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. 6. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot. Credit to be given for the existing two lots. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. City of Renton PIBIPW Department AMBERWOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINAf1 LAT Envirr 'ental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04~ 117, ECF, PP, R REPORT OF NOVEMBER 16,2004 Page 3 of 7 Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. Fire 1. A fire hydrant with 1,000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 ft. of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3,600 sq. ft. in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 ft. of the structures. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20 ft. wide. Dead end roadways over 150 ft. in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Cul-de-sac is required to have a full 90-ft diameter driving surface, not 80-ft as shown. Lots that are over 500 ft. on a dead-end road are required to be sprinklered. This includes Lots 10 through 13). 3. Separate plans and permits are required for the sprinkler systems. 4. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Building 1. Demolition permits are required. Plan Review -Surface Water/Storm Drainage 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SDC) is $715 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. . Plan Review -Water 1. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings. Plan Review -Sanitary Sewer 1. A sewer main extension along the whole extension of NE 3rd Court and along the proposed lots 11 and 12 will be required. 2. Separate side sewers stubs are required in each building lot. No dual side sewers are allowed. 3. This parcel is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD). Fees are collected at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 4. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SDC) is $900 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Street Improvements, 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting and street signs will be required along the new proposed street and along the frontage of th~ parcel with NE 4th Street. 2. Channelization will be required along the frontage of the parcels with NE 4th Street. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. Plan Review -General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Property Services 1. Amberwood, LLC is required to submit a Land Use Permit Master Application form to the city. They are a vested owner in property included in this plat proposal, and said application was not found in the review packet we received. Staff has contacted them and will be signing an application. 2. The preliminary plat legal description for "Parcel C" includes an exception for "PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY". Said exception does not appear in the First American Title Insurance Company title report (File No. NCS-77315-WA1) Exhibit A legal description for Parcel C. Review and revise as needed. Information needed for final plat approval inCludes the following: 1. Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-OX-XXX-FP and LND-10-0419, respectively, on the drawing sheets. Please note that the land use action number for the final plat will be different from the preliminary plat and is unknown as of this date. 2. Provide plat and lot closure calculations. 3. Note the date the existing monuments were visited, per WAC 332-130-150. 4. Complete City of Renton Monument Cards, with reference points of all new right-of-way monuments set as part of City of Renton PI81PW Department Envir 'ental Review Committee Staff Report AMBER WOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINAFI ... AT LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R REPORT OF NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Page 4 of 7 the plat. 5. Required City of Renton signatures, for plat approval, include the Administrator of Planning/Building/Public Works, the Mayor and the City Clerk. Also, an approval block from the city's Finance Director is also required. 6. Appropriate King County approval blocks need to be noted on the plat drawing. 7. All vested owners of the plat property need to sign the final plat document. Include notary blocks as needed. 8. Include a dedication/certification block on the plat drawing. 9. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. 10. On the final plat submittal, remove all references to trees, topog lines, building setback lines and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. 11. Note encroachments, if any. 12. Note all easements, agreements and covenants of record on the drawing. 13. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. 14. The city will provide addresses for the proposed lots after the preliminary plat is approved. The addresses will need to be noted on the plat document. 15. On the final plat drawing, remove the "DENSITY CALCULATION" block. Note the number of lots and net site area data elsewhere on the drawing. Also remove from the "SITE STATISTICS" block the references to proposed density, permitted density, existing zoning, proposed zoning and setbacks. 16. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) from the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. 17. If there is to be a Homeowners' Association (HOA) for this plat, the following language concerning ownership of "Tract A" (storm drainage) applies to this plat and should be noted on the final plat drawing as follows: Upon the recording of this plat, Tract A is hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Amberwood Phase /I Homeowners' Association (HOA) for a storm drainage facility. All necessary maintenance activities for said Tract will be the responsibility of the HOA. In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails . to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months, then each lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tract previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. 18. If no Homeowners' Association is created, then use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 17, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in "Tract A". 19. The foregoing statement is to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tract serving the plat, or reference a separate recording instrument detailing the same. 20. An updated Plat Certificate will be required. 21. The new private access/utilities easement (noted over proposed Lots 10, 12 and 13) is for the benefit of future owners of Lots 11 and 12. Since the new lots created via this plat are under common ownership at the time of plat recording, there can be no new easement created until ownership of the lots is conveyed to others, together with and/or subject to specific easement rights. 22. Add the following Declaration of Covenant language on the face of the subject plat, !1 the previous paragraph applies: DECLARATION OF COVENANT: The owners of the land embraced within this plat, in return for the benefit to accrue from this subdivision, by signing hereon covenant and agree to convey the beneficial interest in the new easement shown on this plat to any and all future purchasers of the lots, or of any subdivisions thereof. This covenant shall run with the land as shown on this plat. 23. The new private access/utilities easement requires a "NEW PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT" statement noted on the plat drawing. See the attachment. - City of Renton PIBIPW Department Envir 'ental Review Committee Staff Report AMBER WOOD PHASE 2 PRELIM/NAn LAT LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R REPORT OF NOVEMBER 16,2004 PageS of 7 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated May 20, 2004. The report provides information and recommendations pertaining to foundations, soils, groundwater and erosion. The report states that the primary topographic feature of the site consists of a gentle slope to the south. The maximum elevation change is 15 feet from the north down to the south at approXimately a three percent (3%) grade. The site is primarily vegetated with grass and dense growths of blackberries with fruit trees and alders in the northwest corner and southwest corner. Several firs are scattered on the property. The tree cutting and land clearing plan indicates that all vegetation from the plat would be removed. The cleared land would accommodate the construction of homes, roads and storm detention as depicted on the tree inventory plan which also identifies the location of larger trees. The report states that according to the USGS that the site in underlain by ground moraine deposits consisting of ablation till overlying lodgment till. In general, the native soils observed at the test pit locations were generally consistent with this type of deposit. Seven test pits were sampled. The topsoil and vegetation layer is not considered suitable for support of the proposed foundations nor for structural fill nor be mixed with materials to be used as structural fill. Light to moderate ground water seepage was encountered at all of the test pits at depths ranging from two to five feet below existing grade. The report continues to states that this is likely indicative of seasonal perched groundwater collecting along the contact between the overlying medium dense soils and underlying dense soils encountered at the test pits. The estimated quantity of cut and fill would be 11,000 cubic yards which has been indicated would be balanced on site. In order to reduce the potential for erosion and control sedimentation to the site and to adjacent properties, staff recommends additional mitigation including that the project be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Mitigation Measures: • The applicant shall comply with the "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated May 20, 2004, regarding "Site Preparation an General Earthwork". The satisfaction of this requirement shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services during construction, utility work and building construction. • The project shall be required to be deSigned and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, RMC 4-4-130 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations. 2. Surface Water Impacts: The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Storm Drainage report and plan prepared by Core Design, Inc. dated September, 2004 with the land use application. The storm drainage system was designed to meet Level 2 standards and water quality. The applicant is proposing a detention and water quality pond. The project drains to Orting Hills Creek. The report indicates that there is no upstream tributary to the subject site. The downstream analysis indicates that there is no evidence of erosion or flooding. The site sheet flows to the southwest corner where the surface runoff enters a wetland area to the south of the project. This wetland area (off-site) flows into a well defined low area to an 18-inch culvert under NE 2nd St. and then on to another well defined channel to the southwest. City of Renton PIBIPW Depanment En vir 'ental Review Committee Staff Repon AMBER WOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINAf. LAT LUA-04-117, ECF, PP, R REPORT OF NOVEMBER 16,2004 Page 60t 7 The proposed dead storage volume required is 13,200 cf in the pond for water quality. Live storage required would be 46,200 cf in the pond. Due to downstream flooding and erosion problems, the project is to be designed per the 1998 King County Surface Water Drainage Manual. Staff recommends this as a mitigation measure that the s~orm drainage system is designed to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality. Mitigation Measures: The project shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 3. Fire Protection Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that the applicant provide required improvements and fees to offset the impacts associated with the new development. The proposal to add 17 new residential lots to the City would impact the City's Fire Emergency Services. Therefore, a Fire Mitigation Fee of $488.00 per new single-family lot with credit given for the two existing residences. The fee is estimated at $7,320.00 (15 new lots x $488.00 = $7,320.00) and is required prior to the recording of the final plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot. Credit given for two existing residences. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 2913, Ordinance 4527. 4. Accessrrransportation Impacts: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by Charles Brown and Associates, dated August 26, 2000 and submitted with the land use application. The report was prepared for Amberwood Phase 1 which included 19 lots. The report indicated that the levels of service on nearby roads would not be negatively impacted by the proposed project, likewise, the addition of 17 single family lots would generate approximately 143.55 trips per day to the surrounding street system. Primary access to the site is proposed via NE 4th Street to Rosario Avenue NE to NE 3'd CT. NE 3'd CT. would extend to the east and be stubbed for future extension. A new cul-de-sac is proposed extending south from NE 3'd CT. A 26- ft. wide private access easement would provide access to new Lots 10 through 13. All other lots would gain access directly to public streets. The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips to the City's street system; therefore, the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee will be imposed. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is calculated at a rate of $75.00 per additional generated trip per new single-family lot at a rate of 9.57 trips per lot home. For the proposal, the Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at $10,766.25 (15 new lots x 9.57 trips x $75 per trip = $10,766.25) with credit given for the two existing lots. The fee is payable prior to the recording of the final plat. Mitigation Measures: • The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project. Credit to be given for the existing two lots. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100, Ordinance 4527. 5. Parks & Recreation Impacts: The proposal does not provide on-site recreation areas for future residents of the proposed plat. It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize the City's parks, recreational facilities and programs. Therefore, a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single-family lot would be required for the proposal with credit given for the two existing residences. The fee is estimated at $7,961.40 (15 new lots x $530.76 = $7,961.40) and is payable prior to the recording of the final plat. City of Renton PIBIPW Department AMBER WOOD PHASE 2 PRELIMINAF1 ':'AT En vir' 'ental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-D4-117, ECF, PP, R REPORT OF NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Page t0f 7 Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single- family lot. Credit given for the existing two residences. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the final plat. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance 4527. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. -L Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 6, 2004. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. L&O~O % f • c, 0 , c < a ~ , z ~ . ..". ""3.i 'Lt~ o:.lN. "MhC C,..,p JO ).1JSNid liN" .... J."II'183111 0'1I"I:1I1I .10' U ;iIlroI:;!W''''ii~~II?'I''1iI1 ." ." .... ,~O( . ,,,,.\. ..... 'J"lI'NJO .LIN 'G!O'rJQ'QN 'YiiIWt' 1J.19.LaN 9C1Nt'1U11I' 91:)nI.L 991:n¥' Blylll ..... m·o·" :l11grw· ' ... .LlII~iD"IWt'~'I) 9NOI1V'1n:::>1V':::> ..1.119N3C1 :('\III"""CX .... , .. :wrrrOf; m·o" .. :::1I''KiiIn • '''>I1NO:Ofio~ "Dt~NOt 't'N1l91XjiI '.l.119H30 Olllu.. .. • ... J.I9NilClaa~ "0; .en 'iIl19 J,01 i9n1iAV :{.IO"'I.:~ .... "J\, 01 \\IIII;I.i,,, ,at· ... -ilOIi .O€ ,.,'t",ilI .cn·~ '9101 rJQ'ON 'avnail'~ 9:::>11'Oi1V'19 3119 l:K).I,.:v.r.; • T-r ... 'laIH:)f 'r ~].L' )tiil'ollClNiI • 'il" 'NaJ.J.'f":) 'il aIA .... a lilN'ff'.,..·~~-gIM"J.""'J.t.Cr.) U.L· ... (.c.-) ~ NOJ.9<CIH""'·~II"iKI 001 11IM~" HJ. .. ' 'I'N IIL .. I ':;IN NOI'IO iIIIOO7 ,"30T~8f'§g33NI'5N3kil3NN't'd 'iil1~NI~'l?1'lN:r.) ~",,'l'"('U''' ~tcl~=~~ .I~~" oaw.,u, .:a-,.,a liI31'mO ~~'f'm NOJ.:.IAI .&.IIJAIIl'l ... al1 •••• tI" )01;1 NiI"liIl. IN9511dd"7' :1 I \ ~ I (hllJ.IIo.ICIO"I.<9\J-.o ""'L~,.'1iI . • ... W. ... HJ." t '1911J.'Q '.'iI'Vil iHJ. HI ?ilIa """;M"I; eww ~ • £OItN..I (9aII:;:liW ,.. .. £Il wo i.U'IiI'" ''1i ' •• ;,.-. ... "'.1.'11 , rLe H19a'u,'J.'I'Ill' iIN'JH;JotJ.HI ::IVlOi:79'.-."""",.( o''''W ('td ... VO"'.,,~ilSIO.L 9aru:)(1WO'tlNl.L'IXIi ~a.~Lm.-O»~~·Jll.Jt;A= ~,,.,.,,,(r",.'H \'" L, '':H~~~'~'' " I ~I,;;- ~f~'O.m«.:: lI.wu':NJf]ACIIII'(W ~,:.;;~~:) " .. ·7~.~;·!·:'I~·::· .,! .07 • L :31V05 'Wl~'" • ..... IN'!O:I·ONDI,JO .awo.;; ... :a'~ /'IO{OW\L Oi ~iI~.". 'i~"" 'IlO LOL ...,,~ ,.. OIOll6C1:laal .,alJrtJ. ,l""" iIPU OJ. Q\I~:;)'f"~~ D,l .. ,. .... l:;tflU 'a~ .. ..... """.,c.JJ1IJ\1II J.Hr'......::r.J J.HQ'~'" .. ano..o o.rot J.~ l .. lJ:IX:iI CHW' • ..... L ... JlSIIoI'N 'IlNIdIIO::Ia.I";CN'I OlilcalO:lilall ailila ..... Q 91~ O'r'OIrIIlIIO" ..... .&HlO::;) 'tINI:.t 01 OJl..LSl\N::)::;) .oillllill'll .Lila" tI, HJlIICN ilMJ. J.";ir.)XiI CHP' ',,'DlSH.L a-u, HUiION 11111 ac'TW' QilIIrlVW'BW no '..aaliIHJ. 11;"10'."" .l1'f'B ....... J..IiJ,:»(iJ 'NO.L'!:INIH;YIII ' ..... ~ ~ HI """. '04 ... 01 " JI;INW'III 'HalON n .II't9Nro.l ',... NOU.7ao; rD WIUliYT'lO ,l'a'ft-IaIOH IIl'll flO lIIi1a1'f'r'O 1'IY1IH.aiON 01-11 itO .rtr'I-I HlliON ilH1 , ......... "JtO"''!:N~' .... .LH''O~QoI')I JD~ .. • .. 050t'0II9l lIIi1QW't11IJN1CJl11O':i;al~91.IOI·"lII~OHOI~"" 1'f'''''~ 011lN1~:)'f' 'CIQt\.Ol. W~ .'f''''Irot 1~.LJ.N1O':) OM';Ij.o'.1O' liI'iI=*"'_ , l'OlJ1N1H1't'rn • .... 'N'ICI71'N!')I rIC< '10111iO::;)::JIIj 'to;.Qt0ll9l lIIJKU.n.1 ONICIIiO:J!III W"'" 91." ' .. tIIDQ.BN)N 010ll07Ja,1 1"''''' ./MOI"II 0 ... 'ElNI~ 'o;otLQIllliIQI...I'N ,.,.,.. lllOOHI .I..LH'O:IlDNf)l rID 1.11" • ... ,J:IIIIt'wI NOlldlS:xl3d 1"7''''31 zl ~I ~I ; < . ~ i a T I . T SJ..vgWiAOUdWI.l1gYiN7IfH 1S Hi; 3'N ".. .. -....ot~~'1I:M&ICIQ ".~~oII!I~1IlW __ -.aaNl'a:7t"W _.:--.~·t ___ ....,...~_~ftW,u.,," <a~1l!:j739 :Ie;> 1il1<a79 ,......onoll,II09C1,H.,. ......... "' .. ,."f\&ft ... . .IH~" ___ ....,.. •• aa.w --~ .... _.,. .... _~lfl9 "' .... ,' ... ,_ ... .lHatLN~WH::5N3s 1 .H"""1 ,Ot .~ :31'10S t 1 (.uJ.)lft'WlII!Ur.n T'l, •...... XIdClIIId (..Lil'W"_l~1."""" :... .• ,."''tt~ ,·,.lJ.J..."...O .... ::I!. • ..... ..I.tl .. ~ .,.....-,..,..,.-- ~.'-..., I II: . __ ~~.*l~.-__ ~~~;,~~~~,~~~~I\~~~~~~~~~ ::r-<'''-, I .:, ..... - .lSI7 .lNtt7d .. DNI)l'v'.lS aNt! DNI.lNtt7d 33lJ.l .01 OJ. •• :.tnU WOIII,,)CI'I'V 0"lOI1 iIlIt.1 ~.CII 'I'I:ITW"ilflHlI'O"T1W .... O.f. QIClII iliIlU.~ ON. ,r JII0~ ~ MIJ. ~~IIONQ1.L~J."'~NQIJ."""".I.SNl I 11.11 OJ. ,t.N&W1 .... 'DN/WII:J 1IlHI~ 1AU!)~ NQOYiI9 ICNIIIIOIIIC..., "il.LM ~ 'UfIDII IM'IDI ..... c:1iIl.l tJ.l'lO bI~ trIO iW..U XI01-"'no :tllf'rii twTI (tJ.l3I!IUt .I. ... iWJ.I'A1YO o..l'Qf.Q)( ""ICI.tIIU Q.ft'W'9ZIfI'J.9 '110 c-trC) ""M¥<W rIO"~ '1WiINI"J,1'C:) , .au.'~,'1Y 8I<)WiIIII ~U!:)y~ '1'r'::I~ ON • J.-...o WAL'f'I'II QoItn OB'U.I.M 1ta OJ. ",OI'JC'fliI J.WtNI IoIOIIU taW, CH9' ')fftLI. l!)iUDflW iICJ'ntO C1a1I1NoI w.oGY J. ..... ala ..... ~ Jt:J N'nOaI:) Cl10W t3Wu. .,.,.. .I." ~!UDaIiaI CHP ltlOlol ''''I'9'CUC02II.DIr.II \. ~iI'" lei OJ. t.I.rIP ""."HJ.QNlIIIiW .tlh'G ClilaiiN9'r'. NO 'IlNr.'oI'I'.I.' " "-. aiJ,~"'iW iQ "m PliC't"il il1GI"CCI 'NOIJ.I~ .ar. .... N lI':."r'1III 011.1.""''1001 "!Un tatr'U. 0""""'0 DnIW • ...:;V' .,,';..,.o .. rl ... ... • IT< Ii 11iIi4'0I .'OH.'t9I '9J.O'rIQ'QN .........8.l!9la'i .--C~ tn:r.W BL't"A/IIW .. II'CM!I'='J"RW • '~rID""""~ 9NOIJ."t'f1:)1V':::> ..I.J.19N:lO '", tL .... ~ f'CI.uG.UICll-ll6Ql'" ..... ~ . .., ""01 ..Ir" "'11"""01 II"'I'DNI' "aac7rUCI 'III -ot'L· ... _·,· .. ,._·('p·.oC','-IICISI .0<-_ DC·1JrOII.I ......" ."..,.,-.. ---'..uttHlICI~ '-U*GIO~ '£ItLO'~" 'tJ,tnri/D'QN ...., ."..,.,-.. "f"i¥'" iLLJt ,..10.1. 9:::>1J.91J."t J.9 :lJ.I<; WX3118J"1t;IS33N1'!5N3I83NN'9'"'Id 9iI"WG H/iiICIIII'J.:If'J,NC.'t;I al>1O'"L.QI'rtttJ """NOJ.~""''''''''' --"'" .lHSIIIIiINIW" Gall.,., 9in'f"'1 INV'::511dd'ii' (~ClULt\~ lItO K\.,.. '"'IiI '1hIIIIo'Ytu .. ,'J.IH.Lenn.iN B1J,N':XIIaJl:'l' ..... ....wNltllOMil·""&oW r.amw t1ft11) 1110 LL"'" '"til ... .,..,. tuft1 r ra I"Uftlllt/·J.'~~·""iI'U"':)fIOB:l't'..".tv.'WIiI •• • ~ ~~~--~------------------------------------------------'----------------------~w~a~l~i~~g~~~Oy~iWC~~r~3S~/tMW~/t3N 1 Hi ,Ot .~ :31VOS f 'NO.LCIHIH9'rm'..I..J.IftX)"GNDIrIO ~ .. ·m~~'OIOf_' ... rwrIDLQ,a.tnQ,I\HI ClI~ .r;I!RIRtU .1. .... ,. EN. o.L 'ONIC2tI07.W .~ 110 J. ... 'W '1M J.:1'tI'li.I, 'CI~'" ,l.¥I'II-""'J.HIPAII.t.Nf'~ U'fIA' a....1Q1'CW o.rot URW J...iZI<II CIH'r ' ....... 1III3al'N QIf~_ IIIiICN\ taOIIIO':IJaf CDDCI.4.1i11 twOr.IIIW 09'ClIII .,.. ~QI/')IOl~~UiW''''tUIIION81.I..wElkaCJtoff' ,.,....,.. art, HUIION itt.&. 'A«)"W cm.rtWIW '" .",-....u UlIoI".4'IIlI'A ~ ~ 'lClIINHftft·J..l.NW):) QoI'!II HI '\.1m • .1. ...... ..,..... 'HaloN" .. ~.L '"" N)I.t.:I1tI .:J ........... ,., .... D1J.IIION ~.:J 1d1.WrD.L~ at.l. rID If'I'ni H.UiION ~ 0"""" • 'M::'..L,""""",·.4..LN"IO:IQI)IrJD~·~"" ¥JIiiI.It(QGCJIiII:r.)8II¥aaf'I'ft,"·"~~8II.1.""'UIIOI'II Ol~·lIIotLD1~.LY-W~...t..I.N'IIi:O'ONI:It.:J'.I.O"l .".,.... lO.l.QoIt1ft'Ift·.utftT.)QOIrID~·~9l. .....,..'PM~ .. IIGOI'I'ft,": .. ~cmc:a.o:tillll.L",...&&iIOHO O.L'PM~'SI04IlDIlllliIIiiW'tIlY-W~~~rlDl1Q'1 ........... NbIICII8593d i'ii''l53i {) L ___ 3 SE 128th Sf LJ l -------.J IT&. SE 132nd st. 7/ f;5 I ~ =1 S ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ;j ;:, SE 136th st. ~ ~ SEl1137th PI: ~ :::=:==::--==~ l SE 138th PI. f I ~ 139th PI. 1 bU" SE 140th PI. () p.;::j (/) Q) >-< ....c: -" co LO ~ :l ~JU! ... __ ~_~ L-, -'11- ~E 145th p~\ 0 n ~Ul§Y/1A~1 "..,. - - - -Renton City Umiljj + !R + P/BIPW TI!CBNJCAL SBB.V1CBS ~@~. ZONING ~~ .. ;;t:Q 1lIOfI03 1~~ t-J SE 138th - SE 139th SE 143rd ~ ~ ~ I ( lr F7 6 200· #fO 1~ 14 T23N R5E W 1/2 5314 IIESlDENT!AL ~ Resource CODservation a Residential J dulac §J Residential 5 dulac S Residential 8 dulac ~ Residential Manufactured HomeB I R-IO] Residential 10 dulac I R-14 I Residential 14 dU/Be I RM-J I Residential Multi-Family IDrill MIXED USE CENTER ~ Center Neighborhood- @] Center Suburban- IUC-Nli Urban Cenler -North 1 ~ Urban Center -North 2 o Center Downtown· ~ Center Office Residential COMMERCIAL JND11ST!!IAL ~ Industrial -Heavy ~ Industria! -Medium [2Q Industria! -Light CP) Publicly owned ___ Renton City Limits ___ Adjacent City LiInits _ Book Pages Boundary I RH-N I Residential Multi-Family Neighborhood Center IRH-C' Residential Multi-Family Suburban Center ~ ~ommercial Arterial· [§:J Commercial Ottice· ~ Convenience Commercial KROlL PAGE PAGE#INDEX IRH-T' Residential MulU-Family Traditional IRM-ul Residential Multi-Family Urban Cente ... . • May includl!\. Ovetlay Districts. See Appendix maps. For aadiU9~ regblBtions in Overlay Districts, please Cke RYC 4-3. SEcrfTOWNlRAHGE 'fD~II~I.O . ® ?'''':~~Nr p ~ King County . _.' 1= A~IV7i'l...4""W"'" D~S M' 0", G D. ~ . rJv 04 200 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ReC~/1I ~ ENVIRONMEN!AL ~ER\lICES. . . . .' ." ~I v'ED 900 Oakesdale Avenue' Southwest .' . Renton, Wa 98055-1219 tu l:rOL{-1 J 7 .---------~~--------~----~--~ This certificate ~ Jdes the .Seattle King County Departmel1t of Public Health and the Department of Development and Environmental Services with information necessary to evaluate development . proposals .. ,. ",.. , . .' .. King County Certificate of Water Availability I Do not write In this box number o Building Permit o Short Subdivision IRI Preliminary Plat or PUD o Rezone or other-,:--_______ -:--_--,- Applicant's name: Bales Umited Partnership Proposed use: Single Family Residences name Location: Amberwood Phase iI, 17 Lots -Approximately 4735 NE 4th Street, Renton WA 98059 (attach map and legal d~scription if necessary) Water purveyor information: I 1. 0 a.' Water willbe.p!Ovidedby serVice connection only to an existinQ 12"(size} water main that Isfrontiii'cfthe site . 2. 3. . OR IRI b. IRI .a. OR o b. IRI a. \ "i 1 r-o Water se'rvice will require an improvement to the water system of: '. o (1) feet of water main to reach the site; and/or o (2) The construction of a distribution system on the site; and/or· IRI (3) Other (describe): Developers Extension required. Install 12" Water main on NE 4th and all required mains on-sight. District will require all related easements prior to construction. The water system is in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan. The water system improvement is not in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan and will require a water comprehensive plan amendment. (This may cause a delay In issuance of a permit or approval). The proposed project Is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the district or city, or is within the County approved service area of a private water purveyor. OR .. j.:' -t· Db." Anllexationor Bourid~ry Review Board (BRB):approval will be neceSSaiy to~provide .serVice. ' . . '. ,f :. 4.' '" 1RI.~~.:.a~·" . Water. will be avaiiable at~h~rate of flow a'nd duration indicated below atno les~than ~o~simeasured:at the' ···.1. " nearest fire hydrant 300 feet from the building/property (or as marked on the attached map): Rate offlow at Peak Demand o less than 500 gpm (approx. gpm) o 500 to 999 gpm IRI 1000 gpm or more o flow test of gpm o calculation of . gpm Duration ... . 0 less than 1 hour o 1 hour' to 2 hours IRI 2 hours or more o other ________ _ (Note: Commercial building permits which includes multifamily structures require flow test or calculation.) . OR o b. Water system Is not capable of providing fire flow. , 5. . IRI "'p. Water systenihas certificates of water right or water right claims sufficient to provide service. OR o b. Water system does not currently have necessary water rights or water right claims. . Comments/conditions: Fees per Lot = WAC@$125, GFC @ $3,200, 3/4" Meter @'$450 = $3,775.00 FEES SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE ~. ·,-1: . :'-: ;.' I certify that the above water purveyor information is true. This certification shall be valid for 1year from date of signature. KING COUNTY WATER DiSTRICT'#9'O" ... '.. ." LESTER PIELE' . :" RENEWAL FEES: WI IN ,1 YEAR $50.00 Agency name . SignatOry~am.... AFTER 1 YEAR $125.00 SUPERINTENDENT· ~ -e~ It, j. cPr Title. Signat e . Date Z:\Water Availability Certifieates\Water AvaiJability\Amberwood Phase 2.doe DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM November 5, 2004 Susan Fiala Juliana Fries (x: 7278) " Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat -LUA 04 -117 6135 NE 4th Street I have reviewed the application for this 17-lot plat, located at 6135 NE 4th Street, and the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER The proposed development is within the water service area of Water District 90 (WD 90). The applicant included a Certificate of Water Availability. According to the document, the District's system can provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm of available fire flow per fire hydrant. The proposed project is located outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. SEWER STORM STREETS There is an existing 24" sewer main in NE 4th Street, up to the west property line alignment. There is also an 8-inch sewer main installed as part of Amberwood Div 1. The sewer main is stubbed in NE 3rd Court and further south in lot 12 of Amberwood Div. 1 A storm drainage plan and drainage report was provided. The applicant is proposing a detention and water quality pond. This project drains to Orting Hills Creek. There are no curb/gutter, sidewalks on NE 4th street, fronting the site. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings. SANITARY SEWER 1. A sewer main extension along the whole extension of NE 3rd Court and along the proposed lots 11and 12 will be required. 2. Separate side sewers stubs are required in each building lot. No dual side sewers are allowed. 3. This parcel is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD). Fees are collected at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 4. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SDC) is $900 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued; SURFACE WATER 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SDC) is $715 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. TRANSPORTATION 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting and street signs will be required along the new proposed street and along the frontage of the parcel with NE 4th Street. 2. Channelization will be required along the frontage of the parcels with NE 4th Street. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. PLAN REVIEW -GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards CONDITIONS 1. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed at a rate of 9.57 trips per single-family residence. 2. Due to downstream flooding and erosion problems, staff is recommending a SEPA condition requiring this project to comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. 3. This· project shall comply with the erosion control measures per the Department of Ecology Manual. 4. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study dated May 20 2004, regarding "Site Preparation and General Earthwork". cc: Kayren Kittrick - 5'\ t s# ____ ~ ________ _ Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number: LV~-04-\f7 Project Description: 'f Lo1" Sf"t, PLAT &l=\~» . . I Land Use Type: [j/Residential o Retail o Non-retail Calculation: Method of Calculation: 1'"' b ~~ [Q/ ITE Trip Generation Manual D Traffic Study (2\O).sf"~ D Other l1''&'/Lor 'I -1.::: \ S Y. q , ~.,:; \ L\::,. '5S AM.Q. -\--vis , 4~. ':>~ y. ',s. VO ::: IJ \ 0, '~\Q .'l.S Transportation . Mitigation Fee: Calculated by: ; K.Kd:tnr)y Date: 1D 11&) wt I } Date of Payment: _______________________________________________ _ :: I City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: /ra..n5tJtr ,~,~ COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 29, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-117, PP, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: October 15, 2004 APPLICANT: Steve Beck PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 184,740,sq, ft. BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th ST I WORK ORDER NO: 77320 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single'family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de- sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals' Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energyl Historic/Cultural Natural Resources PreseNation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet loAf 11-5'1\ K.~ \Old-~ /~ B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ~~ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas w ~re additional inform i n is needed to properly assess this proposal. 1/-S-tJr/ Sig Date City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Plan 1ievl'tuJ COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 29, 200~· "S~~ V APPLICATION NO: LUA04-117 , PP, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: October 15, 200~.\ .... \J '\,;., .... ~~~ APPLICANT: Steve Beck PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: Amberwood Phase" Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 184,740 sq. ft. BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th ST I WORK ORDER NO: 77320 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential-1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de- sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LightIGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment . 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or iti0!lal information is needed to properly assess this proposal. IO-dlg-of Signat Date City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works EN V I RON MEN TAL & DE VEL 0 PM EN TAP P Lie A T ION REV lEW 5 H E E t REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:OurkIN4f';1Ja.:l.e,r COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 29,2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-117, PP, Ecl=, R DATE CIRCULATED: October 15, 2004 APPLICANT: Steve Beck PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 184,740 sq. ft. BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th ST I WORK ORDER NO: 77320 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone . to R-5 i~ requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 1,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south trom same street, terminating in a cul-de- sac. Street improvements and right-ot-way dedications are required tor the plat. . A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water UqhtlGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or ere additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Si r DATE: TO:' FROM: ,- CITY OF RENTON ""PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM' November 3, 2004 Susan Fiala SonjaJ. FeSSer}~ SUBJECT: Amberwood Phase II Plat, LUA-04-1l7, PP Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plat submittal and have the following comments: Comments for the Applicant: , Did Amberwood, LLC submit a Land Use Permit Master Application form to the city? They are a vested owner in property included in this plat proposal, and said application was not found in the review packet we received. The preliminary plat legal description for "Parcel C" includes an exception for "PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY". Said exception does not appear in the First American Title Insurance Company title report (File No. NCS-77315-WAl) Exhibit A legal description for Parcel C. Review and revise as needed. Information needed for final plat approval includes the following: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-OX-XXX-FP and LND-1O-0419, respectively, on the drawing sheets. Please note that the land use action number for the final plat will be different from the preliminary plat and is unknown as of this date. Provide plat and lot closure calculations. Note the date the existing monuments were visited, per WAC 332-\30-150. Complete City of Renton Monument Cards, with reference points of all new right-of-way monuments set as part of th~ plat. \H:\File Sys\LND -Umd Subdivision & SUl"Veying Records\LND-l 0 -Plats\04 I 9\RV04 I I 02.doc November 3, 2004 Page 2 Required City of Renton signatures, for plat approval, include the Administrator of· PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works, the Mayor and the City Clerk. Also, an approval block fro the city's Finance Director is also required. Appropriate King County approval blocks need to be noted on the plat drawing. All vested owners of the plat property need to sign the final plat document. Include notary blocks as needed. Include a dedication/certification block on the plat drawing. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. On the final plat submittal, remove all references to trees, tbpog lines, building setback lines and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. . Note encroachments, if any. Note all easements, agreements and covenants of record on the drawing. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The city will provide addresses for the proposed lots after the preliminary plat is approved. The addresses will need to be noted on the plat document. On the final plat drawing, remove the "DENSITY CALCULA nON" block. Note the number of lots and net site area data elsewhere on the drawing. Also remove from the "SITE STATISTICS" block the references to proposed density, permitted density, existing zoning, proposed zoning and setbacks. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) fro the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. '\ If there is to be a Homeowners' Association (HOA) for this plat, the following language concerning ownership of "Tract A" (storm drainage) applies to this plat and should be noted on the final plat drawing as follows: Upon the recording of this plat, Tract A is hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Amberwood Phase 1/ Homeowners' Association (HOA) for a storm drainage facility. All necessary maintenance activities for said Tract will be the responsibility of the HOA. In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of . eighteen (18) months, then each lot in this plat shall.assume and have an equal and H:\File Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND·IO -Plats\0419\RV041102.doc\cor November 3,2004 Page 3 undivided ownership interest inthe Tract previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. If no Homeowners' Association is created, then use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 17, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in "Tract A". The foregoing statement is to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tract serving the plat, or reference a separate recording instrument detailing the same .. An updated Plat Certificate will be required. The new private access/utilities easement (noted over proposed Lots 10, 12 and 13) is for the benefit of future owners of Lots II and 12. Since the new lots created via this plat are under common ownership' at the time of plat recording, there can be no new easement created until ownership of the lots is conveyed to others, together with and/or subject to specific easement rights. Add the following Declaration of Covenant language on the face of the subject plat, !lthe previous paragraph applies: DECLARATION OF COVENANT: The owners of the Land embraced within this plat, in return for the benefit to accrue from this subdivision, by signing hereon covenant and agree to convey the beneficial interest in the new easement shown on this plat to any and allfuture purchasers of the lots, or of any subdivisions thereof This covenant shall run with the land as shown on this plat. The new private access/utilities easement requires a "NEW PRN ATE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT" statement noted on the plat drawing. See the attachment. Fee Review Comments: The Fee Review Sheet for the preliminary plat review is provided for your use and information. H:\File Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-1O -Plats\0419\RV041102.doc\cor Title for both ofthe following paragraphs: NEW PRIV ATE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Use the following paragraph if there are two or more lots participating in the agreement: NOTE: NEW PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTTI...ITIES IS TO BE CREATED UPON THE SALE OF LOTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. THE OWNERS OF LOTS SHALL HAVE AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT APPURTENANCES. THESE APPURTENANCES AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD, DRAINAGE PIPES, AND STORM WATER QUALITY AND/OR DETENTION FACILITIES WITHIN THIS EASEMENT, PRIVATE SIGNAGE, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF RENTON OR OTHER UTTI...ITY PROVIDERS. MAINTENANCE COSTS SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY. PARKING ON THE PAVING IN THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS PROHIBITED, UNLESS PA VEMENT WIDTH IS GREATER THAN 20 FEET. Use the following paragraph if there is one lot subject to the agreement: NOTE: NEW PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES IS TO BE CREATED UPON THE SALE OF LOTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. THE OWNER OF LOT SHALL HAVE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT APPURTENANCES. THESE APPURTENANCES AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD, DRAINAGE PIPES, AND STORM WATER QUALITY AND/OR DETENTION FACILITIES WITHIN THIS EASEMENT, PRIVATE SIGNAGE, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF RENTON OR OTHER UTILITY PROVIDERS. MAINTENANCE COSTS SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY. PARKING ON THE PAVING IN THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS PROHIBITED, UNLESS PAVEMENT WIDTH IS GREATER THAN 20 FEET. PROPERTY SERVI ) FEE REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISIONS N J04-5G APPLICANT: -;BAI es LltOl I gt? -PAr3-p-.tFE35H1 F RECEIVED FROM ___ ---;-;-:-~- (date) JOB ADDRESS: <Co I as we:. 4TH. 'OT' i=lbAT ) WOU---l7-'''l ..... 3_? ...... O __ -----_ NATURE OF WORK: 17-LoI LOblq1?1 ~(#..f'E'EE9~ 'PHAseD: LNDU-----'-"O""'---.... 04"""""":.L.'9~---__ X PRELIMINARY REVIEWO'F SUBDIVISIONgy WNG PLAT, NEED MORE INFORMATION: -LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHORT PLAT, BINDING SITE PLAN, ETC. PID U's -VICINITY MAP -FINAL REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION, TIllS REVIEW REPLACES SQUARE FOOTAGE -OTHER PRELIMINARY FEE REVIEW DATED -FRONT FOOTAGE SUBJECT PROPERTY PARENT PIDU 142.3:'>5 -g~e X NEW KING CO. TAX ACCT.U(s) are required when -Qoq4 assigned by King County. It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the, develo;r/~~~on>notice, that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements (i.e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SOC fees will be based on current City ordinances and detennined by the applicable Utility Section. . Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building PennitlConstruction Permit application. ' The existing house on SP Lot U , addressed as has not previously paid __ ~_ SDC fees, ,due to connection to City utilities prior to existance of SDC fee Ord. SP LotH will be subject to future SDC fees if triggering' mechanisms are touched within current City Ordinances. We understand that this subdivision is in the preliminary stage and that we will have the opportunity to review it again before recordation. TIt fi II ted ti d NOT' I d . ti'd /. fi th f e 0 owmg quo ees 0 mc u e InSpectIOn ees, Sl e sewer permits, r w permit ees or e cost 0 water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL MEmODOF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer Agreement (pvt) WATER -0- Latecomer Agreement (pvt) W ASTEW ATER -0- Latecomer Agreement (pvt) OTHER -0- / Special Assessment District/WATER / -0- E'A~T ~EU'f~ U...1'tEI=:~c::E'P1't'A e><:::>o2!-$ea4. EeX UlrTS-r 17 ,eo Special Assessment District/W ASTEW ATER I "-I Joint Use Agreement (METRO) - Local Improvement District * - Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP, CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION - FUTURE OBLIGATIONS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -WATER -Estimated # OF UNITS/ -Pd Prevo -Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) -Never Pd SQ. FIG. Single family residential $l,525/unit x - Mobile home dwelling unit $1220/unit in park Apartment, Condo $915/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.213/sq. ft. of property (n9t less than $1,525.00) x Boeing, by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter (2,800 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -WASTEWATER" Estimated -Pd Prevo -Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) .. Never Pd Single family residential $900/unit x 17 Mobile home dwelling unit $720/unit x Apartment, Condo $S40/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial $0.126/sq. ft. of property x(not less than $900.00) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -SURFACEWATER .. Estimated -Pd Prevo -Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) .. Never Pd Sin21e family r~idential and mobile home dwellin2 unit $715/unit x 17 All other properties $0.249/sq ft of new impervious area of property x (not less than $715.00) I PRELIMINARY TOTAL - SDCFEE WA-n;;::P, 5Et=:(VICe: "1b 13iE :-~C'IIIt::)ED 'PN ,6, 'A~ OIST ~Q. $ .~. \5.,3Q:::).00 e 12.,155.00 '" o o ..,. .. *If subject property is within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status. t1 fD <: .... Square footage figures are taken from the King County Assessor's map and are subject to change. Current City SDC fee charges apply to __________ --, _______ _ EFFECTIVE January I, 2004 fD :0: ::s o -;. City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works EN V I RON MEN TAL & DE VEL 0 PM E N TAP P Lie A T ION REV lEW .,5 H E E T REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Svcs. COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 29, 2004 DATE CIRCULATED: October 15, 2004 APPLICANT: Steve Beck PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: AmbelWood Phase II Prelimina Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 184,740 s . ft. BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th ST I WORK ORDER NO: 77320 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de- sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LiqhtlGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 29, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-117 ,PP, ECF, R APPLICANT: Steve Beck PROJECT TITLE: Amberwood Phase II Prelimina Plat SITE AREA: 184,740 s . ft. LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th ST WORK ORDER NO: 77320 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de- sac. Street improvements and right-at-way dedications are required tor the plat. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g~ Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Ii'" Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources PreseNation Airport Environment . 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or information IS n eded to properly assess this proposal. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS "It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreation facilities and programs. The City has adopted a Parks Mitigation Fee of $530.76 per each new single family lot to address .these potential impacts." Parks Mitigation Fee CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: October 25,2004 SUS~FiU Reb~Lind Don Erickson Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat; 6135 NE 4th Street; LUA-04-117, PP, ECF, R Summary: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 4.24-acre parcel into 17 lots. The site is currently desigriated Residential Low Density and zoned R-l, one unit per net acre. The applicant has requested a rezone to R-5, five units per net acre. The subject site is located near the intersection of NE 4th Street and Rosario Avenue NE, if extended. The site is immediately east of the Amberwood Subdivision. The site is part of the former Bales Annexation and was zoned because the property owners in the annexation area failed to support R-5 zoning at the time of the annexation election. Because the residents failed to support the proposed R-5 zoning the City was forced to bring the annexation into the City with R-l zoning with the understanding that the applicants would request a rezone to R-5 zoning in the future. Staff commented on this application of July 3, 2003. Relevant land use polic'ies are attached and the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Matrix below shows the relative level of compliance of this proposed subdivision with City development policies. Community Design H:\EDNSP\Interdepartmental\Development Review\Green File\Comments\Amberwood Phase II Prelim Plat.doc\cor Communitv Design Policv CD-27 Policv CD-50 Policv CD-53 Policv CD-56 Policv CD-59 Findings: Regarding the Residential Low Density policies, at this stage the applicant's submittal materials do not suggest high quality building design or landscaping other than two street trees per lot. No common open space is apparent, and NE 4th Street looks like it is in for the same treatment that Amberwood I, immediately to the west gave it. Unfortunately, the applicant has not provided submittal materials that would suggest that "high quality housing" will result as a consequence of this development as currently proposed. No elevations of buildings-have been provided nor have exterior materials and finishes been identified. In conclusion, regarding these policies and the applicant's submittal there is nothing to suggest that there are speciililandscape features provided , or that this subdivision incorporates "innovative site-planning." The only policy fully complied was Policy CD-50 pertaining to planting trees along the street. Policy CD-I6 regarding all lots fronting on a street or park is not met with this subdivision the applicant's site plan envisions extending a single tier of lots backing onto NE 4th Street. Although a fence is shown along the east, west and south property lines it is not clear whether one, is proposed along NE 4th Street. Also, the applicant's landscape plan does not show any landscaping between the property line and the sidewalk, which in this case abuts the curb on this major arterial. No information on residential design such as typical floor plans, street elevations, etc. has been 'provided, so it is impossible to detennine the quality of future residential development. The proposed subdivision is at the upper end of the density range for theR-5 zone, artdthere is not indication that this plat will be of a high quality (PoliCy CD-I8). Unfortunately, this deVelopment does not provide' an option to connect to the property to the south. This propertY, however, is owned by King County Parks and may develop as a park in the future (Policy CD-27). The applicant's landscape plan does riot indicate any landscaping around the ~ propos'edstonnwater'detention porid on· Tract A (policy CD-56). Regarding Policy CD-59, sidewalks have been provided on all lots but this development relies on the use of a cul-de-sac to se~e ten of the seventeen lots in the proposed development. There also is a question of pedestrian safety having the proposed sidewalk along NE 4th Street located at the curb line. ; '; Attachment cc:' Don Erickson " H:\EDNSP\In~departmental\Development Review\Green File\Comments\Amberwood Phase II Prelim Plat.doc\cor . '! RELEVANT COMPREHENSNE PLAN LAND USE POLICIES Residential Low Density Policies Policy LU-I44. Ensure quality development by supporting site plans and plats that incorporate quality building and landscaping standards Policy LU-145. Interpret development standardS to support projects with higher quality housing by requiring: 1) A variety of compatible housing styles making up blockfronts; 2) Additional architectural features such as pitched roofs, roof overhangs, and/or decorative cornices, fenestration and trim; and 3) Building modulation and use of durable exterior materials such as wood, masonry, stucco, or brick. Policy LU-146. Interpret development standards to support provision of landscape features , ,'that typically would not otherwise be provided as well as innovative site planning. Community Design Element Objective CD-D: New neighborhood development patterns should be consistent with Renton's established neighborhoods and have an interconnected road network. Policy CD-16. During land division, all lots should front streets or parks. Discourage single-tier lots with' rear yards backing onto a street. Evaluation of land configuration should consider whether a different layout of streets or provision of alleys is physically possible and could eliminate the need for a single-tier plat. Policy CD-17. DeiJelopment should be designed to result in a high quality of development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. Policy CD-lB. P~ojects should only be approved at the upper end of density ranges when the following criteria' are fully addressed in project level submission. . . , . a. Trees are retained, relocated, or planted to create sufficient vegetative cover to . provide a landscape amenity, shade, and high quality-=walking environment in an urban context. b. Lot size/configuration and lot coverage is sufficient to provide private recreation loutdoors space for each resulting lot. . c. Structures can be sited so that entry, window, and door locations create and maintain · privacy on adjoining yards and buildings. Density may be reduced within the allowed range to bring projects into compliance with these criteria. H:\EDNSP\hlterdepartmental\Development Review\Green File\Comments\Amberwood Phase II Prelim Plat.doc\cor Relevant Comprehensive Plan Policies, continued Policy CD-27. New streets should be designed to provide convenient access and a choice of routes between homes and parks, schools, shopping, and other community destinations. Policy CD-50. Trees should be planted along residential streets, in parking lots requiring landscaping, and in other pervious areas cis the opportunity arises. Trees should be retained whenever possible and maintained using Best Management Practices as appropriate for each type. Policy CD-53. Landscape plans for proposed development projects should include public entryways, street rights-of-way, stormwater detention ponds, and all common areas. Policy CD-56. Surface water retention/detention ponds should be landscaped appropriately for the location of the facility. Policy CD-59. A citywide street and sidewalk system should provide linkages within and between . neig~borhoods.. Such system. should not. unduly increase pass-through traffic, but should create a . continuous, efficient, interconnected network of roads and pathways throughout the City. 'J " 11" .' H:\EDNSP\Interdepartmental\Development Review\Green File\Comments\Amberwood Phase II Prelim Plat.doc\cor City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 29, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-117, PP, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: October 15,20 APPLICANT: Steve Beck PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: Amberwood Phase II Prelim ina Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 184,740 s . ft. BUILDING AREA N/A LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th ST WORK ORDER NO: 77320 NEIGHBORH6g"MENT. AND STRA TEGle p DS~I SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential -1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de- sac. Street improvements and right~of-way dedications are required for the plat. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water UJLhtlGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date ~ .. - City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PI).ri.s COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 29, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-117 ,PP, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: October 15, 2004 APPLICANT: Steve Beck PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 184,740 sq. ft. BUILDING AREA (gross): \ N/A LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th ST I WORK ORDER NO: 77320 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential -1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension ot NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south trom same street, terminating in a cul-de- sac. Street improvements and right-ot-way dedications are required tor the plat. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary -Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation ", ~ Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals T raf)sportation Environmental Health Publjc Services Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impactor areas where additional information' eeded to properly assess this proposal. I 0 / 0~ Date ,~ ~ City of Reflwn Department of Planning / Building / Public WUI KS ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: &;nsfttl.L.,'h'on COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 29, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-117, PP, ECF, R DATE CIRCULATED: October 15, 2004 APPLICANT: Steve Beck PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala i~ "-' ;:. ~ . -''';; If • . PROJECT TITLE: Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries Or '1-L '-. 8 I SITE AREA: 184,740 sq. ft. BUILDING AREA (gross): Nih,. !J lnnl. -V'l.D ~r LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th ST WORK ORDER NO: 77320 Yi\jG DII . "0/ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezo~9' approval for a 17 lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de- sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major. Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LiqhtlGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public SeNices Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources PreseNation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS j)~~~ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal . .,. Date DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM October 15, 2004 Susan Fiala, Senior Planner Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal (\ jJ4: Amberwood Phase II, 6135 NE 4Th \[;'-J MITIGATION ITEMS; 1. A fire mitigation fee of $488.00 is required for all new single-family structures. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structures. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20 wide. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Cul-de-sac is required to have a full gO-foot diameter- driving surface, not 80 foot as shown. Lots that are over 500 feet on a dead end road are required to be sprinklered. ( Lots 10-13). 3. Separate plans and permits are required for the sprinkler systems. 3. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 29, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA04-117, PP, ECF, R APPLICANT: Steve Beck PROJECT TITLE: Amberwood Phase" Prelimina Plat SITE AREA: 184,740 s . ft. LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th ST SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, P liminary ,I~~f\~ ~ approval f r a 17 lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zon d Residefil !§It Uf:I~,,:~1'M?!~nhich a rez ne to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single fami ,~. . 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de- sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. . A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More EnvIronment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water UghtiGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals TransJ)Ortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistoridCultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS f ~~ ~~r1 . eojM~-CK ? 'cular attention to those areas in which we have expertise nd have identified areas of probable impact or to properly assess this proposal. · ~, '. '. Agencies (Signature of Sender): >~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) SS ) See Attached , ... , "" ''\, \, ...... \<AM "I :--;:.~ ........ ~,y~"tl .: ~ .... S\ON E';·'. :.<-I, .. ~~ •• ~? "'i<%'. ,;(\ " : ~:'~~ 01 AAy ~\ ~ : :0 ~ (/l ~ ~ ~ :0 ... 49 : ~ ,. 0 .~, ~ ~. Pus\..\ .: 0 ; I certify that I knoW or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker ~, dl.;.··.... ()1 ./§ j signed this instrumen.t and ~cknowledged it to be his/her/their free and vOlunt~¥t-~ot~h~ and Purposes mentioned In the Instrument. I'I,?\\F WJ'>\~ ............. ,,'-"''',...: Dated: II /2.4/0'1 Notary (Print): ______ ..;..::~}..:;:,,~:W.R'l:..' 'nI~II(lJ:A~M~CI-!l:::;:FF~------------ My appointment expires: i'J1Y.fJ'P()jNTlViENH:XPlj~Ese-29-nl Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat LUA04-117, PP, R, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. c/o Department of Ecology * 3190 160th Ave SE Attn. SEPA Reviewer Bellevue, WA 98008 39015 _172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program 4717 W Marginal Way SW * Seattle, WA 98106-1514 Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila MuniCipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 _Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application .• Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing • NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: October 15, 2004 LUA04-117, PP, ECF, 'R Amberwood PhD" II Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-l) of which a rezone to A-S is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. fl to 9,254 sq. It. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd SI and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating In a cul-de-sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. 6135 NE 4" Street I ' PROJECT LOCATION: OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MmGATED (DN8-M): As the Lead Agency. the City 01 Renton has detennlned that signHicant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the ACW 43.21 C.1 to, the City of Aenton is using the Optional DNS·M process to give notice that a ONS- M Is Ukely to be Issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed ONS-M are Integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance-I I Mitigated (DNS·M). A t4-day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the ONS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: September 23, 2004 NOTIce OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: October 15. 2004 APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Michael Chen; Tel: (425) BB5-7Bn PennltsiRevlew Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat, and Rezone Other Permits which may be required: Fire, Utility, and Construction Permits Requested Studlel: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist, Geotechnical Study, Drainage Analysis Location where application may be reviewed; PlannlnglBuildinglPublic Works Department, Development Services Division Sixth Floor Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBUC HEARING: Public hearing tentatively scheduled for December 21. 2004 before the Rento Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin al 9:00 AM 0 the 7th floor of the new Renlon City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: ZonlnglLand Use: Environmental Document8 that EvalUate the Proposed Project: The subject site is designated Residential Low Density on the Cily of Renlo Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential - 1 (R-l) on the City's Zonin Map. These designations encourage and permit single family residentia development R-l allows a maximum net density of 1.0 dulac. With a rezone t A-5, the 17 lot plat would result In a net density of 4.8 dulac which would be withi the R-5 maximum density of 5.0 dulac. The proposed subdivision Is consisten with the Comprehensive Land Use deSignation. It the rezone to R-5 Is approved the proposal lNOuid comply with the R·5 zoning designation. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist I Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, Zoning Code. Public Works Standards. Subdivision Regulations, Uniform Building and Fire Codes and Other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. • Proposed MIUgaUon Measures: The fonowlng Mitigation Measures will likely be tmposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee. • The applICant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire MiUgatlon Fee. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. Comment. on the above application must be submitted In writing to Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 29, 2004. This matter is also tentatlyely scheduled for a public hearing on Oecember 21 2004 at 9·00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor. Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing. please contact the Development Services DiviSion, (425) 430-7282, 10 ensure that the hearing has n01 been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wiSh 10 be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments wiD automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Susan Fiala, Tel; (425) 430·7382; Email: sfiala@ci.renton.wa.us PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION .. " @ @ .. " @ 8 u If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File NoJName: LUA04-117, PP. ECF. R I Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat NAME: __________________________________________ __ MAILING ADDRESS: ____________ ~ __________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: ________ ~ 1 " __ "_ _ _ _ _ CERTIFICATION J". "",;:-","'<o.o:::.~\..'l."'" _......... ~l.YN "ttt :_,,~ ........ ~tt f ~.:.~W.\SS/O,1;· .. a "" I '\'2,; -0 -'\ , b -f ?,. ,~.P ~'. ~ I. , r~ \ ~c. 1"-00\.1\>\ " ,here y certl y that .::> : copn::s ~ ~ ... ~ ~ above document were posted by me in ~ conspicuous pIi.~~ on..&~~~~ ~ ~ the described property on to-I. s-t)tf ~ ~ ~. U& ~/ i I.. ..-~ ---:~ 0 ' .... :9.? ..... ~O~_.i' ., ... - " !tt. ........ .. \,\\\\\\\ ....... 0/ NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: October 15, 2004 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA04-117, PP, ECF, R PROJECT NAME: Amberwood Phase II Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval for a 17 lot subdivision of a three parcel, 4.24 acre site. The site was recently annexed and zoned Residential - 1 (R-1) of which a rezone to R-5 is requested. The 17 lots are intended for future development of detached single family homes on lots ranging in size from 7,276 sq. ft. to 9,254 sq. ft. All single family residences and all outbuildings are proposed to be demolished or removed. Access is proposed via the easterly extension of NE 3rd St and a new public street extending south from same street, terminating in a cul-de-sac. Street improvements and right-of-way dedications are required for the plat. PROJECT LOCATION: 6135 NE 4th Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination. of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: September 23, 2004 October 15, 2004 APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Michael Chen; Tel: (425) 885-7877 PermitS/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat, and Rezone Fire, Utility, and Construction Permits Environmental (SEPA) Checklist, Geotechnical Study, Drainage Analysis . ,. Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Public hearing tentatively scheduled for December 21, 2004 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Residential Low Density on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential - 1 (R-1) on the City's Zoning Map. These designations encourage and permit single family residential development. R-1 allows a maximum net density of 1.0 dulac. With a rezone to R-5, the 17 lot plat would result in a net density of 4.8 dulac which would be within the R-5 maximum density of S.O dulac. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use designation. If the rezone to R-S is approved, the proposal would comply with the R-5 zoning designation. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, Zoning Code, Public Works Standards, Subdivision Regulations, Uniform Building and Fire Codes and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Mea' ,. The following Mitigation Measures will likel' mposed on the proposed project These recommended Mitigation Measures, ~ress project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee. • The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. • The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 29, 2004. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on December 21. 2004. at 9:00 AM. Council Chambers. Seventh Floor. Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing. please contact the Development Services Division. (425) 430·7282. to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above. you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal. or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail. please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits writter:1 comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project . CONTACT PERSON: Susan Fiala, Tel: (425) 430 __ 7382; Email: sfiala@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I '.u <C , ... • 5 .~. • 4 ~! 23 ... n ~ . ... i 21 ~ '" 20 ~ .~ ~ 19 .. .. e . 18 ~. 0: 17 @) 16 :.: ~Iil . h ISO 8.03 . ·I~'.~ <C I<') 34 <,g .f 31 ao 2.IOAe. Z." Ac. 29 B 28 27 26 @ 25 24 23 @ If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project. complete this form and return to: City of Renton. Development Planning. 1055 So. Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055. File No.lName: LUA04-117. PP. ECF. R / Amberwood Phase" Preliminary Plat NAME: __________________________________________________ _ MAILING ADDRESS: _______________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: __________ _ to'" ~ .. ' . . tt ~ : ..&L . ' . -Kathy Kooiker-Wheeler, Mayor CITye,F RENTON PlariningIBuildinglPublicWorks Departinent .' Gregg Zinimer~ali P~E.,Administrator .. ; . · ()ctober 15,',2004 . • .' '. c ", Michael Chen Cor$ Design, Inc .. .. 14711 N.E 29th PI. ,.Ste. 101 . Bellevue, WA 98007 Subject: AmberwoodPhase II preiiminary Plat 'U.)A-'04-117,PP, ECF, R . .' the DevelOpment Planning S~ction~ftheGitY of Renton ha~determil'ledthat the' . subject application' is compl~te accordingt6sUbmittaJ requirements and, therefore, is' . accepted :for revieW, . .... . . . '" " :;£.. .. . It is tentatively scheduled'for corjsiderati()6?bV'tli~:;~rivi ronmemtaJ8eview' Cornmitteeon' November 16, 2004. Prior tothat revi~w;y()u Will ~b:einotified if anyadditionalinfortni:ltidn . isrequirecnocontinlJe:processingy6urappllc~tf6n~'" . · Pleas.econtactrne at (4~l!5) 430-7382'if.Y6U· have·iiriy.q uestions.· . ..... . . \. , .. .' '. S~inCereIY' ....•.... ~ .... ' .. " .•.. ;: .. ......•............•..... :: .. ~ ....... " ....... . . . ;. : . ~ . ..' . ,., .. ~ . . .., ~ . Susan Fiaia · $ehior Planner: cc: .. Bales Limited 'Partnership fOwner . Steve Beck/Applicant '.' . "" "jl . ... , :'. . T\ __ .~ .• ~ ... ~ .. ~ .. ~...,--...,--------;1:-;<05-;;-;5:-;S:;-o-uth:;-."G;---ra-;d;-y-;;w.-;-ay---;R::=-e-D-:-to-n,-;w.;-;-as----;-:bi:-'-ng;-to-D-'--9:::-:8~O-;;-55;;----''-----~· ·R E. N 'TO'N . .' * This paper~ntains 50% recycled material, 30% ~ consumer. AHEAD OF' THE CURVE .~. -. 14~te . Kathy Keolker-wheeler, Mayor · October 15, 2004 . , . . . SLiperint~ndetlt'sOffice Renton School District #403 30d sW 7th street . Rentori,WA 98055~2307 Subject: Amberwood Phase,ilPreliminary Plat· LUA04-117 PPECF H " . . . ,. ,. ". J. CITY JF RENTON PlmmmgIBUildin~bljcWorks DCpartment Gregg ZimmemUlD P.E.,AdniiDistrator . The"City of Reriton'peveiopment. Servic~s Division has received an application fora·t7-L~t • Subdivisioi1locatedat 6135NE4th Street. Please see ·tnee'ncloSedNoticeof Applicati9n for' .0, .. ' · further details. . . .' . "',,', '"" In order to process thisapplicatiqn;"the',D!3Velopment SerVic!3~.biviSion; needs' to'know'which' .... Renton schools ,would 'bea~enaedby children'·living.·,nresidences·· attl:le locatkmindicatect · above .. 'Please fill)n th$ apprbpdate'sChoQls,of1thelisd)elbw"andn~iurnthisletter to my attention,Development Services Division"City of R$nton,'i 055':~$outh Grady Way, .Renton,' . 'Washingt()n98055.' . .' d',j:':ro., .: ',; ;~ E~me~ryS~~:~_~~~_~-~,=-~~~{+:~i·~_~~~'~'f~.~_~~~~~_~~_~~~ Middle$phool: ~-----,-,-:--:--~,-,-.".c'-,-,""-",' -=' '-::::'-'-::~~-'-;;"--' ----"---'----'-'-:-.,-'-'----'----:----,---:"7'--'--~ High Sch()ol: ---'_-'--__ '---'''---"-,-,-.. ,. --,-"--_~-~-"-::-~-'-'---:--:----:'--..:..-..:..---'-'----:'----.- Will the, schools you have i~dicC!t~d.b~,~bf~ tb:ti~mdl~the imp~ctof the ~aditional ~tud~~ts ... , . estimated-to comefrortl the proposed-cie\(,elopment? . ,Yes .'. .' No.--,-,--:--~ ,'; .. AnYComrnents: _. --,:-",,--,.--,-'--'--~-----7-'----'-~-'----:--'-,--~-~-'---'-,----,:-~--,-''----'-,---:-:-..,--'-'- ..... Tha~k yo~ for providingthi~inipo'rtanUnformation. If y()u have anyquestion~ rega,rding~this .' · project; pleasecoritact me at (425)430-'7382. Sincerely, .... Susan Fiala . Senior Planner . .. ' . End . ~.' ------'--':-1 O~5:--:5;-;;S;-o.u-'-.t-:-h-::;G;-ra--::d-y=W-;-~y----::R=-e-n.,-to-n,-=W=a,..,sh;-:in-gt-o-D'-9=8=O~55:-----'-~-'----' --.-' R E N T oN' SChOol/_/kac ®. This paper'contruns 500/0 rl!cyded material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE r t;- ! CITY OF RENTON 425 430 7300 P.02/03 ... ------City of Renton DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON LAND USE PERMIT NOV 122004 MASTER APPLICATION R PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECTINFORMAnON NAME: fl,t1t \)~00cl L Co Lc. C 6 ' SrIWbAJ A.BEi::I<::. MJIIN;f~ PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: ADDRESS: J q I Z '1 $.£.. t-"~ S't-,. PROJECT/ADDRESS(~YLOCATlON AND ZIP CODE: aTY: Rf;/JIo/AJ I W4t ZIP: Cj'8'()~ 'JELEPHONE NUMBER: "Z5-zz,1-[ .... '1 zo-o " .~'" ''t25'..,~i,JL/-C)L/61 KING COUNTY ASSeSSOR'S ACCOUNT. NUMBER(S): ·APPLICANT (If other than awner) " NAME: EXISTING !MD USE(S): COMPANY (If appIk:able): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): -, , ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (Jf appRcablO): TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: 'CONTACT PERSON PROPOSeD ZONING (if applicable): NAME: SITE AREA ("m square feet): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED COMPANY (If appficabIe): FOR SUBDMSIONS OR PRIVATE STREETs SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (If applicable); ADDRESS: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (If app6cab1e): CITY: . ZIP: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (If applicable): ~HONeNUMBERANO~LADD~ NUMBER OF NEW DWELUNG ,UNrrs (If appl!eabJe): RECEIYED Z004-NOV-10 03:38PM FROM-4Z5 430 7300 TO-John L Scott Renton PAGE OOZ ~ ;~OV-10-2004 16: 39 CITY OF RENTON 425 430 7300 P.03/03 INFORMATION , ...... 1 ........ 1 •• 4 NUMBER OF EXIS11NG DWalING UNlTS (If applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIOENllAL BUILDINGS (If applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (If applicable): SQUAREFOOTAGEOFPROPOSEONON~E~DaNnAL BUILDINGS ("If applicable): SQUARE ~TAGE OF EXJsnNG NON-R~SIDENTIAL BUIlDINGS TO ~ (If applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): . NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED fJYTHE NEW PROJECT (if appIk:abIe): PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALlY CRI1lCALAREA. PLEASE INCL.UDE SQUARe FOOTAGE (if applicabfe): Q AQUifeR PROTECTION AREA ONE Q AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA lWO a FLOOD IiI\lARD AREA ___ sq.ft. a GEOLOGIC HAZARD ______ sq. ft. c HABITAT CONSERVATION ___ sq. ft. a SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES . ___ sq. ft. C WEll.ANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal descrlJ)tion on .eparate sheet with the followlng_lnfonnation included) SITUATE IN THE QU~ OF SECTION -t TOWNSHIP --' RANGE_I IN TH~ITY OF RENTON. KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. t I R JIlC-r q ~ 9-({ fVl.beJJ'i.uoo TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES Ust aJlland use applications being applied for: 1. 3. 2. m 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postag~: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP . /lp.JJeywaod. L..L.C.. l;:=~~~~I0~:;:n~==.:=of-==:= atat.WI'IIII:da and __ heraIn CCintaInId and tile InfoImaIIon heiwIIh 818 In .n I8IP8'* true and COrNd to the belt of n.., ~ and belief. RECEIVED 2004-NOV-l0 03:38PM I ceniI'y. that I know or have AllsfadDly evidence that ;5h,#.n It· de< L aIgned", /nItnIIrIfIfIt and ackolGWledged It to be hlllhGrltheltfreo end voluntary a~ lot the _ and Pf,11pCIII8 mentioned in the fnItnIment. .. FROM-425 430 7300 · 'J City of Renton b O'-t-O'O~ DEVELOPME LAND USE PERMIT CITY OF ~J;y~~NI G MASTER APPLICATION SfP 23200+ R~~r:"" .. _ PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: Bales Limited Partnership PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Amberwood Phase II ADDRESS: PO Box 3015 PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98056 (Ol?S 4H6O NE 4th Street TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-427 -0149 Renton, WA 98056 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): APPLICANT (if other than owner) 1423059068, 142305909~ 1423059065 NAME: Steven Beck EXISTING LAND USE(S): Two single-family detached COMPANY (if applicable): Amberwood II L.L.C. homes with associated structures. PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Create 17 single-family ADDRESS: 4735 NE 4th Street detached, fee simple, lots. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98059 Residential Rural TELEPHONE NUMBER 425-227 -9200 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): N/A CONTACT PERSON EXISTING ZONING: Residential 5 dulac. NAME: Michael Chen PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N/A COMPANY (if applicable): Core Design, Inc. SITE AREA (in square feet): 184,740 ADDRESS: 14711 NE 29th PI, Suite 101 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): 30,599 CITY: Bellevue, WA ZIP: 98007 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: ACRE (if applicable): 4.80 (425) 885-7877 mc@coredesigninc.com NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): 17 ) PROecT INFORMATION continu -: NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 17 PROJECT VALUE: $1,700,000 NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 2 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2,500 sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): nla o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): nla 0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA Q sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL o GEOLOGIC HAZARD 0 sq. ft. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): nla o HABITAT CONSERVATION Q sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if o SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 0 sq. ft. applicable): nfa o WETLANDS 0 sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): nla LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal deSCription on separate sheet with the following infonnation included) SITUATE IN THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION....1!., TOWNSHIP 23N , RANGE~, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Preliminart Plat ~e;o 3. 2. Cn,v. fCIM!tw I ~ 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ Z5"Ol) AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Cr£DR.&-'i.. f'\.~.A LO'". , declare that I am (please check one) )( the current owner of the property involved in this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. d/~ 4,r'] / ~-, """"' ... , know" ha"" ...... do'" """"'oe _6",,,,, u e.~s .-r.~ 130", .I!!lfu,,,, &16 )( ~~ signed this instrument an.d ac~owle~ged it to be his/herltheir free and vbluntary act ftir the . uses and purposes mentioned Instrument. (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print) I2h CrvdtA L /!dbe vfs , My appointment expires: /. 36 . 200 <tJ (Signature of dwnerlRepr~ntative) , I .. ~ II LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300-FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 CITY OF RENTOtf'NG SEP 232004 PROJECT NAME:_---'-"AM=B=E::...,;R:.=...;W'-"'O'-=O=D..:...P-'-"HA'-"S=E:...:,I:.....I ___________ R_E_C_E_'_V_ED APPLICATION NO:_--loo<:.at-l----!..!.II-L] _________________ _ The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME PLEASE SEE A IT ACHED LIST n·hAJc.h/nw/f'4Q.\IC!An,/fnrrnc::./nI'S:II"ninn/numDr"e n,,1'" ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER ntl.l?7tn'>. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) NAME ADDRESS Applicant Certification ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER I, __ ..... M....;.\;;..::c;:.;..~-'-=\,L.......,;c.=..;...~_'--_____ , hereby certify that the at lo~~JL<rl{~l of nccnerty (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: Title com~a~ Records 1<'"9 Courf y ssessors Records Signed :2:e.-Pc:r:;;;L.. (Applicant) NOTARY LAURIE K. BARNHART NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES JUL Y 22. 2008 ATTESTED: Sul:?scribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, . / residing~ b>--on the '2-'l. day of S-trkn.tr"\--', 2JJ!2't , () p ... I L -1 ____ Signed I ,~W~ . (Notary Public) -For City of Renton Use- " ...... """", CERTIFICATION OF MAILING _---... ~'i~.~~.tt •• c \ . -----.: ~"';SSION •••• ~~" 1,L)"fQ(M \ u.ther, hereby certify that notices of the propos~ -t:lf)~~tion wfiil· ·~d to ; :0 "'QTAb ~'. " (C· Employee) : : 0 \'" 'T Y ttl ~ ~ each lis~ted~opertyowneron~ IS; zrol. I, -.-'", l A .. _ ,. cP • PUBL\C : : Signed ~ Date: to" .. /~j ,/ . -. ..,....-••••• O/:'·W;:~;'f\\~:" .. : NOTARY ""'" " ...... " ........ ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a N.otary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing ~a<Y\~ r on the .;;i4 '7 day of ?--;l) lJ U ,20~ :020090 0200 :Amberwood Llc :*no Site Address* METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE Bldg Parcel ID Owner CoOwner Site Addr Mail Addr Sale Date SalePrice :19129 SE 145th St Renton Wa 98059 :08/29/2003 Doc# :3991 Deed :Warranty Loan Amt Type Use Code :000 *UNKNOWN USE CODE* Zoning :R-5 Prop Desc Legal :LOT TRACT 999 AMBERWOOD FUTURE : DEVELOPMENT Total Land Struct % Imprvd :$100 :$100 Levy Cd : 2163 2004 Tax :$5.00 Phone Vol :207 Pg:90 MapGrid : 657 A2 NbrhdCd :032005 --CENSUS Tract Block QSTR :NW 14 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Bath Full Bath 3/4 Bath 1/2 Fireplace Laundry Porch Deck Stories Units Nuisance Easements DesignType :TrafficNoise LAND INFORMATION 1st Floor SF 2nd Floor SF Half Floor SF AboveGrnd SF Bsmnt Finished Bsmnt Total SF Building SqFt DeckSqFt Garage Type Attached GrgSF Bsmnt ParkingSF Basement Type Basement Grade Year Built Eff Year Bldg MatI Bldg Cond Bldg Grade Interior Insulation HeatSource Heat Type Air Method Wtr Source Sewer Type Purpose OTHER INFORMATION 23N 05E St Access : Public Lot SqFt :4,174 St Surface : Paved Soundproof Beach Acc Lot Acres : .10 Elevator Storage WtrFront Lot Shape Sprinklers Security WtrFntLoc Tde/Uplnd Golf Adj :No WtrFrntFT TopoProbd TRANSFER HISTORY OWNERS DATE IDOC # PRICE DEED LOAN :Long Classic Homes Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness olin/ormation contained in this report. TYPE Parcel ID :142305 9065 METROS CAN PROPERTY PROFILE Bldg : 1 Owner :Bales LpiBales George H Trustee CoOwner :Bales Management Tru Site Addr :6129 NE 4th St Renton 98059 Mail Addr :6129 NE 4th St Renton Wa 98059 Sale Date :07/28/1998 Doc# :347 SalePrice Deed : Warranty Loan Amt Type Use Code :002 RES, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Zoning :R1 Prop Desc Legal :STR 142305 TAXLOT 65 LOT 2 KC :SHORT PLAT 1075015 AF 7611040904 Total Land Struct' :$251,000 :$96,000 :$155,000 % Imprvd : 62 Levy Cd : 6867 2004 Tax :$3,120.58 Phone Vol: Pg: MapGrid :656 H1 NbrhdCd :032005 --CENSUS Tract :251.02 Block :2 , :SD PLAT DAF W 150 FT OF E 1166.01 QSTR :NW 14 23N OsE Bedrooms :2 Bath Full :1 Bath 3/4 Bath 1/2 Fireplace : 1 Laundry Porch Deck :Yes Stories )': 1 units :1 Nuisance Easements DesignType LAND PRO P B R T Y C H A RAe T BR I S TIC S 1st Floor SF :1,540 Year Built 2nd Floor SF Eff Year Half Floor SF Bldg MatI AboveGrnd SF :1,540 Bldg Cond Bsrnnt Finished Bldg Grade Bsrnnt Total SF Interior Building SqFt :1,540 Insulation DeckSqFt :470 HeatSource Garage Type Heat Type Attached GrgSF Air Method Bsrnnt ParkingSF Wtr Source Basement Type Sewer Type Basement Grade Purpose INFORMATION OTHER INFORMATION :1983 :Avg : Low\avg :Electric :Frcd Air :Water District : Private St Access : Private Lot SqFt :47,916 St Surface : Gravel Soundproof Beach Acc Lot Acres ':1.10 Elevator Storage WtrFront Lot Shape Sprinklers Security WtrFntLoc Tde/Uplnd Golf' Adj :No WtrFrntFT TopoProbd TRANSFER HISTORY OWNERS DATE IDOC # PRICE LOAN :Bales Limited Partners:05/0s/1988 250 DEED :Quit C Information compiled from various sources, Real Estate SiJlutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. TYPE METROSCAN PROPERTY PROFILE Parcel ID :142305 9068 Bldg Owner :Bales LPiBales George H Trustee CoOwner :Bales Management Tru Site Addr :15201 SE 128th St Renton 98059 Mail Addr :15201 SE 128th St Renton Wa 98059 Sale Date :07/28/1998 Doc# :345 SalePrice Loan Amt Use Code _ Zoning Prop Desc Legal Deed : Warranty Type :300 VACANT,RESIDENTIAL :R1 :STR 142305 TAXLOT 68 PP ACT :39922653 MOBILE HOME N 1/2 OF NE :1/4 OF NW 1/4 LESS E 1166.01 FT Total :$174,000 Land :$115,000 Struct :$59,000 % Imprvd :34 Levy Cd : 6867 2004 Tax :$2,196.68 Phone Vol: Pg: MapGrid :657 Al NbrhdCd :032005 --CENSUS Tract :256.00 Block :5 QSTR :NW 14 23N PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms Bath Full Bath 3/4 Bath 1/2 Fireplace Laundry Porch Deck stories Units :~~ , . 1st Floor SF 2nd Floor SF Half Floor SF AboveGrnd SF Bsmnt Finished Bsmnt Total SF Building SqFt DeckSqFt Garage Type Attached GrgSF Year Built Eff Year Bldg MatI Bldg Cond Bldg Grade Interior Insulation HeatSource Heat Type Air Method 05E Nuisance :Traffic Noise Bsmnt parkingSF Easements Basement Type DesignType Basement Grade Wtr Source :Water District Sewer Type : Private Purpose LAND INFORMATION OTHER INFORMATION St Access : Public Beach Acc WtrFront WtrFntLoc WtrFrntFT OWNERS Lot SqFt :88,592 Lot Acres :2.03 Lot Shape Tde/Uplnd TopoProbd St Surface Elevator Sprinklers Golf Adj TRANSFER HISTORY DATE IDOC # PRICE :Bales Limited Partners:04/10/1986 662 : Paved Soundproof :No Storage Security DEED :Quit C LOAN Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report .. TYPE Parcel ID Owner CoOwner Site Addr Mail Addr Sale Date SalePrice Loan Amt Use Code zoning Prop Desc Legal METROSCAN·, PROPERTY PROFILE :142305 9094 Bldg :1 :Bales Lp/Bales Management Trust :Bales George H Trust :6135 NE 4th St Renton 98059 :PO Box 3015 Renton Wa 98056 :07/21/1998 Doc# :1457 Deed : Warranty Type :002 RES,SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE :Rl Total Land :$298,000 :$88,000 Struct :$210,000 % Imprvd :70 Levy Cd :6867 2004 Tax :$3,684.58 Phone Vol: Pg: :656 HI :032005 :251.02 :2 :STR 142305 TAXLOT 94 LOT 1 KC :SHORT PLAT 1075015 AF 7611040904 :SD PLAT DAF W 150 FT OF E 1166.01 MapGrid NbrhdCd --CENSUS Tract Block QSTR :NW 14 23N 05E PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms :3 1st Floor SF :1,150 Year Built :1964 Bath Full :1 2nd Floor SF Eff Year Bath 3/4 Half Floor SF Bldg MatI Bath 1/2 :1 AboveGrnd SF :1,150 Bldg Cond :Avg Fireplace Bsmnt Finished Bldg Grade :Avg Laundry Bsmnt Total SF Interior Porch :Yes Building SqFt :1,150 Insulation Deck DeckSqFt HeatSource :Gas Garage Type :Attached Heat Type :Frcd Air Stories ~~ . :1 Units :1 Attached GrgSF :500 Air Method Nuisance :Traffic Noise Bsmnt parkingSF Wtr Source :Water District Easements DesignType Basement Basement Type Grade LAND INFORMATION St Access : Public Beach Acc WtrFront WtrFntLoc WtrFrntFT Lot sqFt :42,360 Lot Acres :.97 Lot Shape Tde/Uplnd TopoProbd OTHER St Surface Elevator Sprinklers Golf Adj TRANSFER HISTORY OWNERS DATE IDOC # PRICE Sewer Type : Private Purpose INFORMATION : Paved Soundproof Storage Security :No DEED LOAN In/ormation compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness olin/ormation contained in this report. TYPE .. # 1 *-------------------MetroScan / King Owner :Ramales Felipe & Ofelia Site :6008 NE 3rd Ct Renton 98059 Mail :6008 NE 3rd Ct Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence Lgl :LOT 1 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,740 # 2 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner : Huynh Khanh Site :6002 NE 3rd Ct Renton 98059 Mail :6002 NE 3rd Ct Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence Lgl :LOT 2 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,740 # 3 *---------------------:. MetroScan / King Owner :Adcock Peter Site :5954 NE 3rd Ct Renton 98059 Mail :5954 NE 3rd Ct Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence Lgl :LOT 3 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,740 # 4 *--~------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Cabudol Florendo M Jr Site :5948 NE 3rd Ct Renton 98059 Mail :5948 NE 3rd Ct Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence Lgl :LOT 4 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,710 # 5 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner : Long Classic Homes -Noh:tfli~l~ a.s tU!d~ &OIv.(t..{ Site :353 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :4441 S Meridian Puyallup Wa 98373 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence Lgl :LOT 5 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:3,440 # 6 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Pham Timothy T Site :327 quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :327 Quincy Ave NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 ~es,Single Family Residence Lgl :LOT 6 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:3,440 # 7 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Dang Ngoc-hang Site :323 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :323 Quincy Ave NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence Lgl .:LOT 7 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:3 Bth F3H:3/ / Stories:2 BldgSF:2,930 # 8 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Zahn John M/Jessica E Site :319 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :319 Quincy Ave NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence Lgl :LOT 8 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:3,440 # 9 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Long Classic Homes Site :315 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :4441 S Meridian puyallup Wa 98373 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence Lgl :LOT 9 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:4 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:3,440 ------------------------* Parce~ # :020090 0010 07 Sale Date :05/09/2003 Sale Price :$369,000 Asd.V :$340,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.20 YB:2003 Ph: :-------~-----------------------* Parcel # :020090 0020 05 Sale Date :09/10/2003 Sale Price :$374,888 Asd.V :$340,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.17 YB:2003 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # :020090 0030 03 Sale Date :07/25/2003 Sale Price :$371,131 Asd.V :$341,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.17 YB:2003 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # :020090 0040 01 Sale Date :07/30/2003 Sale Price :$366,888 Asd.V :$339,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.18 YB:2003 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # :020090 0050 08 Sale Date Sale Price Asd.V :$408,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.19 YB:2003 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # Sale Date Sale Price Asd.V Q:NW S:14 :020090 0060 :10/20/2003 :$390,431 :$281,000 T:23N R:05E 06 Ac: .17 YB:2003 Ph:425-430-1418 :-------------------------------* Parcel # :020090 0070 04 Sale Date :12/18/2003 Sale Price :$406,600 Asd.V :$193,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.17 YB:2003 Ph: :-------------------------------* :020090 0080 :08/19/2003 :$375,720 :$413,000 Parcel # Sale Date Sale Price Asd.V Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:OSE 02 Ac: .17 YB:2003 Ph:425-271-7047 :-------------------------------* :020090 0090 Parcel # Sale Date Sale Price Asd.V Q:NW :$405,000 S:14 T:23N R:05E YB:2003 Ph: Ac: .17 00 Information compiled from various' sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. # 10 *-------------------MetroScan I King Owner :Ly Keith K Site :302 Quincy Ave NE Renton 9'8059 Mail :302 Quincy Ave NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 10 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:3,440 # 11 *--~------------------: MetroScan I'King Owner :Shaw Robert O/Judy D Site :308 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :308 Quincy Ave NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 11 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:4 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,690 # 12 *----~----------------: MetroScan I King Owner :Long Classic Homes Site :312 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :4441 S Meridian Puyallup Wa 98373 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 12 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:4 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:3,440 # 13 *---------------------: MetroScan I King Owner :Beck Steven A/Debra A Site :316 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :19129 SE 145th St Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 13 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:4 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:3,440 # 14 *---------------------: MetroScan I King Owner :Chiem Andy Site :320 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :320 Quincy Ave NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,single Family Residence LgI :LOT 14 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:3/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:5,090 # 15 *---------------------: MetroScan I King Owner :Dang Kieu N Site : 324guinCY Ave NE Renton '98059 Mail :324 Quincy Ave NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 15 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:3 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,660 # 16 *---------------------: MetroScan I King Owner :Cabanilla David/Rita Site :6015 NE 3rd Ct Renton 98059 Mail :6015NE 3rd Ct Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 16 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:3,440 # 17 *-----.:.---------------: MetroScan I King Owner : Nguyen Khoa D Site :330 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :9000 southside Blvd Jacksonville FI 32256 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 17 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:2/ /i Stories:2 BldgSF:3,440 # 18 *---------------------: MetroScan I King Owner :Drummond Thomas H/Meredith 0 Site :354 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :354 Quincy Ave NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res; Single Family Residence LgI : LOT 18 AMBERWOOD Bedrm:4 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,950 ,------------------------* Parce~ # :020090 0100 08 Sale Date :04/20/2004 Sale Price :$447,300 Asd.V :$93,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.17 YB:2004 Ph: :----------------------------~--* Parcel # Sale Date :020090 0110 :05/25/2004 : $400,00'0 :$93,000 Sale-Price Asd.V Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E 06 Ac: .19 YB:2003 Ph:425-235-2673 :-------------------------------* Parcel # :020090 0120 04 Sale Date Sale Price Asd.V :$282,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.19 YB:2003 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # Sale Date : 020090 0130 : 06/11/2004 :$285,000 :$93,000 Sale Price Asd.V Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E 02 Ac: .17 YB:2003 Ph:425-228-1300 :-------------------------------* Parcel # :020090 0140 00 Sale Date : 07/23/2004 Sale Price :$460,000 Asd.V :$93,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.20 YB:2004 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # :020090 0150 07 Sale Date :07/14/2004 Sale Price :$425,888 Asd.V :$93,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.20 YB:2004 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # :020090 0160 05 Sale Date :07/31/2003 Sale Price :$434,990 Asd.V :$408,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.19 YB:2003 Ph: :-----------------~-------------* Parcel # :020090 0170 ' 03 Sale Date :05/16/2003 Sale Price :$430,000 Asd.V :$406,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.17 YB:2003 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # :020090 0180 01 Sale Date : 11/18/2003 Sale Price :$383,970 Asd.V :$302,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac: .17 YB:2003 Ph: Information compiled from variouS sources, Real Estate Solutions lriakes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report, · . # 19 Owner Site Mail Use LgI Bedrm: # 20 Owner Site Mail Use LgI Bedrm: # 21 *-------------------MetroScao / King :Long Classic Homes :*no Site Address* :4441 S Meridian Puyallup Wa 98373 :000 *unknown Use Code* :LOT TRACT 998 AMBERWOOD DRAINAGE Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: *---------------------: MetroScao / King :Harbour Homes Inc :*no Site Address* :1300 Dexter Ave N #500 Seattle Wa 98109. :330 Misc,Easement :STR 112305 TAXLOT 4 LOT 1 OF Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Leifer Irvin T Site :6207 NE 4th St Renton 98059 Mail :15223 SE 128th St Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :STR 142305 TAXLOT 64 E 866.01 FT Bedrm:3 Bth F3H:1/ /1 Stories:1 BldgSF:1,850 # 22 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Leifer Randall D/Rosemary M Site :6201 NE 4th St Renton 98059 Mail :5127 S Fountain St Seattle Wa 98178 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :STR 142305 TAXLOT 70 W 150 FT OF E Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:1/1 /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,590 # 23 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :King County Site :*no Site Address* Mail :500 4th Ave Seattle Wa 98104 Use :300 Vacant,Residential LgI :STR 142305 TAXLOT 71 S 1/2 OF N Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: # 24 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :King County Site :*no ~ite Address* Mail :500 4th Ave Seattle Wa 98104 Use :300 Vacant,Residential LgI :STR 142305 TAXLOT 72 N 1/4 OF POR Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: # 25 *---------------------: MetroScao / King Owner :Burnstead Const Co Site :6000 NE 2nd Ct Renton 98059 Mail :1215 120th Ave NE Bellevue Wa 98005 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 49 MAPLEWOOD ESTATES PH 02 TGW Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:3/ / Stories:2 BldgSF:2,840 # 26 *---------------------: MetroScao / King Owner :Tessier Stephen R/Kathleen D Site :6006 NE 2nd Ct Renton 98059 Mail :6006 NE 2nd Ct Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 50 MAPLEWOOD ESTATES PH 02 TGW Bedrm:4 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:3,OOO ,# 27 *---------------------: MetroScan /King Owner :Buisan Clifford N site :6012 NE 2nd Ct Renton 98059 Mail :6012 NE 2nd Ct Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res, Single Family Residence LgI : LOT 51 MAPLEWOOD ESTATES PH 02 TGW Bedrm:4 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,910 ------------------------* Parce~ # :020090 0190 09 Sale Date Sale Price Asd.V :$500 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac: .43 YB: Ph: :-------~-----------------------* Parcel # :112305 9004 Sale Date : 04/01/2003 Sale Price :$8,875,000 Asd.V :$2,000 Q:SW S:ll T:23N R:OsE Ac:1.92 YB: Ph: 02 :-------------------------------* Pargel # Sale Date Sale Price :142305 9064 Asd.V :$274,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:2.69 YB:194s Ph: 06 :-------------------------------* Parcel # :142305 9070 08 Sale Date:03/08/1991 Sale Price Asd. V : $360,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:OsE Ac:2.10 YB:1992 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # Sale Date Sale Price Asd.V Q:NW S:14 Ac:4.67 YB: :142305 9071 :01/18/1994 :$376,730 Full :$173,000 T:23N R:.OsE Ph: 07 :-------------------------------* Parcel # :142305 9072 06 Sale Date :01/18/1994 Sale Price :$376,730 Full Asd.V :$173,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:OsE Ac:4.67 YB: Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # :512631 0490 08· Sale Date Sale Price Asd.V :$82,000 Q:NW ~:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.17 YB:2004 Ph: :--------~----------------------* Parcel # Sale Date Sale Price Asd.V : 512631 0500 :05/10/2004 :$404,000 :$82,000 S:14 T:23N R:05E 06 Q:NW Ac: .17 YB:2004 Ph:42s-2s5-1012 :-------------------------------* Parcel # : 512631 0510 04 Sale Date :04/02/2004 Sale Price :$369,950 Asd.V :$82,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:OsE Ac: .18 YB:2003 Ph: Information compiled from various· sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. # 28 *-------------------MetroScan / King Owner :Thacker LeeR/Erin K Site :6018 NE 2nd Ct Renton 98059 Mail :6018 NE 2nd Ct Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 52 MAPLEWOOD ESTATES PH 02 TGW Bedrm:5 Bth F3H:2/1 / Stories:2 BldgSF:2,760 # 29 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Snook Joel E/Sheree A Site :6024 NE 2nd Ct Renton 98059 Mail :6024 NE 2nd Ct Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 53 MAPLEWOOD ESTATES PH 02 TGW Bedrm:4 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,400 # 30 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Garcia Greg M/Patti C Site :270 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :270 Quincy Ave NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 54 MAPLEWOOD ESTATES PH 02 TGW Bedrm:4 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,640·· # 31 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Gomez-elegido Jose M/Julie A Site :264 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 Mail :264 Quincy Ave NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 55 MAPLEWOOD ESTATES PH 02 TGW Bedrm:4 Bth F3H:2j /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:3,OOO # 32 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Nelson Geoffrey/Karen-&JNAc~V'CA"'''-b( .. (U~ Site : 258 Quincy Ave NE Renton 98059 .ol~ Mail :2401 Westwind Dr NW Olympia Wa 98502 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 56 MAPLEWOOD ESTATES PH 02 TGW Bedrm: Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: # 33 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Tong wai-kuen Ei+ Site :603 ~asco PI NE Renton 98059 Mail :603 Pasco PI NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 30 WINDWOOD DIV 3 Bedrm:3 Bth F3H:2/ / Stories:l BldgSF:l,800 # 34 *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :Look Soon H/May W Si+ Site :579 Pasco PI NE Renton 98059 Mail :579 Pasco PI NE Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 31 WINDWOOD DIV 3 Bedrm:4 Bth F3H:2/ /1 Stories:2 BldgSF:2,620 # 3~ *---------------------: MetroScan / King Owner :D'ettore Amedeo & Mary A Site ~6013 NE 4th PI Renton 98059 Mail :6013 NE 4th PI Renton Wa 98059 Use :002 Res,Single Family Residence LgI :LOT 50 WINDWOOD DIV 3 Bedrm:3 Bth F3H:2/ / Stories:l BldgSF:l,!300 ------------------------* Parce.l # :512631 0520 02 Sale Date :02/13/2004 Sale Price :$375,000 Asd.V :$267,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E AC:.19 YB:2003 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # Sale Date Sale Price Asd.V :512631 0530 :08/04/2003 :$345,000 :$251,000 S:14 T:23N R:05E 00 Q:NW Ac: .17 YB:2003 Ph:425-793-7263 :-------------------------------* Parcel # :512631 0540 08 Sale Date :07/16/2004 Sale Price :$408,500 Asd.V :$305,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac:.17 YB:2003 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # :512631 0550 05 Sale Date :11/07/2003 Sale Price :$404,950 Asd.V :$323,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac: . 17 YB : 2003 . Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # :512631 0560 03 Sale Date :07/09/2004 Sale Price :$419,950 Asd.V :$82,000 Q:NW S:14 T:23N R:05E Ac: . 18 YB : Ph : :-------------------------------* Parcel # :947794 0300 09 Sale Date :03/22/2002 Sale Price :$304,094 Asd.V :$261,000 Q:SW S:11 T:23N R:05E Ac:.14 YB:2002 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # :947794 0310 07 Sale Date :02/26/2002 Sale Price :$315,695' Asd. V .: $305,000 Q:SW S:ll T:23N R:05~ Ac:.14 YB:2002 Ph: :-------------------------------* Parcel # Sale Date Sale Price Asd.V :947794 0500 :08/23/2001· :$241,535 :$257,000 Q:sw Ac: .15 S:ll T:23N R:05E YB:2001 Ph: 07 Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. ,~ ®Kin9 County ........ WiMI Tax Account Number 521450070003 (This account is active.) Tax Payer Name HARBOUR HOMES INC 419800 Annual Statement Requested by IIAmount Due: No Tax Due. Parcel Numbe-r 5214500700 Mailing Address . 1300 DEXTER AVE N #500 SEATTLE WA 98109 II It is not necessary to have a tax statement to make your payment. Please write the account number on your check and make it payable to and mail it to: King County Treasury 500 4th Ave, #600 Seattle, WA 98104 If the mailing name or address is incorrect and you want to make a change, please click on the following link: Tax Info FAQ If you would like an official printed tax statement mailed to the mailing address listed above, click on the REQUEST PRINTED TAX STATEMENT button. Receipt Information Treasury Operations Tax Information Home King County I News I Services I Comments I Search Unks 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. · ~. ® King COunty ."'#9,. Tax Account Number 521450071001 (This account is active.) I:~,""'j-.. ~/ ; Tax Payer Name HARBOUR HOMES INC 419800 Annual Statement Requested by IIAmount Due: No Tax Due. Parcel Number 5214500710 Mailing Address 1300 DEXTER AVE N #500 SEATILE WA 98109 II It is not necessary to have a tax statement to make your payment. . Please write the account number on your check and make it payable to arid mail it to: King County Treasury 500 4th Ave, #600 Seattle, WA 98104 If the mailing name or address is incorrect and you want to make a change, please click on the following link: Tax Info FAQ If you would like an official printed tax statement mailed to the mailing address listed above, click on the REQUEST PRINTED TAX STATEMENT button. Receipt Information Treasury Operations Tax Information Home King County I News I Services I Comments I Search Unks 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. ®~ngcounty •. 1191. Tax Account Number 521450072009 (This account is active.) ... -; ,-. . =:\>:(~.:-: Tax Payer Name HOWERTON KACY L 499999 Annual Statement Requested by II Amount Due: .. No Tax Due. Parcel Number 5214500720 Mailing Address 6113,NE 4THPL RENTON WA 98059 II It is not necessary to have a tax statement to make your payment. Please write the account number on your check and make it payable to and mail it to: King County Treasury 500 4th Ave, #600 Seattle, WA 98104 l!the mailing name or address is incorrect and you want to make a change, please click on the following link: Tax Info FAQ If you would like an official printed tax statement mailed to the mailing address listed above, click on the REQUEST PRINTED TAX STATEMENT button. Receipt Information Treasury Operations Tax Information Home King County I News I Services I Comments I Search 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. ·-. . ® King County Tax Account Number 521450073007 (This account is active.) ;;1~C~ <-.,) I Tax Payer Name· HARBOUR HOMES INC 419800 Annual Statement Requested by IIAmount Due: No Tax Due .. M.i4ifiii'¥ Parcel Number 5214500730 Mailing Address 1300 DEXTER AVE N #500 SEATTLE WA 98109 II It is not necessary to have a tax statement to make your payment. Please write the account number on your check and make it payable to and mail it to: King County Treasury 500 4th Ave, #600 Seattle, WA 98104 If the mailing name or address is incorrect and you want to make a change, please click on the following link: Tax Info FAQ If you would like an official printed tax statement mailed to the mailing address. listed above, click on the REQUEST PRINTED TAX STATEMENT button. Receipt Information Treasury Operations Tax Information Home King County I News I Services I Comments I Search 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. · . '! ® K"mg County .--&1411;44 Tax Account Number 521450074005 (This account is active.)· ~ / .. ~ .~:(.;/ Tax Payer Name HARBOUR HOMES INC 419800 Annual Statement Requested by IIAmountDue: No Tax Due. Parcel Number 5214500740 Mailing Address 1300 DEXTER AVE N #500 SEAITLE WA 98109 II It is not necessary to have a tax statement to make your payment. Please write the account number on your check and make it payable to and mail it to: King County Treasury 500 4th Ave, #600 Seattle, WA 98104 If the mailing name or address is incorrect and you want to make a change, please click on the following link: Tax Info FAQ If you would like an official printed tax statement mailed to the mailing address listed above, click on the REQUEST PRINTED TAX STATEMENT button. Receipt Information Treasury Operations Tax Information Home King County I News I Services I Comments I Search 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. ®~ingcounty .\liM!'. Tax Account Number Parcel Number 521450075002 (This account is active.) . 5214500750 f :; ~,~: ,1 Tax Payer Name HARBOUR HOMES INC 419800 Annual Statement Requested by II Amount Due: "No Tax Due. Mailing Address 1300 DEXTER AVE N #500 SEATTLE WA 98109 II It is not necessary to have a tax statement to make your payment. Please write the account number on your check and make it payable to and mail it to: King County Treasury 500 4th Ave, #600 Seattle, WA 98104 If the mailing name or address is incorrect and you want to make a change, please click on the following link: Tax Info FAQ If you would like an official printed tax statement mailed to the mailing address listed above, click on the REQUEST PRINTED TAX STATEMENT button. Receipt Information Treasury Operations Tax Information Home King County I News I Services I Comments I Search 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, ® King County Tax Account Number 52145007,9004 (This account is active.) !"/ ;~ Tax Payer Name HARBOUR HOMES INC 419800 Annual Statement Requested by II Amount Due: .. No Tax Due. AjJ'itR4¥ Parcel Number 5214500790 Mailing Address 1300 DEXTER AVE N #500 SEATILE WA 98109 II It is not necessary to have a tax statement to make· your payment. Please write the account number on your check and make it payable to and mail it to: King County Treasury 500 4th Ave, #600 Seattle, WA 98104 If the mailing name or address is incorrect and you want to make a change, please click on the following link: Tax Info FAQ If you would like an official printed tax statement mailed to the mailing address listed above, click on the REQUEST PRINTED TAX STATEMENT button. Receipt Information Treasury Operations Tax Information Home King County I News I Services I Comments I Search 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. ®King county. __ .... MI4,ng. Tax Account Number 521450001008 (This account is active.) Tax Paye;';N~me HARBOUR HOMES INC 419800 Annual Statement Requested by IIAmount Due: No Tax Due. Parcel Number 5214500010 Mailing Address 1300 DEXTER AVE N #500 SEATTLE WA 98109 II It is not necessary to have a tax statement to make your payment. Please write the account number on your check and make it payable to and mail it to: King County Treasury ·500 4th Ave, #600 Seattle, WA 98104 If the mailing name or address is incorrect and you want to make a change, please click on the following link: Tax Info FAQ If you would like an official printed tax statement mailed to the mailing address listed above, click on the REQUEST PRINTED TAX STATEMENT button. Receipt Information Treasury Operations Tax Information Home King County I News I Services I Comments I Search 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. ®~ngCounty ...,.. C1§iiit§4¥ Tax Account Number 521450002006 (This account is active.) ....... ~'""~. fA :':,-;",";., Tax Payer Name HARBOUR HOMES INC 419800 Annual Statement Requested by II Amount Due: .. No Tax Due .. Parcel Number 5214500020 Mailing Address 1300 DEXTER AVE N #500 SEATILE WA 98109 II It is not necessary to have a tax statement to make your payment. Please write the account number on your check and make it payable to and mail it to: King County Treasury 500 4th Ave, #600 Seattle, WA 98104. If the mailing name or address is incorrect and you want to make a change, please click on the following link: Tax Info FAQ If you would like an official printed tax statement mailed to the mailing address listed above, click on the REQUEST PRINTED TAX STATEMENT button. Receipt Information Treasury Operations Tax Information Home King County I News I Services I Comments I Search 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. Tax Account Number 521450006007 (This account is active.) ; . Tax Payer Name HARBOUR HOMES INC 419800 Annual Statement Requested by I[AmountDue: NoTax Due. Parcel Number 5214500060 Mailing Address 1300 DEXTER AVE N #500 SEATTLE WA 98109 [I It is not necessary to have a tax statement to make your payment. Please write the account number on your check and make it payable to and mail it to: King County Treasury . 500 4th Ave, #600· Seattle, WA 98104 If the mailing name or address is incorrect and you want to make a change, please click on the following link: Tax Info FAQ . If you would like an official printed tax statement mailed to the mailing address listed above, click on the REQUEST PRINTED TAX STATEMENT button. Receipt Information Treasury Operations Tax Information Home King County I News I Services I Comments I Search 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. . ' ,'\I ,~ ® King County Tax Account Number 521450078006 (This account is active.) . .,~.,;J .~, 1 ~.:; Tax Payer Name CITY OF RENTON 439700 Annual Statement Requested by II Amount Due: No Tax Due. Parcel Number 5214500780 Mailing Address 1055 S GRADY WAY. RENTON WA 98055 II It is not necessary to have a tax statement to make your payment. Please write the account number on your check and make it payable to and mail it to: King County Treasury .500 4th Ave, #600 Seattle, WA 98104 If the mailing name or address is incorrect and you want to make a change, please click on the following link: Tax Info FAQ If you would like an official printed tax statement mailed to the mailing address listed above, click on the REQUEST PRINTED TAX STATEMENT button. Receipt Information Treasury Operations Tax Information Home King County I News I Services I Comments I Search 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. "" \, ..... :.. ...... AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN City of Renton Development Serv.ices Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) COUNTY OF KING ) Laurie K. Barnhart DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RErn-~'tIl" being first . duly sworn on oath, deposes and says~: 1. On the L 3 day of' • ,20 0 t( I installed 1 public ~--'--information sign(s) and plastic flyer box on the property located at 15200 NE 4th street, Renton for the following project: .Amberwood . II Project name . Bales Ltd. Partnership Owner Name 2. I have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an ")(" to indicate the location of the installed sign. 3. This/these public information sign(s) was/were construct~d and installed in locations in conformance with the requir me ts hapter 7 Title 4 of Renton Municipal Code. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this '7 ~ day of_--=:;.......;:~~_ NANCY GREENING MCKENZIE NOTARY ?UBLIC STATE OF WASHiNGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY 25. 2006 R:\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\pubsign.doc My commission expires on _--lo....:::......:~= __ ' 09/24/03 ~ \t:.., 3 \lJ < GIfIIOiJtG @mpJlia» . ~ 1 I I I -I I I I N.E. 3RD CT. ... ,(.; I,. I . ~ ~'" t.J Z ~ « >-(J Z 5 o FouND S' BRASS DISC M7 X STAMPf.D "LS 22335' r FOU:~ PUNCHED J-BRASS DISC STAMPED "LS 30+27- ~--. -Iil- I I ·,1", . .,0" '~G :..' ':;:i? ;t .. ~ . . .; ;.[.j: II:" ~;. !.:;~ . .'::.~.-;,~;. :;, ~ ~ ...... ' : .. " .. ,; \,,' .. ' r"""I':' ',', ",' z/ ., R-25.OO" " .... ; ", ~ • ...,. t .:l iW .-' f; t:~~l '-:6 .f;C /I.' ,: ,'/.': '\ ... t;-~ o :\" .' f .' 1;:." " / : ' . iii:':'" '../<W: :\ :' I atl $: ',{' . /,' ' ,: ...... ,. . •• :,1 : :~ i: .', ;":; ."I.'~ ---'--': ............ . :;,1'" .. 1 -1"." .. '1 ...... i "1 ,0 ~ J oj l" R ... c·'. ., ~.'""' ; gE z z -t 0: -~ ~~ zo> :J~ ~~Ij ;. I~ ~': '<~'. 101' I / '1 , S2&4'5F 1 "L_03l''':'''''- -tr ~', ·N~.,,,,,, z, . .;,. -FOUND 1/2" REBo\R \\1TI1 ~ YEllOW PlAsnc CAP Sf At.!PED -CORE 3042r O:-l PROP. UN( 1--- I --, ~ ";,t,: I ...... r ~ 1 i:-' .. \. "\~ \';:. TRAcT,'';A8'' lel1o.,~.· .~;>.':. ", ;r-.,:, ,:.~ \ <. "8 . $ i XI i I ST.) .~ ~}~~;~,~~~ •. :'" -~ ~": / :f· __ ;.:~ .. ::':':~·":'-.~:' .. E!l.- '. '<:,1 "-fENCE CCRNtR • ~'. IS O.:rW.XO.4'N • .,I;"C(, PROP. CtR, ..... " .' ,: .. -.~ . t/·;r~~o,;.~· ?7~:~:':-:;-;.' 7:-::,i;:" 1'::",-;","-;-:-. __ ..i.'--1 ...: • ~:-~: • ,rl 1 'I' ,'-,:,-, j.'" f ,I,i'"'!;ikt:; ::' ;'r.;.~ . +" '~~126~t· 'f~s\';; /., . . I " " ~~~; ~F '.. I J fi'~ ~ EN,D CJF FENCE . " to: z \SJ.6'(' or ',.:.:,.L 'J" . ---;::·PROP. UN~ . ','= =I~ =~.. ~ l!i :; I c ~ \21~5F / ~". ID .··· .... :.L --C. -,;-~'J. ". i . It. I~"-::::-.-:--l J 'ti: I J ' ······I .... Jr' ,,\):1, '9 l'I ~ \ . \! I: .. ,.12.~6 5F 1 ~ ~ \:::L~,2;;'='~ J .r,".'. > r--.-_ ... \\, l 1 .. -1':'0 \.,1 c . '40~, ~~" ,// ''''t'''''''' ElID or FENCE L:,'--""-"._ ..... ,,<...J rts~7'~\CJF -,..~ ~., . ." PROP. LUI(; :o~ ;JY!i be> Ii.;,,.!, "" 1+·,1 :, 'Ii ·I.,/·'l t'"'li'I\-''' L /-. :'>11'/ l" S 4 2 10 . 11 RENTON 41.·1. &t 16 IS 14 VICINITY MAE 1" • 3000':1: DENSITY WORKSHEET City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area 'of property: 1. 184,740 2. Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include public roadways, private access easements serving 3 or more dwelling units, and critical areas.* Total excluded area:** 2. 30,599 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 3. 154,141 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 4. 3.54 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 5. 17 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. 4.80 square feet square feet square feet acres units/lots d.u.lacre __ 1 .... 7 __ lots or units would result in a net density 0\ 4.80 dwelling units per acre. *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. -Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. .• Project Name: Project Size: Location 6fSite: • . Parcel Numbers: • ..... Current zoning: Surrounding zoning: • CUrrent use: • Soil type and Drainage: Project Narrative AmberwoodII--Renton, Washington OE;'vELOPM, , .' . -CffYo1EII/rPI Aa. '. _ 'F REIiiOI,NtNG OCr 1 2..200+, - Amberwood n Prelimin~ri Plat RECEIVSO - The total site is approximately 4.24 acres. _. '-. ,- The location.of the project is-15200 NE 4th Street.Southof NK 4th Street. . . --1423059068, 1423059094 and'1423059065 Residential 1 dulac' North: Residential 5 dulac (Singk-family home) South: Residential 4 dul ac (Single-fainily home) West: Residential 5 dulac (Single-family home) East: Residential 4 duj ac (Single-family home) The site currently has-two single-fa:~y detached homes with- -associated -structures. Special site features: There are no wetlands, no coal mines and . _ no steep, sensitive; or protected slopes, located on the site. -. According to the King County Soils Report the site is entirely underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy.loam. A storm drainage system has been designed which will route drainage to a detention pond and then tight.lined to a level flow spreader located along the south property line . This combiried drairiage system has been designed to handle all the stormwater run-off-that will be generated by the site~ The system will iriclude temporary erosion control barriers during site construction. This permanent system will ensure that prior to the discharge of stormwater into the downstream system and will have significantly reduced the potential impacts to ground and surface waters. • Proposed property use: The proposal is to subdivide the property irito 17 singl(~-family detached, fee simple, lots. The project will not create any new . public roads. Theexistinghomes and associated structures will be removed. • Access: The project ~s proposing to gain access from NE 4th Street, via Rosario Ave NE and NE 3cd Court. . . • Off-site improvements: None proposed at this time • Est. Construction' Costs: $850,000,00. • Est. fair market value: $1,700,00.00 04027 Proj Narrative 17 lots, 10/12/04 • Quantity and type of fill: At this point in the design process; the site is anticipated to be balanced by cutting and filling. The quantities of the cut and fill that will occur on site are approximately + 11,000 cubic yards. If it is discovered that the site will need fill material, the applicant. will submit a fill source statement at that time. • Trees to be removed: Every effort will be made to retain as many trees as possible. •. Land dedication: • Number, size, and density of lots: • Proposed job shacks: • Modifications: Please see the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing plan for the approximate location of the clearing limit. N/A There are 17 lots proposed for the property. The average lot size is approximately noo± S.P. The net density is approximately 4.80 dulac. The site will have a construction trruJ.er during the construction of the development .. Per City of Renton Development Regulations Section 4-6-060 R.3, Reduced Right-of-Way Dedication, we are proposing to reduce the right-of-way width for the proposed public roads from SO feet to 42 feet. This reduction allows the creation of additional lots within the shape and size constraints of the site. 040n Ptoj Narntive 17 lots, 10/12/04 ~ Core Design, Inc. CORE ~DESIGN 14711 N.E. 29th place Suite #101 Bellevue, Washington 9B007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 R J ·fi· Oe'lP10'''''' ezone ustt catton 1;;1. ,.-1M, Amberwood 11--Renton, Washington OIT'YojNr PYl . fi€NfoNNING DC N r 12:2004 .RezoneJustificatiori from R-l to R-S Residential,. RECEiVe, . ..... : OUi proposal is forezorte an eXisting 4.24 :l'cre parcel froni the current'R-l to R~5. This '. lJ 'j.y,. "i\Volild'a1l6w ;forthe <:reation of 17 detachedsingIe.:.family homes.' The location of the project '·;sit~isl'S200NE4thSt±eet. The property is'cui:rently zonedR~l with aCompn!hensive Plan '''''designation of Residential RuraL Per the City ~fRenton's comprehensive plan the . .,' ';:'Unpleirieritlng2one for ·the residetitiaJruraldesignation is either R-lor R-S. Properties . (iiriiiiediately.adjacentto the project site within the City of Renton (north and west) are ." <"clllrerttlY'zonedR~5, and those properties to the south located in unincorporated King County are zoned R-4. The R~Szoning district, which would permit a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, will ensure that new residential detached single-family development is compatible with eXisting development patterns within the surrounding neighborhood. The rezone will provide middle-income price range housing and comply with provisions of the state Growth Management Act. The proposed rezone would not cause any adverse irripact~ to publit services, health, safety and welfare. The rezone will enhance the merit and 'value' for existing surrounding property owners as well as . future property owners of the 17 units. "We'feehhis reionecomplies will all applicable ~riteriaand standards for the City of Renton; and therefore request formal approvaL ENGINEERING· PLANNING· SURVEYING I CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL C~CKLIST . . Project: Amberwood II Preliminary Plat Applicant: Steven Beck Amberwood II L.L.C. 19129 S.E.14sth Street Renton, W A 98059 (253)770-8100 Representative/Contact: Core Design, Inc. Attn: Michael Chen 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Phone: (425) 885-7877 Date: September 21, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS ...................................................................................... 3 1. EARTlI .................................................................................................................... 3 2. AIR ........................................................................................................................... 4 3. WATER ................................................................................................................... 4 4. PLANTS .................................................................................................................. 6 5. ANIMALS ............................................................................................................... 7 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................................ 7 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IIEALTH .............................................................................. 8 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE ............................................................................. 9 9. HOUSmG ................................................................................................................. 10 10. AESTlIETICS ........................................................................................ : ................ 10 11. LIGHT ~ GLARE ..................................................... ' ......................................... 11 12. RECREATION ........................................ ; ................................................................ 11 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION ................................................ 12 14. TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................. 12 15. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................... 13 16. UTILITIES ............................................................................................................... 13 C. SIGNATURE ........................................................................................................................ 13 Appendices Appendix A -Legal Description Appendix B --Vicinity Map ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION PU!:pose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this 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 Annlicants: 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 hir~ experts. If you really do not know the answer or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject nronosals: (A nonproject proposal includes plans, policies and programs where actions are different or broader than a single site-specific proposal) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEJv.1ENTAL SHEET FOR NONPRO]ECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the word "project", "applicant", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer", and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Amberwoodll Preliminary Plat 2. Name of applicant: Steven Beck 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Steven Beck 4735 NE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 (425)227-9200 Ext 272 4. Date checklist prepared: September 21, 2004 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Development Services Division Contact Person: Michael Chen c/o Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98007 (425) 885-7877 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Plat construction is scheduled to start in early 2005, subject to the approval process and market demands. Home construction is proposed to start in late 2005. 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. Preliminary storm drainage report, prepared by Core Design, Inc. 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. N one to our knowledge. Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 1 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Preliminary Plat Approval SEPA Detennination Drainage Plan Approval Water and Sewer Construction Plan Approval Grading Pennit Final Plat Approval Residential Building Pennits 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modifY this form to include additional specific information on project description.) . This application proposes a 17 lot preliminary plat on a 4.24 acre· site under the existing requirements for an R-5 zone. The homes are anticipated to be in the middle income price range. ·Construction of the site will result in +90% of the property being developed. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The location of the project is 15200 NE 4th Street and is located in the NW 1,4, Section 14, Township 23N, Range 5E. The site is just to the west of the intersection of 156th Avenue SE and NE 4th Street, located on the south side of NE 4th Street. A legal description and vicinity map is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Environmental Checklist Ambenvood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 2 B. E~"VIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS t. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolli~ hilly, steep slopes, mountainous other The site is generally flat, sloping to the southwest comer at approximately 6%. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope is approximately 30% in the Southwest comer of the property. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you 'know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to the King County Soil Survey the site is almost entirely underlain by Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, 0 to 6 percent slope. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? . If so, describe. No, not to our knowledge. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose of the grading is to construct the proposed public streets to City standards and to provide building pads and utility locations for single family residences. The grading is intended to be balanced onsite, with all cut and fill material originating from within the site, with the total of± 11,000 cubic yards. If it is discovered that the site will need fill materials, a fill source statement will be submitted at that time. Please refer to the Preliminary Grading and Utility Plans prepared' by Core Design, Inc for additional information. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur as a result of denuded soil during and immediately following storm events. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 47% will be covered by impervious surface. Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 3 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: A temporary erosion and sedimentati~n control (fESCP) plan will be prepared and implemented prior to commencement of construction activities. During construction erosion control measures may include any of the following: siltation fence, temporary siltation ponds and other measures which may be used in accordance with requirements of the City. At completion of the project, permanent measures will include stormwater runoff detention and water quality facilities as required. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, there will be increased exhaust and dust particle emissions. After construction, the principle source of emissions will be from automobile traffic, lawn equipment, and otJ:iers typical of a residential neighborhood. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources of emissions or odors are those typical of the residential neighborhoods that surround this site, such as autom~bile emissions from traffic on adjacent roadways and fireplace emissions from nearby homes. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Construction impacts will not be significant and can be controlled by several methods: watering or using dust suppressants on areas of exposed soils, washing truck wheels before leaving the site, and maintaining gravel construction entrances. Automobile and fireplace emission standards are regulated by the State of Washington. The site has been included in a "No Burn Zone" by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency which went into effect on September 1, 1992. No land clearing or residential yard debris fires would be permitted on-site, nor in the surrounding neighborhood in accordance with the regUlation. 3. 'Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There are no water bodies associated with this property. We are aware of wetland and intermittent streams that are associated with the Maplewood Estates project to the west and the south of the subject property. Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 4 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. None to our knowledge. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No, there will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, a public sanitary sewer system will be installed to serve the future homes. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn, public water mains will be installed as part of the plat construction. No water will be discharged to groundwater except through the incidental infiltration of stormwater. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage: industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The site will be served by sanitary seWers. There will be no waste material discharged to the ground from the development Post-development stormwater runoff from roadways and home sites will be collected within drainage facilities which will settle out and/ or sep~ate automobile petroleUm and other household waste materials to acceptable levels, then tight lined to a level flow spreader located along the south property line. Requirements for water quality aneJ runoff rate control will be met. Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 5 c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Stonnwater runoff will result from roadways and other impervious surfaces and will be collected and routed to the detention facility located on-site, treated for sediment and petroleum removal, then routed through a detention/wet pond, then tight lined to a levd flow spreader located along the south property line. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 1bis would be very unlikdy. The only materials that could enter ground or surface waters would be those associated with automobile discharges and yard and garden preparations. d. Proposed measures to reduce or conttolsurface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: A City approved stonn drainage system will be designed and implemented in order to mitigate any adverse impacts from stormwater runoff. The system will include temporary erosion control barriers during site construction, and permanent stonnwater collection/treatment facilities soon after beginning site devdopment construction. 1bis perman~t system will ensure that prior to the rdease of stonnwater into the downstream storm system, the system will have significandy reduced the pot~ntial impacts to ground and surface waters. 4. Planls a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: cottonwood, ash X evergreen tree: fir,cedar,pine, other: healiock X shrubs X grass pasture wet soil plants: cattail, creeping buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, horsetail, water plants: water lily, edgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: . b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Of the site, all of which is to be devdoped into lots, roadways and drainage facilities, 100% of the existing vegetation will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plants are known to exist on the site. Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 6 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The yard areas associated with individual ownership will be landscaped by the future residents with both formal and informal plantings. ~. Anjmal~ a. 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: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, ~ beaver, other:.squirrel fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, the site is part of the Pacific Fly Way. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The yard areas associated with individual ownership will be landscaped by the future residents with both formal and informal plantings. EXisting vegetation will be retained as much as possible. (', Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and/or natural gas will be the primary source of energy used to provide heating and cooling to each home. These forms of energy are immediatdy available to the site. The builder will provide the appropriate heating and cooling systems which are energy efficient and cost effective for the homebuyer. b.· Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 7 c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal: list other proposed meas:ures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: he requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the State Energy Code will be incorporated into the construction of the buildings. Energy conserving materials and fixtures are encouraged in all new construction. 7. Enyironmental Health a. Me there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. The project will not generate any environmental health hazards. 1) Describe speCial emergency services that might be required. None to our knowledge. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: There are no on-site environmental health hazards known to exist today nor are there any that will be generated as a direct result of this proposal. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The main somc~ of off-site noise in this area originates from the vehicular traffic present on NE 4th Street. 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 houts noise would come from the site. Short-term noise impacts will result from the use of construction and building equipment during site devdopment and home construction. These temporary activities will be limited to normal working hours. Long-term impacts will be those associated with the increase of human population; additional traffic and noise associated with residential areas will occur in the area. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Building construction will be done during the hours prescribed by the City of Renton. Construction equipment will be equipped with muffler devices and idling time should be kept at a minimum. Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 8 8. Land and Shntelinc Usc a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site currently has three single-family detached home and associated outbuildings. The current use of the adjacent properties is as follows; North: South: East West NE 4th Street Undeveloped Undeveloped (plat of Amberwood) b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: Not to our knowledge. c. Describe any structures on the site. The site currently contains two single-family detached homes and associated outbuildings. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, all structures on site will be removed as part of this project Demolition permits and inspections will be obtained prior to the removal of the structures. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning is R-S. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan designation is Residential Rural. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program 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? Approximately 42.S people (17 x 2.5 persons per dwelling unit). j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Approximately s.o people (2 x 2.S persons per dwelling unit). Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 9 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None proposed because the current property owner is a proponent of the redevdopment of the property. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The area around the site consists of residential housing. This use is compatible with surrounding uses both existing and proposed 9. 1'1om;ing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The prdiminary plat contains 17 new single-family residences. The new homes are anticipated to be in the middle-income price range. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Two existing homes will be removed as part of this project. They are currendy in the middle-income price range. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None proposed because the current property owner is a proponent of the redevdopment of the property. 10. Acsthetks a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material( s) proposed? The buildings will meet the height requirements of the R-S zone and will not exceed 2 stories or 30 ft. The exterior building materials may include any of the following; wood, hardwood, masonry, cedar shakes and/or asphalt shingles. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Because of the surrounding development and mature forest, the visual impact on the adjacent area will be minimal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The homes will be of a scale and size to be compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Landscaping will be installed by the future residents to provide an additional visual buffer. Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 10 H. Light and Giate a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur. Light and glare will originate from building lighting and exterior lighting. Light will also be produced from vehicles using the site. These impacts would occur primarily in the evening and before dawn. b. CoUld light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The only off site source of light and glare are from vehicles and street lighting from the adjacent streets and the single-family neighborhoods. d. Proposed measures to reduce or conttollight and glare impacts, if any: Street lighting, when deemed necessary, will be installed in a manner that directs the lighting downward :12. Recreatioil a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Maplewood Park (located on 144th Ave. SE), Maplewood Golf Course, and Cedar River Regional Park (located on the Renton Maple Valley Road) are in proximity to the site. 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 recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any? Impacts will be mitigated through participation in the City's park mitigation program. The required mitigation fee will be paid prior to recording the subdivision. Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 11 B. Historic :.lnd Cultural PreSef\lRi.ioll a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None, there are no known impacts. If an archeological site is found during the course of construction, the State Historical Preservation Officer will be notified. 14, Tmnsportalion a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access will be off NE 4th Street via NE 3rd Court from the north side of the site. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. The nearest transit stop is .10 miles to the northwest at the intersection of Rosario Ave NE and NE 4th Street. The stop is served by Metro transit bus 111. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Four parking spaces will be provided in association with each home; a total of 68 spaces will be provided on the site. The spaces will be located in garages and on the driveways. There are no parking spaces eliminated d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes. The proposal will create approximately 590 lineal feet of new road Two new internal public street will provide access to the single-family lots. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This project is estimated to generate 163 ADT (9.57 ADT IDU). Peak volumes would occur during the morning and evening commutes. Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 12 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Transportation impacts will be mitigat~d through participation in the city's traffic mitigation program. is, Public Servk('j!l a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The need for public service such as fire, health, and police protection will be typical of single family development of this size. The school children originating from the homes in this development will attend the schools in the Renton School District. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The roads and homes will be constructed to meet all applicable standards and co<!.es of the City and the Uniform Building Code. The proposed development will contribute to the local tax base and provide additional tax revenue for the various public services. The impact to the schools and traffic will be mitigated through the payment of impact fees. l6. U i.ilities a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. All utilities are available to the site through the proper extension of services. Extension of services is the developers' responsibility. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, arid the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity will be provided by Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas will be provided by Puget Sound Energy. Water Service will be provided by King County District 90 Sanitary Sewer will be provided by the City of Renton Telephone Service will be provided by Qwest. C. SiGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ~.@ ~ Date Submitted: Michael Chen, Senior Land Plann~r September 21. 2004 Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 13 CORE DESIGN, INC. BELLEVUE WA 98007 Legal Description Legal Description Core Project No: 04027 09/21/04 Lot 1 of King County Short Plat Number 1075015, according to short plat recorded November 4, 1976 under Recording Number 7611040904, records of King County, Washington. ParcelB. Lot 2 of King County Short Plat Number 1075015, according to short plat recorded November 4, 1976 under Recording Number 7611040904, records of King County, Washington. ParcelC The north half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; Except the east 1166.01 feet thereof, as measured along the north line thereof; And Except the north 42 feet thereof conveyed to King County for road purposes by deed recorded under Recording Number 5758686; And Except Puget Sound Power and Light Company right-of-way. ParcelD Tract 999, Plat of Amberwood, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 207 of Plats, Pages 90 through 92, Records of King, County, Washington. Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat Appendix A Vicinity Map ·4 10 11 RENTON GREENUCoD ~ CEMETERY :1 Z ib I:; ! 14 Environmental Checklist Amberwood II -17 Lot Preliminary Plat AppendixB CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION Amberwood ll, Core Project # 04027 1. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION DATES I DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON SEP 232004 RECEIVED Grading will start Spring 2005. The road and utilities will start shortly thereafter with building construction to follow. II. HOURS OF OPERATION FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Per City of Renton: Monday -Friday: Saturday: Sunday: 7AM-8PM 9AM-8PM- None Ill. PROPOSED HAULINGITRANSPORTATION ROUTES All equipment, materials, and laborers will enter the site off ofNE 4th Street. IV. MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO MINIMIZE DUST, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS, MUD, NOISE AND OTHER NOXIOUS CHARACTERISTICS .. • Dust Best management practices will be used to minimize dust on the project site. Water trucks or metered fire hoses will be used as needed to wet down the areas used by construction equipment. Disturbed slopes will be hydroseeded per the Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan to control dust. • Traffic During site infrastructure and building construction, the traffic entering and leaving the site will consist of subcontractors and deliveries. When arriving for work, the subcontractors will be traveling opposite the traffic leaving the residential area, and materials are primarily delivered at off peak hours during the day. None of these operations are anticipated to have a significant impact on the peak or non-peak traffic hour in the area. • Transportation Impacts There will be one access point for construction of the project located off of NE 4th Street. As was stated above the construction traffic will not have a significant impact on traffic. The construction of the entrance, extension of NE 3rd Court and all associated wet and dry utilities to the project may . require some construction in the NE 3rd Court right-of-way. This work will be performed during non-peak hours and lane channelization will be used if needed. T:··2004\04027\Docs\040n Cons( Ivfitigation.doc 07/[2/04 j'" • Mud fu keeping with state law, any vehicle with deposits of mud, etc. on the vehicle's body, (fender, undercarriage, wheels or tires) will be cleaned of such material before the operation of the vehicle ~m a paved public highway. fu addition a street sweeper will also be used as necessary to remove any deposits from the roadways . • Noise All Construction equipment will have approved mufflers. hnpacts from noise are expected to be minimal. The hours of operation will be consistent with City regulations. T:'2004\0402T.J)oes\(l40n ConsiMitigatiol1.doc 07/12:'04 . :\ /~ent ~y: JOHN l SCOTT RENTON t . 425~777923; , .' 09/17/04 3:17PM;J~#94; Page 2/17. MEMORANDUM If~ t '" r '. DATE:.' . .;' TO: Construction Services, FirePrev~mtion, Plan Review; EDNSP, Project Planner ,'i~:t.,·, .L¥ ..•.. ~ __ ..:.. ' .. _. _____ . __ ~_,--.. . ~----:. ,._ ... , . -. ". :!-:1." Neil Watts, DevelopmentSerli~S Division·Director . ',,' 'ill·· . FROM: SUBJECT: New Preliminary AppIiPai~bn: bWwoo.d D"Jl,,:)lc..n ]l:. -LOCATION: I\\£;:ed Ceuct ~ ~ ~~";sa£.lO f\~tNt'u N.f;. _. PREAPPNO. ____________ ~,~~ __ ~ ______________________ __ A meeting with the applicant has been scheduled for· 11 ~ . ,'ThurSday, ~\4'~ 10 . in one of the 6th floor conference r~ms (new Cily HaD). Ift~ meeting is scheduled at 10:0QAM; the MEETING MU.ST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR" TO 11 :00 AM to allow time m,prepare for the 11 :00 AM meeting .. Please review the attached project ~nu~s prior to the sch8duled ~eeting with the applicant. You will hot need to do ath6rough ...,ermit lever review'f!t this time. Note only major Issues'that must be resprved priorto fonnalland use ~dlor building permit application submittal. . . . Plan Reviewer assigned is ___ .;."' _____ -_. Please submit your written comments to _______ -_ (Planner) at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. h~~ i:., . .. ~ I H:\Division.s\Devclop.ser\Dcv It P1an.ing\Template\Preapp2 Revised 9/00 - . 42~2777923; .. ': 09/17/04 3:17PM;J~#94; Page 3/17 Sent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON -- . , , Laureen Nicolay "'f', ~. Clo City of Renton Development~erVi6es \ . . .' ~ . 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa.98055 . ~ t!' ~,. ',.,. .~: \ ~. d, ' 6/24/03 RE: Pre-Application Review for P~posed Plat of"Amberwood Div-2" Laureen ~ttached is the information requested for a pre-application review and meeting at the city's earliest convenience for a proposed single family subdivi- sion in the city of Renton. ", ..... The proposed "Arnberwood: Div-2." project is located just East of the inter- section of Rosario Ave Northeasr~d Notheast 3rd Court Just outside the City of Renton, but soon to be Annexed.int~, the'City of Renton. The site is a combination of vacant land) 2 single Family Homes and a old. equipment repair shop approx .. 162;278 Square Feet (3.73 ac), Tax Lot #142305- 9~68, 9094 and 9065 and the cUlT,ent zoning is single Family with aR-4 classification according to metrosican, but R-8 zoning will be implemented this ye~. ' . Twill be interested in depth~ location and improvements required for Water ,Sewer, stann, retention/detention Ponds and stonn Vaults in city Streets. Also if the proposed lot and .road layout is acceptable to traffic and planning. :"1 .. '; . ,~ Should you need anymore inforD;l~tion ~r h~lVe any questions please contact me at 425-444-0461. ", ~ .. C/c George Bales Jay Bales Steven A. Beck Amberwood L.L.C. ''''. Sent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON 42~f~7792G; ",' '.,' 09/17/04 3: 18PMj]e.tl&lL#94j Page 4/17 \[ ~--------~---.;/ • ,. ~ , • I-,. • 53' ® (ii) ~ \._...:::=-.. __ ---4---........... _. ___ .. -+--,-i ____ ~_. __ ----... --~:--.-- l, l~ I , . &.1 , . . I!'"'~ ------..... ,---...; ,', L j'" \ ~ .' .:Y., ... : :: ... : I 1 :..-I )of-~ .. ----....... -... -....-. _w....-..:.-~_.........; I I I .. Amberwood ~ ... ..... . ~ Division 2 Preap/icationj l-----~--.-.:. Plat Layout Sample 1 r '-; " ~ I @, , ' .. ,1 I~· . . -I 1'f .:;, . " t r:-!. '. '," I ~ @:, , I \'" I ~j . "i .~ . ~ i:c) i5' "{) .. . I L{'}.,' . ~--... ~ ... -----~i~ l!ll \65 (jj; ~~ j@';£SI ! ~ @ ,...-.-----.--.~ . , \ j I ' 1 . @-' ~: 1 ... -.... I c:.<. --! , (, _.. -- - - _ .• ' ··,-.-1_ .-.• ~ i . !-~ ---.-----'! · .. £F I ---( , h .. i' ! i ~ ~ \ "-"\ ) , ~ @ (j9 • dJ' _Lat ..... _ . • ... j ... ~ ( . i i f'9 t " ! f~ ti\i @ " ~ " .. -....... .. .. _, I . - f , , I I , j ! I i : ! '-8 - '.'~ -. ~--• ~Z7 )C§" . , @ ~ ~ ® ~ '\ !:) ~ lfp @ ~. ..... "-" " , ~ ~ ~. ':'. - ,09' .. .• I ,/ 4 g" , S'S " , __ ._ •• _ .... ___ ~._ •• __ .. hh. __ ·_· .. 2.'15/ Sent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON .~l - .. :!.: ! ~ :: • z S • z ~ ~ s ... ! ~ 8 : 42527}792~; 09/17/04 3:18PM;J~#94j Page 5/17 I " :~Amberwood D~.vlsion 2 Preaplication Amberw;~od Division 1 Plat Map . '!." ' ~ .:; 8 - " r: .2 t -'lia2Q,l $1", .48>, 1 J I .. ~ I 1 ar..-arr ~::t-I Jl '**U. 'I;'; cw ' .,1; .' '.; " a.oa 12 aau:SI". QiD • ., I 1 o ... .... j- < oJ Q. Z ~ sent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON 42~,2777923 ; 09/17/04 3:18PMjl~#94j Page 6117 . '.'~! oj : "," ! i K.C. 51 __ ":roo'l<l(;,cSlll_ t _.It~J_IIII_'''''''; I IIII1'IPS lID ;IS ., ~ 10 ... _"" iliilWfa. I N W l4'-23~ -' SCAL~ I" -100' ISH·O' " "" ~ "I· IZ~ $T..u. ................... . • • ,,-14 : _ I! I' ~ ,! II ~ ~,.,~ ... ~"r"~, •• ; ~ .L~1$i I o;"i~i<w;;;! ~ · -~ -"'*-,-'" • • .j' --s.t:. L ____ >.~:_ ,r~_'~ ~ ~'i ,iLr--iitiI~~"-=-==;;';:~~I=--.--.:t. .~:L ,--- • .,\t-- ,-----.----,:~~-----'~----- i/!, tSent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON 16 ENTON 4i527!17923 ; 09/17/04 3: 1 8PM;]etfu #94; Page 7/17 J)\mberwood Division 2 Preaplieation 'L Vicinity Map Sent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON 09/17/04 3:19PM;J~#94; Page 8/17 - - - DATE: TO; FROM: SUBJECT: t; , CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU . ~; MEMORAlfDUJd Fire Department Comments: 1. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of .all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds / 3600 square feet in area~ the nlinirn~;Jire flow increases to 1500 GPM and requires two hydrants wi~ 300 feet of the structure. ,2. A fire'mitigation fee o~~~ required for all new single-family ,strW:tures. "'~ "j. 3. Fire Department access road.ways require a minimum 20 Foot paved roadway with an approved fire department turnaround. See attached diagram. Dead end streets over 500 feeUong require that all lots beyond _oJ, the 500 feet be sprinkled. Buil~gs on lots 14 thru 18 & 29. ;"'CJ,,/I...@ f{.-e~~ 4. All building addresses shall be visible from the public street ~~~;\.~~ Please !eel free to contact me if you have any questions . . ; .... ~\ ;,. " ~!,"',' \ Sent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON 42~27!7923j 09/17/04 3:19PM;}etfg #94; Page 9/17 IJo i --- ~ - - ~ DC ~ u -..J ~ II- U ::;. ~ w , QC . r-' [IJ U :J 9 u.., .. ' ,"FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS RENTON FIRE PREVE'NTION BUREAU '. in "4~"1f.3(}~ 7dll) . ,',' .: ,.', TURNING RADIUS Z5-FEET'U"SI,D.E· ,.~ 45-FEET bUTS) DE .,' . 2D-FEET 't .•.. ~ . , SS-FEET TURNING')' "':' RADIUS , . 2D-FEET I .:! ,-}. 55- FEET Sent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON 4252777923; 09/17/043:21PMj}ti&.L#94i Page 10/17 - - .1 :': To: Susan Fiala From: Juliana Sitthidet Date: July 8, 2003 Subject! PreAppUcatioD Review Cpmmellts PUMP No. 03-076 Amberwood DivUioD 2 Pfa~ , ------------------------------------ NOTE ON PUllMlNARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAIN£JHN THIS REPORT: Tbe foUowing COmIneocs Oil development and permi~tiJlg issues are based on the pr.-application submft~ made to the CitY of Rentoa by tbe app;~c3~~ The 'applicant is cautioued that informatioD contained in this summary may be subj~; to ~~tioD and/or conaarreDc:a by official decision makers (e.g. Bearing ExamiQ~. Boards.:9'Adjut~t, Board ofPllblic Worka IUld City Couudl). ·Review comments may also need to ~';j~Vlsed based OD site planning. and other design cllanges requjred by the City or made bY the appii~1,i'_ _____ --_________ ____I I have ye.'.ricwed the preliminary applicatlon;ior this plat, located at NE 3nt Court and Rosario Ave NE. The subject site consists of two parcels located outside of the City's bo\mdaries. The following comments would be requirem'flt; upon site's annexation :into the City of Renton. WATER -.. t\.· b\}ztu.:A\J~ ~ 1. 'fhe proposeddcvelopment is within ibe water service area of Water District 90 fWD 90). The applicant shall obtain a certificate of Water availability from the District and provide it the City prior to the approval of the l'reljlDlJlSJ.)'. -. p .. Jat. A §:al~ will be required to verify that the District's system ean'provide a minimum . ~~ ~..Jf "va:ilable fire flow. Results of analysi~ shall be submittedjo,~i~' City along WI the certificate of water availability to ensUre that adequ#t' 'fI~'taf.¢ and pressure is available to serve 1be development .,~" .if . . . -'t~.'ij .': ' 2. For dead~d streets over 500 feet l~d~~uider 700 feet) in length, a cul-de-sac is required. " 3.. The proposed project is located outSide;an Aquifer Protection Zone. qt)' PltttedL- .; SANITARY SEWER 1. There is a 24-mch sewer main in ~,;4· Street, up to the wes~ property line alignment 2. There is also an 8-inch sewer main iristaUed as part of Amberwood Div 1. The sewer main is stubbed in NE 3t'1t Cotut and further south in: lot 12 of Amberwood Div. 1. 3. A sewer main Cxteiuiion along; the whole extension ofN,E)1d C~urt and along the proposed lots 13~ 19 and 29 will berequircd. 4. Existing Septic systems shall be. aband~~c:l In accordance with King County Health Department prior to recording Ofthj~t.~,~p· ~1 ~ C.o~€ct ~ s W /f' V; c..57+J~ ~:.~ f. ~ ,{ i . . , ,. oi ... j Sent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON !~ 09/17/04 3:21PMj}etfl.1: #94; Page 11/17 ~ - - - ( .(', Amberwood Division 2 Plat 07107/2003 Page 2 j, 5. st ·Renton Interceptor Special Assessment Disrrict (SAD). As of 7/10103 fees S280llot Fee,a~IUes interest daily. Fees leeted at the time the utility construction .. issued. --~--~-----' ~ 6. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SDC) s $160 per 1 t. The fee is payable at the time ~ utility construction pemrit is issued. _._- '-: SURFACE WATER ~ rtt!:~ ;;{ ,. 1. The site drains to Maplewood Cr~k sub4;~in:T . : ~~'~ '" '. '; . 2. Due to downstream flooding and·'~~\~on~ems. staffwill recommend a SEPA condition requiring this project to comply withthe~ King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Level.2 flow control) and water quality :im::!p~ro:::.:v:.=em~ __ --., .,. 3. The Surface Water System. Development Charges (SOC) 2S per. building lot. are payable a.t the time the ~tility c~Dstructian ~ is issued. ; . lRANSPORTATION 1. A joint use driveway may be· peimitted for ac-=: to two @ lots. The private access easement shall be a minimum of 20-feet wide wi~3:feet paved::J V'~ -- 2. The City code' states that private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or less. lots. with no more than four (4) of the lots not ~Uttin$~PUb,lic right-of-way. The private street easement shall be a minimum of 26-feet widf!t.,nth2,o;.fee:t paved_ '--' ,~\,. . . 3. Street improvements including. bU~\1(.~t Jiplited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, stonn drain.) andscape. street lighting ~ !,itTeet: signS will be required along NE 4th Street and streets interior to the plat. ), . 4.. 1he traffic mitigation fee o~ additional generated trip shall be assessed per additional single family home at a l~te of 957 trips (# lots x 9.57 trips x S7S/trip). This fee is payable at time of recording the ~hort plat. . 1\10 ~ (,A rf,~ :Ji~ £V~ 5. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergroundill-- Ordinance. ff three or more poles:necessitate to be moved by the development design. aU existing overhead utilities sbaU replaced underground. ·c /~ 4-R ~ 1!~ lJ.l GENEML COMMENTS " ~- '. , '. :c';'!,:: '} I:"i . 1. AU required utility, drainage and ~et unw:ovi,ments will require separate plan submit1als prepared according to City ofRen~n·4raftirig:§,9ndards-hy.a-Jjcmsed Ci~ 2. Permit application must includC.i~~ :;~~zed coSt of construction estimate o ...... oI:n""'~ imnrov --------.~----.-._ ..... _ ..... ___ ... ___ ....... __ --"r' ........ . The fee for review and inspectio.'l iJf these improvements is 5% of the first S100,000 oftbe estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $1 OO~OOO but less than. S200.000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Halfthele~ must be paid upon application. 3· U'you-ave any ~tions. 'caJI me at 42S-430-7278 ~ W~)-f26M 1Jt:"3 wi -f,t b.p = ~YJarEt51roJ)ip~~d) 1'1;,;,,':' , ;" .. ~ent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON 09/17/04' 3:21PMj]etfu: #94; Page 12/17 " " ... --- M·EM:Q.RAN:DUM . '. , " I, .' DATE;: / "I" ,.- j! - ---,". ;: .. ~ . .. ·~\s' .{!! it. . . TO: Consf~ction Servic&S,fflre pMVention. Plan.Revie~i EDNSP. *- ___ P..;..roj...:.e_Ct_· !:,!'!'!~~ .. _ .. '. '\{ l,. .. __ . __ ' .. ___ ._ .. _ .. _ .. _._ .... ___ . ______ _ . "'t" ,-; .," FROM: Neil W. atts, Developn:-ent Services Division Director ... . . SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: Am~VJ()Od 4>Wi~1 en :n: lOCATION:~ Nt; ~ (1cv.g,t ~ fJ)sat!J,o Pr"f}/\[H! Ne" .. PREAPP NO. fi~r= 03 -63tR .A meeting with the applicant has been schOO,uled for [I a.vv'-= • Thursday, '"S"iht I () ~ I in ~ oflbe er floor conferenqe r9Qms (new City · Hall). If ~.meeting.is scheduled at 10:00 AM. the "'EE11NG M~.sr. BE CONCLUDED PRIOR' TO 11:00 AM to allow time to prG:pare 'for the 11:00 AM m~ting. , .: '"' ·t " •. Please'review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled m~ting with the applicant You YiiUnot need to do a th9raugh ·pennit lever review·.t this time. Note · only major Issues·that must be resorve<f priorto formal land use ~dlor building permit application submittal. f . .. · Plan Reviewer ass~ned is _J---.v....a.;\,=4.Wb=.=· . ;;....'. __ '--__ Please submit your written comments to 0A5,3~ . (Planner) at least two (2) clays 'before the meetir1g •. Thank :you. . ; ,'!,~ ,~, ~ '" \" . IJ-_ .,~'} ,..~:~J ... ~;: . A.I..6 A'__. ~ .~;i. ,,,.r. L.tr~ ,,~ lJ:\DivisioD.&\Devclop~ &Pbm.ing\Tcmp~~p2 aevisecf'9100 . . .. .~; :~.; !.i. ; ,;~ I, Sent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON 4252777923; ':' .... " . 09/17/04 ,3.: 22PM;}etfiuL#94; Page 13/17 " - I, ) CITY O:E:~RENTON ' , ,ECONOM.lC DEVELOPMENT , NEIGHBORHOODS;:~4!lclD STRATEGIC PLANNING MEM't>RAND'UM DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACf: ••• ;. < <: • 'j' July3.Z~ " . . ff SusanHala Rebeccft Lind DoD Erickson ; SUBJECf: Ambenv,ood D.Iy#ioD n '{t' ! . c· ':', ':Ihe c.uneot proposal is purely speculati~ ~;~ ~.' ~t in time since the site is not J«'4ted within the City of Renton and is pan of an 8.s2~a(i'e annexadoil GUUeDtly being processed by the City. The site is witbin Renton" s Porential Almexation Area aDd is desigoated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Residential Rwal (RR)' which would allow R-S~ notR-8. zoning on it at the , time it is annexed mm the City. In fact.l~~ojqtion 3624~ adopred by the Oty Council OIl March 17.2003 sweet that the proposed annexatioo would be sUbmitted to the e1ectorace to considerR-S zoning at the same time they consider _w~ to support or not the aanexation'icself. ,The subject site is also located in the East RentOll Plateau P AA Study Area where City staff are currently reviewiDgthe existing land use designations for this area as part of the CitY s Comprehensive ~update. ' i':i" AnalySis: The ,proposal incoIJSiste.nt with the Ci,tr oi~ii;~t& CompreheDs.ive PJaq' Land Use Map designation of RR fur this site. ~. 3.n.a~ site could theoretically accommodate , apprcmmately lS lots with R-S zoDiDg'~ dian the 29 lots shown. As acoDSequence it is pmiwure to even cOllSider this applieation a!fCt>JiiD:at on it further. Recommendation: . Do not support this preapp1ication for the following rea.soos: 1) it is iDcoDsistent wi1h Renton's Comprehensive Plan land use desigaadotw.for the area. 2) R-8 zoningjs different from. what rhe City submilted to the KiDg County Bountlary Review Board which zeviewed and approved the 8.s2--aae aunexation on June sGa of rhis year, and. 3) R-8 zoniog is in cODtliet with the apProved eleaion ballot for me pending Bales Amlexation election which is scIIeduled to held September 16,2003. ;:" .. H:~opmcat~~DivisiaD~ dent b~: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON 09/17/04 ,3:22PMjJetFu: #94; Page 14/17 \ /}tJ = :, - DATE: . July 10,2003 " ;; '. - CITY OF RENTON Planning/BuiJdinglPubllc Works . . M EMO:~;:~ J\I DUM A( _, ,Y'.:} ".~ f~ '1:~i:·' ~ l" ,i~ ;jj TO: Pre·Application File No~ 03-~76 . FROM: Susan· Fiala. Senior. Planl1er:, x7382 . ~~ SUBJECT: Amberwood Oivisio.n IIp,relimlnary Plat General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- . referenced development proposal. The' following comments on development and pennitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals :made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of. revi~. ~~ jfhe applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be s~l>ject .;fo· modification and/or concurrence by official declsion-makers (e.g., Hearing Examin¢~;, 'foriin9 Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Revie';; ~~~mments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes r~q~!{ed by City. staff or made by the applicant The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable. sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The. Development Regulations are available fQr purchase for $55.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall. Project Proposal:. The subject property ~$ currently under the jurisdiction of K'mg County. The proposal is currently undergoing the annexation process to be incorporated into the City · Limits of Renton. Rezoning of the· site from King County zoning to. City of Renton's R-5 would also occur . . The applicant has indicated in the pre-application CQver letter that the site would be R-8. this is incorrect. The proposed zoning would be R-.5.:J:tIe. s~bmitted plat is to be re-designed to comply with the R-5 development standards. t! ;';; .~: · The proposal is to subdivide a three ~f'(;el ~ite. a total of 3.73 .gross acres into 29 lots for eventual development of single. family ho'in~;~.AU of the existing structures and outbuildings are proposed to be removed. f\ . j. . ZonlnglDensity Requirements; The pre~·application materials submitted are designed to the R- 8 standards, the plat must be redeSigned to meet R-5. This would most likely reduce the proposed number of lots. ; /[.; · The. subject property will be . located Within the Residential - 5 dwelling units per acre zoning designation. Net density is calculated after deducting designated critical areas. areas intended for dedication to public rights..;gf-way. andlor private streets serving more than three units from the gross area of. the s.ite. ... The' R-5 zone has no minimum density but a maximum of 5 dw~Jling units per 1 net acre is ~ required. The net density fOr this parcel would bti%caft:ulated after deductions for both public and private streets. 'ih '.,' ";' . ~. ~'l~:'i 'J . ;:1$ . . :,," ~ ~ Sent by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON 42527,77~,2,:~.~ .; .. '.~ ~J.-;: . If'! ri'"~ 09/17/04 .3: 22PMjJJttl'I.!L#94j Page 15/17 ~ . . DIY_II pre'imi,..aryPiat-preApPIiC3tion::l~~ ">, (>0 t:.'~:'''' ~. £~ ~~ - Development Standards: . " . . l' . Minimum Lot Size, Width and Depth -.;;rhe minimum lot size in. the R-5 zone is 7,200 square feet The minimum lot width is 60 feet for interior lots and 70 feet for comer lots. A minimum lot depth of 70 feet is arso~uired. . . ~ . BYilding Standards, -The R-5 zone anows a maximum building coverage ·(includes primary and accessory buildings) of 35%. or 2,500 aquare feet. whichever:-is . greater, for lots greater than 5,000 feet For lots less than 5.000 sq~Eire fee.t,. i1l~imum buiJdingcoverage is 50%. Building height is restricted to 3D "feet and two stori~S}ir~;~ ~ . . :~ . ',' • .: .. : ,$ . . ' Setbacls! -Setbacks are measured from the 'property lines to the nearest point of the structure_ The required setbacks in the R, .. 5 zone;Ja~ as, follows: Minimum front yard with street access garage is 15· feet for the· primary s~ctU.te i~nd20 feet for attached garages which access from the front yard street For side yards along a street. the primary structure is setback 15 feet with . 20 ~et setback for attached garages which' access trom the side yard along a street. Side yards (interior lots) have five (5) foot setbacks cmd the rear yard is a minimum of 25 feet setback. Access. Parking and Circulation: Eactf Jot is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per lot. In addition, appropriate shared maintenance and access agreement/easements will.be required bt'.tween lots with shared access. ·A formal request .for a modification. to street standards would be required to be submitted by the applicant for the proposed reduced right-Of-way ({rpm 50 ft. to 42 ft.). The' modification would be reviewed administratively. j . Private streets are allowed for access to· six tor: leSs lots, with no more than 4 of the lots not abutting a public right-of-way. 'Thestreeff~ to irclud~ a·minimum easement width of 26 feet with 20 feet of paving. Private driveways 'm~y serve a maximum of two lots and must have a minimum easement width of 20 feet Withl~'2i,(eetof paving. ~~ • ,~ I • Addresses of lots atong.private streets are to be visible from the public· street by provision of a sign stating all house numbers and ;s to be~ located at the intersection of the private street and the· public street . Driveway Grades: The maximum drive\vay slopes can not exceed fifteen percent (15%). prOvided that driveways exceeding eight percent (8%) are to provide slotted drains at the lower end ,of the driveway. If the grade e~ceeds 15%. a varian~ from the Board of A~ is required... . . j)~~b ~ ,,~ ~'flc1tt5 .( .SEPAI Environmental Issues: .The proje;t woufd,require SEPA review badcPo~ the number of dweUing. units of the development (above four·units). The. proposal. would ,be brought to the Environmental· Review· Committee for,. revi~~~~i it is' their charge tornake threshold detenninations for environmental ChecktiS~,.:, i;' ';~ . . Sensitive Areas: Based on ·the City's cn'6ectl Areas Maps. the site does not appear to contain any critical areas. However. a Geotech,hkill· Report may be required to be prepared that addresses soils. geology. and. other pertin,~nt ;tssues. . . . ~ . Permit Req.uirements: The project. WOLi~(1 raquire Preliminary Plat and Environmental (SEPA) Review. The reviewal' :these applications woufd be process concurrently within an estimated ,time trame·of12 to 16 weeks. After the h:.quired notification period. the Environmental Review CommiUee would issue a Threshold Detet'fuination for the project .. When the required two-week appeal period is< comPleted •. the. proje<;,t ,Would go before· the Hearing Examiner for a recommendation to the City CounCil on the Preliminary Plat. The' Hearing Examiner's recommendation, a~ woff. G3 tho ~~OiQn· i§CNe~ .Py .the. City COuooil~ :wouJd be. 3ubjcGt to two- week appeal periods. . ·(' .. ·~:;.·h. ~: ,\DAmALUS\S,(S2\sHARSD\Divia.s\DcvcloP.scr\Dc:v"Pi~jng\S~F~9Ps\2003\o76Ambetwood_2,doc ~'r\' . '';": ',' . ,",', :.:~~t'I ~ ',: .: ... ?'; .. ''Sent' by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON , 4q52'f77923 ; 09/17/04 3:23PM;}etfu: #94; Page 16/17 '\ -, - --- . ~, : AmbeIwocld Div.1I Prellmrnary Plat -Pre Appllcalion Ju/y10.2003 ~. ,j Page 3 of 3 " :" i\i}<J ~f-' The application fee wOuld be $2.000 f~:the Preliminary Plat and Y2 of full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental.Checklist) which, is de~rment on project value: less than $100.000 is $200 (112 01.$400.00 full fee) and project va;ue ()~~Vl$100.000 is a ,$500.00 fee(112 of $1000.00 fuJI fee) , plus $0.37 per mailing label required f~nOtification to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the site. The applicant will be requir.ed to install a public information sign on the property. Detailed inf~tion regarding the land, u~ appl~cation submittal requirements is provided in the attached handouts. ; I '~ O~ce Preliminary Plat approval isdb~ined, the applicant must complete the required improvements and dedications. as w~U'as satisfY any condmonsof the preliminary approval before' submitting for Final Plat review. The Final Plat process also requires City Council approval. Once final approval is receiVed. the plat may be recorded. The newly created lots may be sold only after th~ plat has been recoraed. Fe~: In addition to the applicable bui'ding,ar~~:t;~9rjstruction permit fees, the following mitigation fees,would be required prior to the reeo,i?9 9r~ef'at , • A Tran~portation AfJfigation Fee based on $75.00 per each ~ average daily trip attributabii! to/the project; , • A Parks Mitigation j;e~/baSed on $530.76 per ~ single family lot; and, ! . ~ • A Fire Mitigation Fet) fi;3sed on $488.00 per l1!!'!i single family lot. A handout listing all of the City's Deve'gpment related fees is included in the packet for your review. . '" Addltlont .. Commenta: Prior to submittIng the full application package. applicants are strongly encouraged to bring in one copy of each application material for informal review'to heJp ensure that the application is complete. ' ' " - cc: Jennifer Henning ~, ~~f,' OJ ~,); I/~' :;~~~ . : ':r·. ~ .. i~} ',f; :'}% 'f'~' ,~. .,-,- s'ent"by: JOHN L SCOTT RENTON -- i" ",: '/ ,.,-". 'I " ~ .~ ;., .~. ~ 09/17/04 3: 23PM;]etf&!L#94; Page 17/17 " t , .. ----~ Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment ..... File No.: NCS-7731S-WAl Page No.1 To: First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services. 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle; WA98121 (206) 728-0400 FAX (206) 448-6348 Laura Lau (206) 615-3017 lIau@firstam.com Bales Ltd Partnership PO Box30S Renton, WA 980S6 Attn: Robin Bales SECOND REPORT SCHEDULE A . Debbie McCleary (206) 615-3048 dmccleary@firstam.com File No.: NCS-7731S-WAl Your Ref No.: 1. Commitment Date: September 12, 2004 at 7:30 A.M. 2. ,:; Policy or Policies to be issued: Reorganization Rate Mortgagees Extended Coverage Proposed Insured: To Be Determined $ AMOUNT PREMIUM TAX To Follow $ $ 3. The estate or interest in the land described on Page 2 herein is Fee Simple, and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: -Bales Limited Partnership, a Washington Limited Partnership as to Parcels A, Band C and Amberwood, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, as to Parcel D 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: The land referred to in this report is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A: EXHIBIT 'A' I / File No.: NCS-7731S-WAl Page No.2 Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 1075015, according to short plat reocrded November 4, 1976 under Recording No. 7611040904, records of King County, Washington. Parcel B: Lot 2 of King County Short Plat No. 1075015, according to short plat reocrded November 4, 1976 under Recording No. 7611040904, records of King County, Washington. Parcel C: The North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; Except the East 1166.01 feet thereof, as measured along the North line thereof; And Except the North 42 feet thereof conveyed to King County for road purposes by deed recorded under Recording No. 5758686. 1 Parcel D: Tract 999, Plat of Amberwood, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 207 of Plats, Pages 90 through 92, Records of King, County, Washington . .... , ~.:. RrstAmerican 77t/e Insurance Company · . \ Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-7731S-WAl Page No.3 SCHEDULE B -SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the Requirements to be complied with: Item (A) Payment to or for the account of the Grantors or Mortgagors of the fuil consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (8) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. SCHEDULE B -SECTIQN 2 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS The Policy or Policies to be issued will contain Exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. 8. C. D. . ~~ , E. Taxes or assessments which are -not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Any facts, rights" interest, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of person in possession thereof. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records . (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted under (1), (2) or (3) are shown by the public records; (4) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations, Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. F. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, materials or medical assistance theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance,' construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for sewer, water, garbage or electricity. H. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgages thereon covered by this Commitment. Arst American Title Insurance Company Fonn WA-S (6/76) Commitment SCHEDULE B -SECTION 2 (continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. General Taxes for the year 2004. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Du.e: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (Affects Parcel No. A) 2. General Taxes for the year 2004. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (Affects Parcel No. B) 3. ,;' General Taxes for the year 2004. Tax Account No.: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Amount Due: Assessed Land Value: Assessed Improvement Value: (Affects Parcel No. C) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 142305-9094-00 3,684.58 1,842.29 1,842.29 88,000.00 210,000.00 142305-9065-05 3,120.58 1,560.29 1,560.29 96,000.00 155,000.00 142305-9068-02 2,196.68 1,098.34 1,098.34 115,000.00 59,000.00 4. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof. Grantor/Trustor: George H. Bales and Nancy Bales, his wife Grantee/Beneficiary: Carl L. Weinkauf File No.: NCS-7731S-WAl Page No.4 Trustee: Amount: Chicago Title Insurance Company, a corporation $12,772.83 Recorded: 03/25/1986 Recording Information: 8603251033 (Affects Parcel No. C) Rrst American Title Insurance Company · . Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-7731S-WAl Page No.5 5. Potential lien rights as a result of labor and/or materials used, or to be used, for improvements to the premises. An indemnity agreement to be completed by Bales Limited Partnership, is being sent to Bales Limited Partnership and must be submitted to us prior to closing for our review and approval. All other matters regarding extended coverage have been deared for mortgagee's policy. The coverage contemplated by this paragraph will not be afforded in any forthcoming owner's standard coverage pOlicy to be issued. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and stipulations of the Partnership Agreement of Bales Limited Partnership, according to the certificate of Limited Partnership dated July 18, 1995, Bales Management Trust is the General Partner thereof, any amendments to said Partnership must be submitted prior to dosing and properly filed with the Secretary of State, any conveyance or encumbrance of the Partnership property must be executed by George H. Bales, as Trustee of the Bales Management Trust as provided for therein. - Note: If the proposed transaction involves a sale of all or substantially all of the Partnership's assets the written consent of all of the Limited Partners should be submitted, prior to closing. 7. Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon said premises for Southeast 128th Street as granted by deed recorded July 8, 1964 under recording no. 5758686. (Affects Parcel No. A and C) 8. Easement, including terms and proviSions contained therein: Recording Information: October 4, 1966, Recording No. 6090597 For: road and utility ,,,. Affects: the West 30 feet of Parcel No. C 9. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Dedication of Right-of-Way" recorded February 25, 1976 as 7602250398 of Official Records. (Affects Parcel No. B) 10. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Dedication of Right-of-Way" recorded February 25, 1976 as 7602250399 of Official Records. (Affects Parcel No. C) 11. Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon said premises for Southeast 128th as granted by deed recorded June 8, 1976 under recording no. 7606080555. (Affects Parcel No. A) 12. Restrictions, conditions, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, if any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the Short Plat No. 1075015 recorded under Recording No. 7611040904, in King County, Washington. (Affects Parcel No. A and B) first American Title Insurance Company Fonn WA-S (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-7731S-WAl Page No.6 13. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: 8309090475 For: ingress, egress and utilities Affects: the West 30 feet of Parcel No. A 14. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: October 6, 1983 Recording No.: 8310060866 (Affects Parcel No. A and B) 15. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: 8401090632 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company For: one or more electric transmission and/or distribution lines Affects: a portion of the North 350 feet of Parcel No. C 16. Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: 17. ; . .. '. Recording Information: 8401090633 In Favor of: Puget Sound Power & Light Company For: one or more electric transmission and/or distribution lines Affects: the West 30 feet of Parcel No. A Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: 9803250629 In Favor of: Puget Sound Energy, Inc. For: gas pipeline or pipelines Affects: the West 30 feet, and 5 feet on each side of the centerline of the natural gas pipeline(s) as installed or to be installed within the remainder of Parcel No. C 18. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: Recorded: October 12, 2001 Recording No.: 20011012000590 Said instrument is a re-record of recording noes). 20010615001975 19. A License to Snoqualmie Falls Power Company recorded in 1899 as Recording No. 183070 20. Liability, if any, for pro-rata portion of Real Property taxes which are carried on the King County Tax Rolls, as tax account no. 020090-0200-07, are exempt. We note Special Charges for the year 2004 in the amount of $5.00, of which $0.00 has been paid. Balance due: $5.00 plus interest and penalties. (Affects Parcel No. D) Rrst American Title Insurance Company , .' Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment First American Title Insurance Company File No.: NCS-77315-WAl Page No.7 Fonn WA-S (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-7731S-WAl Page No.8 21. Right to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon said premises for SE 128th Street as granted by deed recorded September 24, 1964 under recording no. 5790506. (Affects Parcel No. D) 22. A document entitled "Latecomers Agreement", executed by and between City of Renton and Centex Homes recorded April 20, 2000, as Instrument No. 20000420000998 of Official Records. (Affects Parcel No. D) 23. A document entitled "Easement Agreement", executed by and between King County Water District No. 90, a Municipal Corporation and Long Classic Homes, LTD recorded July 30, 2002, as Instrument No. 20020730000169 of Official Records. (Affects Parcel No. D) 24. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or easements: 25. Recorded: August 7,2002 Recording No.: 20020807002463 (Affects Parcel No. D) Restrictions, conditions, dedications, notes, easements and provisions, if any, as contained and/or delineated on the face of the Plat of Amberwood recorded August 7, 2002, in Volume 207 of Plats, Pages 90 through 92, in King County, Washington. (Affects Parcel No. D) 26. Evidence of the authority of the individual(s) to execute the forthcoming document for Amberwood, LLC, a Washington Limited, copies of the current operating agreement should be submitted prior to closing. (Affects Parcel No. D) r~~~~----~~~~~~"-'"-=-:-::-:-==-=~~~-=~-~---~~ " J L ""=~~~~~=".~ .. "~" ="" __ ="~"_~."=""_=!N~F=O=R~M~A=T=IO=N=A=L=N=O=T=E=~~. ~~~~~~~-:--;=~~_""-"=' A. " Effective January 1, 1997, and pursuant to amendment of Washington State Statutes relating to standardization of recorded documents, the following format and content requirements must be met. Failure to comply may result in rejection of the document by the recorder. B. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. First American Title Insurance Company Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-77315-WAl Page No.9 C. The description can be abbreviated as suggested below if necessary to meet standardization requirements. The full text of the description must appear in the document(s) to be insured. Lots 1-2, SP 1075015, Rec. 7611040904 & ptn Sect 14 Twp 23N Rge 5W NE Qtr NW Qtr Tr. 999, Amberwood, V. 207, Pg. 90-92 APN: 142305-9094-00 APN: 142305-9065-05 APN: 142305-9068-02 APN: 020090-0200-07 D. A fee will be charged upon the cancellation of this Commitment pursuant to the Washington State Insurance Code and the filed Rate Schedule of the Company. END OF SCHEDULE B cc: ** LENDER TO BE DETERMINED ** First American Title Insurance Company • ..J .' Form WA-S (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-7731S-WA1 Page No. 10 First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services COMMITMENT Conditions and Stipulations 1. The term "mortgage" when used herein shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment, other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act or reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclosure such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option, may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of Policy or Policies committed for, and ()nly for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the Policy or Policies committed for and such liability is subject to the Insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of Policy or Policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by references, and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the lien of the Insured mortgage covered hereby or . any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of this Commitment. Rrst Ainericim Title Insurance Company ·f Form WA·5 (6/76) Commitment The First American Corporation First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial SelVices PRIVACY POUCY We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information File No.: NCS·n315-WAl Page No. 11 In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information particularly any personal or finandal information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our parent company, The First American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information which you provide to us. It does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from any other source, such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values, a copy of which can be found on our website at www.firstam.com. Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect Include: • Information we receive from you on applications, forms and in other communications to us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; • Information about your transactions with us, our affiliated companies, or others; and' • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. Use of Information We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party. Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information indefinitely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such information may be used for any internal purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies. Such affiliated companies include financial service providers, such as title insurers, property and casualty insurers, and trust and investment advisory companies, or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies. Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect, as described above, to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf, on behalf of our affiliated companies, or to other financial institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers Even if you are no longer our customer, our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. Confidentiality and Security We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information. We restrict access to non public personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this' Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values. We currently maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your non public personal information. c 2001 The First American Corporation -All Rights Reserved Rrst American Title Insurance Company .. '~VELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION DEV/=. WAIVER uF SUBMITTAL REQUIREI~ENTS cW:~f~~~N/NG FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS OCTtZ; R~~I:III"" ):).\iW)U~)j!rl{Ji:N.:3~~IG?\~t)!;%i!;·!!·jj !;;;2:~d~j··<!:~j~~lt?:; !)·;!;n:j!U;UiH:#p#:~~t~~(j~.::i::·:<:!)! Calculations 1 F.~f.9r~~:M#p'~:j9:~:~isp'~Y::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND 4 J¥.~~!~:W#rl(s.~~~~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Drainage Control Plan2 Elevations,. Architectural 3 AND 4 / ............................................................................... ,' ............. -, ........................................... . :~~0@.:l~~~(¢~~~~!j~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) 4 Flood Hazard Data 4 . :~!~~r::P:~~:~:~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: %.t#::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: t/1 Geotechnical ReporhAND3 j. F. Mtdi.~"'fY2 /Y(fU-{, M-:J11~'7!'[j :$.(a.~i~g:~la~;:¢¥.~Ptu~t:;t::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~ Grading Plan, Detailed 2 :~~~!~~:P~~:~~1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 :®.~§.~i~~:~i~~;::¢?'~¥'i#~#i:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Legal Description 4 :q~(~f::~~¥~@~~~::~t.#~:~D~r:~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: MaJling Labels for Property Owners 4 M~t?:9~:$j~~~:$.i~:9.®~~~9#.:~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Master Application Form 4 :~9~~~~¢~~~::(@:p'#::iB9~~~~~tj:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::: ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section. 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4 .. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Fonns\Planning\waiver.xls 01/0612004 • ' . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISIO • •. ,\.\,\h~'·' '.<.">~:::: 'WAIVEr{ OF SUBMITTAL REQUIRl:MENTS .~. l.',· i"" , ' J\ FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS '\',i'·." 'if., l~i .. · .. ~ .. l .. ·~. \ ~ ~ ::.". ~~ ~~.: • -:. /)>,::,::Y:~~~'~EEa11IMt~~:.~mf~ll,:~l::lll:·l:::(U~~Wl.{l·MAg~~~BlUUU:~:l.::}:·l:·:~.::AB~~&:~<l·//:<.Hl:\U: Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 p:1~il ~ R@~~~: ~p:M.r~). ~::: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~::::: : ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~::::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:~::: ~: ~: ~: ~::::: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:: Postage 4 N~~p.p!!~ti~r:( M~~~i~9: ~~~;y :~::: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:: ~ ~: : ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~ ~ ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::::::: ~: ~: ~: ~ ~:: ~::::: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~::: ~ ~ ~: ~: ~:~: ~:::::::::::: ~:: ~: ~::::: ~::::: ~::::: ~: ~::: ~: ~:~ Public Works Approval Letter2 ~~~~~'i~~!~~ ~R~~~ ~:: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~ ~:: ~: ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~::: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~:: ~ ~::::: ~: ~:: : ~::: ~: ~::~ ~: ~:::: ~ ~:: ~:: ~: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: ~: ~: ~:::: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~: ~: ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~: : ~ ~ ~: ~::: ~ ~ ~ ~::: ~ ~ ~ ~:::: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~:::::~:: ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~: ~: ~: ~: ~ ~ ~: ~::: ~ ~: ~: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~: ~::::: ~ ~: ~:::: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~:: Screening Detail 4 ~~~~: :e!~~ ~ ~:~~~: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~: ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~: : ~ ~:::: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~:::: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ::::: ~: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~~ ~ ~: ~ ~: ~::: : ~: ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~: ~: ~ ~:: ~ ~:: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~: ~:: ~ ~: ~ ~: ~~ Street Profiles 2 ffi.!~~ ~~p.~h~ #: ei~~ ~9.~if.#'~~: ~ ~: ~ ~: ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::~ ~:: ~: : ~: ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Topography Map3 " t.f~#i~~ $.t~~y~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: :;LF.:~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~: ~:: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~:: : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~:: ~: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~~: ~ ~ ~: ~: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~: ~:~ Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 y. ~~ ~¢~~~f: #~19~~ ~~~~y pi~¥~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:::: ~ ~:::::::: ~::: ~:::~ Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 w~ti~~: Mi~tj~~ ~ ~j ~ F.i~l ~4 ~: ~: ~ ~: ~ ~: ~:: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~: ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ifj{i/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~: ~: ~ ~: ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~: ~::: ~: ~:: ~:::: ~ ~ ~ ~::::: ~ ~ ~:::: ~::::::: ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~::: ~ ~:::::: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~:::::: ~: ~~ . Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary 4 ~ w.~~!~ilit.S: :R.~p'~!#r;>~I~~~~~ ~:::::::: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~::: ~::::::::::: ~::: ~:::::: :: ~:~ t<:::::::: ::::: ~::::::: ~::::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:: : ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~::: ~::::::: ~::::: ~::::::::: ~::::: ~::::::::: ~::::::: ~: ~::::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2AND3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND. 3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls PROJECT NAME: / 7/ ,. yv t7~ (7 0,.,' tV a-cJ~ DATE: __ q~-23~_-~_d--,<f~ __ 01/0612004 Printed: 10-12-2004 Payment Made: ITY OF RENTON .'. 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA04-117 10112/200401:41 PM Receipt Number: DEVELOPME crry OF~~~N/NG OCT " (200+ ' RECEIVED R0405504 Total Payment: 1,000.00 Payee: BALES SELF STORAGE Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 1,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check #5793 1,000.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Park Mitigation Fee Annexation Fees Appeals/Waivers Binding Site/Short Plat Conditional Use Fees Environmental Review Prelim/Tentative Plat Final Plat PUD Grading & Filling Fees Lot Line Adjustment Mobile Home Parks Rezone Routine Vegetation Mgmt Shoreline Subst Dev Site Plan Approval Temp Use or Fence Review Variance Fees Conditional Approval Fee Comprehensive Plan Amend Booklets/EIS/Copies Maps (Taxable) Special Deposits Postage Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Printed: 09-23-2004 Payment Made: lTY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA04-117 09/23/2004 03:41 PM Receipt Number: DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RE~~~N/NG SEP 2-32004 RECEIVED R0405179 Total Payment: 2,500.00 Payee: BALES SELF STORAGE Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat Payments--made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 5790 2,500.00 Account Balances Amount 500.00 2,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 5010 000;345.81.00.0007 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Park Mitigation Fee Annexation Fees Appeals/Waivers Binding Site/Short Plat Conditional Use Fees Environmental Review Prelim/Tentative Plat Final Plat PUD Grading & Filling Fees Lot Line Adjustment Mobile Horne Parks Rezone Routine Vegetation Mgrnt Shoreline Subst Dev Site Plan Approval Temp Use or Fence Review Variance Fees Conditional Approval Fee Comprehensive Plan Amend Booklets/EIS/Copies Maps (Taxable) Special Deposits Postage Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .. 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 • II • .. - .. .. ,', SEP-24-1214 121 1 : 57 Pt1 SEAPORTDOZ I "~G • ~: ~ '1". .-(, " May 20,2004 Sea-Port Dozing and Development~ Inc. P.O. Box 3015 Renton, Washington 98056 Attention: Dear Mr. Bales: .·i Mr. Robin 8al~ ;, 42527712151121 P.12I2 E-11122 /)~ . . <:v~l' . Clfr4f~~ O~.,~p~ . St'p ~ 41o~I\t'I\tG ~ c8~ .. ~C~,,~/) . Earth Consultants, Inc. (Eel) is pleused to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study. Proposed Residential Of we lop me nt, 15221 Southeast 1 28t.1, Street, Renton, Washington". This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and enJl,oloering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study were outlined in our April 5, : .tJ04 proposal. . In general, our study indicates tJ';~ site is underlain by native medium dense to dense silty sand with varying amounts c f gravel. Overlying the native soils, localized areas of loose to medium dense sand and silty sand fill were encountered. __ Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the site can be developed generally as planned. The proposed 'iingle-family residences should be suppo.rted on conventional spread and continue us footing foundation systems bearing on competent .. native sailor on newly placed strl':(~tur~l. f!1I used to modify site grades. :~'! • I: ? :'_ We appreciate this opportunity to b~ of service to you. If you have any questions, or if .. we can be of further assistance.iJ)le,3secalt. .. .. - Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. SF-~---------- Scott D. Dinke/man, LEG Principal STS/SOO/KMW/ccn> 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201. Bellevu·, WA 98005 Bellevue (425) 643·3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 ToH Free (888) 739-6670 Othet Locations Fife • -• • • • • • • • • • .. .. - .. SEP-24-04 01:58 PM 4252770510 P.0::> TABLE OF CONTENTS E-1 1 122 PAGE INTRODUCTION ................ of .... " .. ~., ............................... " ............................. ~ .................... I ... P .... 6 .. . General ....................................... " ......... ~. ~ '.'~ ......... '" '.' ......... ~ .. , t I' ...... , .. " ................ , .................................... "'4" f .. , Scope of Services ............... ~~ .............. : ......................................................... . Project Description .................. ~ .. '''' ........................................................... ' .... . SITE CONDITIONS Surface ..................................•..........................................................•......... Subsurface ...... " .. ,,, .. , .............................................................. I • t • t ................................... , ......... , Gro·undwater ....................... / •..................................................................... " Laboratory Testing ............................ I' .... " ......... " ••• " ....................... ". III ..................... II ...... I It DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............•.............................................. General III ............... , ................. " ............ " ........................................... , .. " ............... ., ...... I ........ " ............ I .... " ............... " t .. I I ........ .. Site Preparation and General Earthwork .......................................................... . Foundations ..................... " ....................... ~-;e .......... : .. ~:: ..... ': ............ , .................. ,. ............................................. I ..... , " ......... t .. ,. .... .. Slab-on:"Grade Floors ........ " ............... ! .... " ...................... ,. ..... ., .... I ......................... " .......... " ............... , .................................... .. Retaining Walls ....................... ;, ......... , ..... , ....................................................... _ Seismic Design Considerations .. :-........................................ , .............. , ........... . Ground Rupture ...................................•.•................................................. Liquefaction .......... ,. .................................. " ................. " ............................ . 1 1 1 2 3 3 . 3 4 5 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 Ground Motion Response .................................................... , ............ , ........ 1 0 Excavations and Slope~ ........ :": .............................................................. : . . . ... .. 10 Site Drainage ............ , .. ,., ..... -........................................................................ " 12 Utility 'Support and Backfill " ............. , .... " ......... " ........ " ....................... 10 •• " ......... , ••••• ,.· ....... " Pavement Areas ................... , ... " ........... , ............................................... : ....... . LIMITATIONS ....... I ....... "" ........................... -•• ~':,2 ,1 ................. " ........ , ..... " ................. " ... , ......................... ! ........ " •• Additional Services .. 10; ................... :\ ........ :~: ~'" .... " , • , .. " ............ " •••• ,. ...... , ...... " ..... I ... I .... " •••• " .......... ' ...... ~ ..... . Eartl1 Consultants. Inc. 12 13 14 14 • - • • • .. • • .. - • .. .. • • - - SEP-24-04 01:58 PM SEAPORTDOZING 4252770510 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 ~pendices Appendix A Plate A1 Plates A2 through AS Appendix B Plate B1 TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued E-11122 Vicinity Map Test Pit Location Plan Retaining Wall Drainage and Backfill Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Field: Exploration .. legend ,Oest Pit logs , laboratory Test Results Grain Size Analyses ;, Earth Consultants, Inc. P.04 - III .. -.. .. • • o .. - .. .. .. - SEP-24-04 01:58 PM SEAPORTDOZING 4252770510 General GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 15221 SOUTEAST 128Ttl STREET RtNTON, WASHINGTON E-11122 INTRODUCTION P.05 This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (Eel) for the proposed residential development to be located at 15221 Southeast 128tll Street, Renton, Washington. Tho general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 . .j • I •. " ': , ',::~' '"I ~i, , The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the' site and, based on the conditions encountewd, to develop geotechnical recommendatiohs for the proposed single~fa'mily residence development. Scope of Services We performed this study in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in o'ur April 5, 2004 proposal. On th~s basis, our study addresses: • Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions; • Site preparation, grading, .snd earthwork procedures, including det~ils of fill placement and compaction,; • The suitability of using on-s'jte materials for use as structural fill, and providing recommendations for importod fill materials; . • Foundation design recommendations, including bearing capacity and lateral pressures for walls and stf:~ctures; !.' • Utility trench excavation and backfill recommendations: • Seismic design criteria, including an evaluation of potential liquefaction ;hazard; • Short-term and measures; long-te'qn . groundwater management and erosion control .':;' Earth Consultants. Inc. : ; I.. ;, SEP-24-84 a1 :59 PM SEAPORTDOZ,lI NG" 42527712151121 P.86 , . i 1\ , i ~ .. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5.rUDY Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. May 20, 2004 E-11122 Page 2 -- ... ... .. .. • o .. ... .. .. ... ,. • Potential total and differential settlement magnitudes; and .' !. ,h • Temporary slope recomme.pdations. ; i Project Description We understand it is planned to develop the approximately 4-acre, rectangular shaped property with a single-family residence development. Based on preliminarY project I information provided by the client, the proposed development will include up to twenty- nine (29) single-family residence lots and an arterial roadway extending to Nor~heast 3rd Court. At the time our study was performed, the site and our exploratory ilocations were approximately as shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2 . B,ased on our experience with. simjlar '. projects, we anticipate the single-family residences will be two stories in; heigi""!t and will be of relatively lightly load~d wood- frame construction with a comtiination of slab-on-grade and wood joist floQrs. Wall loads will likely be on the order 0(2 to 3 kips per lineal foot, with column lo~ds of 20 to 30 kips, and slab-an-grade floor loads of 1 50 pounds per square foot (psf). ' We estimate cuts and fills of up to ten feet will be required to reach co~struction subgrade elevations within the site. The deepest fill will be located in the' southern :~. portion of the site. The conclusions and recommendations in this study are based on our unders,anding of the proposed development, which is in turn based on the project informatiori provided us, If the above project description is incorrect or the project information ch4nges, we should be consulted to review the re~'(j",mendations contained in this study bnd make modifications, if needed. N. '1: \} . :~H ' • • - • • • • -.. • • • • • ... .. SEP-24-e4 el:59 PM SEAPORTDOZING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sea-Port Oozing and Development, Inc. May 20,2004 /' SITE CONDITIONS Surface 425277e51e p.e. E-11122 Page 3 The subject site consists of an 8ppr~~imately 4-acre, rectangular shaped, property located at 15221 Southeast 1~8th' Street, Renton, Washington. The ar~a to be developed extends roughly six hundred ten (610) feet south and two hundr~d ninety- five (295) feet east of the north,w~st praperty corner. The site is bardered to :the north by Southeast 128th Street and a' residential development, to the south bY a King County Park, to. the east by singl~-family residences, and to the west by ~esidentjaJ development. The eastern portion of the site contains two single-family residences, a I , I detached garage, and a small s'1~d. A footprint of an old foundation is located in the western-central partion of the prt,perty and construction materials are scatterbd across the southern portion of the property. We understand that the existing structures are to be razed prior to site development. ' The primary topographic feature of the site consists of a gentle slope dov,ln to the south. A maximum elevation change :9r1 the order of fifteen (15) feet occurs: between th~ northern and southern limit~r~bf the property. A second, steeper slope dov."n to the west is located at the southwestern portion of the property. The maximum i elevation change of this feature is approximately nine feet. As this second slope contin~es south it begins to bend to the east, : Greating 8 plateau-like feature near the southwestern corner of the praperty. The site is primarily vegetated';; with short grass and scattered, dense g~owths of blackberries; The site, is also vegetated with sparse, medium to large diame~er fir and deciduous trees. ' Subsurface . '.: . .'= .ll • Subsurface conditions at the sits' wfireev'aluated by excavating seven test pits at the approximate locations shown ali ,Plate 2, Test Pit location Plan. The test pits were excavated to a maximum dept~, o-';'ten and one-half (10.5) feet below existi:ng grade. Please refer to the Test Pit lag~, Plates A2 through AS, for a more detailed d~scription of the conditions encountered at :each lacation explored. A descriptian a~ the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface cOf1ditions encountered. Earth Coo!>ultants. Inc . • • - • .. • .. .. .. - • • • .. .. • SEP-24-04 02:00 PM SEAPORTDOZ~NG " GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sea-Port Dozing and Developmen~, Inc.::: May 20, 2004 ' " I: , ~ ... .: 4252770510 P.08 E-11122 Page 4 At all of our test pit locations, we encountered a surficial layer of topsoil and grass. The topsoil and vegetation layer was typically three to six inches thick but ranged up to twelve (1 2) inches thick, as encountered in Test Pit TP-1. The topso,it and ~egetCJtion layer was characterized by its dark brown color, loose consistency, and the pr~sence of abundant roots and organic debris; The topsoil and vegetation layer is not cpnsidered suitable for support of the proposed foundations. In addition, it is not suitable tor use as structural fill, nor should it be mixed with material to be used as structural fill . Underlying the topsoil and grass, w~ primarily encountered medium dense ~ative soil comprised of silty sand with varying amoui'lts of gravel (Unified Soil Classific~tion SM) . The soil became dense at two tQi' five feet below existing grade and remained: dense to the maximum exploration depth of t~.;n and one-half (10.5) feet . In Test Pit,S TP-2and TP-3 we 'Em~ountered up to two feet of fill consisting :of poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) underlying the topsoil. ': 'j" ; Test Pits TP-6 and TP-7 were located within the plateau-like feature in the southwestern 'portion ,of the property. At these locations we encountered up to four f~et pf fill consisting of loose to medium dense silty sand with gravel (SM). The: fill was I . characterized .by the presence of bricks, asphalt, and organics. Underlying the ;fill was a buried topsoil layer. The fill is not suitable for support of the proposed si~le-famiIY residences, slab-on-grade floors. pr pav~m~hts. The fill should not be used as ,structural fill, nor should it be mixed with rri~tarial$ taiba used as structural fill. ' Ttle United States Geologic Sur",ey'oe,OJogic map of the Renton Quadrangle indicates the site and surrounding areas are undf!rlain by ground moraine deposits (Qgt) cOr(sisting of ablation till overlying lodgment till .. ' In general, the native soils observed at o~r test pit locations were generally consisten,t with ground moraine soil deposits . We encountered light to moderate groundwater seepage at our test pit locations at depths ranging from two and one-half to five feet below existing grade. The: observed seepage is, likely indicative. of seas~na', ~~rcped groundwater collecting along t~e contact between the overlying medium d~nse~oils ~~nd underlying dense soils encounteted at our test pit locations.' , Eanh Consultants, Inc . .. .. .. • -III .. III .. - .. - • .. .. SEP-24-134 e2: ea PM SEAPORTDOZII'!G " GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sea-Port Oozing and Development, Inc. May 20,2004 42:5277135113 P.09 E-11122 Page 5 If earthwork is conducted during the> w,et season, it is likely moderate to heavy gr,oundwater seepage will be encountered. If seepage is encountered, the ~ontractor should be prepared to address seepr;ge in ~.><cavations. Based on observed conditions at the site, groLlndwater levels at ~he site will likely fluctuate, depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and seepage rates are greater in the wetter winter months (typically October through May) .;' Laboratory ,T e!!!LnjJ Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to verify or rriodify the field soil classifications and to evallla~e the oeneral physical properties and e~gineering characteristics of the soil encougtered:, ~ Visual field classifications were sup~lemented ':\'t '. 4'1.: :'( . : by grain size analyses on representative soil samples. Moisture content t~sts were performed on all samples. th~; results of laboratory tests performed or{ specific samples are provided either at the' appropriate sample depth on the individu~1 test pit logs or on a separate date sheet: contained in Appendix B. It is important to :note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Ollr geotechnical recommendations B;re' based on our interpretation of these te~t results. Eel cannot be responsible for the~interpretation of these data by others. ' In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions" the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen (15) days 'following completion of this report unless We are otherwise directed in writing . < : :. DISCUSSI,ON AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, the site can be developed geherally as planned. The proposed single-fj~tmily residences should be supported on conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or on newly placed structural fill used to modify site grades. Slab·on-grade floQrs should be similarly supported. If loose native soil is encountered at construction :subgrade elevations, it should be compacted in-place to the requirements of structur~1 fill to a depth of at least twelve (12) inches below the proposed subgrade elevation. '1:: : ,~ ~:;' '., ;~ : i Earth ConSUltants, Inc. 'i ~,' , !' ,-' • • • • -.. .. • - • - • • - ... ..... SEP-24-04 02:01 PM SEAPORTD02I~G " , GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Srl~DY Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Jnc. May 20,2004 . ; , r. 4252770510 P.10 E-11122 Page 6 This report has been prepared lor specific applica~ion to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exch,.lsive use of Sea-Port Do.zing ,a"nd "Development. Inc. and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or impaed, is made. This report. in its entirety, should be included in the project contract dOGl.lments for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and General Earthwork Building, pavement, and areas to ;receive structural fill should be stripped and ~Ieared of surface vegetation, organic matterJ and other deleterious material. Based on the thickness of the topsoil and vegetative layer encountered at our test pit locations we estimate a stripping depth of approximately three to six inches for the majority of the site with localized areas extending to twelve (12) inches below existing grade. Stripped materials should not be mixed Vfi~h materials to be used as structural fill. The stripped materials may be wasteq on-~ffe i~ landscaping or yard areas. Following the stripping operatidri, ;8n" Eel representative should observe the ground." surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed. Soil in loo:se or soft areas, if recompacted and still? yielding, should be overexcavated and repl~ced with structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the over~xcavated surface may help to bridge un~table areas. Eel can provide recommendations for geotextiles, if necessary.' Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, fl90r slabs, pavements, or other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs, foo.tings and pavements should be placed in-horizont~1 lifts not exceeding twelve (12) 'inches in loose thickness and compacted to a fn.in~mum of 90 percent of its labpratory maximum dry density determined in ac~.ordali'te ~:iwith ASTM Test Designation 0;-1557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill m.~terials should be placed at their optimum moisture content. The top twelve (1 2) inbh.:f}S of fill under floor slabs and pavements should be compacted to 95 percent of maxim'um dry density. " 4 Earth Consultants. Inc . '\" f'" • • • -• SEP-24-04 02:02 PM SEAPORTDOZ~NG '" •. !: , GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sea-Port Dozing and DeveJopment,,1nc. May 20, 2004 " 4252770510 P. 11 E-11122 Page 7 Based on the results of our Jaboratory tests, the on-site soils, at the time of our explorationl appear to be near ,pi above their optimum moisture content and may require moisture conditioning to be suitable for use as structural fill. Laboratory testing indicates the site soils have between 7 and 24 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with fines in excess of 5 percent wiU degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum level. .. , During dry weather, a non-organiB~ co~pactable granular soil with 8 maximum grain size of four' inches can be used. Fiiil;:for use during wet weather should consist of a well graded granular material having ~. maximum grain size of four inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No.: 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. A c~ntingency in the earthwork budget should be included for this possibility. Foundations Based on the results of our study and provided our recommendations arc followed, in our opinion, the proposed single-family residences should be supported on conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or on newly placed structural fill used to modify site grades. Exterior foundation elements shOuld be pfaced at a minimum depth of eighteen ('8) inches below final exterior grad~. Interior spread foundations should be placed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inl:has below the top of slab, except in unheat~d areas, where interior foundation elements !;hould be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches. ;\ With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) pounds per square foot (pst) Should be used tor competent native soil, native soil compacted in place to· the requirements of structural fill, or for newly placed structural fill. Continuous and individuaJ spread foc;>tings should have minimum widths of sixteen (16) and eighteen (18) inches, respectively. Loading of this magnitude' would be provided with a theoretical factor-of- safety in excess of 3.0 against shear ..'failure. For short-term dynamic' loading conditions, a one-third increase i~:l}t:;e above allowable beoring capacities can pe used. Earth Consultants. Inc. • .. .. - • • .. • • • \I • - • • • • • SEP-24-a4 a~:a2 PM SEAPORTDO~IHG ;~: . GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING. STUDY Sea-Port Dozing and Development, Inc. May 20, 2004 I" • . , .i~, ~ : , . . i I' I 4252778518 P.12 E-11122 Page 8 .. j. I . With structural loading as expec,t.9d, arid provided the above. design criteria are followed, total settlement in the ·range of one inch is anticipated with differential settlement of about one-half inch., Most of the anticipated settlements should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supponing soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" 'against the competent native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.35 should be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance should be computed using an equivaient ::fll,Jicf pressure of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic foot (pet). The~,ater.Ri re~istance value is an allowable value, a factor- of-safety of 1.5 has been inc"iJded: As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive'r'~~istance, the passive resistance should be neglected ,. . if such movement is not acoept~9Ie, Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of Eel, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that conditions are as anticipated in this report. ~( Slab-an-Grade Floors Slab-an-grade floors should be supported on competent native sailor on structural fill used to modify site grades. loose or disturbed subgrade soil must either be recompacted or replaced with structural' fill. rt ~ . i ;'!; Slabs should be provided with 8;:4'tll?iII'ary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or graveL.; j .. vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the sl~b .. Two inches of damp sand may be placed: over the membrane for protection during ct)l"lstruction and lO aid in curing of the concrete. ':A;i 'r .:~8rth Consultants. Inc. • • • • - SEP-24-04 02:03 PM <. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sea-Port Dozing and Deveropment~ Inc. May 20,2004 R~J~~ning Walls 4252770510 P.13 E-11122 Page 9 If retaining walls are planned for tt)is project{ they should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures from the retained~,~qils and . applicable surcharge loading. Walls that are designed to yield can be design'ed ,~;O resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weigti! of thirty-five (36) pcf. If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, the eq~ivalent fluid weight should be increased to fifty (50) pet. These values are based on horizontal backfill conditions. Surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, tr~ffic, structural roads or other surcharge loads arc assumed to not act on the wall. ,(, such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressure. The passive pressure, .allowable bearing capacity, and friction coefficient previously provided in the Foundations section are applicable to the retaining wall design. To reduce the potential forhydro§tatic ~ressures to build up behind the walls, retaining walls should be backfilled with a ~~~e-dr'aining material extending at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wafl. The rerlla"inder; of the backfill should consist of structural fill. The free draining backfill should bor1'1;ist of sand and gravel with a fines contont of Jess than 5 percent, based on the mirVus 3/4-inch fraction. A rigid, schedule 40, perforated PVC or SDR 35 drain pipe shou'd be placed at the base of the wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of one Gubic foot per linear foot with one inch drain rock. The pipe should be placed with th.~ perforations in the down position. The remainder of the backfill should consist of stnlctural fill. A typical retaining wall backfill detail. is provided on Plate 3. Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Lowland is classified a'~ha' Sej~rhip Zone 3 in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Earthquakes occur in the, Puget Lowland with regularity I however I the majority of these events are of such loy? rnagnitude they are not felt without instruments. large earthquakes do occur, as 'ihdicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia area and the 1965, 6'.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area and the 2001, 6.8 magnitude Nisqually earthquake. Earlh ConSI.I!tants, Inc. - • • • • • • • - , ; - SEP-24-04 02:03 PM SEAPORTD02ING 4252770510 'I • ,~ ~'.; :" . 1;: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STltDV ... k Sea-Port Dozing and Developmen.t. ·'hc. May 20,2004 t '. , i~" i There are three potential geoI09¥~ hazards associated with a strong motion event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction. and ground motion response. Ground Rupture P.14 E-11122 Page 10 seismic The strongest earthquakes in th~ Puget l;,owland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in depth from thirty (30i"to fifty-frve (55) miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at this sit~·!·du't.:ing a strong motion seismic event is negligible~ liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Grouhdshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt); it must be . loose; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of grou'1.dsha~;hg;·: The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlementfor sttuctures founded in the liquefying soils. ::(.. ~I \ In our opinion, the potential for vvidp,spread liquefaction-induced settlement at this site is negligible. The absence of a shallow groundwater table and the generally medium dense to dense condition of the soils is the primary basis for this conclusion. Ground Motion Response The 1997 USC Earthquake regulations contain a steticforce procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design-base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion soil profile type Sc, Very Dense Soil or Soft Rock as defined in Table 16-J should be used to charaCterize the site soils . . '.~~ , . Excavations and Slopes '. ~'< .~ The following information is prdVided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances shoUld this information be interpreted to mean that Eel is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not ,'f:Je Inferred. . ". .Earth Consultants, Inc. • • • • • • SEP-24-04 02:04 PM SEAPORTD02It4G , .. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sea-Port Dozing and Dcvetopmellf InS.'( . May 20, 2004 " . .. (,t ' . .' I <ii :~ 4252770510 P.15 E-11122 Page 11 The inclination of temporary slop~s j's dependent on several variables, including the height of the cut, the soil type and densHy; the presence of groundwater seepage, construction timing, weather conditions, and surcharge loads from adjacent structures, roads, and equipment. Because of the m~ny variables involved, the inclination of temporary excavation slopes should be furth3r evaluated during construction, as the actual soil and groundwater conditions become more apparent. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state (WISHA), and Federal (OSHA) safety r~g<yla,ions. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the m~,dium·dense soils encountered in the upper two to five feet at our test pit locations would. be classified as Type B by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary •. '. t cuts greater than four feet in height·~n Type B soils should be sloped at an inclination of 1 H: 1 V (Horizontal:Vertical). The \tn~erlying dense soils would be classified as Type A by OSHAIWISHA. Temporary cuts ~ireater than four feet in height in Type A soils should be sl<?ped at an inclination of O. 75H: 1 Vi If seepage is encountered in site excavations, the soil should be considered a Type C soil and sroped appropriately (1 .5 H: 1 V). ), i If slopes of this inclination, or flaHer, cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be necessary. Eel should observe temporary excavations during construction to verify the OSHA soil type. Shoring will help protect against siope p:r::exbavation collapse, and will provide protection ; for workers in the excavation. If):tempol'ary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria. . ::~j !! Permanent cut and fill slopes shoul~. be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Cut slopes should be observed by Eel during D)<cavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendationscah then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or insiallation of surface or subsurface drains. " Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial/ayer of soil. [' '<. ~:!, '( .•• .-. I.J Earth Consultants, In~. '1-i ' • • • ., ., ,I SEP-24-04 02:05 PM SEAPORTDOZ~d~ IV . " . GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sea·Port Dozing and Development, Inc. May 20, 2004 Site Drainage 4252770510 P.16 E-11122 Page 12 Light to moderate groundwater se.epage was encountered at Test Pits TP-l, TP-2, TP·4, and TP-5 at depths ranging from '~:W9' and one-half to five feet below existing grade. The observed seepage is likely indicatiile ,of seasonal perched groundwater collecting along the contact with the underlying dense soils encountered at our test pit locations. Based on the conditions obs~rved during our subsurface exploration. perched groundwater seepage will likely be' encountered in excavations if the grading is conducted during the wet season. If grading is conducted during the dry season, the potential and m~gnitude of seepage should decrease. If seepage is enco~ntered in foundation or utility excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The col!ectediwater can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent dischargEi\ such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a . : : ~ " . ~ " system of connector trenches. ' ." :; During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water must not be allow~d to stand in areas where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed.j Loose surfaces should be sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential fO( moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the residence foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the residences, except in paved areas, which can be sroped at a gradient of 2 percent. Footing drains should be instaned':larou'n~ 't~e residence perimeters, at or just below the invert of the footing. with a griidient 'sufficient to initiate flow. A· typical detail is provided on Plate 4. Under no :';circu'mstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to .an approved discharge. Cleanout'$ should be instal.lcd at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of tho footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Utility Support and Backfill ,', ,; The site soils should generally provide adequate sOpport for utilities . . :.~ -:} ": l\ (i;iEarttt Ccm;l.i!tant~. Inc. I', .. -• • .. • • - SEP-24-04 02:05 PM , .. SEAPORTD02 I N.G I l.!' 1· " .) ~ "J ! ,', GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERINGSTU,DY Sea-Port Oozing and Development, ,Inc. May 20,2004 . 4252770510 P.17 E-11122 Page 13 Utility trench backfill is a key concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line is adequately supported in the bedding mat~rial. The material should be hand tamped to provide support around the pipe. hatll1che~. Fill should be carefully placed Dnd hand tamped to about 12 inches ab6ve the Cf:own of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. tl:le.remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in l' .'-. lifts having a loose thickness of IEo'SS than twelve (12) inches and compacted to the appropriate structural fill requirements . .• • f, ;' .' Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements i,s related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should· be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparstion and General Earthwork section of this report. This means at least the top twelve (1 2) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM 0-1557-91). It is possible that some localized areas: 't3f' Joft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greate':fhic~ness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localii~d;.areas. Pavement areas should be subjected to ., r, proof rolling with a loaded dump' tr~ck to help identify areas of unstable and yielding subgrade. The following pavement sections ,are applicable to parking and drive areas that will be subjected to primarify passenger vehicles and occasional truck traffic: . '. Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over three ,inc~~~ oI asphalt treated base (A TB) material. ';': . i~ We can provide pavement reconim.andations for areas that will receive heavy traffic, if needed. Pavement materials siulfilct. conform to WSDOT specifications. The use of a Class B asphalt mix is suggested. :' . , A- Earth Consultants, Inc, - .. • • • -I - SEP-24-04 02:06 PM 8EAPORTDOZING : '\, 'u .., , {" GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Sea-Port Dozing and Development". '~nc. May 20, 2004 " ;'; LlMITA TIONS 4252770510 P.lS E-11122 Page 14 Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and' engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that, level of care and skill ordinarily ex~rcise~ by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar condition~Jn t!1f~ area. No warranty is expressed or implied. : J: The recommendations submitted'tjn. this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. laboratory test data, -B'nd our visual observations. Soil and groundwater conditio~s between test pits may' vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do ~ppear, Eel should be requested to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report" and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services As the geotechnical engineer of recordl Eel should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specific'ations to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations hav:'e been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction sPEh;i~flcations. Eel should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in ;:the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of c()hstruction. . .+. :;.: .. .. - -.. • • • • , - SEP-24-84 02:06 PM SEAPORTD02ING 4252770518 P.1S!' s. E. 1 2'8 t h STREET -- I , r-. I , ~l J ~ : 2 3,. f' '5",' 6 I " 1-'.,: , I ':' ."., '\1 I " . I! I I .,., I 1 _'--,_ ." _. ._,_' ___ .. J _ C' • .'....II~J ..•• __ i. __ _ . . I 1 -.-. I I TP-1 ' . :-.. --.. ·-~;l r-;;-"-_. --'1-'---·1 , :; 1 I 7 V I 2S I I I 'I ~ .. , I 26 ~ 1 -. -. ----I 1-... ----. -I I 8 , I I 1 ____ 1 I 24 , - - ---' -I ~.-. _ ... _. --j 9 I --·1 1° : -•. -I -w..al··--· --. 11 21 , :---... -'--11-_ .. .. -I I I -----... -. -. l t···-... 12 II .... --'i.\ /, 1"------_ ... ; 'l r-"'; .. -j 29 I 13 \' 'i 19 ! I '----r -\r :":'-1"':::: ' .... /_.-1 I I ; _._ I ~ -_ .. -. -1---I' T'f'P-71 i I 20 125'! I , 14 " 15 76 17' 18 I 1;1e 1 •.. ,,: I IITP-6 I" i 1 7t-:J.E: ~ ! ____ i __ -1 o I I ApprOximate Scale ==::1. 50 100 200ft. LEGEND TP-1 -t~ Approximate Location of , Eel Test Pit, Proj. No. E-11122, April 2004 ----, 1 I Subject Site l ___ 1 15 Proposed Lot Number 2.5 Approximate Thick.ness of Fill (Feet) Approximate Area of Fill Pile TP-sl· -a'- I' (NOTE: Test Pits TP-4 and TP-5 located off the Subject Site) ITP-4 -.-I NOTE; This plate may contain areas of col(',r. Test Pit Location Plan Eel, cannot be responSible for any subsequent Drwn. GLS Date April 2004 Proj. No. 11122 rnlslntlH'Pretation of the infom1atfon re&ulting. 15221 S.E. 128th Street from black & white reproductiona ofthl& plate.. '1 Kiryg County, Wa:;hinglon ~==~====~======== ) l--.. ~c_._~e_.ck __ ~_~ __ S_T_s~_D_a_W __ ~ __ 2~ ___ 4.Lp_~_t_e ______ 2 ______ ~J • • • • • P.20 SEP-24-04 132:137 PM :~, SEAPORTD02'~I NG ~~~. '\ .. :. 425277135113 111=11 , 1\1 4 ' SCHEMATIC ONLY· NOT TO SCALE NOT A CoNSTRUCTION DRAWING -Excavated Slope WEEP HOLE DETAIL Perforated Pipe Wrapped ~~~ ...,..,..---with fitter Fabric LEGEND I STANDARD NOTES ProJ. No. 11122 1) 2) 3) 4) Surface seal; native soR o.r other.ow permeability material. 18 Inches minimum of free draining gravel. Unclassffied backfill 90 percent r~aUve compaction. 1 Inch minus rock or pea gravel. Classified backfHl should consfst. of granufar $011 having no more than 5 percent passing the #200 sieve and no j particles greater than 4 Inches In diameter. The pereantage of particles pas~lngt~#4 sieve shoufd be between 25 and 75 percent. '.~:. ". ~ .' Unclassified backfHl shQ9id be free ~of organics, clayey SOlis. debris aoo other deleteriouS materlals. It shbu:1 be placed at or below the optimum moisture content. For free-dra'nlng walls. weep holes maybe used. Surround each weep hole with 3 cubic feet of 1 Inch mInus foCk. Drain pfpe: perforated or $!orted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight Jointed; with a Paslttve gradient Do not use flexible corrugated pfastic pipe. Drain line should be beddoo on and surrounded whh free draining 1 inch minus rpck or pea graver. a8 desired. The dratn rock may be encapsulated with a geotechnical drainage fabric at the engIneers discretion. RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL Earth Consultants Inc ... ,: ... '. 15221 S.E. 128th Street I .• '/,: '. .!. ~ OrIJftld __ EnIIIr_~.FJlvIr!>nrnmIaI~l .. nll"'" . ':; '. King County, Washing LUll , Drwn. GLS Date Ap~:i12004 Checked STS Date 4/26/04 Plate 3 ............................................... y • • -. • • • • SEP-24-04 02:08 PM SEAPORTD02ING 4252770518 18 Inch mIn. .. Inch min. Diameter Perforated Pipe Wrapped In Drainage Fabric i i t 2 Inch mIn. 2 Inch min. / 4 inch max. 1-+12~~ o LEGENp ';" .. mIn. SCHEMATic ONLY -NOT TO SCAlE NOT A CCINSTAUCTION DRAWING Surface seal; native son or other low permeability material. Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9'()3.1 (2) of the WSDOT Specifications. Drain pIpe; perforat'¥:f or $I9Hectrlgid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tlgflt Jofnted; with a positive gradient. 00 not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie bundlng downspout draIns Into footing lines. Wrap with Mlrafj nJO Filter Fabric or equivalent. Earth Consultants Inc. TYPiCAl FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAil 15221 S.E. 128th Street KIng County, Washington P.21 Prol. No. 11122 Drwn. GLS Oat.April 2 Checked STS Date 4/26/04 Plate 4 -• - SEP-24-e4 02:09 PM 4252770510 P.22 .. , . " ",. I E-11122 Our subsurface exploration wa~ 'performed on April 6, 2004. The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating seven test pits to a maximum depth of'ten and one-half (10.5) feet below existing grade. Test pits were excavated with a John Deere 310 SE rubber-tired backhoe, provided by the client. Test Pits TP-' through TP-6 were dug by the operator in areas instructed to him by the client. After excavating the test pits. it became appa.r~n.1 that Test Pits TP-4 and TP-5 were located outside of the proposed developm,~nt q.i~,a:. :' • ":,.!" ~!; i-~ Approximate test pit locations a~,d',alevations were estimated based on pacing from existing features depicted on a'; pf~liminary site ptan provided by the client. The locations and elevations of the "t'est pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method us~d. These approximate locations are shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continl.'Jqusly monitored by a geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit. obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levelS, and observed pertinent site features. The samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil . Classification System, which is presented ;:on Plate A 1 I Legend. Representative soil samples were collected and retl.rrned' tb' ()ur laboratory for further examination and te$ting. ; {~ . : ., ;.."< . " logs of the test pits are presente~ on Plates A2 through AS. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of our laboratory examination and testing. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, ti:le transitions may be more gradual. "jJ Eanh Ccnsultanta. 'I'\C~ ,'; " - " " " • SEAPORTDOZ·I ~'i:;; " olt. SEP-24-04 02:09 PM MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH !SYMBOL CO!lrSo41 Gr~ined SOilS More Than' 50% Mat.ri.1 Larger ThAn No, ?OO Siava 1:;iz .. Gravel And Gravelly SoilfO More Than ;SO'll. Coarse Fraction Retained On No. 4 Si~ve Sand And Sand,. SOils More Thlltl 50'11. I;oa'se fraelion PassIng NO.4 Sieve Clean (;r avels mille or no IlnH!:;), Gravels Wilh frnes ( acpreclabla amount of liMS I Clean Sand (Ii"'" or II(> flne~ I. Sal'lds With "fines (apprnclable amount 01 fines) LETTER SYMBOl. 4252770510 TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Well-Grdded Gravels, Gravel-Sanu Mi.tures, Lltlle Or No Fines Poorly -Graded Gravels. Gravel- Sand Mixtures. little Or No Fines Sill)l Gravels. Gravel-Sand- Silt Milltures Clayey Gravel$, Gravel-Sand- Clay Mixtures WIiIII-Graded Sands, GravMy Sands. Ullle Or No fines Poorly-Graded Sand£.. Gravally S ... "ds. lIllI. Or No nnes Cloyey Sanrt~. S:tnd -Clny Millture!! P.23 Inorgani!': Sill" II Vary Fin .. Senrl". Rnr.k FJo .. r.~llty· Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Sifts wi Slight Plasticity Fine GUlined SOi,!! . More Than 50"10 MIl!erlal Smell .. r TI-8n No :mo Si .. ve Size c qu W p .. pet L.l PI SillS And Clays Sills And Clays Liquid Limil lOl!'II" Than Sti liquid Llmlt Gte"te. Th:ln Highly Organic Soir.. Topsoil Fill '. ., ...,. ...,. ..v .,j, " ~ X~ Inorganic Clay,; Of Low To M .. dium PlnlicilV. Crf"'!,UY Cr'"V_. Sandy CI.y., Silly ·Clays. L .. an Peat. Humus. Swamp Soils Wilh High Organic Conlants Humus And Duff Layer Hflohly Variable COl'Islltuents Oiaton'!aC~OU6 The discussion In the leld of this report III necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the m6~rlal pre~l'It.~ In the attached logs. ·!fi ,~:.;~" ";: ;'i DUAL SYMBOlS :f~~ :to')ndlc:.te borderline loll clualllc&dlon. TORVANE READING. tsf 1 I 2· 0.0. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER PENETROMETER READING. isf . * MOISTURE. " dry weight ]I 24' 1.0. RING OR SHElBY TUBe SAMPLER SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPlE NOT RECOVERED I WATER OBSERVATION WELL DRY DENSITY, Ibs. per cubiC ft. uaUIO LIMIT. '" PLASTIC INDEX ': ;:1~·:;:·.· 'I Earth Consultant4)Ind.='t {'it't.lu'(i ... eJll·.lU\Ik.·(· ..... Got.JUl~ & 1:"1\"1ri..ll'''U'''~;'~~~~'1",~b ~ ~. ;i .. -j • {.' 1 tl: 12 DEPTI-f OF' ENCOUNTERED GROUNOWATER DURING EXCAVATION 1r SUBSEQuENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL WI DATE LEGEND Proj .. NO.11122 Date Apr. 2004 Plate Al • • • • - SEP-24-04 02:09 PM · Test Pit Log SEAPORTDOZ'I He; :' r·"., ~ . i . ,i::~ (~ .. ;) . .~, ; . 4252770510 P.24 Prqed Name:,; I Sheet 1 d 15221 S.E. 128th Street ' :,', 1 Job No. I legged by. -------~',--·---,.I-Oat-e-: -------.,.-Tt-.. -Pit-No-.-; __ ...L-~ __ ~_~ 11122 STS 416104 TP-1 "-~~~ __ ---'"--~~ _____ -___ ._. ___ -L---:';';;;;';~ _____ -+---':''::'-~ _________ -I El«:avtifiQn Contac:tor: Client Prow:Jed Notes: 19.7 1S.2 12.2 Ground Surface Elellation: 98' Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": blackberry brambles _ TPSl TO~S~'l, , I-'----l,....-,S=-=M~+---..,Ug~.':....,' h-t...,..br.:....own~; silty SAND, medium dense, moist to Wet 2-- 3- ~ 4- ,--- 5 ;--- :-- 6- ~ 7 :-- "---'- 81-- ~ 9 :-- ~ 10 f-- 11 t-- r--- .. ;. .;.fror.' ;:»ode staining . ~tains grevel & trace boulders, 22.3% fines -increase in sand ~esdense : ~;, . J, ;. Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet below eang grade. Groundwater see~e encountered at 5.0 feet during e)Cawtion. NOTES; T(!St pits were eJeCaVated using a John Deere 310 SE rubber-tired b;~khoe oroWted by the Client. Test pit elevations appro>Gmated using S.E. 128th Street as an arbitrary elevation of 100'. ~ ~ ·f Test Pit Log ii ~ ~~J;!~~~.I!~!.!~~. ~6!~~.l:'~h~-: kr-----------~~-----------r-----------+_----------~~------------~--------~ m Prq. No. 11122 1 own. GLS .1 Date April 2004 Chec;ked STS I Date 4126/04 I PIIIle A2 ," • • • - . ! SEP-24-04 02:10 PM SEAPORTD02ING 4252770510 P.26 TeSt Pit Log • _Prqect~. =Name.;,....;;;..;.;:::::;;;....;;,;;;.;;;~.;;;..;.....;...;:.;'--____ .. _____ ,--________ .,..--:_-=-____ l_Sheet_L ____ d'--__ ~ ..-15221 S.E. 128th Street __ 1 ~~22 ____ ~I_~_S~T.~S~~ __ · _____________ . ____ ~ .. ~_~~:~04~ ________ _+-~~~~p-~~~--·:---------------__; Exavation Contac:tor: Ground Surface Elevation: Client Provided. . . ... 93' I---=..:.:.=.:..:.:...:...:~=-==---------.--....,.,~.--'--';.; . ..,., .. ~-.. -.. --.-----.--''---.....:;;~----------__f Notes: ~r, General Notes w (%) 9.1 i :8 E iii .. , ,.' . I K .! G) it: E o ~ I--'- 1- ._- 2 r-- 31-- r-- 4 :-- r- 51--- h- 6 f-- f-- 7 - f-- 8 Suifaor, Conditions: In footprint of old Mobile Home '.! SM Brown silty SAND. medium dense, moist SM , -contains gra...el Light brown SIlty SAND with grawl. dense. moist -iron olCfde staining -t.race cobbles -:1.4,e% fines Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during e~vatiOn. i'1" ~~------.~~--~--~~--~----L---~------r------------------------------------~ ~ '" ' Tesl Pit Log ~. ~!~,at.~!.!~~!2.!:1:~: .. ~.I!~. 15221 S.E. 128th Street -King County. Washington ; Prq No. 11122 I Own. GLS I Date Ap~I' 2004 Ct**ed STS , Plate A4 Date 4126104 • • • • - • • I SEP-24-04 02:10 PM SEAPORTDOZi~G i 'TeSt-Pit Log 4252770510 P.25 Prqed Name: f Sheet 1 d 15221 S.E. 128th Street .,' 1 _~_1~;~~1~22~ ___ ~I_~_S~T~S~~ __ : _____________ .~,:.~===r_DM_4~_:_04 __________ ~~T.~;~:~~~~-.:----------------~ e.:avation Contactor: ; }i,l, Client Provided Ground Surfeoe Elevation: 94' General Notes 9.5 21.6 . "~ ._--_._--_. __ .-:~:---;-. ~ ~ fl ~ -l' I--SP-SW 11-- 2 '"-TPSL .,j" · ,", 3 I--SM r- : 4 "- · !--· . 5 r---- .. I-- 6 - :', I-- 7 t-- t-- 8·- f-- 9 f-- f-- Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": blackberry brambles Brown poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense. moist (Fill) -7.9% fines Buried TOPSPIL layer, organics. trace charcoal fragments lfht brOwn ~:ANb With gravel, medium dense, moist to 'Wet (N~) ;;. . ~~c:e cobbles. iron oxide staining -rttotJ'3rate caving due to seepage -beComes dense .~, Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet below elCisting grade. Groundwater seepag~ tlhcOljntered at 5.0 feet during excavation . . ~. ~ , ': :~. , "\ 'I : f 't , • '- • • , ... . .i • ~ - , r.... L. - . " SEP-24-84 02:11 PM SEAPOR TDOZ'ii He; i 42527705181 fi1 i ~ § 5: m 'T.sipitLog Project Name: 15221 S.E. 128th Street JcbNo. I Logged by: 11122 STS EJcavation Contactor Client Provided -.--.--.. -- Notes: General W j! ! .1-UlJ Noles (%) lej ~f oj;; ::JUI I--SP-SM .> 1 .-_. >-t-- 2 TPSL .. 31--SM 21.3 , .... - ,', -. .. --, t-- s I--r--, 6 I---, , t-- 7 1--'" t-- 81-- t-- 9 " "?.41 \', ,'.j 'L: .. r '"1 , " i: ,:'\: .. " , ,I I Date: 416104 -._- I Sheet 1 Test Pit No.: TP-4 Ground Surface Elevation: 78' .. SurflltO COnditions. Depth of Topsoil & Sod 3": short grass & moss . 8iownpoorty graded SAND with silt, medium dense. moist (Fill) ":; i '-,' : ' . , . B~!lOO TOPSOIL ~ .~tr.nNn sitty SAND with gra\lel. medium dense, moist (Native) -:ron o»de staining -be!comes light brown and dense ! :trace cobbles 'Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below eldsting grade. Groundwater ~page encountered at 3.5 feet during e>eeavstion. "\:' ; ," "'ff, :~ .. !~ -, , . .. t;: I :';: '-eM ~~t;~~~AI!.~~~~~!!~~. Test Pit Log 15221 S.E. 128th Street King County, Washington Prtj. No. 11122 I own. GLS I Dat~ , April 2004 ChecIcecI STS DIlle 4126104 1P\ale I I I I I I eM ~2~~<::?~}!2!~~,~~' Teet Pit Log 15221 S.E. 128th Street '. King County. Washington ~-----Prqj. No: 11122 1 DIm. JDate GLS ... ) " , Dele April 2004 Checked STS , PIale ~6104 AJ3 &aurface conditions depleted ~ . _net ..... r ~c ~ tl')e time -., ~ oIttu.. ..... hole moclifi P.27 d 1 AS • • SEP-24-04 02:12 PM SEAPORTDOZING . '. ,,' '. ,', ~ .' i . 1,.'" I , ,., ;·t , f} r APPENDIX B 4252770510 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS E-11122 .' : earth Consultants. Inc. I CONSULTANTS, INC. J1pro&NO.: E-II122 P.28 PWs Bl'YIF=tt I i • - SEP-24-04 02:12 PM SEAPORTDOZING '/. '. 4252770510 P.29 ~ 1 • f (I ,'I Test Pit Log I b Cl S "_Fft~~~:~~~~~:~~~~~ ____________ ~ ______ ~ ____________ -.~~~ ______ 1_~ __ 1 _____ d1 _____ _ r-15221 S,E. 128th Street'r-_ Job No I logged by' If Date: Test Pit No.: 11122 STS -':'. '. 416/04 TP-5 _____ . l--&r;;;,ation'Contador' Ground Surface Elevation: ~~_nt ~rovid~ ___ . __ . _________ ._._ --..:, .. -r---.------.---... ----.. _. _ 83: .. ___ ._ ...... General W t :8 Notes (%) d f en : . ;. : : :0: ' .' · . .. '" · . .... .. · . 11.4 · . , . i .-1 t3 lt J t- 1 f-- r-- 2 r-- r-- 3 r--.. t- r-- St-- t--- 6 t-- t-- 7!-- r-- 8 Surf..:e ConcfJtiont: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 9": blackberry brambles SM BrOlMl silty SAND, medium dense, moist to wet -('.ontains gravel SM 49ht broWO"s,l/ty SAND with gravel, dense, moist ij' . .l, . -ito';; p>dde staining -~cobbles .. , --~--~--~~·~~~~--~----~~--~~-------I T0St pit terminated at 8.0 feet below e>dsting grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 2.5 feet during elCavation. ~~------~~--~--~~--~--__ L--~ ... --.-----~--------------------------------------_; ~ ~ Test Pit Log § ~ ~!!~~.~C2?~}~!:~~I~· ~~~!:~.1~!~~,:~ ( t,~-----------~~---------~----------~ __ --~--~r_-----------~-------~ ~ Prq. No. 11122 I Own. GlS 1 Date April 2004 Chec*ed STS Date 4126104 I Plae N3 I I SEP-24-04 02:12 PM SEAPORTD02ING 4252770510 P.30 • 'LI 1;-; Test Pit Log . Prujed Name: I~ d .',' ~221 S.E. 128th Street 1 ---._. I DaB-Job No L Logged l7,t: Test Pit No.: TP-6 11122 __ §.!S _________ 416/04 &::avation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: Client Provided 86' Nates: i .. _. __ . --,~1 . i :8 .. U)B Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 3": top of slope, thick blackberry General w ... a. brambles Nates (%) E tri e ~ E il; a • ;:) ,... C) C/) C/) ~ SM Grarish brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense. moist {Fill 15.7 > X" 11-- X< ~ ~n'tains bricks, asphalt and organic debris 2 f-- ~ 3~ "' TPSL Buried TOPSOIL layer ----. -.. SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist (NatNe) ~ : : . ~ Sf--: ;, . f--- ;: : 6 .. --~ome~".light brown and dense. iron oldde staining. increase in gravel ;'. --Test !')it terminated at 6.6 feet below e>cisting grade. No groundwater encountered during e)C2vstion. ' .. " -! '.;, ;' . ., .:~:, -, " , il " ~ -:: _~,~.~,~S':?~l~~~· Test Pit Log 15221 S.E. 128th Street King County, Washington .. ~ Proj. No_ 11122 I [Mo. GlS I Dale Ap' '1 nl. •• OO4 Chedced STS Date 4126104 I Plate A7 ( - '0 ~ - SEP-24-04 02:13 PM SEAPORTnOZI~G 4252770510 P.31 I 8 S .., ~ a P' 8 .... ... ~ m . ',l '::. \ ~.'> i~! ~ • " It'> Test Pit Log --~~-1~-2-~--s.-k-.1-2-8fu--S-tr-ee-t------------':+:-·;~' ~-------------------------~1~~1~--~~-' ~~22 I ~t7t: --·'r:z~~-------T~':.;No.: ___ ~~--- Elccavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: :: 88· JI~~~_r~,,_vided....;:· '--'--'-_. ___ , ________ . _____________________ --1 _________ .. __ . .-. __ . _______ .. _ Notes: General w il i -I. Notes (%) .. it" E 1; c t)J ~ >--~ 1~ ><;X>< ><>< ~ ~ )?<>< :Q 2~ 3 I--.. ~ , , , ~ 51-- f--, ' , 6 :- ---" , 7 l - tn:8 ~!- 8M TPSl SM SucfMllCooOllions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod g": thick blackbeny brambles Grayisffbrown' silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (Fill} Buried TOPSOil layer Brown silty SAND. medium dense. moist (Native) -becomes light brown and dense, increase in grawl Teat pit terminated at 7.0 feet beloweldsting grade. No groundwater encountet'ed during 'elCCavation. " \';", . . ~ ,,.' ;:. 'f.'. ", Test Pit Log 15221 S.E. 128th Street King County, Washington Proj. No. 11122 I Own. GLS I Date April 2004 Checked STS Date 4126104 1 Plate A8 - - .. .. • • • " I 4252770510 P.32 SEP-24-04 02:13 PM SEAPORTDOZ I·NG , • OJ "4 • " Particle Size Distribution Report ... .' f ~ ;;j"',: ,ii. ,'II' , a ;'~l;"i ' .. 01 II I I I! I It • 100 90 _ ... : eo .. 70· ; 0::: w z QO .. ~., . ii: .... 50 --r-z ~ It: ! w 40 -; Q.. 30 20 ... 10 ~';' 0 200 100 10 1 ~1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE -mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND %S!LT % CLAY uses AASHTO Pl LL ....... _~_._-+-~_---.-:....:-..~-------+__ .. -. ___ -1-______ + __ ...-..::::..::..:::~-4-.---:...;...:,;;.~=--+_....:::-..+----_I o 17.9 58.8 ;.23.3 SM 1--1----:----t------+---.------I--,-,--.-~~-----+.-~--+-----4-___lr____t o 7.0 85.1 .' u t 7.9 SP·SM r, 38.7 46.7 --~~~-"'"..;..j,---....:~:-·:1;...c4.'-6------+-·--'--SM SIEVE PERCENT FINER ~ 0 0 f:j. size I.S 100.0 100.0 100.0 JJ4 100.0 100.0 77.5 318 90.9 9~.O 70.2 ~,~+--_ _rG-R-Al-N-S_fZ'__TE--.. ~ Dec 0.749 0.546 4.17 D3Q 0.121 0.232 0.244 010 0.0988 t><:: COEFFICIENTS' Cc ---,1.00--,--.- Cu I 5.52 o Source: o Source: 6 Sowce: SIEVE, ; lr~ PERCENT FINER n;,._' () 0 L). 1/4' '82.1 93.0 6J.3 118 . 74.1 89.1 56.3 1116' 65.6 8U 51.4 #130 57.1 63.0 4S..s ISO ;'1' 46.3 39.5 35.9 11100 ,,', 33.4 16.4 16.3 #200' 23.3 7.9 14.6 ~-" ". " Sampl~ No:: TP·l Sample' No.: TP·2 Sample No.: TP-3 EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Clien!: Proie,ot 15221 SE ) 28th SI. Proiect No.: £-1] 122 §Q1l..D.ESCRIPTION o TP·t: ]' -SM Brown silly Sand ~i1h J:Rvel; 19.7"'-0 moigtllrc D TP-2: /. -SP-SM Oray poorly graded Sand with silt, 9.5% moisture b TP·J: 7' • SM Ora)' silty Sand with gravel; 9.1 % moislW'e REMARKS: () Tech: me nTcch: INC' f\ Tech: 11\<: Elev.lDepth: 3' Elev.lDepth: )' Elev.!Df...-pth: 7' Plate B1 ' .. . Christopher Brown @ Associales 9688 Rainier Ave. &. &ealtle. WA 98118-5981 ('206) 7'2'2-1910 fliX ('206) 7'2'2-1909 AMBERWOOD Traffic Impact Analysis City rifRenton King County Prepared for Amberwood LLC August 26, 2000 Trame Engineers & Transportation Planners DEVELOPM CITY o~~~~~NlNG SEP 23 20D4 RECE6VED AMBERWOOD Traffic Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose Location Scope Adjacent Land Uses Street System Transit Project Phasing Traffic Characteristics Trip Generation Horizon Year Traffic Traffic Assignment Year 2002 Traffic Forecast Capacity Analysis Commentary Adverse Consequences Mitigation Measures Conclusions UST OF FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Current Traffic Volumes 4. 2002 Traffic Volumes Without Proiect 5 Traffic Assignment - 6: Year 2002 Volumes. Projects Completed USTOFTABLES I Trip Generation II Level of Service Definitions III Levels of Service l. 3. 5. 5. 5. 6. 6. 6. 7. 9. 9. 9. 13. 15. 16. 17. 17. 2. 4. 8. 10. 11. 12. 7. 13. 15. Christopher Brown @ Associates 9688 Qainier Ave. &. &cattle. W A 98118-5981 ('206) 7'22-1910 Fax ('206) 72'2-1909 -1- AMBERWOOD a TRAFFIC STUDY for a 19 Unit Single Family Residential Development in the City of Renton Purpose Briefly, the purpose of this traffic study is to obtain current volume data on the adjacent arterial street system within the City of Renton and environs that will serve a proposed 19-1ot residential subdivision and to derive a traffic forecast for the horizon year of development, in this case for the year 2002, so that an assessment of potential traffic impacts can be made and, if significant, appropriate traffic mitigation measures identified. For reference, the site is depicted on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The traffic analysis includes the gathering of current traffic volume data at those key location expected to be impacted by site generated traffic. In addition, other projects in the area that may be expected to come on line in the same time interval, and whose traffic is also expected to use the same arterial system, are identified and their respective traffic components are added to the forecast baseline traffic volumes so that a worst case that is inclusive of their data is produced. It may be noted that the arterial street traffic volume data over the p.m. peak hour is the typical "design hour" data since it contains home based Christopher Brown @ AsSociates 9688 Qainier Ave. ~. &attle, WA 98118-5981 (206) 722-1910 fax (206) 722-1909 ooc:::: ____ = __ _ FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map -2- ,--------------~,------------ Chr~topher Brown flr A&!IOCiate.B 9688 Rainier Ave. ~. &atUe, WA 98118-5981 (206) 7'22-1910 rax (206) 722-1910 work trips, school, shopping and social-recreation travel as well. It tends to be the highest peak hour of the day and is thus used for the worst case assessment. In addition, the study identifies the appropriate background growth factor for including non-site specific traffic growth up to the horizon year of ·2002 in accordance with the recommended practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published in Traffic Access and Impacts Studies for Site Development, August, 1988. The study assigns traffic to the network and continues with an analysis of current and future levels of service (LOS) based on the full development in concert with both background traffic and other projects of record that are expected to be completed in the same time frame. Location More particularly, the site is located on the east side of the 218 unit single family residential development of Maplewood. This large plat extends from SE 128th StreetINE 4th Street southerly to about SE 136th Street and from 148th A venue SE to the west side of Amberwood. Amberwood, in tum, is also located on the south side of SE 128th StreetINE 4th Street with its eastern border becoming a proposed local collector street that may be called 152nd A venue SE. The south side of Amberwood is approximately in line with SE 130th Street, if such a street existed. The site layout is depicted on Figure 2. This figure also shows the (half . width) proposed residential collector street linking the site to the north with SE 128th StreetiNE 4th Street. Internally, about halfa block to the south, Amberwood is linked to the internal streets that will be constructed . through Maplewood. The street through Maplewood will likely be named SE 129th Street. -3- For reference purposes a copy of the Maplewood Site Plan, by TP&E, is included in the appendix. The Amberwood site is also noted on this plan. Christopher Brown @ Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. 6. 6eattie, WA 98118-5981 (206) 7'22-1910 fax (206) 7'22-1909 ---------..lIy'--_____ ~ __ .........:_::__-.-::.::==::_.:.::= --' __ h .---"-i __ _ . T---1i§£!!. -fr;--.---.----i- ~ --------- ---.. _-- -... ---.-.-:::;Z-; . 1 1;"~4t" t--.--__ i .. -FUTURE S~o 129~h STREET } "MAPLEWOOD' ---=--t--;'-'-_-.r"t __ --,-. ____ _ PRELIMINARY NOTE: Plat draw ing -shows 20 lots. This is to be . t\ ... revised to ~ -19 lots. " I .~ • FIGURE 2 Site Layout -4- 14 i 1'JDt IF 'Ht ",. 1& 7PJ.f *r 1 I I l ; , ~ t--.;...-__ ---it __ --I , ._ 'of", .". I .,('~~-~=.::-!-~:..--_--- I 1 ------.-___ ~ .. --.:.. ___ . I t I Chri8t.opher Brown «f A&!!ociat.e8 9688 Qainier Ave. ~. keltle. WA 98118-5981 I I I I I • I~ ('206) 72'2-1910 Fax ('206) L,t,,t,-JL7J.V -5- Scope For the purposes of this study the scope of the project considers a 19 lot subdivision. Additionally it is also assumed that the road network of Maplewood is completed at the time of site occupancy so that traffic access via the neighboring street network is possible. The key intersections expected to be impacted by site traffic include 138th, 144th, 148th and 156th Avenue SE. Adjacent Land Uses The adjacent land uses are all single family residential developments. The only significant non-residential land use is a fire station located on 156th A venue SE near the southeast comer of the property. Commercial (shopping) areas are located to the west near/at Duvall Avenuel138th Avenue SE. As a residential development the site is not in conflict with existing and proposed land uses. Street System The adjacent arterial street system serving the site is NR 4th StreetfSE 128th Street. This is a five lane arterial from about a block east of 144th A venue SE. To the east it is a 4-lane arterial with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The speed limit is reduced to 35 mph as it approaches Duvall Avenuel138th Avenue SE. The approach roads to this aretrails, including 144th, 148th and 156th A venue SE are all 2-lane roads. Christopher Brown (t$ Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. &. &cattle. WA 98U8-5981 ('206) 7'2'2-1910 Fax ('206) 7'2'2-1909 -6- No roads in the site vicinity have urban facilities such as curbs, gutters or sidewalks. Full actuated traffic signals, with opposing left tum channelization on NE 4th StreetlSE 128th Street, are located at Duvall A venue/138th Avenue SE, and 144th Avenue SE and 156th A venue SE. The traffic signal at a 144th A venue SE/Jericho A venue will likely be modified to accommodate the proposed plat of "4]7 Court" which will, when it is built, gain access via a new north intersection approach street. Transit Metro (Sound Transit) operates route 111 along NR 4th StreetlSE 128th Street. Over the peak hour bus headways are at half hour intervals. Pro ject Phasing The project will be accomplished in a single phase with completion and occupancy expected in the year 2002 or toward the end of 2002. Traffic Characteristics ---------=--------~ Current (mid-June) peak hour traffic data was obtained in the field over the p.m. peak hour under sunny and dry conditions. No adverse traffic operations were observed that might skew the data. In addition, peak hour traffic volumes for the intersections of 148th and 156th Avenues SE were obtained from the traffic study prepared by TP&E for Maplewood. Since Christopher Brown @ Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. &. &attle. WA 98118-5981 (206) 7'22-1910 fax (206) 7'22-1909 the TP&E data was two years old it was updated to the year 2000 with growth factors derived from the data at the Duvall A venuelNE 4th Street intersection. The growth factors are 2.2 percent on NE 4th StreetiSE 128th Street and 0.13 percent on 156th, 148th, and 144th Avenues SE. Peak hour traffic observations did not show significant truck (heavy) vehicle operations nor much pedestrian traffic along this arterial. Grade, geometric approach, truck and pedestrian data is noted in the appended capacity computations. Figure 3 shows the current volumes. Trip Generation Trip generation for the single family residential development is based on I.T.E. Land Use Code (LUC) 210, Single Family Detached Housing. The trip production, based on the average rate method due to the small scale of the development, is shown in Table I. -7- TABLE I Trip Generation, Time Interval A.W.D.T.* A.M. inbound A.M. outbound . P.M. inbound P.m. outbound Traffic Volume 182 Trips/day 3 veh.lhour 11· veh.lhour 12 veh.lhour 7 veh.lhour * Average Weekday Daily Traffic Christopher Brown t15 Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. ~. &attle. W A 98118-5981 ('206) 72'2-1910 Fax ('206) 7'2'2-1909 +J -=~~~r------~ ----~{~ ______ _ Q) Q) H Ul~ ..c +J 156th Avenue SE +J~J 00 ~----------------------~r---------------------N i t~r:f} ~ ~ ~~~ ~Q Future Access ..c ----~ ~k /0 I l52nd Avenue ~ I~la . I I I I ~~~'a-~ I~ I SE I I I I I I LEGEND ex§) Average Weekday Traffic Volume .JJ ~ P.M. Peak Hour Q) Q) Traffic Volume H .JJ CJ) "1:1 s:: N C") r-f ~ CJ) "" icho Ave. ~~ ~j --'--------+----1------ 144th Avenue SE Current Traffic Volumes -8- 138th Avenue SE/Duvall Avenue Chri!lopher Brown (?J A.MOCiale! 9688 Rainier Ave. &. &Bllie. WA 98118-5981 7'22-1910 fax (206) 722-1909 -9- Horizon Year Traffic As noted earlier, the horizon year is taken at 2002. From the 1988-98 10- year historical data published by King County at Count Station 3042, located at SE 128th Street at 144th Avenue SE, the annual compound rate of growth was found to be 2.2 percent per year. On the minor street approach it was 0.13 percent per year. Horizon year traffic also includes separate traffic generated by both plats of "4.77 Court" and "Maplewood" which are commonly referred to as projects of record. . Figure 4, 2002 Traffic Volumes without Project shows schematically the forecast data except for the two plats of "4.77 Court" and "Maplewood" which are included later. Assignment The traffic assignment for this project is based on the same assignment used for the plat of "Maplewood". That plat's· traffic distribution was based on an EMMEl2 computer run conducted by King County. The EMME/2 run is included in the Appendix for reference. As an adjacent plat it is a suitable model for "Amberwood". The percentage distribution is shown on Figure 5, Traffic Assignment. This figure also shows the traffic assignment for the previously noted two projects of record, "4.77 Court" and "Maplewood". Year 2002 Traffic Figure 6, 2002 Volumes. Projects Completed, shows the forecast traffic Christopher Brown @ Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. &. &attle, WA 98118-5981 ('206) 72'2-1910 fax ('206) 72'2-1909 , c::.:. , .u tV tV to H ~ ~j (lO ry l56th Avenue SE co N ttC~ .-. r%l en -.u ~ tV ~1 ~Q H\D Future Access LEGEND .u en .c ------I CS~® Average Weekday .u t'il [0 I 152nd Avenue ...j" SE Traffic Volume r%l N I . I .u ~ P.M. Peak Hour z "-0 tV I ?J I tV Traffic Volume H Avenu~~~~ .u I~<O~ I en th ~'l>-00 'lj ~ flJ~ I s:: I ~~+¥ N ("t") I~ I .-. f':\ t~ r%l I en I if! _._------- ,ho Ave. ~~ ~J --L-------'------t----- l44th Avenue SE :9~ :>' ~~ ;!; ~ I\( FIGURE 4 \V" . ~\tJ 2/ 138th Avenue SE/Duvall Avenue 2002 Traffic Volumes Without Project Christopher Brown (if Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. ~. -10-&atlle. WA 98118-5981 (206) 722-1910 rax (206) 722-1909 .u --_-J/ . --c.:.. ---,,'----- ~* l56th Avenue SE ~~~ ~;l. l--~----':--':--------r----:-*--------~.~t ~I ~~ ~ f 0 ,f~ * ~~ , 1~====================~ ~;;I \'V ~ 1 ~ \ Future Access .c* ----~ ~ ~ ~ I l52nd Avenue SE ~-01 f~ ~\ I I ~th . Avenue SE I~ I ~~ t I ~ ~ ~~ I "* I ~QJ-. -~-:::=::-;:-~CO: ~~;! I ~ --------- "t' ~ '-..J .u QJ QJ J..f LEGEND Average Weekday Traffic Volume P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volume .u ~===========::H Ul '0 C N (Y") M Distribution * Site Traffic 4.77 Court Traffic Maplewood Traffic Distribution in Percent l44th Avenue SE '""' ~ oho Ave0c.WY ~ J ~~~~~~~~---~------I-/-l---r----- ~ orv cP';.r '-----" II},. f l~ Note: Traffic distribution "," j" ~ based on "Maplewood" .~o r ~ impact analysis. ~ ~~ '* \t) ~ .)~ N~~ ,j;\r, ~ --~ Traffic Assignment -11- l38th Avenue SE/Duvall Avenue Includes adjacent projects of record. Christopher Brown @ Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. ~. &attle. WA 98118-5981 ('206) 7'2'2-1910 fex ~ OJ ~~---=//-----c~ -----<,~ ____ __ OJ l56th Avenue SE ~, 00 ~-----------------------r---------------------N ; t,£~'l3 :; f' ~~I \~ . ~ ~ ~\ Future Access ~ t~ ~-I-~2nd Avenue SE I ~ ~/~ \ I I . ~ ':::-.~ \-'l> . I 0'>' I i th Avenue SE' / :t ~"«.. I '9,."),~~oO-s. I 'J-\""'/ \ I ~e ~e I -----~---""':='__i~--~ ~~~ l'J ta0:_·~ _____ J cho Ave. N~ ~ "'-' OJ OJ 1-1 LEGEND Average Weekday Traffic Volume P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volume "'-'~~===================I til "0 s:: N C"1 .-I l44th Avenue SE " ~J ~----------------~------- l38.th Avenue SE/Duvall Avenue FIGURE 6 2002 Traffic Volumes. Projects Completed -12- Christopher Brown (?5 Associates 9688 Qainier Ave. &. <Seattle. WA 98118-5981 ('206) 7'2'2-1910 f'ax ('206) 7'2'2-1909 -13- demand and is used for capacity computations described next. The data of this figure includes background growth, the adjacent projects of record and traffic from "Amberwood". Capacity Analysis The level of service (LOS) describes the quality of traffic flow. This ranges from the best or highest level, "A," usually denoted by an ability to select ones' own speed or the ability to change lanes or overtake at will, down to the lowest or worst level "F." This LOS is the lowest possible level and is one where traffic is severely constrained. It is usually denoted by "jam" conditions and attendant long traffic delays. The precise definitions are noted below. The defmitions of Table II follow the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual since the Transportation Research Board has not yet approved the available software for analysis. Programs implementing the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, which will be released this fall, will be available soon after. TABLE II Level of Service Definitions Signalized Intersections Level of Service A B C D E F Delay Per Vehicle Under 10 seconds 10.1 -20.0 seconds 20.1 -35.0 seconds 35.1 -55.0 seconds 55.1 -80.0 seconds Greater than 80 sec. Christopher Brown @ Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. ~. Q)eattle, WA 98118-5981 ('206) 7'2'2-1910 Fax ('206) 7'2'2-1909 continued from last page. TABLE II Level of Service Definitions STOP Sign Controlled Intersections Level of Service Delay Per Vehicle A B C D E F Under 10 seconds > 10 -15 seconds > 15 -25 seconds > 25 -35 seconds > 35 -50 seconds > 50 seconds Capacity computations were performed using the computer program HCS issued by the McTrans Center of the University of Florida and Signal 94 by Strong Concepts, both under license to Christopher Brown, P.E. It might be noted that in many cases the new 1997 HCM methods, that now include both stopped delay as well as moving delay in the computational algorithms and with higher time thresholds, often do not lead to different analysis results. Accordingly, the 1994 methods are deemed adequate for this planning analysis. The analysis results are described in Table III. Note that the delays on the STOP controlled intersections, in this case at 148th A venue SE and the new access street to the site from NE 4th StreetiSE 128th Street, are noted below for only the worst case movement. Typically the is the minor leg's left tum onto the arterial. -14-. Christopher Brown @ Associates 9688 Qainier Ave. &. &allle. WA 98118·5981 ('206) 7'2'2·1910 Fax ('206) 7'2'2·1909 TABLE III Levels of Service Intersection Current 2002 2002 Volumes WIOut With the Project Project & Current Geom. -NE 4th StreetlDuvall Ave. C C C Intersection Delay, seconds 15.6 16.4 18.5 sec. 's NE 4th Streetll44th A venue SE B B B Worst Movement Delay, seconds 7.6 8.1 12.2 sec.'s SE 128th Streetll44th A venue SE " C C C Intersection Delay, seconds 16.9 17.1 17.3 sec.'s NE 4th Streetll48th Avenue SE F F F Worst Movement Delay, seconds 77.0 106.8 718.9 sec.'s NE 4th Streetl152nd Avenue SE NA NA E Worst Movement· Delay, seconds 44.4 sec.'s Commentary The above analysis, up to the year 2002 with the "Maplewood" project's primary access via the project constructed south leg of the 148th A venue SE intersection, indicates that it will operate at LOS 'F'. This assumes that the project will also construct a.westbound left tum lane into 148th Avenue SE. Even with such an arterial widening program, LOS 'F' will exist for STOP controlled movements. These tend to "be for the northbound left -15-Christopher Brown (!J Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. ~. " &attle. WA 98118-5981 ('206) 7'2'2-1910 fax ('206) 7'2'2-1909 tum from the site onto the arterial. Clearly, there are some capacity issues that can only be resolved with signalization. The TIA for the project did not disclose that kind of mitigation requirement. Probably since signal warrants may not exist, although the poor LOS values were tabulated. For the small residential development under consideration, "Amberwood", the intersection of the "half street improvements" noted on the preliminary plat map of Figure 2, identified as possibly 152nd A venue SE on SE 128th Street, the LOS analysis indicates that there is no need for widening on NE 4th StreetiSE 128th Street for this development. This is because the amount of traffic that will be added at this new intersection is minor and the LOS, for the worst case movement, is 'E' In the future, the extension of a center 2-way, left tum lane along the arterial past 152nd A venue SE and up to the signalized intersection of 156th Avenue SE, essentially extending the system that is also to be accomplished by "Maplewood" past its new intersection on 148th A venue SE, may be anticipated. This will likely be done with traffic impact fees collected from various developments including "Amberwood" and "Maplewood" that will, in the future, also -gain access to the arterial system via 152nd Avenue SE. - Adverse Consequences As a small development with only moderate traffic volume increases the adverse consequences are can only be measured in terms of added delay. From Table III it will be seen that at the signalized intersections along NE 4th StreetiSE 128th Street, the increases in delay range from a low of 0.2 seconds to a high of 4.1 seconds. These are not noticeable. However, at the STOP sign controlled intersection of 148th A venue SE the added traffic appears to have a measurable effect since the delay is raised by some 600 seconds for the northbound left tum movement. While such a delay is large, note that it also presumes that none of the westbound peak hour traffic from "Maplewood" will divert from 148th A venue SE and use, -16-Christopher Brown @ Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. &. &attle. WA 98118-5981 (206)722~1910 Fax (206) 722-1909 instead, the signalized intersection at 156th A venue SE. Since that plat will have a road system that links it to 156th Avenue SE via SE 132nd Street, it , is clear that plat traffic will divert to the signal. Accordingly, the ' theoretically low LOS with its long delays as shown on Table III are most likely an overestimate. Mitigation Measures The key mitigation measures for the plat of "Amberwood" include the linkage of the plat to "Maplewood" at what may be SE 129th Street and the construction of half street improvements linking the plat to NE 4th StreetJ SE 128th Street. The City of Renton collects general traffic impact fees at the rate of $75 per A WDT so that a fee of $13,650 for the anticipated 182 average weekday trips generated by the plat may be anticipated. Conclusions 1. The project with 19 single family homes will generate about 182 trips per day with 14 in the morning peak hour and 19 in the evening peak. 2. Adequate levels of service exist along the arterial at its signalized' intersections and none will be lowered below minimum thresholds. 3. A half street improvement will link the site to NE 4th StreetJSE 128th Street. It will not require widening on the arterial for capacity related purposes. 4. The STOP controlled intersection of 148th Avenue SE will not meet signal warrants; an LOS 'F' is expected during peak hours. 5. The poor LOS at 148th Avenue SE will induce diversion to the signal at, 148th Avenue SE so that the low LOS should not be a significant Issue. 6. A traffic mitigation fee of $13,650 maybe levied based on the A WDT of 182 trips. -17-Christopher Brown (l$ Associates 9688 Rainier Ave. S. Seattle. WA 98118·5981 ('206) 71.'2-1910 'Fax ('206) 71.'2-1909 Traffic Study APPENDIX Traffic Volumes, Current Field Data NE 4th Street! 144th A venue SE NE4th Street!Duvall A venue 1. 2. 3. 4. 148th Avenue SEISE 128th Street 156th A venue SE @ SE 128th Street Trip Generation, LUC 210, ITE Data Sheet -A WDT Trip Generation, LUC 210, ITE Data Sheet -A.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation, LUC 210, ITE Data Sheet -P.M. Peak Hour Maplewood Site Plan Maplewood EMMFJ2 Trip Distlibution via King County Capacity Calculations Intersection File No. Current Volumes Duvall A venue/NE 4th Street AMB-CIP 144th Avenue SFJSE 128th Street AMB-C2P NE 4th Street! 148th A venue SE AMB-C3P.HCO 156th A venue SFJSE 128th Street AMB-C5P 2002 Without Developments Duvall A venue/NE 4th Street AMB-HIP 144th A venue SFJSE 128th Street AMB-H2P NE4th Street! 148th Avenue SE AMB-H3P.HCO 156th A venue SEISE 128th Street AMB-H5P 2002 With Developments Duvall A venue/NE 4th Street AMB-PIP 144th Avenue SFJSE 128th Street AMB-P2P NE 4th Street! 148th A venue SE AMB-P3P.HCO NE4th Streetl152nd Avenue SE AMB-P4P.HCO 156th A venue SFJSE 128th Street AMB-P5P by TP&E by TP&E Year 2000 2000 2000 2000 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Page No. 1. 4. 7. 10. 13. 16. 19. 22. 25. 28. 31. 34. 37. Christopher Brown (11 Associates 9688 Qainier Ave. 8. &altle. W A 98118-5981 ('206) 72'2-1910 fax (206) 7'2'2-1909 i'~ CJ E'..;;..":-_i _J.....::('....;...:.I'j/...;;.:::ci;:..!::,o---:..;.~...t;;.......;;--ir-'~~ -CIt//:'.:. 12tf£~ 0 A l' jA<-e • I NT! i S c-cr leN OF: ____ ~___:;.""'___ ___ A NO f/E ..y""JI-IYe~ } TIME :itJD p = P~..AX HOUR ~s :-=0....;:-...:::: vve.:s: :-~~! 1>o...jc.~~ICC...:1"'.C! 5c ~~ 1-co..;r;<::: -. 1= T 1M E I I j)Yt.'vewC-.y ,.,.., . II L , 5 I &I I Lis I II L I s I I II L f s I I II c- L/oV -':-;/f" \ 172~ 97 liS-109\ II ::l:r-I 12-II I I I ;"(J' t I I~J)" ~'Ji/ I I ,?o -:;-105 , 2 I jS-B I I11-D I I S-It I I I tt ~~ ~:so ,.. i'-/.f I 1.7/0 /Qq-I if l/t8 I I J1] I 13 \ I I t {f ~ £-/9J -5l" '7tJ (uR-I II /J6 I \s-J1 1 r , I I~ ()t! ~ J'1;V -.$/5 I J'lL (If I CJ ·/50 15"{ I ~I I , I If: .("/J-~~ , no 1/11 t 183 \57' I Lf I , ·f ~ (.q 550 -S-~/j I 127'D lOll S-IL{/t '3D , _£I I I , 57 \ , , I I , I I I I I I I 7r9/lI'/! I 12-I I· I "?-I , I I I JCM~;J»J I , , I I 12 , , I I I ~ "'/Yt/ c-lu-I I I , , I , , I I I 2 ~k I I i I '.Y I \12. I I / \ I I 'flAx I t '1-1 t :2.. I 1\ 2 I I II I \. '5/-£Y I I I II , I II I I S-~y I I q-I , I I 'I L 1 I I I I f"f 'tY I , / I I -2-I \ I I I I \ I 'A-dJ I , I I I 'I , I 1 I I I I f/l.e. I , "2 I II J 1 2-\ I' I I I I I I I I I I I' I I 1 I \ , \ I ~ £/']()-5-YC\ IlJ /f l/li-fllt 5D I c5.}-1 \20 , 12/ I , \ I ", ?/f? I 10 .. ,) '0'711 6.151 0'7'; I \o:J11 ItI.:]{ I I I ! I , , I I I \\ I I \ I , ! TOT'" L S I , , I I I \ I I I I I ~ of TOT.l!. \ , , I t , I , I I l ~ t : ,. r-~C.Jt:....;;..--=-_1 -----~~.....u.;;;.~~~"'--:___ OA rE :::'U}('~ 6" ~(jCr(j OA'f -I«C'S', ~-...:..._~~ __ ANO M/l/?~"4-rt/-c INTEiSE-CT leN TO S-SO' P = P!.AK HOU I ~s: =c....:r-.c l ~::-~~ Nc.:--:-;.... • .cc .....:"".c j Sc ~~~ 1-C\.:r.<::: IS -. T "ME I .--~. II L , S I I II Lis I II L I s I I II Lis I I , I c- .tftTn -.?-/ I:) I -sF I tiS' I 5' 11.5 I//ti I 571" II / I 1 I -S-II 60 I b I 42 I SLi ~/] -?fj1D I 5D L25'8 1 g I :? 1/7')\:19 \I q I if-1:5 I j/ / I / I \ 50 I (;Pi ~ 9yo-~/../) I 58 1:278 /3 I 1-II J~ I -'is I 4-18 16 I 130 I / ) I ("2 "''''s. r.. ~7'J-gflJl tr 271 , /1-I Lj-/61 ~q-I > S-9-1 ),sl8tsj 'pOL S-LJ'O-5/51 /.5' l2J? C; I / /(5 qq I if 6 S-I J}-' 1/ I £2 a'{h 5/:1-~:5D I 1-1-2//0 /f{ \ 3 /-:11-~)£ \ If 2-ILJ-I /60' L ·tJ-Jj-~ :;'/, S'1§-5~/)1 Cj' 12{ I /D I . -2-I / I~ I 4'2. I 2 I I Jl I 11\ 1-I ~t /,'7 -. I , I I I , I I t 1 I I I I I 1 . 1 , I I I I I , I I I I , I t I fl1tln 1PJ I { ql I , tf , I I I I I I / %h /1)vw-\ I / I I / I I I I I I I ~ y, 'fJ I -7/> r A. 2c;y I I Ig I 1 I \ \ \ I I 6' I \' -:5 <-Jcv I ./. ,.:9 , 1 , I II I 1 II I 12- 1'~v I I I , I I I I I I I / ,f,;,}' I '9 I ,~ .../-r I I I I I 2. 1 I I M-C I , 'J-I II I I \ I I I . I I I f>r#S I t , II '8" 1 II I S' I I I / I I . \ I , I \ I II , I I I I " £lye -S JC .11tr "153 ,/{? 11/0 '52' 12.0 7 1 11-'2/ 121-I .L/lb 1-jJ7' 12:P/ I V' 'lift' I .7)-t iCt} eye I • Cos I ~r~ t ;,}-/ I ·3.) I :r{ "':Y1 I '&i I c3"7 I .)"v I , I I I \ I I I I I TOT.ALS i 1 , I I , I l I I l I ~ of TCl.A1.\ , I t , \ , I , l 'TC2 Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. 13623 1841h Avenue NE. Woodinville. WA 98072 Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX: (425) 861-8877 .' Vehicle Volume Summary Intersection: 148th Ave SE @ SE 128th Ave Date of Count: Th 2112198 Location: Renton Checked By: Kg Time From North on (5B) From Soulh on (NB) From Easl on (WB) From West on (EB) Inlerval Interval 1481hAve 5E nla 5E 1281h Ave 5E 1281h Ave Total Ending at T L S H T L S _R T L S Fl T L S H . 4:15 P 0 4 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 2 2 17 239 0 _431 _4:30J: 0 9 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 6 2 9 244 0 417 4:45P 0 14 0 13 0 0 0 0 1 0 154 8 4 10 275 0 474 5:00P 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 3 2 8 295 0 458 5:15 P 0 13 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 155 3 1 16 245 0 444' 5:30P 0 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 6 2 19 293 0 472: 5:45P 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 4 0 16 259 0 438 6:00P 0 11 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 7 0 2Z 265 0 460 6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00p· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Survey a 69 0 84 0 a a a 2 a 1176 39 13 117 2115 0 3600 4:30P 10 5:30P Peak Hour Summary TOlal 0 43 0 42 0 0 0 0 2· 0 I 582 I 20 9 53 1108 I 0 1848 I Approach 85 0 602 _1]61 1648 %HV 0% n/a Olio 1% 1% PHF 0.79 n/a 0.93 0.93 0.97 Legend: T= Number 01 heavy vehides (greater than 4 wheels) L= Left-Turn S= Straight R= Right-Turn HV= Heavy Vehicles PHF= Peak hour Factor (Peak hour volume / (4'Highest 15 minutes» Precared For: TP&E TM98-77y Te2 Trtl/fic Couot Consul/dots, Inc. 13623 1841h Ave NE. Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: (4~) 861-8866 FAX: (4~) 86HJ877 Vehicle Volume Summary Intftr:sftction: SE 128th SI @ 156th Ave SE Date of Count Thurs 2112198 Location: Renton Checked By: ms .. me From North on (58) From South on (NS) From East on (we) From West on (EBl IntelVal Interval DrivewaV 156th Ave 5E 5E 128th 51 SE '26th 51 Total Ending at T L 5 ·R T L S R T L S R T L S R 4;15P 0 1 a 1 2 44 0 25 2 39 101 0 4 1 160 80 452 4:30P 0 1 0 1 1 53 0 23 , ~ .!Q! ~ ! 0 jS1 J!~ _<1lJ8 4:45P 0 0 0 3 0 34 0 26 3 42 109 0 4 0 175 107 496 5:00P 0 0 0 1 0 36 0 27 1 51 102 0 3 2 195 98 512 ·5:15P '0 0 O· 1 . .,.. 41 0 23 0 52 109 0 1 0 171 95 492 5:30P 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 21 0 53 103 0 2 0 171 113 499 5:45P 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 22 0 64 93 0 0 0 164 99 489 6:00P 0 0 ·0 0 O· S9 0 22 0 52 100 0 2 0 195 78 506· 6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:3QP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 6:45P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 7:00P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Total SUfW!!Y a 2 0 7 4 352 0 189 7 416 818 0 17 3 1392 755 3934 4:30 P to 5:30P Peak Hour Summary Total Q I Q. j 0 5 1 I 149 0 91 4 198_ ~?3_ _0 LO ~ 71~ _411 J~99_ Approach 5 246 621 1127 1999 %HV 0% 0% l a/. 1% 1% PHF 0.42 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 Legend: T= Number of heavy vehides (greater Ulan 4 wheels) L= Left -Turn 5= Sltaight R= Right-Turn HV= Heavy Vehicles PHF= Peak hour Factor (Peak hour volume I (4·Highest 15 minutes)) Praoared For: TP&E .. ,", . "TI>498-761 Single-Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 348 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 198 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 9.57 4.31 -21.85 3.69 Data Plot and. Equation I/) -g w a. ~ CD "13 :2 CD > CD C) as .... CD ~ II I- 30,OOO~------------------------------------------------------------~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , x 20,000 ...... - ---............. -. -: -. - -..... -. - -.. -.. - --... --~-.... :,..,,,: .. -. -. -.. .. -. - -. --. -- , , , . , x , , , , x , , , , , , , , x , ,,,'" , 10,000 -. -.. -............ -.... ~~;,;t'. .. . -. -... -.. -.. --. -. --'.--. -...... -.............. . ,>,1:;:", x O~~------~---------T--------~--~------r-----~--~--------~ o 1000 2000 3000 x = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points -----Fitted Curve ------Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.920 Ln(X) + 2.707 R2 =0.96 Trip Generation, 6th Edition 263 Institute of Transportation Engineers . Single-Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 271 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 202 Directional Distribution: 25% entering, 75% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.75 0.33 2.27 0.90 . Data Plot and Equation U) -g w c. j!: .CD U :E CD > CD CI !!! CD ~ II .... 3.000 -r--------------------------------, 2.000 . . ",,' .......................... ' .............. -........... '. -.......... ,.,~:;;'~:--. x x """, . " .,' """,,, """,,.,,, ", , x 1.000 •• -• - - - ---•• - -••• - --• - - - -'0 - - -• ',,',:.:..' - -_. --. _. -_. --.-_. - - - - - - -.. 'O _. _. - - - - - -_ •• _ x o o 1000 2000 3000 x = Number of Dwelling Units X ActuaJ Data Points ---Fitted Curve ------Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = O.700(X) + 9.4n Trip Generation; 6th Edition 264 Institute of Transportation Engineer Single-Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffict One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 294 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 216 Directional Distribution: 64% entering, 36% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.01 0.42 2.98 1.05 Data Plot and Equation x : ,,,," II) "C C w .9-~ 2,000 - - - - - - -_ ...... _ ......... --: ................... - -'/'/>/-".' .......... _ .. CD :§ J:: CD > CD C) as "-CD ~ / . / / x / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / x x II J-1,000 X X // . ~ . - ----------.... -.. -.. -.... '/~~ --- - - -- - -.. ---. - - - ---. --." - - - - - - - -. -. -.. -... -. - - - -. -. ~" ...... , o o 1000 2000 3000 x = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points· ---Fitted Curve ------Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.901 Ln(X} + 0.527 R2 = 0.91 Trip Generation, 6th Edition 265 Institute of Transportation Engineers / SITE PLAN MAPLEWOOD TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BE 128th Sl -:- = D '. ',1. = 1 -1=1--= ) _ _ 1_1_]1---=- FIGURE -2 • SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION E/1t1E/2 PROJECT: I: 1"9 C--t v TCtI SCENARIO ~100: Sit. 98033001 O;.trlbvt;on. Parent Zone ~'9 KING COUNTY TRAFFIC MODEL TRIP DISTRIBUTION MAPLEWOOD TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS , LINKS: !typ.-5 THRESHOLD: UPPER: 999999 SCl'I\.E: 10 cO d b ~O 6 & 60 J & 80 a " 100 U 1 VII.,OV: 4041.3/14530.5 5535/15650.8 98-04-06 13:35 IIOOIILE: 2.13 FIGURE 6 Amberwood Development 08/25/** Duvall Avenue NE7NE 4th Street 09:37:38 Current P.M. Peak Hour File AMB-C1P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA NONCBD LOSTTIME 3.0 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES .0 .0 .0 .0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 BUSVOLUMES 0 2 0 2 RIGHTTURNONREDS 35 20 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 231 39 . 420 209 526 10 22 21 17 48 1153 267 WIDTHS 12.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 24.0 12.0 .0 14.0 .0 .0 24.0 12.0 LANES 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 UTILIZATIONS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TRUCKPERCENTS 3.0 .0 2.0 .0 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .• 0 1.0 .0 PEAKHOURFACTORS .81 .89 .92 .71 .82 .63 .79 .76 .85 .86 .97 .87 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 1568 1900 1431 1549 3762 334 o 1656 0 o 3724 1805 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 13 ALL PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEAD LAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS YES YES YES YES OFFSET .00 1 CYCLES 90 110 10 PEDTIME .0 0 GREENTIMES 35.01 21.26 21.73 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 12 4 EXCESS 0 Amberwood Development Duvall Avenue NE1NE 4th Street Current P.M. Peak Hour File AMB-C1P 08/25/** 09:36:29 SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Evaluation of Intersection Performance Sq 13 **/** . / \ North I Phase 1 + + * + + * <+ + *> V A <+ + +> + + + + + + G/C= .389 G= 35.0" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% Phase 2 + + <+ A **** ++++> ++++ v G/C= .236 G= 21.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=43.3% Phase 3 A **** <++++ ++++ V ++++> ++++ v G/C= .241 G= 21.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=7L4% C= 90 sec G= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= .0 sec = .0% MVMT TOTALS Param:Units ---------------------- AdjVol: vph Wid/Ln:ft/# g/C Rqd@C:% g/C Used: % SV @E: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c Avg Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Max Que:veh Max Que: ft =========== APPR TOTALS Param:Units =========== AdjVol: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c Avg Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Max Que:veh Max Que: ft =========== N Approach RT TH LT E Approach RT TH LT S Approach RT TH LT ============== ============== ============== 242 12/1 22 68 1067 44 12/1 9 40 760 457 266 12/1 11/1 38 24 40 25 573 391 673 24/2 22 25 950 16 12/1 8 25 74 ABC C C C+ .23 .06 .80 .68 .71 .19 5.9 16.7 31.5 35.4 32.3 31.0· 6 3 60 39 91 2 23 7 101 60 153 3 4 98 1 14 10 25 33 347 249 316 1 25 ============== N Approach ============== 743 B .57 22.3 69 131 19 347 ============== ---------------------------- E Approach ----------------------------955 C .69 33.1 132 216 36 316 ============== 28 010 o o o 28 14/1 11 40 663 B .00 .12 .0 17.3 o 5 o 12· o o 2 57 20 0/0 o o o .00 .0 o o o o ============== S Approach ---------------------------- 76 B .12 17.3 5 12 2 57 ============== W Approach Int RT TH LT Total -------------------------------------- 59 0/0 o o o 1248 24/2 38 53 1986 307 12/1 23 25 446 B C .00 .66 .69 .0 16.0 35.2 o 87 45 o 235 70 o 31 12 o 383 289 ============== W Approach ---------------------------- 1614 B .66 19.7 132 305 43 383 ============== 3388 6910 C+ .64 24.0 338 664 100 3.83 ===== Int·· Total. ---------- 3388 C+ .64 24.0 338 664 100 383 ===== Amberwood Development Duvall Avenue NE7NE 4th Street Ctirrent p.M. Peak Hour File AMB-C1P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Capacity Analysis Summary 08/25/** 09:36:22 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) .64 Vehicle Delay 15.6 Level of Service C+ Sq 13 **/** . / \ North I Phase 1 + + * + + * <+ + *> v ,., <+ + +> + + + + + + G/C= .389· G= 35.0" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% Phase 2 + + <+ ,., **** ++++> ++++ v G/C= .236 G= 21.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=43.3% Phase 3 ,., **** <++++ ++++ v ++++> ++++ v G/C= .241 G= 21.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=71.4% C= 90 sec G= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= .0 sec = .0% -----------------------------------------------------~-------------------------I Lane IWidth/1 g/C 1 Service Rate 1 Adj 1 Group Lanes. Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume I HCM 1 L 190% Maxi vic Delay. S Queue N Approach 14.6 B ===================================~=========================================== RT 12/1 .221 .681 1041 1067 242 .227 3.5 A 98 ft TH 12/1 .087 •. 400 675 760 44 .058 10.7 B 33 ft LT 12/1 .377 .400 495 573 457 .798 20.8 *C .347 ft S Approach 11.0 B =============================================================================== ILT+TH+RTI 14/1 I .111 I .400 I 581 I 663 I 76 I .115 I 11.0 I B I 57 ft I E Approach 21.8 C =============================================================================== RT TH LT W Approach 11/1 24/2 12/1 .238 .225 .084 .253 .253 .253 290 790 48 391 950 74 266 673 16 .680 .708 .190 22.9 21.5 17.2 12.7 *C 249 ft C 316 ft C+ 25 ft B =============================================================================== TH+RT124/2 I· •379 1 .• 533 1 1946 1198611307 1.658 1 LT 12/1 .233 .247 335 446 307 .688 10.3 I B I 383 ftl 22.9 *C 289 ft Amberwood Development 08/25/** 144th Avenue SE/SE 128th Street 09:52:04 Current P.M. Peak Hour File AMB-C2P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA NONCBD LOSTTIME 3.0 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES .0 .0 .0 .0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 5 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 BUSVOLUMES 0 2 0 2 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 657 30 21 0 201 443 1315 0 WIDTHS .0 .0 .0 .0 24.0 12.0 12.0 .0 12.0 .0 24.0 .0 LANES 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 UTILIZATIONS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TRUCKPERCENTS .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 .0 4.0 .0 3.0 2.0 .0 .0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .90 .75 .75 1.00 .87 .94 .91 1.00 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900· 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ·1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 0 0 0 o 3711 122 1549 0 1752 o 3627 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 11 PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS YES YES YES YES OFFSET .00 1 CYCLES 90 110 10 PEDTIME .0 0 GREENTIMES 20.79 61.21 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 9 11 EXCESS 0 Amberwood Development 144th Avenue SE/SE 128th Street Current P.M. Peak Hour File AMB-C2P 08/25/** 09:51:28 SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Evaluation of Intersection Performance Sq 11 **/** North I Phase 1 Phase 2 <++++ ++++ v <* * * +> ****> + **** + G/C= .231 G= 20.8" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% v G/C= .680 G= 61.2" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=27.5% C= 90 sec G= 82.0 sec = 91.1% Y=8.0 sec = 8.9% Ped= .0 sec = MVMT TOTALS Param:Units ----------------------AdjVol: vph Wid/Ln:ft/# g/C Rqd@C:% g/C Used: % SV @E: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c Avg Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Max Que:veh Max Que: ft ---------------------- APPR TOTALS Param:Units ---------------------- AdjVol: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c Avg Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Max Que:veh Max Que: ft =========== N Approach E Approach RT TH LT RT TH LT ============== ============= 0 0 0 0 766 40 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 24/2 12/1 0 0 0 0 25 19 0 0 0 0 69 69 0 0 0 0 2565 78 ---------------------------- A B+ .00 .00 .00 .00 .30 .48 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.7 24.9 0 0 0 0 18 4 0 0 0 0 75 5 ----------------------------0 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 150 25 ============== ============== N Approach E Approach ============== ============== o 806 A .00 .31 .0 6.7 o 22 o 80 o 13 o 150 ============== ============== S Approach RT TH LT ----------------------------28 0 231 12/1 0/0 12/1 8 0 20 24 0 24 375 0 424 -------------- C+ C .08 .00 .55 26.7 .0 32.3 3 0 31 .5 0 50 --------------1 0 9 27 0 223 ---------------------------- S Approach ----------------------------259 C .49 31.7 34 55 --""'!"'----------- 10 223 ---------------------------- W Approach RT TH LT ============== 495 1517 0 0/0 24/2 0/0 0 56 0 0 69 0 0 2507 0 -------------- B+ .00 .80 .00 .0 11.3 .0 0 94 0 0 349 0 -------------- 0 31 0 0 389 0 ========='.===== WApproach ============== 2012 B+ .80 11.3 94 349 31 389 ============== .0% Int Total ---------- 3077 5949 B+ .65 11.8 150 484 54 389 ---------- Int Total ---------- 3077 B+ .65 11.8 150 484 54 389 ===== Amberwood Development 144th Avenue SE/SE 128th Street Current P.M. Peak Hour File AMB-C2P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (vic) .65 Vehicle Delay 7.6 -------------------------Sq 11 Phase 1 Phase 2 **/** ------------------------- . 1 \ <++++ ++++ v North <* +> ****> I * + **** * + v ------------------------- G/C= .231 G/C= .680 G= 20.8" G= 61.2" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% OFF=27.5% -------------------------C= 90 sec G= 82.0 sec = 91.1% Y= 8.0 sec = 8.9% Level of Ped= .0 08/25/** 09:51:23 Service B+ sec = .0% I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Rate I Adj I Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume I HCM I L /90% Maxi vic Delay S Queue S Approach 20.0 C =============================================================================== RT LT I 12/1 I .084 I .242 I 12/1 .• 197 .242 E Approach 273 I 314 375 I 424 28 I .075 I 231 .545 17.0 I C+I 27 ftl 20.4 *C 223 ft 3.7 A =============================================================================== TH LT I 24/2 I .250 I .691 I 2565 I 2565 I· 12/1 .191 .691 63 78 W Approach 766 I .299 I 40 .476 3.5 I A I 150 ftl 7.3 B+ 25 ft 7.6 B+ =============================================================================== TH+RTI 24/2 1.563 1.691 I 2507 I 2507 12012 1·803 I 7.6 I*B+I 389 ftl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ••.••••••.•••••• AMB-C3P.HCO Streets: (N-S) 148th Avenue SE (E-W) NE 4th/SE 128th St. Major Street Direction •••• EW Length of Time Analyzed ••• 60 (min) Analyst ••••••••••••••••••• C. V. Brown Date of Analysis ••••.•••.• 8/25/0 Other Information ••••••••• Current P.M. Peak Hour Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ======================================================================== Eastbound L T No. Lanes 1 2 Stop/Yield Volumes 55 1157 PHF .95 .95 Grade 0 Me's (%) 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 1 1 CV's (% ) 0 1 PCE's 1.00 1.01 Westbound R L T R -------- 0 0 2< 0 N N 608 21 .95 .95 0 0 0 1 1 1 ·0 1.01 1.00 .' Northbound L T R o 0 0 o Adjustment Factors Vehicle Maneuver Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Mlnor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Critical Gap (tg) 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 Southbound L T R 1 0 43 .95 0 0 1 0 1.00 Follow-up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 1 42 .95 0 1 0 1.00 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 *******~******************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection ----------------~---------------------------------------Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. ·of Queue-free State: NB SB 314 960 960 0.95 --------------------------------------------------------Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue-free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) WB NB EB 629 788 788 0.93 SB 1830 72 0.93 0.93 0.93 67 -Center For Microcomputers In Transportation BCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay -------------------------------------- SB L 45 67 148.5 SB R 44 960 3.9 EB L 58 788 4.9 Intersection Delay = 3.5 Delay LOS By App F A A 77.0 0.2 Amberwood Development 08/26/** 156th Avenue SE/SE 128th Street 11:16:54 Current. P.M. Peak Hour File AMB-C5P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA NONCBD LOSTTIME 3.0 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES .0 .0 .0 .0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 5 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 BUSVOLUMES 0 2 0 2 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 442 207 98 0 149 431 744 0 WIDTHS .0 .0 .0 .0 24.0 12.0 12.0 .0 12.0 .0 24.0 .0 LANES 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 UTILIZATIONS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TRUCKPERCENTS .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 .0 4.0 .0 3.0 2.0 .0 .0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .92 .90 .85 1.00 .87 .91 .91 1.00 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 0 0 0 o 3711 1805 1549 o 1752 o 3550 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 17 ALL PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE NONE' OVERLAPS YES YES YES YES OFFSET .00 1 CYCLES 90 110 10 PEDTIME .0 0 GREENTIMES 16.33 19.36 42.30 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 9 6 11 EXCESS 0 Amberwood Development 156th Avenue SE/SE 128th Street Current P.M. Peak Hour File AMB-C5P 08/26/** 11:16:20 SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Evaluation of Intersection Performance Sq 17 **/** . / \ North I Phase 1 <* +> * + * + G/C= .181 G= 16.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= -.0% Phase 2 <++++ **** v +> + + G/C= .215 G= 19.4" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=22.6% Phase 3 ****> **** v G/C= .470 G= 42.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF";'48.5% C= 90 sec G= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= .0 sec = .0% MVMT TOTALS N Approach E Approach S Approach W Approach Int Param:.Units RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total =========== ============== ============== ============== ============== --------- AdjVol: vph 0 0 0 0 504 230 115 0 171 498 859 0 2377 Wid/Ln:ftl# 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 24/2 12/1 12/1 0/0 12/1 0/0 24/2 0/0 g/C Rqd@C:% 0 0 0 0 19 19 14 0 16 0 41 0 g/C Used: % 0 0 0 0 23 23 45 0 19 0 48 0 SV @E: vph 0 0 0 0 839 408 700 0 336 0 1708 0 3991 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Svc Lvl:LOS C C B+ C B C+ Deg Sat:v/c .00 .00 .00 .00 .60 .56 .16 .00 .51 .00 .79 .00 .68 Avg Del:s/v .0 .0 .0 .0 32.2 33.6 15.1 .0 35.0 .0 21.7 .0 25.7 Tot Del:min 0 0 0 0 68 32 7 0 25 0 122 0 254 # Stops:veh 0 0 0 0 113 51 17 0 38 0 285 0 504 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Max Que:veh 0 0 0 0 19 9 3 0 7 0 35 0 73 Max Que: ft 0 0 0 0 247 222 81 0 176 0 442 0 442 -----------============== ============== ========:~:===== ============== ===== ----------- APPR TOTALS Int Param:Units N Approach E Approach S Approach W Approach Total -----------============== ============== ============== ============== --------------------- AdjVol: vph 0 734 286 1357 2377 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Svc Lvl:LOS C C+ B C+ Deg Sat:v/c .00 .59 .37 .79 .68 Avg Del:s/v .0 32.6 27.0 21.7 25~7 Tot Del:min 0 100 32 122 254 # Stops:veh 0 164 55 285 504 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Max Que:veh 0 28 10 35 73 Max Que: ft 0 247 176 442 442 =========== ============== ============== ============== ============== ===== Amberwood Development 156th Avenue SE/SE 128th Street Current P.M. Peak Hour File AMB-C5P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Capacity Analysis Summary 08/26/** 11:16:15. Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) .68 Vehicle Delay 16.9 Level of Service C+ Sq 17 **/** . / \ North I Phase 1 <* * * +> + + G/e= .181 G= 16.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= -.0% Phase 2 <++++ **** v Phase 3 +> ****> + **** + G/C= .215 G= 19.4" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=22.6% v G/C= .470 G= 42.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=48.5% ---------------------~---------------C= 90 sec G= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= .0 sec = •. 0% I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Rate I Adj I Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume I HCM I L 190% Maxi vIc Delay S Queue S Approach 17.0 c+ =============================================================================== RT LT I 12/1 I .141 I .452 I 12/1 .163 .193 E Approach 629 I 223 700 I 336 . . 115 I .164 I 171 .507 9.4 I B+I 81 ftl 22.1 *C 176 ft 21.1 C =============================================================================== TH LT I 24/2 I .186 I .226 I 12/1 .192 .226 W Approach 669 I 295 839 I 408 504 I .601 I 230 .564 21.0 I C I 247 ftl 21.3 *C 222 ft 14.6 B =============================================================================== TH+RTI 24/2 1.408 1.481 I 1645 1170811357 1.794 I 14.6 I*B I 442ftl Amberwood Development Duvall Avenue NE7NE 4th Street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour wlo Project File AMB-H1P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA LOSTTIME LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 3.0 C S o 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS N .0 o NONE o o 35 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT VOLUMES 241 39 439 WIDTHS 12.0 12.0 12.0 LANES 1 1 1 UTILIZATIONS .00 .00 .00 TRUCKPERCENTS 3.0 .0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS .81 .89 .92 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUP TYPES NORM NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 1568 1900 1431 Phasing Farameters SEQUENCES 13 ALL PERMISSIVES NO NO OVERLAPS YES YES CYCLES 90 110 GREENTIMES 35.02 21.21 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 12 EXCESS 0 RT 218 11.0 1 .00 .0 .71 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 E .0 o NONE o 2 20 TH 549 24.0 2 .00 1.0 .82 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LT 10 12.0 1 .00 .0 .63 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 1. 00 NORM NORM NORM 1549 3762 334 NO NO YES YES 10 21.78 4.00 4 RT 22 .0 0 .00 .0 .79 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 S .0 o NONE O· o o TH 21 14.0 1 .00 .0 .76 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 1. 00 LT 17 .0 0 .00 .0 .85 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM o 1656 0 LEAD LAGS OFFSET PEDTIME RT 48 .0 0 .00 .0 .86 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 08/25/** 09:43:10 w .0 o NONE o 2 o TH 1204~ 24.0 2 .00 1.0 .97 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 LT 279 12.0 1 .00 .0 .87 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .. NORM NORM NORM o 3725 1805· NONE NONE .00 1 .0 0 ~erwood Development Duvall Avenue NE/NE 4th street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour wlO Project File AMB-H1P 08/25/** 09:42:37 SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Evaluation of Intersection Performance Sq 13 **1** . I \ North I Phase 1 + + * + + * <+ + *> V A <+ + +> + + + + + + G/C= .389 G= 35.0" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% Phase 2 + + <+ A **** ++++> ++++ v G/C= .236 G= 21.2" Y+R=4.0" OFF=43.4% Phase 3 A **** <++++ ++++ V ++++> ++++ v G/C= .242 G= 21.8" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=71.4% C= 90 sec G= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% MVMT TOTALS N Approach E Approach S Approach Param:Units RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT =========== ============== ============== ============== AdjVol: vph 254 44 477 279 703 16 28 28 20 Wid/Ln:ft/# 1211 12/1 12/1 11/1 24/2 12/1 0/0 14/1 0/0 g/C Rqd@C:% 23 9 39 25 23 8 0 11 0 g/C Used: % 68 40 40 25 25 25 0 40 0 SV @E: vph 1067 760 573 392 952 74 0 663 0 ----------------------------------------------------- Svc Lvl:LOS A B C C C C+ B Deg Sat:v/c .24 .06 .83 .71 .74 .19 .00 .12 .00 Avg Del:s/v 6.0 16.7 34.5 36.7 33.0 30.9 .0 17.3 .0 Tot Del:min 6 3 69 43 97 2 0 5 0 # Stops:veh 24 7 107 64 161 3 0 12 0 -----------------------------------------------------Max Que:veh 4 1 14 10 26 1 0 2 0 Max Que: ft 103 33 362 260 330 25 0 57 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPR TOTALS Param:Units N Approach E Approach S Approach =========== ============== ============== ============== AdjVol: vph 775 998 76 -----------------------------------------------------Svc Lvl:LOS C+ C B Deg Sat:v/c .59 .72 .12 Avg Del:s/v 24.1 34.0 17.3 Tot Del:min 78 142 5 # Stops:veh 138 228 12 -----------------------------------------------------Max Que:veh 19 37 2 Max Que: ft 362 330 57 =========== ============== ============== ============== Ped= .0 sec = .0% W Approach Int RT TH LT Total ============== ===== 59 1303 321 3532 0/0 24/2 12/1 0 39 24 0 53 25 0 1986 445 6912 ------------------- B C C+ .00 .69 .72 .67 .0 16.5 36.5 24.9 0 94 49 368 0 251 74 703 ------------------- 0 32 12 102 0 400 302 400 ============== ---------- Int W Approach Total ============== ===== 1683 3532 ------------------- B C+ .69 .67 20.3 24.9 143 368 325 703 ------------------- 44 102 400 400 ============== ===== Amberwood Development Duvall Avenue NE1NE 4th street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/O Project File AMB-H1P . SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Capacity Analysis Summary 08/25/** 09:42:28 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) .67 Vehicle Delay 16.4 Level of Service C+ Sq 13 **/** . I \ North I Phase 1 + + * + + * <+ + *> v ,. <+ + +> + + + + + + G/C= .389 G= 35.0" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% Phase 2 + + <+ ,. **** ++++> ++++ v G/C= .236 G= 21.2" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=43.4% Phase 3 ,. **** <++++ ++++ v ++++> ++++ v G/c= .242 G= 21.8" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=71.4% C= 90 sec G= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= .0 sec = .0% . . ,~ --------------------------------------------------------------------~---------- I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Rate I Adj I Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume I HCM I L 190% Maxi v/c Delay S Queue N Approach 15.8 C+ =============================================================================== RT 12/1 .229 .680 1041 1067 254 .238 I 3.6 A 103 ft TH 12/1 .087 .400 675 760 44 .058 10.7 B 33.ft LT 12/1 .390 .400 495 573 477 .832 22.8 *C 362 ft S Approach 11.0 B =============================================================================== ILT+TH+RTI 14/1 I .111 I .400 I 581 I 663 I 76 I .115 I 11.0 I BI ~7 ftl E Approach 22.5 C =============================================================================== RT TH LT W Approach 11/1 24/2 12/1 .246 .232 .084 .253 .253 .253 291 792 48 392 952 74 279 703 16 .712 .738 .190 23.9 22.1 17.2 13.2 *C 260 ft C 330 ft C+ 25 ft B =============================================================================== TH+RTI 24/2 I .392 I .533 I 1946 I 1986 I 1362 I .686 I LT 12/1 .240 ~247·l 334 445 321 .721 10.7 I B I 400 ftl 24.0 *C . 302 ft -----------------------------------------------------------------'-------------- Amberwood Development 144th Avenue SE/SE 128th street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour wlo Project File AMB-H2P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA LOSTTIME LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 3.0 C S o 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS N .0 o NONE o o o Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT VOLUMES 0 0 0 WIDTHS .0 .0 .0 LANES 0 0 0 UTILIZATIONS .00 .00 .00 TRUCKPERCENTS .0 .0 .0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 1.00 1. 00 1.00 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 0 0 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 11 PERMISSIVES NO NO OVERLAPS YES YES CYCLES 90 110 GREENTlMES 20.58 61.42 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 9 11 EXCESS 0 E .0 o NONE o 2 o RT TH LT 0 686 30 .0 24.0 12.0 0 2 1 .00 .00 .00 .0 2.0 .0 1. 00 .90 .75 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5 .• 0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM· NORM NORM o 3711 122 NO NO YES YES 10 RT 21 12.0 1 .00 4.0 .75 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 S .0 5 NONE o o o TH 0 ~O 0 .00 .0 1.00 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 LT 210 12.0 1 .00 3.0 .87 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 1549 o 1752 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME 08/25/** 09:55:22 RT 463 W .0 o NONE o 2 o TH 1373 .0 24.0 o -2 .00 .00 2.0 .0 .94 .91 3 3 YES YES 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 LT 0 .0 0 .00 .0 1.00 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM o 3627 0 NONE NONE .00 1 .0 0 ~erwood Development 144th Avenue SE/SE l28th Street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/O Project File AMB-H2P 08/25/** 09:54:50 SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Evaluation of Intersection Performance Sq 11 **/** . / \ North I Phase 1 Phase 2 <++++ ++++ v <* * * +> ****> + **** + G/C= .229 G= 20.6". Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% v G/C= .682 G= 61.4" Y+R=4.0" OFF=27.3% C= 90 sec G= 82.0 sec = 91.1% Y= 8.0 sec = 8.9% Ped= .0 sec = .0% MVMT TOTALS N Approach E Approach S Approach W Approach. Int Param:Units RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total -----------============== --------------============== ============== ===== ------------------------- ~djVol: vph 0 0 0 0 800 40 28 0 241 518 1584 0 3211 Nid/Ln:ft7# 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 24/2 12/1 12/1 0/0 12/1 0/0 24/2 0/0 g/C Rqd@C:% 0 0 0 0 26 19 8 0 20 0 59 0 g/C Used: % 0 0 0 0 69 69 24 0 24 0 69 0 SV @E: vph 0 0 0 0 2574 78 371 0 420 0 2516 0 5959 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Svc Lvl:LOS A B+ C+ C B+ B+ Deg Sat:v/c .00 .00 .00 .00 .31 .48 .08 .00 .57 .00 .83 .00 .67 ~vg Del:s/v .0 .0 .0 .0 5.7 24.8 26.9 .0 32.9 .0 12.1 .0 12.4 Tot Del:min 0 0 0 0 19 4 3 0 33 0 106 0 165 # Stops:veh 0 0 0 0 78 5 .5 0 53 0 383 0 524 ------------------------------------------------------------------~ ----- Max Que:veh 0 0 0 0 12 1 1 0 9 0 32 0 55 Max Que: ft 0 0 0 0 155 25 27 0 233 0 404 0 404 =========== =============::: ============== ------------------------------------------------------------------ M>PR TOTALS Int Param:Units N Approach E Approach S Approach W Approach Total -----------============== ============== ============== ============== ===== ----------- ~djVol: vph 0 840 269 2102 3211 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Svc Lvl:LOS A C B+ B+ Deg Sat:v/c .00 .32 .52 .83 .67 ~vg Del:s/v .0 6.6 32.3 12.1 12.4 Tot Del:min 0 23 36 106 165 # Stops:veh 0 83 58 383 524 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Max Que:veh 0 13 10 32 55 Max Que: ft 0 155 233 404 404 =========== ============== ============== ============== ============== ===== Amberwood Development 144th Avenue SE/sE 128th Street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour w/O Project File AMB-H2P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: 08/25/** 09:54:44 Degree of Saturation (vic) .67 Vehicle Delay 8.1 Level of Service B+ Sq 11 **j** . I \ North I Phase 1 Phase 2 <++++ ++++ v <* * * +> ****> + **** + G/c= .229 G= 20.6" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% v G/c= .682 G= 61.4" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=27.3% C= 90 sec G= 82.0 sec = 91.1% Y= 8.0 sec = 8.9% Ped= .0 sec = .0% I Lane IWidth/1 g/C 1 Service Rate 1 Adj 1 Group Lanes Reqd Used@C (vph) @E Volume I HCM I L 190% Maxi vIc Delay S QUeue S Approach 20.5 C =============================================================================== RT LT 1 12/1 1 .084 I .240 1 12/1 .202 .240 E Approach 269. I 310 371 I 420 28 1 .075 1 241 .574 17.1 I C+I 27 ftl 20.9 *C 233 ft 3.7 A =============================================================================== TH LT I 24/2 I .258 I .694 I 2574 I 2574 I 800 I .311 I 12/1 .191 .694 63 78 40 .470 W Approach 3.5 I A I 155 ftl 7.2 B+ 25 ft 8.4 B+ =============================================================================== TH+RTI 24/2 I .585 I .694 I 2516 I 2516 I 2102 I .835 I 8.4 I*B+I 404 ftl Center For Microcomputers In Transportation. HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name •••.•••••••...•• AMB-H3P.HCO Streets: (N-S) 148th Avenue SE (E-W) -NE 4th/SE 128th St. Major Street Direction •••• EW Length of Time Analyzed ••. 60 (min) Analyst ••••••••••••••••••• C. V. Brown Date of Analysis •••••••••• 8/25/0 Other Information ••••••••• 2002 P.M. Peak Hour, Baseline Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ======================================================================== Eastbound L T R Westbound L T R Northbound L T R -------- No. Lanes 1 2 0 0 2< 0 o 0 Stop/Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (%) SU/RV's CV's (%) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver (%) 55 1208 .95 .95 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1.00 1.01 Left Turn Major Road N N 635 21 .95 .95 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1.01 1.00 Adjustment Factors Critical Gap (tg) Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 o 0 Southbound L T R 1 0 43 .95 0 0 1 0 1.00 Follow-up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 1 42 .95 0 1 0 1.00 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation BCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Probe of Queue-free state: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Probe of Queue-free State: . Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TB Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) NB WB NB SB 328 944 944 0.95 EB 656 762 762 0.92 SB 1908 64 0.92 0.92 0.92 59 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App ----------------------------------------------------- SB L 45 59 207.1 F 106.8 SB R 44 944 4.0 A EB L 58 762 5.1 B 0.2 Intersection Delay = 4.7 Amberwood Development 08/25/** 156th Avenue SE/SE 128th Street 10:09:26 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/O Projects File AMB-H5P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Summary. of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA NONCBD LOSTTIME 3.0 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES .0 .0 .0 .0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 5 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 BUSVOLUMES 0 2 0 2. RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 462 208 98 0 149 432 777 0 WIDTHS .0 .0 .0 .0 24.0 12.0 12.0 .0 12.0 .0 24.0 .0 LANES 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 UTILIZATIONS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TRUCKPERCENTS .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 .0 4.0 .0 3.0 2.0 .0 .0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .92 .90 .85 1.00 .87 .91 .91 1.00 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 0 0 0 o 3711 1805 1549 o 1752 o 3556 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 17 ALL PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEAD LAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS YES YES YES YES OFFSET .00 1 CYCLES 90 110 10 PEDTlME .0 0 GREENTlMES 16.12 19.17 42.71 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4 .. 00 4.00 CRITICALS 9 6 11 EXCESS 0 "\ Amberwood Development 156th Avenue SE/sE 128th Street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour wlO Projects File AMB-H5P 08/25/** 10:08:58 SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Evaluation of Intersection Performance Sq 17 **/** . / \ North I Phase 1 <* +> * + * + G/C= .179 G= 16.1" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% Phase 2 I Phase 3 <++++ **** v +> + + G/C= .213 G= 19.2" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=22.4% ****> **** v G/C= .475 G= 42.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=48.1% C= 90 sec G= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= .0 sec = .0% MVMT TOTALS Param:Units ----------------------AdjVol: vph Wid/Ln:ft/# g/C Rqd@C:% g/C Used: % SV @E: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c Avg Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Max Que:veh Max Que: ft =========== APPR TOTALS Param:Units ---------------------- AdjVol: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c Avg Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Max Que:veh Max Que: ft ---------------------- N Approach RT TH LT ============== E Approach RT TH LT ============== S Approach RT TH LT ============== o 0/0 o o o o 0/0 o o o o 0/0 o o o o 527 0/0 24/2 o 19 o 22 o 832 231 115 12/1 12/1 19 14 22 45 405 693 o 0/0 o o o 171 12/1 16 19 332 .00 .0 o o o o .00 .0 o o o o .00 .0 o o o o C C .00 .63 .57 .0 32.8 33.8 o 72 33 o 119 51 o 20 9 o 259 224 ============== ============== N Approach E Approach --------------------------------------------------------o 758 C .00 .61 .033.1 o 105 o 170 o 29 o 259 ============== ============== B+ .17 15.3 7 17 3 81 C .00 .51 .0 35.3 o 25 o 38 o 7 o 176 ---------------------------- S Approach ============== 286 C+ .37 27.3 32 55 10 176 ============== W Approach Int RT TH LT Total ============== 499 896 0/0 24/2 o 42 o 49 o 1727 B .00 .81 .0 21.8 o 127 o 295 o 36 o 450 o 0/0 o o o .00 .0 o o o o ============== W Approach ============== 1395 B .81 21.8 127 295 36 450 ============== ---------- 2439 3989 C+ .70 26.0 264 520 75 450 ===== Int Total ---------- 2439 C+ .70 26.0 264 520 75 450 ===== Amberwood Development 156th Avenue SE/SE 128th Street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/O Projects File AMB-H5P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Capacity Analysis Summary 08/25/** 10:08:53 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) .70 Vehicle Delay 17.1 Level of Service C+ Sq 17 **/** . / \ North I Phase 1 <* +> * + * + G/C= .179 G=16.1" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% Phase 2 <++++ **** v +> + + G/C= .213 G= 19.2" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=22.4% Phase 3 ****> **** v G/C= .475 G= 42.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=48.1% C= 90 sec G= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= .0 sec = .0% I Lane I Width I I g/C I Service Rate I Adj I Group . Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume I HCM I L 190% Maxi vic . Delay SQueue S Approach 17.2 C+ =============================================================================== RT LT \ 12/1 \ .141 \ .448 \ 12/1 .163 .190 E Approach 621 I 219 693 I 332 115\ .166\ 171 .514 9.6 \ B+I 81 ftl 22.3 *C 176 ft 21.5 C ===============================================================================. TH LT \ 24/2 \ .192 1.224 \ 12/1 .193 .224 W Approach. 661 \ 291 832 I 405 527 \ .633 \ 231.570 21.5 \ C I 259 ftl 21.5 *C 224 ft 14.8 B =============================================================================== TH+RTI 24/2 1.417 I .486 I 1666 11727 I 1395 1.808 I 14.8 I*B 1450 ftl Amberwood Development 08/25/** Duvall Avenue NE/NE 4th Street 09:48:13 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/Projects File AMB-P1P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA NONCBD LOSTTIME 3.0 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES .0 .0 .0 .0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 BUSVOLUMES 0 2 0 2 RIGHTTURNONREDS 35 20 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 241 39 482 242 593 10 22 21 17 48 1285 279 WIDTHS 12.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 24.0 12.0 .0 14.0 .0 .0 24.0 12.0 LANES 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 UTILIZATIONS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TRUCKPERCENTS 3.0 .0 2.0 .0 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0 PEAKHOURFACTORS .81 .89 .92 .71 .82 .63 .79 .76 .85 .86 .97 .87 ARRIVAL TYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 . FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM SATURATI ONFLOWS 1568 1900 1435 1549 3762 335 o 1657 0 o 3726 1805 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 13 ALL PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS· NONE NONE OVERLAPS YES YES YES YES OFFSET .00 1 CYCLES 90 110 10 PEDTIME .0 0 GREENTIMES 37.28 19.06 21.66 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 12 4 EXCESS 0 " Amberwood Development Duvall Avenue NE7NE 4th Street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/Projects File AMB-P1P 08/25/** 09:47:36 SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Evaluation of Intersection Performance Sq 13 **/** . / \ North I Phase 1 + + * + + * <+ + *> v A <+ + +> + + + + + + G/C= .414 G= 37.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% Phase 2 + + <+ ,.. **** ++++> ++++ v G/C= .212 G= 19.1" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=45.9% Phase 3 ,.. **** <++++ ++++ V ++++> ++++ v G/C= .241 G= 21. 7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=71.5% C= 90 sec G= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= .0 sec = .0% MVMT TOTALS N Approach E Approach S Approach W Approach Int Param:Units RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total =========== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AdjVol: vph 254 44 524 313 759 16 28 28 20 59 1391 321. 3757 Wid/Ln:ft/# 12/1 12/1 12/1 11/1 24/2 12/1 0/0 14/1 0/0 0/0 24/2 12/1 g/C Rqd@C:% 23 9 42 27 25 8 0 11 0 0 41 24 g/C Used: % 68 43 43 25 25 25 0 43 0 0 51 22 SV @E: vph 1069 808 610 390 947 74 0 705 0 0 1893 402 6898 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Svc Lvl:LOS A B+ C D+ C C+ B B D+ C+ Deg Sat:v/c .24 .05 .86 .80 .80 .19 ~oo .11 .00 .00 .77 .80 .73 Avg Del:s/v 6.0 15.3 35.8 43.1 35.2 31.0 .0 15.9 .0 .0 19.4 43.6 28.0 Tot Del:min 6 3 78 56 111 2 0 5 0 0 117 58 436 # Stops:veh 24 6 119 73 178 3 0 11 0 0 292 76 782 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Max Que:veh 4 1 15 12 28 1 0 2 0 0 36 12 111 Max Que: ft 103 32 381 293 357 25 0 55 0 0 448 312 448 =========== ------------------------------------------============== ===== ------------------------------------------ APPR TOTALS Int Param:Units N Approach E Approach S Approach W Approach Total =========== ============== --------------============= ---------------------------------------------------- AdjVol: vph 822 1088 76 1771 3757 ------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Svc Lvl:LOS C+ D+ B C+ C+ Deg Sat:v/c .62 .79 .11 .77 .73 Avg Del:s/v 25.5 37.4 15.9 23.8 28.0 Tot Del:min 87 169 5 175 436 # Stops:veh 149 254 11 368 782 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Max Que:veh 20 41 2 48 111 Max Que: ft 381 357 55 448 448 -----------------------------------------------------============== --------------------------------------------------------------- Amberwood Development Duvall Avenue NEINE 4th street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/Projects File AMB-P1P 08/25/** 09:47:30 SIGNAL94/T~~A~[V1 L1.4] -Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (vIc) .73 Vehicle Delay 18.5 Level of Service C+ Sq 13 **/** . I \ North I Phase 1 + + * + + * <+ + *> v A <+ + +> + + + + + + G/C~ .414 G= 37.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% Phase 2 + + <+ A **** ++++> ++++ v G/C= .212 G= 19.1" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=45.9% Phase 3 A **** <++++ ++++ V ++++>. ++++ 'v G/c= .241 G= 21.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=71.5% C= 90 secG= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= .0 sec = .0% I Lane IWidth/1 g/C I Service Rate I Adj I Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume I HCM I L 190% Maxi vIc Delay S Queue N Approach 16.5 c+ =============================================================================== RT TH LT S Approach 12/1 12/1 12/1 .229 .087 .418 .682 .425 .425 1043 728 536 1069 808. 610 254 44 524 .238 .054 .859 3.5 9.8 23.4 10.1 A 103 ft B+ 32 ft *C 381 ft B =============================================================================== ILT+TH+RTI 14/1 I .111 I .4~5 I 628 I 705 I 76 I .108 I 10.1 I B I 55 ft I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------. . E Approach 25.1 0+ =============================================================================== RT TH LT 11/1 24/2 12/1 .267 .245 .084 .252 .252 .252 289 786 48 390 313 947 759 74. 16 .803 .801 .190 28.3 23.9 17.2 *0+ 293 ft C 357 ft· C+ 25 ft -------------------------------------------------------------------------------. . . W Approach 15.8 C+ =============================================================================== TH+RT I 24/2 I .413 I .508 I 1843 I 1893 I 1450 I .766 I LT 12/1 .240 .223 288 402 321 .799 12.9 I B I 448 ftl 28.8 *0+ 312 ft· lIIlherwood Development .. 08/25/** .44th Avenue SE/Jericho Ave./SE 128th Street 09:59:29 ~002 P.M. Peak Hour W/Projects, N. Leg Built File AMB-P2P iIGNAL94/TEAPAC[Vl L1.4] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters IETROAREA NONCBD .OSTTIME 3.0 ~EVELOFSERVICE C S IODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters UlPLABELS N E S W ;RADES .0 .0 .0 .0 )EDLEVELS 0 0 5 0 )ARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE )ARKVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 mSVOLUMES 0 2 0 2 UGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters mVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT 70LUMES 8 0 1 1 746 30 21 0 210 463 1481 16 HDTHS .0 14.0 .0 .0 24.0 12.0 12.0 .0 12.0 .0 24.0 .0 :.ANES 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 JTILIZATIONS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 rRUCKPERCENTS .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 .0 4.0 .0 3.0 2.0 .0 .0 ?EAKHOURFACTORS .90 1.00 .80 1.00 .90 .75 .75 1.00 .87 .94 .91 1.00 ffiRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 \.CTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES mQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 UNIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 [DEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900· 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ~ACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 )ELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ilSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ;ROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM· 5ATURATIONFLOWS 0 1398 0 0·3710 117 1549 o 1752 o 3266 0 Phasing Parameters mQUENCES 11 ?ERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE NONE )VERLAPS YES YES YES YES OFFSET .00 1 ::YCLES 90 110 10 PEDTIME .0 0 ;REENTIMES 18.19 63.81 lELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 ::RITICALS 9 11 ~XCESS 0 ~erwood Development 144th Avenue SE/Jericho Ave./SE 128th street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/Projects, N. Leg Built 08/25/** 09:59:00 File AMB-P2P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[VI Ll.4] -Evaluation of Intersection Performance Sq 11 **/** T North I Phase 1 + + + + <+ +> <* +> * + * + G/C= .202 G= 18.2" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% Phase 2 ,. ++++ <++++ ,. ++++ **** v ****> **** v G/C= .709 G= 63.8" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=24.7% C= 90 sec G= 82.0 sec = 91.1% Y= 8.0 sec = 8.9% Ped= .0 sec = MVMT TOTALS Param:Units -------------------- AdjVol: vph Wid/Ln:ft/# g/C Rqd@C:% g/C Used: % SV @E: vph ----------- Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c Avg Del:s/v Tot Del:min 11 Stops :veh ----------- Max Que:veh Max Que: ft ========== APPR TOTALS Param:Units ========== AdjVol: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c Avg Del:s/v Tot Del:min 11 Stops:veh Max Que:veh Max Que: ft ------------------- N Approach RT TH LT ============== 9 0 1 0/0 14/1 0/0 0 8 0 0 21 0 0 295 0 -------------- C+ .00 .03 .00 .0 28.3 .0 0 1 0 0 2 0 -------------- 0 0 0 0 25 0 ============== N Approach ============== 10 C+ .03 28.3 1 2 o 25 ============== E Approach S Approach RT TH LT RT TH LT ============== ============== 1 870 40 28 0 241 0/0 24/2 12/1 12/1 0/0 12/1 0 28 19 8 0 20 0 72 72 21 0 21 0 2672 79 329 0 374 ---------------------------- A B+ C+ C .00 .33 .48 .09 .00 .64 .0 4.9 23.9 28.8 .0 36.4 0 18 4 3 0 37 0 80 4 ·6 0 55 ---------------------------- 0 12 1 1 0 9 0 154 25 28 0 241 ============== ============== E Approach S Approach ============== ============== 911 269 A C .33 .59 5.7 35.6 22 40 84 61 --------------------~-------13 10 154 241 ============== ============== W Approach RT TH LT ============== 518 1708 17. 0/0 24/2 0/0 0 68 0 0 72 0 0 2352 0 -------------- B .00 .95 .00 .0 17~3 .0 0 161 0 0 501 0 -------------- 0 31 0 0 393 0 ============== W Approach ============== 2243 B .95 17.3 161 501 31 393 ============== .0% Int Total ===== 3433 6101 ----- B .76 15.7 224 648 ----- 54 393 ---------- Int Total ===== 3433 B .76 15.7 224 648 54 393 ---------- ~erwood Development 144th Avenue SE/Jericho Ave./SE 128th Street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/Projects, N. Leg Built File AMB-P2P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) .76 Vehicle Delay 12.2 Sq 11 **/** . / \ North I Phase 1 Phase 2 -------------------------+ + + + <+ +> <* +> * + * + G/C= .202 G= 18.2" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% " ++++ <++++ " ++++ **** v ****> **** v G/C= .709 G= 63.8" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=24.7% 08/25/** 09:58:49 Level of Service B C= 90 sec G= 82.0 sec = 91.1% Y= 8.0 sec =8.9% Ped= .0 sec ,= .0% -----------------------------------------~------------------------------------- I Lane IWidth// g/C I Service Rate/ Adj I Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume I HCM / L /90% Maxi vic Delay S Queue N Approach 18.1 C+ =============================================================================== ILT+TH+RTI 14/1 I .076 I .213 I 201 I 295 I 10 I .034 I 18.1 I c+1 25 ftl S Approach 23.0 C =============================================================================== RT LT I 12/1 I .084 I .213 I 12/1 .202 .213 E Approach 226 I 261 329 I 374 28 I .085 I 241 .644 18.3 I C+I 28 ftl 23.5 *C· 241 ft 3.2 A =============================================================================== TH+RTI 24/2 I .275 I .720 I 2672 I 2672 I LT 12/1 .191 .720 64 79 W Approach 871 I .326 I 40 .476 3.0 I A I 154 ftl 6.6 B+ 25 ft B =============================================================================== ILT+TH+RTI 24/2 I .683 I .720 I 2352 I 2352 I 2243 I .954 I 14.6 I*B I 393 ftl ". Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 . Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ••••••.•.••••••• AMB-P3P.HCO Streets: (N-S) 148th Avenue SE (E-W) NE 4th/SE 128th St. Major Street Direction •••• EW Length of Time Analyzed ••. 60 (min) Analyst ••••••••••••.•••••• C. V. Brown Date of Analysis •••••••••• 8/25/0 Other Information ••••••••• 2002 P.M. Peak Hour, with Amberwood & Maplewood Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ======================================================================== Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R -------- ------------------------ No. Lanes 1 2< 0 1 2< 0 1 1< 0 1 1< 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 55 1218 99 14 641 21 55 1 8 43 1 42 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 1 1, 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 CV's (%) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.00 1.01 1.1 1.1 1.01 1.00 1.1 , 1.1 1.1 1.00 1.1 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vehicle Maneuver Adjustment Factors Critical Gap (tg) Follow-up Time (tf) ---------------------------------------~--------------------------Left Turn Major Road Right Turn M1nor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 -:3/-- Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Probe of Queue-free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Probe of Queue-free State: . . Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Probe of Queue-free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) NB 658 643 643 0.99 WB 1317 337 337 0.95 NB 1998 74 0.88 65 ,0.98 NB 1979 57 0.86 0.89 0.85 .49 SB 331 941 941 0.95 EB 662 756 756 0.92 SB 2038 70 0.88 61 0.98 SB 1938 61 0.86 0.90 0.88 54 _-:?2 - Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App -----------------------------------------------------NB L 64 49 847.6 F NB T 1 65 > > > 718.9 NB R 9 643 > 340 > 10.9 > C SB L 45 54 266.7 F SB T 1 61 > > > 133.1 SB R 44 941 > 713 > 5.4 > B EB L 58 756 5.2 B 0.2 WB L 17 337 11.2 C 0.2 Intersection Delay = 26.3" Center For Microcomputers In 'rransportation HeS: UnsignalizedIntersection Release 2.1 Page 1 **************************************************************** File Name ••.•••.•.•••••.• AMa-P4P.HCO Streets: (N-S) 152nd Avenue SE (E-W) NE 4th/SE 128th St. Major Street Direction •••• EW Length of Time Analyzed ••• 60 (min) Analyst •••••••••.••••••••• C. V. Brown Date of Analysis ••••••••.• 8/25/0 Other Information ••••••••• 2002 P.M. Peak Hour, with Amberwood & Maplewood Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection ======================================================================== Eastbound Westbound Northbound L T R L T R L ------------------------ No. Lanes 0 2< 0 0> 2< 0 0> Stop/Yield N N Volumes 1218 9 1 626 0 5 paF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 Me's (%) 0 '0 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%) 1 0 0 1 1 0 CV's (%) 1 0 0 1 0 0 peE's 1.01 1.1 1.1 1.01 1 1.1 Vehicle Maneuver Adjustment Factors Critical Gap (tg) Left Turn Ma~or Road Right Turn M1nor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn.Minor Road 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 T R -------- 1< 0 0 2 .95 .95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 Southbound L T 0 0 0 Follow"';up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 R 0 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 **************************************************************** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Probe of Queue-free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Probe of Queue-free State: THo Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Probe of Queue-free State: Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Probe of Queue-free State: NB 614 676 676 1.00 WB 1227 376 376 1.00 3800 1900 1.00 NB 1850 90 1.00 90 1.00 SB EB SB -------~------------------------------------------------Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB ------------------~-------------------------------------Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1850 69 1.00 1~00 1.00 69 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation BCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 **************************************************************** Movement NB L NB R WB L Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay ------------------------------ 6 69 > > 89 44.4 2 676 > > 1 376 9.6 Intersection Delay = 0.3 Delay LOS By App ---------------> E 44.4 > B 0.0 Arnberwood Development 08/26/** 156th Avenue SE/SE 128th Street 11:18:42 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/Projects File AMB-P5P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters METROAREA NONCBD LOSTTIME 3.0 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES .0 .0 .0 .0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 5 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 BUSVOLUMES 0 2 0 2 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT . RT TH LT .RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 0 0 0 0 477 208 98 0 149 433 786 0 WIDTHS .0 .0 .0 .0 24.0 12.0 12.0 .0 12.0 .0 24.0 .0 LANES 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 UTILIZATIONS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TRUCKPERCENTS .0 .0 .0 .0 2.0 .0 4.0 .0 3.0 2.0 .0 .0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .92 .90 .85 1.00 .87 .91 .91 1.00 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 0 0 0 o 3711 1805 1549 o 1752 o 3558 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 17 ALL PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE . NONE OVERLAPS YES YES YES YES OFFSET .00 1 CYCLES 90 110 10 PEDTIME .0 0 GREENTIMES 16.12 19.17 42.71 YELLOWTlMES· 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 9 6 11 EXCESS 0 Amberwood Development 156th Avenue SE/SE 128th Street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/Projects File AMB-P5P 08/26/** 11:18:23 SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Evaluation of Intersection Performance Sq 17 **/** . / \ North I Phase 1 <* +> * + * + G/C= .179 G= -16.1" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% Phase 2 <++++ **** v +> + + G/C= .213 G= 19.2" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=22.4% Phase 3 ****> **-** v G/C= .475 G= 42.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=48.1% c= 90 sec G= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= .0 sec = .0% MVMT TOTALS Param:Units =========== AdjVol: vph Wid/Ln:ft/# g/C Rqd@C:% g/C Used: % SV' @E: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c Avg Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Max Que:veh Max Que: ft =========== APPR TOTALS Param:Units ---------------------- AdjVol: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c Avg Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Max Que:veh Max Que: ft ---------------------- N Approach RT TH LT ============== 0 0 0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------- .00 .00 .00 .0 .0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ============== N Approach ============== o .00 .0 o o o o ============== E Approach RT TH LT ---------------------------- 0 544 231 0/0 24/2 12/1 0 20 19 0 22 22 0 832 405 -------------- C C .00 .65 .57 .0 33.1 33.8 0 75 33 0 124 51 -------------- 0 21 9 0 267 224 ============== E Approach ============== 775 C .63 33.3 108 175 30 267 ============== S Approach RT TH LT ============== 115 0 171 12/1 0/0 12/1 14 0 16 45 0 19 693 0 332 --------------B+ C .17 .00 .51 15.3 .0 35.3 7 0 25 17 0 38 -------------- 3 0 7 81 0 176 ---------------------------- S Approach ============== 286 C+ .37 27.3 32 55 . 10 176 ============== W Approach RT TH LT ============== 500 907 0 0/0 24/2 0/0 0 42 0 0 49 0 0 1728 0 --------------B .00 .81 .00 .0 22.1 .0 0 129 0 0 299 0 -------------- 0 36 0 0 454 0 ============== W Approach ============== 1407 B .81 22.1 129 299 36 454 ============== Int Total ===== 2468 3990 ----- C+ .70 26.2 269 529 ----- 76 454 ---------- Int -Total ---------- 2468 C+ .70 26.2 269 529 76 454 ---------- Amberwood Development 156th Avenue SE/sE 128th Street 2002 P.M. Peak Hour W/Projects File AMB-P5P SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.4] -Capacity Analysis Summary 08/26/** 11:18:11 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (vIc) .71 Vehicle Delay 17.3 Level of Service C+ Sq 17 **1** . I \ North I Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 <++++ **** v <* +> +> ****> * + + **** * + + v -------------------------------------G/c= .179 G= 16.1" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= .0% G/c= .213 G= 19.2" ·Y+R= 4.0" OFF=22.4% G/c= .475 G= 42.7" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=48.1% C= 90 sec G= 78.0 sec = 86.7% Y=12.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= .0 sec = .0% I Lane I widthl I g./C I Service Rate I Adj I Group Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E Volume I HCM I L 190% Maxi vIc Delay S Queue S Approach 17.2 C+ =============================================================================== RT LT I 12/1 I .141 I .448 I 12/1 .163 .190 E Approach 621 I 219 693 I 332 115 I .166 I 171 .514 9.6 I B+I 81 ftl 22~3 *C 176 ft 21.7 C =============================================================================== TH LT I 24/2 I .196 I .224 I 12/1 .193 .224 W Approach 661 I 291 832 I 405 544 I .654 I 231 .570 21.8 I C I 267 ftl 21.5 *C 224 ft 14.9 B ==============================~================================================ TH+RTI 24/21 .420 I .486 I 16671 1728 I 1407 I .814 I 14~9 I*B I 454 ftl 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ CORE ~DESIGN Core Design, Inc. 14711 N.E. 29th place Suite #101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 PRELIMINARY STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Project Manager: Prepared by: Date: Core No.: FOR AMBERWOOD II RENTON,WASHINGTON David E. Cayton, P.E. James A. Morin, P.E. September 2004 04027 ENGINEERING PLANNING· SURVEYING I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AMBERWOOD II TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Overview 2. Off-Site Analysis 3. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW: The Amberwood II project will meet the City of Renton's standard by providing detention to the Level II standard and water quality from the Basic Water Quality menu. 2. OFFSITE ANALYSIS: Upstream Tributary Area There is no upstream area tributary to the subject site. Downstream Analysis This offsite analysis was performed on September 15,2004. The site sheet flows to the south west comer where the surface runoff enters a wetland area to the south of the project. This wetland area flows in a well defined low area to an 18-inch culvert under 2nd ST and then on to another well defined channel to the south west. No evidence of erosion or flooding was found during this downstream analysis. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN: A. Hydraulic Analysis The drainage analysis was modeled using the King County Runoff Time Series software. The site soils are Alderwood (AgC), KCRTS group Till. See attached soils map. The site is located in the Landsburg rainfall region with a location scale factor of 1.0 .. EXISTING CONDITIONS The 4.56 acre site is a combination of impervious surfaces, till-grass, till-pasture and till- forest. For preliminary purposes the site is assumed to be all forested The ,following information was used for generating time series and flow frequencies. EXISTING CONDITIONS Total Area = 4.56 acres GROUND COVER AREA(acre) Till-Grass 0.00 Till-Pasture 0.00 Till-Forest 4.56 Impervious 0.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DEVELOPED CONDITIONS The developed site will consist of 17 single-family residences with associated roadway and utilities. Along with frontage improvements along NE 4th ST The impervious area was calculated using the criteria in City of Renton standards the reqllire 4000 sf of impervious area to be assumed on each lot. Therefore the developed condition timeseries was detennined using the impervious area of the road and 4000 sf per lot. The remaining area is assumed to be grass. The input used for the KCRTS analysis is summarized in the table below: DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Total Area = 4.56 acre GROUND COVER AREA(acre) Till-Grass (Landscaping) 2.34 Impervious 2.22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B. Detention Routing Calculations The City of Renton requires that Level 2 Flow Control applies to the subject site. The live storage portion within a wetvault will be used for flow control. See attached KCRTS printouts for vault design. 46,200 cf required as live storage in the pond c. Water Quality Calculations The water quality volume forAmberwood II was calculated using the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), 1998 Edition, pages 6-68 to 6-71. Vb = f*(0.9A; + 0.25Atg + 0.10Atf+ 0.10Ao)*(Rl12) Where, Vb = wetpool volume (cf) f = volume factor Ai = area of impervious surface (sf) Atg = area of till soil covered with grass (sf) Atf = area of till soil covered with forest (sf) Ao = area of outwash soil covered with grass or forest R = rainfall from mean annual storm (inches) (refer to the attached precipitation graph) Vr = 0.90*Ai + 0.25*AgXRl12 Vr = [0.90*(2.22*43560) + 0.25*(2.34*43560)] x Rl12 Vr = (87,032 +25,282) x 0.47/12 Vr =4,398 Vb = 3 x Vr Vb = 3 * 4,398 Vb = 13,200 cf Dead Storage 13,200 cf required as dead storage in the pond I I I APPENDIX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TerraServer Image Courtesy of the USGS Page 1 of 1 Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Qlange to llx17 Print Size Show Grid Lines Olange to Landscape· I:IUSGS East Renton High United States 01 Jul 1994 ,,~ • .. . .. r'· • .. '':~''~. , . •·~o .f. •. .--.u fi • . 'J ."'. . . .~. . • • • . . Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey © 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement USGS QlJAURANGLE MAP AMBER"!OOD II http://terraserver.microsoft.comlprintimage.aspx?T=2&S=12&X=706&' CORE PROJECT NO~ 04009 ~" .. .~ -.--.. • • ~ :. : • ~, -• • I _ • • ". ''-.... • I I I I I I ". • _ I • _ • • -.~ -• -• -. -I _. ' 140 s34 140 l'A 33 125.74 :: 32 125 31 30 " . ' ',:',' .. -: .. '. . : e NOTE: Kroll Maps are compiled from Official Records and FieldSur/eys. They are produced for referel1C9 use I)nly and no warranty is axpressad or implied. .. r~~ ~ ~ Z.~O Ac. 2.IOAc. Z."'9 Ac. 32..43 co 2 .7 m N \!i 29 28 I ~ "l ~ 27 26 I 25 24 I I 23 TRACT B eo 126.07 2ND 100 95 ~ .. 100;:'j f 96 ii! '" . \04.89 150 e09.,r; 5~S.72 . @ @ l~ M 149.ec. :3.p. 48405 (I) !l13 .~.o 0) t--....;~-.!..-=-""'- ~.E. lIJiS2ti\rO DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE MAP #1 AMBERWOOn II CORE PROJECT NO. 04027 1." ~~~~~~ ij ~. / L. .. "\i~ iJ I~ .~ .;":.: .~ . j~i ., Ii, '., I'oe ,r :,\;1 . "3 .J~ :O.;!J I I I I I I I I I I I I I, .1 I I ~ ~ Iii CI ;..; I .... § ~ 01 I! I :1 1 ; .~ :.1 ~ N :1 I § !::! ,:.; 'I, " , i t i ~ 1 $CAl E-1· -100' i T 'f c6iE IOJlHE2'M.-,#IOI --.w __ _ ~ /iox.Q5.1J8!S.7fJ63 'b /DESIGN !NG/N!!1I1NG • PLANNING· SUIIV!Y/NG ,.6,. 1\/1 E3 E: R vva a D I I DATE DESIGNED JAM DRAWN SHEET OF 1 PROJECT NUMBER 04027 I I .-, , I I ., ~=:====~~L I , -I " --I - "I --·,f -, - SHEET NO, 11 KING COUNTY AREA, WASHINGTON (RENTON QUADRANGLE) KING COUNTY SOIL SURVEY MAP AMBERWOOD II CORE PROJECT NO. 04009 I I I I I 1 I I I ;-1 I I I I- I I I I I 3.2.2 KCRTSIRUNOFF FILES METHOD-GENERATING TIME SERIES ~:;,~.:-;-.:; t .... ·-:-: ~-:I' .:.; ~:,: , . .':' . 1:~·.tI! .. :¥ •.•• ,,:;' ;-.~ :. :~("~7::-":;':1". '.ti '!f;Eo" •• _'... =-. -.' .' . : .' :', -.. ' .... ',,' :":. .... . ~--:;'>:-'-,TA:BI::;E:~~'EQUlVAI!ENCE1SE1 WEEN: SCS:SOIL-TYPES AND'KCRTS SOn.. TYPES -:~". ",:: ·600:··'··,· :', ,,··!~~":t,;.<O" .• '\ . .,.;·· .... : ... ! ... :;.~i G~'tof.~.~:'i: .. ':···L. ......... ..' . . '. . .. -J ••• ',. SCS Soil Type SCS KCRTSSoil Notes Hydrologic Group , Soli Grqup • oW , A tAoB. AoC AoDl C Till Arents, Alderwood Material (AmB,AmC) C Till Arents, Everett Material (An) B Outwash . 1 Beausite (BeC, BeD. BeF) C Till 2 Bellingham (Bh) 0 Till 3 Briscot (BF) 0-Till 3 Bucldey (Bu) 0 Till 4 Eartmont (Ea) 0 Till 3 Edgewick (Ed) C till 3 Everett(EvB,EvC,EvD,EwC) AlB Outwash 1 Indianola (InC, InA, InO) .-A OUtwasf)-1- ~(KpB,KpC,KpD) C Till Klaus (KsC) C Outwash 1 Neilton (NeC) A Outwash 1 Newberg (Ng) B Till 3 Nooksack (Nk) C Till 3 Nonna. (No) 0 Till 3 Orcas (Or) O. WetJand Oridia (Os) \ 0 Till 3 0vaI1 (OvC, OvO, OvF1 C Till 2 Pilchuck (Pc) C Till 3 Puget (Pu) 0 Till 3 Puyallup (Py) B Till 3 Ragn~(RaC,RaD,RaC.R~ B Outwash 1 Renton (Re) 0 Till 3 Sala! (Sa) C Till -3 Sammamish (Sh) 0 Till_ 3 Seattle (Sk) 0 WetJand Shalcar (Sm) 0 Till 3 Si (Sn) C Till 3 Snohomish (SO~ Sr) 0 Till 3 Sultan (Su) C Till 3 Tukwila (lu) 0 Till 3 -Woodinville (Wo) 0 Till 3 Notes: 1. Where outwash soils are saturated or underlain at shallow depth (<5 feet) by glacial till, they should be treated as till soils. 2. These are bedrock soDs, but calibration of HSPF by King County DNR shows bedrock solis to have . similar hydrologic response to till soils • 3. These are alluvial soils, some of which are underlain by glacial till or have a seasonally high water table. In the absence of detailed study, these soils should be treated as tin sails. 4. Buckley soils are fonned on the low-penneabillty Osceola tnudflow. Hydrologic response is assumed to be similar to that of till soils. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 911198 3·25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:predev.tsf project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual peak Flow Rates---Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.287 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.078 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.213 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.007 8 3/24/04 20:00 0.126 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.221 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.186 5 11/24/06· 4:00 0.368 1 1/09/08 9:00 computed Peaks PREDEV.PKS -----Flow Frequency Analysis-------- -peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.368 1 100.00 0.990 0.287 2 25.00 0.960 0.221 3 10.00 0.900 0.213 4 5.00 0.800 0.186 5 3.00 0.667 0.126 6 2.00 0.500 0.078 7 1.30 0.231 0.007 8 1.10 0.091 0.341 50.00 0.980 Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:dev.tsf project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual peak Flow Rates---Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.747 5 2/09/01 2:00 0.581 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.905 2 2/27/03 7:00 0.596 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.726 6 10/28/04 16:00 0.790. 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.867 3 10/26/06 0:00 1. 54 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed peaks DEV.PKS -----Flow Frequency Analysis-------- -Peaks - -Rank Return prob (CFS) period 1. 54 1 100.00 0.990 0.905 2 25.00 0.960 0.867 3 10.00 0.900 0.790 4 5.00 0.800 0.747 5 3.00 0.667 0.726 6 2.00 0.500 0.596 7 1. 30 0.231 0.581 8 1.10 0.091 1.33 50.00 0.980 Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Side Slope: Pond Bottom Length: Pond Bottom Width: Pond Bottom Area: Top Area at 1 ft. FB: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Orifice # 1 2 Height (ft) 0.00 5.50 Detention Pond 2.00 H:1V 40.00 ft 100.00 ft 4000. sq. ft 9750. sq. ft 0.224 acres 7.30 ft 492.00 ft 46196. cu. ft 1.061 ac-ft 7.30 12.00 2 Diameter (in) 1. 00 2.25 ft inches Full Head Discharge (CFS) 0.077 0.123 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Pipe Diameter (in) 6.0 Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ae-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 492.00 O. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 492.01 40. 0.001 0.003 0.00 0.02 492.02 80. 0.002 0.004 0.00 0.03 492.03 120. 0.003 0.005 0.00 0.04 492.04 160. 0.004 0.006 0.00 0.05 492.05 201. 0.005 0.006 0.00 0.06 492.06 241. 0.006 0.007 0.00 0.07 492.07 281. 0.006 0.007 0.00 0.08 492.08 322. 0.007 0.008 0.00 0.09 492.09 362. 0.008 0.008 0.00 0.22 492.22 894. 0.021 0.013 0.00 0.34 492.34 1393. 0.032 0.016 0.00 0.46 492 .46 1900. 0.044 0.018 0.00 0.59 492.59 2459. 0.056 0.021 0.00 0.71 492.71 2983. 0.068 0.023 0.00 0.84 492.84 3561. 0.082 0.025 0.00 0.96 492.96 4103. 0.094 0.027 0.00 1. 08 493.08 4653. 0.107 0.028 0.00 1.21 493.21 5259. 0.121 0.030 0.00 1.33 493.33 5828. 0.134 0.031 0.00 1.45 493.45 6405. -0.147 0.033 0.00 1. 58 493.58 7040. 0.162 0.034 0.00 1. 70 493.70 7635. 0.175 0.035 0.00 1. 83 493.83 8290. 0.190 0.037 0.00 1. 95 493.95 8904. 0.204 0.038 0.00 2.07 494.07 9527. 0.219 0.039 0.00 2.20 494.20 10212. 0.234 0.040 0.00 2.32 494.32 10854. 0.249 0.041 0.00 Surf Area (sq. ft) 4000. 4006. 4011. 4017. 4022. 4028. 4034. 4039. 4045. 4051. 4124. 4192. 4261. 4336. 4406. 4482. 4552. 4623. 4701. 4773. 4846. 4925. 4998. 5078 . 5153. 5228. 5309. 5385. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.44 2.57 2.69 2.82 2.94 3.06 3.19 3.31 3.43 3.56 3.68 3.81 3.93 4.05 4.18 4.30 4.42 4.55 4.67 4.80 4.92 5.04 5.17 5.29 5.41 5.50 5.52 5.55 5.57 5.59 5.62 5.64 5.66 5.69 5.81 5.93 6.06 6.18 6.31 6.43 6.55 .6.68 6.80 6.92 7.05 7.17 7.30 7.40 7.50 7.60 7.70 7.80 7.90 8.00 8.10 8.20 8.30 494.44 494.57 494.69 494.82 494.94 495.06 495.19 495.31 495.43 495.56 495.68 495.81 495.93 496.05 496.18 496.30 496.42 496.55 496.67 4!:}6.80 496.92 497.04 497.17 497.29 497.41 497.50 497.52 497.55 497.57 497.59 497.62 497.64 497.66 497.69 497.81 497.93 498.06 498.18 498.31 498.43 498.55 498.68 498.80 498.92 499.05 499.17 499.30 499.40 499.50 499.60 499.70 499.80 499.90 500.00 500.10 500.20 500.30 11504. 12220. 12890. 13626. 14316. 15015. 15782. 16501. 17229. 18029. 18778. 19599. 20368. 21147. 22002. 2280l. 23611. 24499. 25330. 2624l. 27093. 27955. 2890l. 29785. 30680. 31357. 31509. 31736. 31889. 3204l. 32270. 32424. 32577. 32808. 33738. 34678. 35710. 36673. 37728. 38714. 39711. 40804. 41824. 42856. 43986. 45040. 46196. 47094. 48000. 48914. 49836. 50766. 51704. 52651. 53605. 54568. 55539. 0.264 0.042 0.281 0.043 0.296 0.045 0.313 0.046 0.329 0.047 0.345 0.047 0.362 0.048 0.379 0.049 0.396 0.050 0.414 0.051 0.431 0.052 0.450 0.053 0.468 0.054 0.485 0.055 0.505 0.055 0.523 0.056 0.542 0.057 0.562 0.058 0.581 0.059 0.602· 0.059 0.622 0.060 0.642 0.061 0.663 0.062 0.684 0.062 0.704 0.063 0.720 0.064 0.723 0.065 0.729 0.069 0.732 0.076 0.736 0.085 0.741 0.096 0.744 0.110 0.748 0.120 0.753 0.124 0.775 0.142 0.796 0.157 0.820 0.169 0.842 0.181 0.866 0.191 0.889 0.201 0.912 0.210 0.937 0.219 0.960 0.227 0.984 0.235 1.0100.243 1.034 0.250 1.0610.258 1.081 0.571 1. 102 1. 140 1. 123 1. 870 1.144 2.670 1.165 2.960 1.187 3.220 1.209 3.460 1.231 3.680 1.253 3.890 1.275 4.090 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5462. 5545. 5622. 5706. 5785. 5863. 5949. 6029. 6109. 6196. 6277. 6366. 6448. 6530. 6620. 6704. 6788. 6879. 6964. 7057. 7143. 7229. 7323. 7410. 7498. 7564. 7579. 7601. 7616. 7630. 7653. 7667. 7682. 7704. 7794. 7883. 7981. 8072. 8171. 8262. 8354. 8455. 8548. 8641. 8743. 8838. 894l. 9020. 9100. 9180. 9261. 9341. 9423. 9504. 9586. 9668. 9750. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8.40 500.40 56518. 1. 297 8.50 500.50 57505. 1. 320 8.60 500.60 58501. 1.343 8.70 500.70 59505. 1. 366 8.80 500.80 60518. 1. 389 8.90 500.90 61539. 1.413 9.00 ·501. 00 62568. 1.436 9.10 501.10 63606. 1.460 9.20 501. 20 64652. 1.484 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Target Calc Stage Elev 1 1.54 0.37 1.00 7.48 499.48 2 0.75 ******* 0.25 7.23 499.23 3 0.90 0.22 0.22 6.63 498.63 4 0.74 ******* 0.20 6.48 498.48 5 0.79 ******* 0.13 5.75 497.75 6 0.46 0.06 0.06 5.38 497.38 7 0.58 ******* 0.06 4.54 496.54 8 0.60 ******* 0.05 3~07 495.07 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:d~v.tsf Outflow Time Series File:PREOUT Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 1. 54 CFS at Peak Outflow Discharge: '1.00 CFS at Peak Reservoir Stage: 7.48 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 49.9.48 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 47783. Cu-Ft 1.097 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:preout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Ac-Ft 4.280 0.00 4.460 0.00 4.630 0.00 4.800 0.00 4.960 0.00 5.120 0.00 5.270 0.00 5.420 0.00 5.560 0.00 Storage (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 47783. 1. 097 45599. 1. 047 40378. 0.927 39092. 0.897 33256. 0.763. 30467. 0.699 24420. 0.561 15053. 0.346 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks - -Rank Return (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.255 2 2/09/01 21:00 1. 00 7.48 1 100.00 0.058 7 1/07/02 4:00 0.255 7.25 2 25.00 0.216 3 3/06/03 22:00 0.216 6.63 3 10.00 0.047 8 8/26/04 8:00 0.204 6.48 4 5.00 0.063 6 1/08/05 5:00 0.133 5.75 5 3.00 0.133 5 1/19/06 2:00 0.063 5.38 6 2.00 0.204 4 11/24/06 8:00 0.058 4.57 7 1.30 1.00 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.047 3.07 8 1.10 Computed Peaks 0.754 7.43 50.00 Flow Duration from Time Series File:preout.tsf cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence_probability CFS % % % 0.004 0.011 0.018 33684 5609 5126 54.932 9.147 8.359 54.932 64.079 72.438 45.068 35.921 27.562 0.451E+00 0.359E+00 0.276E+00 Prob 0.990 0.960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 9833. 9916. 9999. 10083. 10167. 10251. 10336. 10421. 10506. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.025 0.032 0.039 0.047 0.054 0.061 0.068 0.075 0.082 0.090 0.097 0.104 0.111 0.118 0.125 0.133 0.140 0.147 0.154 0.161 0.168 0.175 0.183 0.190 0.197 0.204 0.211 0.218 0.226 0.233 0.240 0.247 0.254 4149 4087 3415 1699 1620 1218 413 32 16 19 10 9 3 9 18 30 21 10 9 13 9 12 7 9 9 11 6 13 7 3 3 5 5 6.766' 79.204 6.665 85.869 5.569 91.438 2.771 94.209 2.642 96.851 1. 986 98.837 0.674 99.511 0.052 99.563 0.026 99.589 0.031 99.620 0.016 99.636 0.015 99.651 0.005 99.656 0.015 99.671 0.029 99.700 0.049 99.749 0.034 99.783 0.016 99.799 0.015 99.814 0.021 99.835 0.015 99.850 0.020 99.870 0.011 99.881 0.015 99.896 0.015 99.910 0.018 99.928 0.010 99.938 0.021 99.959 0.011 99.971 0.005 99.976 0.005 99.980 O.OOS 99.989 O. 00S'99. 997 20.796 14.131 8.562 5.791 3.149 1.163 0.489 0.437 0.411 0.380 0.364 0.349 0.344 0.329 0.300 0.251 0.217 0.201 0.186 0.165 0.150 0.130 0.119 0.104 0.090 0.072 0.062 0.041 0.029 0.024 0.020 0.011 0.003 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Stage Elev 7.48 499.48 7.23 499.23 6.63 498.63 6.48 498.48 5.75 497.75 5.38 497.38 4.54 496.54 3.07 495.07 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Target 1.54 0.37 0.75 ******* 0.90 0.22 0.74 ******* 0.79 ******* 0.46 0.06 0.58 ******* 0.60 ******* Calc 1. 00 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.05 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: predev.tsf New File: preout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS 0.208E+00 0.141E+00 0.S56E-01 0.579E-01 0.315E-01 o .1l6E-01 0.489E-02 0.437E-02 o .411E-02 0.380E-02 0.364E-02 0.349E-02 0.344E-02 0.329E-02 0.300E-02 0.251E-02 0.217E-02 0.201E-02 0.186E-02 0.165E-02 0.150E-02 o .130E-02 o .1l9E-02 0.104E-02 0.897E-03 O. ?lSE-03 0.620E-03 0.40SE-03 0.294E-03 0.245E-03 0.196E-03 o .1l4E-03 0.326E-04 Storage (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 47783. 45599. 4037S. 39092. 33256. 30467. 24420. 15053. 1. 097 1.047 0.927 0.897 0.763 0.699 0.561 0.346 Cutoff 0.064 0.071 0.078 0.085 0.093 0~100 -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- Base New %Change probability Base New %Change 0.93E-02 0.51E-02 -45.2 I 0.93E-02 0.064 0.062 -3.5 0.76E-02 0.40E-02 -48.0 I 0.76E-02 0.071 0.062 -12.4 0.65E-02 0.37E-02 -43.9 I 0.65E-02 0.078 0.062 -20.2 0.58E-02 0.35E-02 -39.6 I 0.5SE-02 0.OS5 0.063 -26.3 0.52E-02 0.33E-02 -37.1 I 0.52E-02 0.093 0.064 -31.4 0.47E-02 0.32E-02 -32.8 I 0.47E-02 0.100 0.064 -35.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.107 0.42E-02 0.3fE-02 -24.6 0.42E-02 0.107 0.068 -36.2 0.114 0.37E-02 0.30E-02 -17.6 0.37E-02 0.114 0.077 -32.8 0.122 0.33E-02 0.30E-02 -10.4 0.33E-02 0.122 0.093 -23.8 0.129 0.30E-02 0.27E-02 -10.4 0.30E-02 0.129 0.120 -7.0 0.136 0.27E-02 0.22E-02 -16.5 0.27E-02 0.136 0.129 -5.3 0.143 0.24E-02 0.21E-02 -13.0 0.24E-02 0.143 0.133 -7.0 0.151 0.22E-02 0.19E-02 -12.8 0.22E-02 0.151 0.140 -7.2 0.158 0.18E-02 0.17E-02 -2.8 0.18E-02 0.158 0.156 -1.1 0.165 0.15E-02 0.15E-02 0.0 0.15E-02 0.165 0.166 0.3 0.172 o . 13E-02 0.14E-02 5.0 o .13E-02 0.172 0.175 1.6 0.180 0.l1E-02 0.12E-02 7.1 o . 11E-02 0.180 0.185 2.8 0.187 0.91E-03 0.11E-02 19.6 0.91E-03 0.187 0.196 5.0 0.194 0.77E-03 0.95E-03 23.4 0.77E-03 0.194 0.203 4.4 0.201 0.62E-03 0.80E-03 28.9 0.62E-03 0.201 0.210 4.5 0.209 0.51E-03 0.64E-03 25.8 0.51E-03 0.209 0.214 2.5 0.216 0.36E-03 0.42E-03 18.2 0.36E-03 0.216 0.221 2.3 0.223 0.29E-03 0.31E-03 5.6 0.29E-03 0.223 0.224 0.6 0.230 0.26E-03 0.26E-03 0.0 0.26E-03 0.230 0.231 0.2 0.237 0.21E-03 0.20E-03 -7.7 0.21E-03 0.237 0.237 -0.4 0.245 0.18E-03 0.13E-03 -27.3 0.18E-03 0.245 0.239 -2.2 0.252 0.16E-03 0.49E-04 -70.0 0.16:8-03 0.252 0.242 -3.9 0.259 0.15E-03 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.15E-03 0.259 0.244 -5.9 0.266 o . 13E-03 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.13E-03 0.266 0.245 -8.1 0.274 0.82E-04 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.82E-04 0.274 0.250 -8.6 0.281 0.33E-04 O.OOE+OO -100.0 0.33E-04 0.281 0.253 -9.8 Maximum positive excursion = 0.012 cfs 6.5%) occuring at 0.188 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.200 cfs on the New Data:preout.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.040 cfs (-36.9%) occuring at 0.109 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.069 cfs on the New Data:preout.tsf Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage. Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 1.54 0.37 1. 00 7.48 499.48 47783. 1. 097 2 0.75 ******* 0.25 7.23 499.23 45599. 1.047 3 0.90 0.22 0.22 6.63 498.63 40378. 0.927 4 0.74 ******* 0.20 6.48 498.48 39092. 0.897 5 0.79 ******* 0.13 5.75 497.75 33256. 0.763 6 0.46 0.06 0.06 5.38 497.38 30467. 0.699 7 0.58 ******* 0.06 4.54 496.54 24420. 0.561 8 0.60 ******* 0.05 3.07 495.07 15053. 0.346 I I SEP 232004 I RECE\VED I GEOTECHNICAL REPORT I Amberwood I 6001 NE 4th Street Renton, Washington \1 I Project No. T-4725-1 I I Terra Associates, Inc. I' I 1\ Prepared for: I Northwest Brokers I' Bellevue, Washington I September 15, 2000 I I' I C6~fF;t!: oo0Bt 'I ,I I ,I I II ,I II I I~ '~Gi I I I I. I I I TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Mr. Steven Beck Northwest Brokers 2708 East Main Avenue Puyallup, Washington 98372 Subject: Dear Mr. Beck: Geotechnical Report Amberwood 6001 NE 4th Street Renton, Washington Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences September 15, 2000 Project No. T -4 725-1 As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject site. The attached report presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain by glacially-derived silty sand and sandy silt soils. In our opinion, these soil conditions will be suitable for development of the proposed residential subdivision, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into project design and construction. Up to approximately eight feet of uncontrolled fill is present in the southwestern corner of the site. Depending on planned development in this part of the site, overexcavation and recompaction of the soils in this part of the site may be required. We will be available to assist you with development of specific recommendations after the final project plans have been completed. We trust this information is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional . information, please call. .Sincerely yours; TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 ., Fax (425) 821-4334 • terra@terra-associates.com :1 I I I I I \1 I I I I' I I I I ,I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................... I 2.0 Scope of Work ............................................. ; .............................................................. I 3.0 Site Conditions ........................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Surface ........................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Geology ......................................................................................................... 2 3.3 Soils ............................................................................................................... 2 3.4 Ground\vater .................................................... : ............................................. 3 4.0 Geologic Hazards ....................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Erosion .......................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Seismic .......................................................................................................... 3 5.0 Discussion and Recommendations .............................................................................. 4 5.1 General .......................................................................................................... 4 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading .......................................................................... 5 5.3 Excavations .................................................................................................... 6 5.4 Foundations ................................................................................................... 6 5.5 Slab-on-Grade Construction ........................................................................... 7 5.6 Lower-Level and Retaining Walls .................................................................. 7 5.7 Drainage ........................................................................................................ 7 5.8 Utilities .................................................... ; ..................................................... 8 5.9 Pavements ...................................................................................................... 8 6.0 Additional Services ..................................................................................................... 9 7.0 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 9 Figures Vicinity Map ..................................................................................... : ............................ Figure 1 Exploration Location Plan ............................................................................................... Figure 2 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail ..................................................................................... Figure 3 Typical Footing Drain Detail ........................................................................................ Figure 4 Appendix Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing ................................................................. Appendix A (I) I I I 11 I , ~I ·1 I I I' I ;1 I I I I I I 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Geotechnical Report Amberwood 6001 NE 4th Street Renton, Washington The project consists of the development of a 4.59-acre parcel located at 6001 NE 4th Street in Renton, Washington. We understand that the project will consist of the construction of a 19-1ot residential development. Specific design and site grading details were not available at the time of our study. However, we expect the buildings will be single-family, one-to two-story residences with wood-frame construction imposing relatively light foundation loads. We expect structural loads will be approximately 20 to 40 kips per foot for isolated columns, and 1 to 2 kips per foot for continuous bearing walls. Main floors will be constructed at grade or framed over a crawl space. Given the gentle slopes on the site, we expect the grading required to establish desired building elevations will be moderate. The recommendations in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding of the design features. If actual features vary or changes are made, we should review them in order to modify our recommendations, as required. We should review final design drawings and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK On August 21, 2000, we excavated seven test pits to depths between three and ten feet below existing surface grades. Using the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, we performed analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the following: • Soil and groundwater conditions • Suitability of native soils for use as fill • Site preparation and grading • Foundation support • Earth pressure parameters for basement or retaining wall design • Slab-on-grade support • Drainage • Excavations • Utilities • Pavements I I I I) I I I I .... I I I: I I I I 'I I ,I' II' 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface September 15,2000 Project No. T-4725-1 The subject site is located at 6001 NE 4th Street in Renton, Washington. The approximate location of the site is shown on Figure l. The site is bounded by SE 128th Street to the north, residential structures to the east, and land under development to the west and south. There is an existing residential subdivision north of the site, across SE 128th Street. The eastern limits of the City of Renton cross the eastern portion of the site: The site is currently residential development, with an 1,850 square foot house, garage, and a tall barn/garage built in 1967. There are numerous older cars parked in the southern portion of the site. The northern portion of the site is covered by a coniferouslbroadleaf woodland. No wetland conditions have been identified on the site. We reviewed the Us. Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Map for Renton, Washington, dated 1949, with photorevisions dated 1968 and 1973. According to the map, topographic elevations across the site range from approximately Elev. 520 inn the northeast comer to approximately Elev. 480 in the southwest corner. The current site layout is shown on Figure 2 . 3.2 Geology We reviewed the Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux, dated 1965. This map shows the soils at the site as quaternary ground moraine deposits (QGT). This unit is described as mostly thin ablation till over lodgment till deposited by the Puget glaciallobe. The lodgment till is generally a compact, coherent, unsorted mixture of sand, silt,. clay, and gravel commonly known hardpan. Ablation till is similar, but much less compact and coherent. In general, lodgment till is 5 to 30 feet thick, and ablation till is 2 to 10 feet thick. 3.3 Soils Topsoil Excavation of the test pits at the site revealed an approximately three-inch thick layer of topsoil overlying glacially derived units. Very Weathered Till Topsoil overlies two to three feet of silty sand and sandy silt soils. Th~ unit is a very weathered till, generally" consisting of yellowish-brown to reddish-brown silty sand with gravel, cobbles, and some roots. This material is loose to medium dense and moist to dry. Cemented Till A less weathered till material was encountered two to three feet below the surface zone. This till consists of . mottled gray and brown to gray silty sand with gravel and cobbles. This material is medium dense to very dense. and moist to dry. There appears to bea calcite cementation binding the till. Page No.2 I I I I I I I '. r I Ii I I' I I~ I I Fill September 15,2000 Project No. T-4725-1 The depth to till soils in Test Pits TP-l and TP-2 indicates that the southwestern comer of the site has been filled. This is 'consistent with the surrounding topography and current site cor.ditions observed during our field explorations. The fill appears to be derived from cuts in the southeastern portion of the site, and used to create a more level surface. The fill is assumed to deepen west of Test Pit TP-l. The fill consists of light yellow to olive gray silty gravelly sand. The fill reached depths of eight feet in Test Pit TP-l and six feet in Test Pit TP-2. The former surface is identified as dark brown silty sand with a wood debris layer underlying the fill. The former soil horizon was moistto damp and overlies the cemented till. Test Pit TP-2 was left open for approximately one hour to observe seepage. However, no groundwater seepage was observed. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented in Appendix A. The approximate test pit locations are shown on Figure 2: 3.4' Groundwater We did not encounter groundwater seepage at the time of our recent explorations. However, in November 1998 and January 1999, we drilled 17 test pits on the adjacent properties to the south and west. At that time, groundwater was encountered to depths ranging from six inches to eight feet below existing surface grades. In general, groundwater will develop in a perched condition above the glacial till. Fluctuations in groundwater seepage levels are expected on a seasonal and annual basis. Typically, groundwater seepage reaches maximum levels during and shortly following the wet winter months. For these reasons, it is likely that perched groundwater is present on the site during the winter months. 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4.1 Erosion The soils encountered on-site are classified as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (zero to six percent slopes) by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). These soils are, nearly level and undulating. Therefore, in our opinion, the, erosion hazard at the site islow. 4.2 Seismic The Puget Sound area falls within Seismic Zone 3, as classified by the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Based on the soil conditIons encountered and the local geology, from Table 16-.J of the 1997 UBC, a soil profile type of Sc should be, used for design purposes. Page No.3 I 'I I 'I I I I I I' I I I I I It I I I' I September 15,2000 Project No. T-4725-1 Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologiCally recent deposits of fine-grained sands located below the groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their strength from intergranular friction. The generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains and eliminates this intergranular friction, thus eliminating the soil's strength. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions we encountered, it is our opinion the risk of site damage due to· seismically-induced subsidence or liquefaction is minimal. 5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General In our opinion, development of the site as proposed is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The residential structures can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils below the upper 24 to 30 inches of surficial fill and topsoil. Alternatively, if required by desired final building elevations, structural fill placed and compacted above these native soils can be used to support building foundations, Floor slabs and pavements can be similarly supported. The native soils encountered at the site contain a significant amount of'fines and will be difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. The ability to use native soil from site excavations as structural fill will depend on its moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities will take place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to import free-draining granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. We . reviewed a preliminary sketch of the site layout provided by Mr. Steven Beck of Northwest Brokers. The sketch indicates the construction of a stormwater retention pond in the southwestern corner .of the site. The 'lower till appears to slope toward the southwest, The adjoining devel.opment has created a rockery supported cut of , approximately eiglit feet along the s.outh and west sides of the site. Placement of a stormwater retention pond in this area will require overexcavation if the depth of the pond is less than the existing fill. It could also necessitate the placement of bentonite slurry as an impervious barrier to seepage. Mr. Beck was on-site during the excavations and discussed construction the pond in the eastern corner of the site. This area would be less impacted by the existing fill. However, the uncontrolled fill will remain an issue to be " addressed for any development proposed in the southwest corner .of the site. The pond should be lined with an impervious material, such as compacted glacial till. A residential structure may be placed in the southwestern c.orner of the site if the pond is constructed in the southeastern corner. However, this would require overexcavati.on and recompaction, or the use of deepened foundations to support the structure. We can provide detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical design considerations f.or the stormwater retention pond when the final plans are provided to us. Page No.4 I I I I I I I -I~ I I' I I' I, I I I 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading September 15,2000 Project No. T -4725-1 To prepare the site for construction, demolition should include the complete removal of existing buildings from the site. This includes existing utilities, slabs, and foundations. Accordirlg to available records at the King County Assessor's Office, the house has a septic system and gas heat. Any underground storage tanks (USTs) discovered during excavation must be removed by a licensed contractor and disposed of in accordance with Washington State regulations. Following demolition,all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials should be stripped and, removed from the site. In general, surface stripping depths of approximately 6 to 12 inches should be expected to remove organic topsoil. Stripped vegetation debris should be removed from the site. Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill. However, organic topsoil may be used for limited depths in non-structural areas or for landscaping purposes. Once clearing and stripping are complete, cut and fill operations can be made to establish desired pavement building grades. Prior to placing fill and preparing building and pavement subgrades, all exposed surfaces should be proofrolled to determine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are present. Proofrolling should also be' performed in cut areas that will provide direct support for new construction. If excessively yielding areas are observed that cannot be stabilized by compaction, they should be cut to firm bearing and filled to grade with structural fill. If the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive,' using a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500X or equivalent, in conjunction with structural fill should be considered. A minimum of 18 inches of clean granular structural fill over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface. A representative from our office should observe all proofrolling operations. We also recommend field evaluations at the time of construction to verify stable subgrades. The ability to use native soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on their moisture content and the . prevailing weather conditions when site grading activities take place. If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months, or if they are initiated during the summer and extend into fall and winter, the owner should be ' prepared to import wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we recommend using a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements: U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 No.4 75 maximum No. 200 5 ma'Ximum* *Based on the 314-inch fraction Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc. should examine and test all materials proposed for use as structural fill. Page No.5 ,I I I I I I I September 15,2000 Project No. T-4725-l Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor), The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In non-structural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a depth of 4 feet, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. 5.3 Excavations All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and lower building levels, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, soils on the site would be classified as Type B soils. Accordingly, for excavations exceeding 4 feet but less than 20 feet deep, the side slopes should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). Alternatively, a shoring trench box can be used to support utility trench sidewalls. This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. 5.4 Foundations Spread Footings Residential structures may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soils or on structural fills placed above competent native soils. Foundation subgrades should be prepared as recommended in Section 5.2. Perimeter foundations should be at a minimum depth of 1.5 feet below final. exterior grades. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. We recoinmend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pst) .. For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable bearing capacity can be.' used. With this bearing pressure and anticipated structural loads, we estimate total and differential settlements of approximately one inch and one-half inch, respectively. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.3 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the sides of the footings and buried portions of the foundation stem walls can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per .. cubic foot (pet). We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundations wiII be constructed neat against competent native soil or backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 5.2. The values recommended include a safety factor of 1.5. Page No. 6 I I I I I I: I II I~ I I' I I I 5.5 Slab-on-Grade Construction September 15,2000 Project No. T -4725-1 Slabs.:.on-grade may be supported on the subgrade prepared as recommended in Section 5.2. Immediately belO\v the floor slabs, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free-draining sand or gravel having less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, a durable plastic membrane should be placed on the capillary break layer. The membrane should be covered with two inches of clean, moist sand to guard against damage during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. 5.6 Lower-Level and Retaining Walls The magnitude of earth pressure development on lower-level or retaining walls will depend, in part, on the quality of wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Below improved areas, such as pavements or floor slabs, the backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry unit weight, as determined by ASTM Test Designation 0-698 (Standard Proctor). In unimproved areas, the relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. To guard against hydrostatic pressure development, wall drainage must also be installed. A typical recommended wall drainage detail is shown on Figure 3. With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly installed, we recommend designing unrestrained walls for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral pressures of 100 psf should be added. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic, sloping embankments, or adjacent buildings will act on the wall. If such conditions exist, the imposed loading must be included in the wall design. Friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in Section 5.4. 5.7 Drainage Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the site at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building areas. We recommend providing a gradient of at least three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the residential structures, . except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structures. Page NO.7 I I I I: I I I I:, I: I I' I I I: I~ I I I' I: Subsurface September 15, 2000 Project No. T-4725-1' We recommend installing perimeter foundation drains adjacent to all structures with main floors framed over a crawl space or constructed at grade with an elevation equal to or below the final exterior grade. If the floors are constructed at grade and elevated above the adjacent outside grade, the owner may elect to eliminate the foundation drains. However, positive drainage away from the structures must be established. A typical' recommended drain detail is shown on Figure 4. Subsurface drains must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to a controlled point of approved discharge. 5.8 . Utilities Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APW A) or King ComIty specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in Section 5.2. As noted, soils excavated on-site should be suitable for use as backfill material in dry weather, provided the moisture content can be controlled to facilitate proper compaction. If utility construction takes place during the winter, it will be necessary to import suitable wet weather fill for utility trench backfilling. 5.9 Pavements Pavements should be constructed on subgrades prepared as described in Section 5.2. Regardless of the. relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. Proofrolling the subgrade with heavy construction equipment should be completed to verify this condition. The pavement section is dependent on the supporting capability of the subgrade soils and the traffic conditions to which it will be subjected. We understand that traffic will mainly consist of light passenger and commercial vehicles with only occasional heavy traffic in the form of moving trucks and trash removal vehicles. Based on this information, with a stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we recommend the following pavement . sections: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB) •. Two inches of AC over four inches o~ asphalt-treated base (ATB) The paving materials used should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Class B asphalt concrete, A TB, and CRB surfacing. Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly-drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their . supporting capability. To improve performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two percent. Some longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. Page No.8 I I: I' I I' I I I 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES September 15,2000 Project No. T-4725-1 Terra Associates, Inc. should review the final design and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. We should also provide geotechnical services during construction in order to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for design changes if subsurface .conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. 7.0 LIMITATIONS We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This report is the property of Terra Associates, Inc. and is intended for specific application to the Amberwood site. This report is for the exclusive use of Northwest Brokers and their authorized representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the test pits excavated on-site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until. construction. If variations appear evident, Terra. Associates, Inc. should be requested to re-evaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. Page No. 9 I I I I II I' I: I' I' I I I, I I I I, I I It ---~-. -.~~ cOALFI t j{ SE 120TH NTS REFERENCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE, METROPOLITAN PUGET SOUND, PAGES 626, 627, 656 AND 657, 2000 EDITION. .. :--:: ... :::.,:.~.:i:-.:: TERRA '. ~..... ASSOCIATES VICINITY MAP AMBERWOOD RENTON, . WASHINGTON Proj.No.· 4725-1 Date SEPT. 2000 Figure I'.--------------------~\ ---:--------, I' I I I I I, I I' I I' I I' I I I' I; I I, NE. 4th Street (SE. 128th Street) ------i---,--------r---,-------l,------ I' i 4 i I APPROXIMATE AREA OF EXISTING FILL i 2 3 ~~-------~~~ i ~ : TP-6 ~ : TP-7 ! 5,) t------~~----~-----~----'------' I ~~~---T-----T-----T--------------..." i! ;.j;; 9 ) : 6! 7 8 t;.~~~-, --------~ I . . ! :c~:.!;~j : 1 0 i :-___ ~ ~ l~~_~~ +~ ~ .~.~~~--'-~~-___ ~ ~~ ! 1 4 . . ! ~fE;J' ~ 1 i 1 ---1' ~>:::~LD .'. i:S : I ---------r.-1 ;J->: .. ~. -i I 9... .-----------I·' .' .... I' I' I ~~~~~ \~-~t~_t~~~d-~:-~~12 ~~_,) 1 I ., ::EX.: ..... I 16i .HcQGr~T~~---------..." -~-~--~-+<::-I .'. .\ . , , . 18 119 , , , . I TP-4 I . 1 '1 TP-3 S : ~: . .~·-~~~-+----·-------L--1 OND i 20 1 , 1 ___ L ___ .· __ ~ . I I I 'I I APPROXIMATE SCALE 80 o 80 160 feet ! --- . LEGEND: 151 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION REFERENCE: FACSIMILES OF UNDATED AND UNTITlLED SITE PLANS PROVIDED BY .ClIENT. NOTE: , . THIS SITE PLAN WAS CREATED USING LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS FOUND ON THE REFERENCED SITE PLANS. DUE TO DISTORTION COMMON WITH FACSIMILES, ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE APPROXIMATE. I .. ::,~-:.:~.:: TERRA :::~\,{ ..... '. ASSOC I A TES EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN AMBERWOOD RENTON, . WASHINGTON . .' . . . !Proj.NO. 4725-1 Date SEPT. 2000 Figure 2 I; 'I' II I I, I I; I I' I' I I I I I I I: I I 12" MINIMUM WIDE71 FREE -DRAINING GRAVEL SLOPE TO DRAIN '- ::.': .:: ..... . .' ........ ,' . COMPACTED .. ' STRUCTURAL FILL ". EXCAVATED SLOPE (SEE REPORT TEXT FOR APPROPRIATE INCLINATIONS) 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE NOT TO SCALE -:,:: .. :.:~.:: TERRA ::;-:;~:;' ~' ... '. ASSOCIATES . .' . . . RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL AMBERWOOD RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj.No.4725-1 Date SEPT. 2000 Figure 3 II I, I' I I I I; I I' I I I I I I I I I I BUilDING SLAB 4" PERFORATED PVC PIPE 3/4" WASHED ROCK NOT TO SCALE ... :: ,~.-:.:i:o.:: TERRA :/.\.r ....... ASSOCIATES .. .. .. .. . . . lYPICAl FOOTING DRAIN DETAil 'AMBERWOOD RENTON, . WASHINGTON Proj~No. 4725-1 Date SEPT. 2000 Figure 4 I' I· I. I I' I I I I I I I I. I I APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLQRA TION AND LAB ORA TORY TESTING Amberwood Renton, Washington On August 21, 2000, we performed our field exploration using a rubber-tired backhoe, We explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by excavating seven test pits to depths of between three and ten feet below existing surface grades. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-5. A geologist from our office conducted the field exploration, classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure A- I. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the test pit logs. Grain size analyses were performed on three of the samples. The results are shown on Figures A-6 and A·7. I I· I I I I· I I I' I I I I I I I I I I (/) -l 0 (/) 0 W z « ~ <.9 w (/) ~ « 0 () (/) -l 0 (/) 0 W Z -'-« a:: <.9 w Z -LL -I w ~ C> ..... 0 0 z « (f) ~ () ..... 0 ~ U5 . MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER . TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL Clean GW Well-graded gravels, gravel"sand mixtures, little or no GRAVELS Gravels fines. ..... Q) (less than Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or C) GP ..... (1) More than 5% fines) no fines. ro,!::! 50% of coarse -en GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic ro fraction is "c. (I) Gravels fines. Q» larger than No. ..... (1) with fines ro·-4 sieve GC Clayey gravels, gr~vel-sand-c1ay mixtures, plastic fines. E en a ~O Clean oN SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no. fines. U') 0 SANDS Sands ~z (less than Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no SP ..r::e More than 5% fines) fines . ..... (t'l 50% of coarse Q)..r:: .......... fraction is SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. 0 ~ smaller than Sands No.4 sieve with fines SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines: ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight ro SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. 'cO Q)O CL (tiN Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). EOQ) Liquid limit is less than 50% ~Z.~ OL Organic silts. and organic clays of low plasticity. oe Cll U')(t'lQ) e:S aJ MH-Inorganic silts, elastic. ro L..'-..r::(I)CIl SILTS AND CLAYS ..... - Q)(t'l CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays . ..... E Oen Liquid limit is greater than 50% ~ OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS Standard Penetration I 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT Density Resistance in Blows/Foot SPOON SAMPLER Very loose 0-4 I 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER Loose 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER Medium dense 10-30 Dense 30-50 y WATER LEVEL (DATE) Very dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Standard Penetration Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf Consistency Resistance in Blows/Foot DO DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent Soft 2-4 Medium stiff 4-8 PI PLASTIC INDEX Stiff ·8-16 Very stiff 16-32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Hard >32 ~ TERRA UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMBERWOOD .. .. .. .. ASSOCIATES KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON .. a" ........ Geotechnical ConSUltants Proj. No. T-472S-1 I Date SEPT 2000 I Figure A-1. I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I Logged by: PR Date: 8/21/00 Depth (ft. ) o 3 inches topsoil. Test Pit No. TP-1 Soil Description FILL: light yellowish-brown silty gravelly sand, medium dense, dry. (SM) 5- - Moisture' Content (%) 12 Dark brown silty SAND with wood debris, organic odor, medium dense, moist. (SM) 14 Olive-gray silty gravelly SAND, moderately cemented, very dense, moist. (SM) 10-+--~~~--~--~--~----~~~~~~~--~--~ Test pitterminated at 10 feet. No groundwater encountered. 15~------------------------------~--------------~ Test Pit No. TP-2 Logged by: PR Date: 8/21/00 Depth (ft.) Soil Description o 5- FILL: light olive-gray silty gravelly sand, medium dense, moistto dry. (SM) FILL: reddish-brown silty gravelly sand, with woody debris, medium dense, dry. (SM) Olive-gray silty gravelly SAND, moderately cemented, very dense, • moist. (SM) 10-Testpitterminatedat9feet. No groundwater encountered. Moisture Content (%) 20 14 15-L------------------------------------------------~ TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS AMBERWOOD KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T -4525-1 -r Date SEPT 20001 Figure A-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I~ I I I Logged by: PR Date: 8/21/00 Depth Test Pit No. TP-3 (ft. ) Moisture Content Soil Description (01<) O~------------------------------------------~~o~~--~ 5- Reddish-brown silty gravelly SAND, with organic debris (wood and roots), medium dense, dry. (SM) Olive-gray silty gravelly SAND, moderately cemented, very dense, moist. (SM) Testpitterminated at6 feet. No groundwater encountered. 12 10~--------------------~--------------------------~ Logged by: PR Date: 8/21/00 Depth Test Pit No. TP-4 (ft.) Soil Description o Yellowish-brown silty gravelly SAND, medium dense, dry. (SM) Olivecgray silty gravelly SAND, moderately cemented, very dense, moist (SM) Moisture Content (%) 7· 5-+------------------------------~------~~~----~ Test pit terminated at 5 feet. No groundwater encountered. 10~----------------------------------------------~ TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS AMBERWOOD KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4525':1 1 Date SEPT 20001 Figure A-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I Logged by: P R Date: 8/21/00 Test" Pit No. TP-5 Depth Moisture (ft.) Content Soil Description (01 ) O-r------------------~--~-----------------.~/~(O~--~ Yello'lolish-brown silty gravelly SAND, medium dense, dry. (SM) - Olive-gray silty gravelly SAND, moderately cemented, very dense, dry. (SM) 5-+ ____________________________________________________________ ~~1~1~ ___ ~ Test pit terminated at 5 feet. No groundwater encountered. 10~----------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. TP-6 Logged by: P R Date: 8/21/00 Depth Moisture Content (ft.) Soil Description (Of< O~-----------------------------------------r~o)~. ,----, Reddish-brown silty SAND with gravel, with organic debris (wood and roots), loose, dry. (SM) II Olive-gray silty gravelly SAND, moderately cemented, very dense, moist. 8 Test pit terminated at 3 feet. 5 -No groundwater encountered. 10~----------------------------------------------~ TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical ConSUltants TEST PIT LOGS AMBERWOOD KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4S2S.:.1 I Date SEPT 20001 Figure A-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1\ I I I Test. Pit No. TP-7· Logged by: PR Date: 8/21/00 Depth Moisture (ft.) S . Content oil Description (01 ) O-r------~--------------~--------------~~/O~~--~ Reddish-brown silty gravelly SAND, loose, dry. (SM) 10 Olive-gray silty gravelly SAND, moderately cemented, very dense, dry. (SM). . . 5-Test pitterminated at 4 feet. No groundwater encountered. 10~----------~----------~--~--------~----~ TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS AMBERWOOD KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4525-1 I Date SEPT 20001 Figure A-5 ------------------- . ",. (l) • o .......... ""'-'-" ~l>-f [cnm 2CJ);o (")0;0 ~nl> c -ol> ~-f -u a ";-. :z: ? ~ -..J N CJ1 m en L:..J :::o C") -" , rrl :::0 Z, » b»z ~Z~U1 o o ...... (l) (.I) ~ N a o o r-- ::!1 <CI C @ » I C') ::2:fTlN »:::Orrl U1::2:» :r:Oz -0» ZOr C") ~ -f U1 o -z U1 SIEVE ANALYSIS I SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES NUM8£R-OFlJESH PER INCH, US STANDARD NO>"'" C"j N C"j(J1 -C"j ................................................. N"", _ ""'0> NO>"'" "'" o N o ~ 0'> o o o N. 00 00> HYDROMETER ANALYSIS a a a "'" C"j N GRAIN SIZE IN MM .00 000 -0> 0> a a a 00 0 "'" C"j N a o 100 • i " i ~ iii 0 t:::l iii i i .0 " 90 1 I I I I I P'{ I I t\ I I I I I U=i J III I I I I I 'I 110 20 \J ~ rrl :::0 (") 00 ~ m M -u ~ , ::':i rrl ;0 70 40 CJ CJ a ~ , ~ ~ --< 60 50 U1 z ~ ~ ;0 ,~ rrl M50 ~ wm ;0 ., -< ~-m ~ -<~ ~ mM ~. ~ M '~ --< C) m """. r _ :r: -f 20 I I I I I II I II I I' I I I I I, I I T II I I, I 111111 I I I '180 10 I I I I I "I " I I I I, 'I I I I I I " I I I 11111111 1190 o I ! ! II I II "II II I II! I ! II ! I ! ! II! I I ! I! !! I I II! ! I I I I I I. I '1 00 VJ N o 0 o 0 -(Xl 0> 000 o "'" VJ N 00 0 COlO') ~(..,.J N '-000, ~L.. N -00 , GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0> 0> COBBLES COARSE U r FINE I COARSE I . ME[)[UM I FINE 1 GRAVEL SAND Key • o Test' Pit Number TP-1 TP-2 Depth (ft.) uses 5.5 'I SP-SM 8;0 'SM gravelly SAND with siit silty SAND with gravel Description 00 0 "'" VJ N 00 0 0 0 0 -00 00 0 CXl en .p. VJ N . FINES Moisture Content (%) 8 LL PL I. I I I I' I I I I I It I I (j) -(j) >-. -..J « ::;: Z ::;: « ~ 0::: w W N f--Vi w ~ 2 c? 0 <.:> 0::: 0 >-:r: -10- Cl a:::: -< Cl ~ en en => 'I <.:> ~ a:::: w a.. ::r:: en w ::;: LL. (j) 0 (j) a:::: w ~ CD :::::;: « => :z: Z « - W > w -(j) en w ::r:: <..> ~ ~ <.:> :z: Z w a.. 0 LL. 0 W N Vi ~- PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 .001 0 ~ N r<') V If) <0 ........ .002 , , .003 . 004 .006 .008 .01 .02 .03 .04 .06 200 1I .I 100 ",I-' 60 .I 1-', 40 V' V / 20 V / / 10 '" it' 4 1/4 /. 3/8 '" 1/2 5/.8 3/4 1 II/.4 _ 1 1/2 2 3 4 6 12 , 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 O'l IX) ........ <0 ll'l -<t-r<') ~ -PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT ~TERRA' .. ~ASSOCIATES ~otechnical Consultants Proj~No. --I 0 a... 0 0 0 IX) O'l .001 - --I --I .002 .003 ........ ~ .004 e ........ ::S+, :m~ .006 o +' (/) :::::!':C .008 w 0 z: o· .01 l.J.... .02 .03 .04 .06 .08 ~ ..... . , .1 (j) 0::: w f--w .2 ~ :z: C ~ 0 :;:; '.3 =l a. ';:: u .42 -I/) v b 0 .6 Z ~ ::.Vl .8 w v ::::> is .> IN e w ::. (j) 0' = Z +' 2 -'~ « w 0' 0::: V'l 3 0 a::: z: ~ « 4 u (/)---~ 6 'iii 8 w ' , 10 :z: ~ (/) 0 .:::::!': (/) ~ (/) ~ :::> 20 g :5,-... 30 w 'I{') V'l ~~ u-) 40 a::: v·-<C 0 ........ -0 u 60 ":t= ..... 80 , ~L... 0....,8 n' I 100 +'E 0.... (n I/) ::s l-W ~z: --I en en 200 0 O· >. • 300 -'--v ~ 0 0 0 N .. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS AMBERWOOD RENTON, WASHINGTON 4725-1 I. Date SEPT. 2000 I:Figure A'-'-.7 , ' ~, , , .. -,_,1, '-.:,' "', ..... ,. .' -,.,",=- , " , J ". -',., . ~'-. ~. ~. . . j.-", ,,' .~. + }' -,.,,-':' .-!:' , ;.,;: ; .~. ~ or' '; ... 't,~ I .' ~ '-'( .~-..... ';. . " ' ." .', " 'l' :., .•... , " ,', " ;' .•... ~ -~. J , , ':": .,,;' .. -.;.': . : " .' \ -1,';'';\' :1\' '. j' .'; ...... ... ' <.: .. ,.~-; ..:' , , « , " ' ~' I.,.,; . -"" ~"', ~, :. ...... , , ,~ <;;;1" :;. \ "', ~,~, . ." ~ '-. ,',f< :::- :"-"-', ;1' -I r ~ .. ',7. ;., . .'; .. i. .~ ~ -" • ....; I .. J I' '. 'r ..... ". :~. -,. ".r, .'~" • "'c' -"':. ~, : .. ~' .;. .,:',. .... , " ", j .: ,". ,- " .," t . ''; .... , '~.- .... ~" .J : .' ~ .' ~ , I ,'. \' '.' " , " ~. ' ,'. .. ~.' .~ ,'; . '.~(:_~~fJ " ,t, ',"~ . " .,~·i' ,:r J.> ,': :: .. -1< ... , " , .. " ".,' J" .. :., ." ;". 'l .:" '), . : ,J. , ~'. ,-, .~. " ',T. '.' ).' ':. !, .,,,. :-" ' t. t~, .L' ',; .... ,' ,,1 ,,' "', ... '."" ", ~' . .' . ;',,,," . ",'", ','",' :. , ~. t.,,: " ',' "0, I::',: ~ J. ; '-}f £'. "'''''':' , ' :, .. ,;" !" , ........ (".; . " '~, '" ... 't",.-. .,' .. l' .: .. . ~'. ," ", ~ : ......... ,-:,:: ' ........ '" . ~. '. ~ ,', " , .: ,d', r' ,:' , " " ", ' .... ' .... :t-. "." -.• ,. • ," ,. '; " . " 7.; .' , " " . ,,'~ -. -,", . "." -.' .. :-" : ... .' ,.~ :.-/" .... ~ , '. ,.' ~. .'" .. ~ , ..,. ~: ".;'" " ',\', '- ' .• 1' , '\./.~ ; " ' '" ." ,t ' ;.-J • .... ',. ... ~' '-:t h , .~.:; ',' \,'.' ". ;'" } :<,", .. '.' ',: i·, ; .... 1. .•• ,", t; -",' " /~: .. : "-1 .... ,' , .-", .. 1" I' ',:1' :' ~.. .: ; "", .; , , ..... ~. ' '., ","1' ,~ :"," -.... .: ",.; . ':'-":("1:: ~ '. , ,"' .. '\ v' ~- ',.' " .. ; . " ~ r-f ()lJrlll l [FA 1 1 / SUPFACE DISK 1,1 JG I C('UHI ~/DI"j" ;1 REtHOI'J 26:2j,57 (\1EAS) NO. '852 2623.36 \, I OF "01ITOI<)10 111 Ii(-}IIBe22'i7"W -'1'':-~~----\ BASI' OF BEAPI'IGS 15 14 \L-Rn, Tel,,] COHROL MOl·,. 1',0,1851 W Z ~ « w ...J Z LEGAL DESCRIPTION FARCEL A, 1 I I 8+1 SF I . I " I T I I I I I L NE 2 110::6 SF' ..J N.E. 4TH ST. 3 1:;'23 SF 7WP.23 (S.E. 128TH ST.) 4 80'a2 SF I I I _-.J B 541:;' SF I I I I __ J --I\j\ 1311.23 1015.98 L-OT I OF KING COUNTY Sf-lORT PLAT NUMElER 101501:;', ACCORDING TO Sf-lORT PLAT RECORDED NOVEM6ER 4, 1'a16 UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1 .. 11040':104, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASf-lINGTON. ,----- I EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED (TYF) FARCEL 6 LOT 2 OF KING COUNTY SI-lORT FL-AT NUMBER 1015015, ACCORDING TO Sf-lORT FLAT RECORDED NOVEMBER 4,1':116 UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1611040':104, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASf-lINGTON. FARCEL C TI-lE NORTf-l I-lA1..F OF Tf-lE NORTf-lEAST QUARTER OF Tf-lE NORTf-lLIJEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSf-lIF 23 NORTf-l, RANGE S EAST, Wl1., IN KING COUNTY, WASf-lINGTON; EXCEFT mE EAST 1166.01 FEET Tf-lEREOF, AS MEASURED ALONG mE NORTf-l LINE Tf-lEREOF; AND EXCEFT TI-lE NORTf-l 42 FEET Tf-lEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD FURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMElER :;'1561&61&; AND EXCEFT FUGET SOUND POWER AND L1Gf-lT COMPANY RIGf-lT-OF-WAY FARCEL D, TRACT SS'a, FLAT OF AMBERWOOD, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT Tf-lEREOF RECORDED IN VOL-UME 201 OF FLATS, PAGES 'a0 Tf-lROUGf-l 'a2, RE=RDS OF KING, COUNTY, WASf-lINGTON. viCINITY MAF I" = .3000':1: I ~,~~i~w 1 ~C~s~I~B~~rl'il~~AM~10 'CORE 3D'127" 0.1':: CF PROI' LlN~ FOUND 1/2"' REBAR VFH - yELLOW PLASTC CAJ STAMPll1 'CORE 30427' ON 'RO', UN[ I I I I I FOlIN[J . Ii" REBAR WITH - YELLOW PLASTIC 2AP 5T AMFE "CDRE 30427" Al ~~ORNER __ I BASIS OF BEARINGS I 11 I 'a:",4 SF ,-----I I I I I I 110 I I 1682 SF I I I L ___ -131'--___ .J ,- I I I I -----1 I I 181'" SF I I I I L_ ---13'--___ _ ,-- I -------1 I ) I I 14 / I e830 SF / I . . I I I 10 8514 SF L ____ 1,1. _____ ..J ______ , __ a"._ ... 1--------- I I I I I 1 1262 SF i 8 I 121'a SF I I I L___ , ___ J 1--------l I I I I I ':l I I 1210 SF I L--__ :21' __ _ '1--------1 \ I I I I 10 I 12'35 SF I I -134'----.·J -END OF FENCE , IS I.E'E. or PROP LINE. r----1I--'------"'-20' FF:IVATE ACCESS/ L.NE. N /2, N-1/4, ~JW 1/4-. ':'f-c. 1-1--23-:;. BENCI-IMARKS: 1-----j I I I I I I II I B200 SF I I I <!l '" I I I I L_ -__ -.J UTILI-"-EASP1ENT SCALE: 1" -40' N88'22'I1"W BETWEEN Tf-lE MONUMENT NOS. 18!;1 AND 1652, FCUND IN PLACE AND DE6CRI6ED BELOW PER CITY OF RENTON f-lORIZONT AL CONTROL-NETWCRK PUBL-ISf-lED NOVEMBER I:;', 1994. PT"I8:;,2 = 3" 6RAS& SURFACE DISC. IN Tf-lE INT. NE 4Tf-l ST. (SE. 126Tf-l STJ 4 148Tf-l AVE SE. EL. 454.11 OR (138.614 METERS) ~~O ___ ~!O PT"2103 = 6ROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC. IN Tf-lE INT. S.E. 126Tf-l ST. l IS6TH AVE SE. EL. :;'41.'a4 OR (101.013 METERS) DATUM: NAVD 1':188 DATUM PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY // FOUOiD 3" EP,'SS -/ W SURFACE [II Sf< vi (DROK[N) Vv/Fl.NCH w ~I I ~I L.() ..- I w f: Co o '7 APPLICANT STEvEN BECK 1':112':1 S.E. 14:;' TI-l STREET RENTON, WA 'a60:;,'a OWNER BALES LIMITED FARTNERSI-lIF FO BOX 301:;' RENTON, WASI-lINGTON ':180& .. (42&) 421-014':1 CONTACT, ROElIN BAL-ES FLANNERIENGINEERISURVEYOR CORE DESIGN INC, 14111 NE. 2':1TI-l FL., SUITE 100 6EL-L-EVUE, WASI-lINGTON ':10001 (42&) 88&-1811 CONTACT, LAFE 6. I-lERMANSEN -FLANNER DAVID E. CAYTON, FE. -ENGINEER STEFI-lEN J. SCI-lREI, FJ....S. -SURVEYOR SITE STATISTICS SET6ACKS, TOTAL SITE AREA, FROFOSED USE, NO. OF LOTS, AVERAGE LOT SIZE, FROFOSED DENSITY, FERMITTED DENSITY, EXISTING ZONING, FROFOSED ZONING, FU6L1C R-O-W TRACT 'A' -STORM DETENTION FRONT -20' REAR -30' SIDE -&', 20' adjacent to etreet 184,140' SF. DETACI-lED-SINGLE FAMILY 11 1,':181 SF. 4.8 DUlAC. & D.u.IAC. R-I R-5 30,5':1':1' SF. 18,4&1. SF. DENSITY CALCULATIONS GROSS AREA OF FROFERTY, -FUBL-IC R-O-W -PRIVATE ACCESS TRACTS -WETLANDS NET SITE AREA, NO. OF Lon;, NET DENSITY, 184,140. SF 30,:;'':1':1' SF NIA NIA 1:;'4,141' SF OR 3.54 ACRES 11 4.80 DUIACRE 11 LOT& WOULD RESULT IN A NET DENSITY OF 4.80 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. Iil ;; ?~'9 Ac. NEIG~BOR~OOD DETAIL MAF I" = 200" ~ ~ ~ ~ §: " ~ )... Q::: ~ ~ ""'i; ~ a: , ~ .., Z '0 0 ~ "->-0 ~ 0 00 llJ 00 00 :> '" ...; ~ '" '" 0 " £ E ~ ;:) OJ> ~ V) iO i '" ~ '" '" ~ :z: 11)'" I(") ~ -~ 00 iZ > '" ~ it) z :: ~ '" '" " Z ..... ..... Q 0 ~ ~ to ~ ~ Z -oq; ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ CQ G) ~~ i3 ~~~ a.: ~ ~ CtJVj Q c:; ~ !JJ Q ~ j..;;: :2 ~ ~ ....,; ""'" ~ ""'" ~ l,j Q <' :2 >-- (:'31 f-- 1JJ ~] ~~ s~ ~I / i--DJI'lD ]" BRASS / SURFfle:: CISr-. "l\lt~G / COUr~T" "orr 26:23.87 (MEAS) I f-IF\lT(!I',1 2623.85 II::! I')' 01 LJ IJICI~) I 1'.Ji). 1e~<2 F~IUt~D 3" B~I\SS DISC '"7 I H1UND PUNCHED 3" BRASS V.HH X STAMPED '1S // I DISC STMI'1PED "LS 30427" 1311 . .2.4 ;"233=' ON UNE ,/' / NE 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC, 14, TWP, 23 No, RGE 5 E, W.M N.E. 4TH ST. (S.E. 128TH ST.) .2622.+7 f.E4S 2622.33 (KCASi r-FOUI\D PUI\CHED .3" BR~SS APPLICANT STEVEN I3ECK 19129 5.E. 145TI-I STREET RENTON, WA 9S059 OWNER "\ ~,~;e,;,:;:c", :: Tw1 :: \.-I?I ~~ l(iI\j (:mJTROL MOI\ -'\ L--~ -·:"'~'i~ "';'-r:' I 'I I / DIS-~ ::;-,toMP::O "L~ ::042/ ) / ON JI\E Tc(~.:-. ~J9",.9.c.8 --,,-~ _\ \~1_3_11_2_3 __ I IOh 98 \ _-11 -It; I3ALES LIMITED FARTNER5i-IIF PO 130X 3015 RENTON, WASI-IINGoTON 9S05t. "KI, 1851 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A Z ~ <{ W -l Z LOT I OF KING COUNTY 51-1ORT PLAT NUMI3ER 1015015, ACCORDING TO 51-1ORT FLAT RECORDED NOVEMI3ER 4, 191t. UNDER RECORDING NUMElER 1&11040904, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASI-IINGTON. FARCEL 13 LOT 2 OF KING COUNTY SI-IORT FLAT NUMI3ER 1015015, ACCORDING TO 51-1ORT FLAT RECORDED NOVEMI3ER 4, 191t. UNDER RECORDING NUMElER 1&11040904, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASI-IINGTON. FARCEL C TI-IE NORTI-I I-IAL..F OF TI-IE NORTI-IEAST QUARTER OF TI-IE NORTI-IUJEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOUJNSI-IIF 23 NORTI-I, RANGE 5 EAST, WJ1., IN KING COUNTY. WASI-IINGTON; EXCEFT TI-IE EAST 11&",.01 FEET TI-IEREOF, A5 MEA5URED ALONG TI-IE NORTI-I LINE TI-IEREOF; AND EXCEPT TI-IE NORTI-I 42 FEET TI-IEREOF CONVEYED TO KINGo COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES I3Y DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMI3ER 515St.S",; AND EXCEFT FUGET SOUND FOWER AND LIGoI-IT COMPANY RIGI-IT-OF-WAY PARCEL D, TRACT 999, FLAT OF AMI3ERWOOD, ACCORDING TO TI-IE FLAT TI-IEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 201 OF PLATS, PAGoES 90 TI-IROUGI-I 92, RECORD5 OF KING, COUNTY, WA5i-lINGTON. VICINITY MAE I" = 3000't 11 '3254 SF __ ._ .. ____ -= .. =_=-_~_}5=_=_=_~_=. ~ I---------~-~ I I I 16 I 1882 SF I ___ I=-=.~-=-131~ -::::..::::_--.J 1---------=-:1~:':i I I I IS w I z 181:l OF _ w I ~ ~Ii~o-' ___ L ---be-=-- 3~V 1---------- I I FOUND REBAR WIT, . ~ )'ELLCW CAP 'STAMPII) 9 "CDRE 30/27" ON PROP. '...11'11: "" ~_I~~ __ " 14 FOUND REBAR WnH -~ yELLOW CAP STAMP;~D "CORE 30427' ON PROP. LltJE " !? 8415> OF h 8514 S:= --"I~--IH-~=j .. -.----.............. --... - 1 12102 SF -----1~lr 'ITT"'....,..~ ---.,------ I g I .. ---, "7 -----------~~ B I 1219 SF I I 1H-,*",=1f-.="':::: _= .. = .. "I.:::::::: -_._J __ . __ ~210 SF l I I I I I J w Z _J .~ !~'"""""'-=lI,.=,.,,:=..,='"=--~-=".=-=--,~~-"--~ 10 129!> S= w z :::; IS C.3'W.XO 4'\j OF PROP. COR. ,~F'tKE IS D.6"~ OF PROP LINE ALL EXISITING STRUCTURES TO I3E REMOVED (rYP) I ~JCI IS 0 ,fW OF PRO:J. UNE I~ END 0;-FENCE I I '-/ IS O.7'E. OF I FOUr'le 1/2' ~EBAR WITH -~ TRACT A 18451 SF I I I 1 ~ I I I 13 1422 SF I I L ----__ ....1 I I I I I I I I I 12 8112 SF L __ I I I I I I I i I I, I fgi 8:~~ s:= t){ r, I- I . I I I I I I I I J L _____ J , PRO::!. UNE Yrll~)W ,'[ASTle c.A'p STAMPfl~1 ~ /FENC.:: '~.ORI\jE.R. "CORE 3~"127" :\7 CORNER ~ IS 0 5'~ >:1 4'~ ~ -I ---"r-------1:!:;14;:,.' --,~iB;oiiriv....:6~C2:'-:.....-.l--~6~OS' ;q----L __ ~:£.. __ J / CF P<OF' cep "-. NBB'03' 47"W 294,29 00 '-'~S. LINE, r~ 1/?, hJE 1/4, ~·jW "/4, :';EC. 14-23-5 BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCI-IMARKS: -40' SCALE: 1" ~~O •••• 8!D N88'22'11"W I3ETIl.EEN TI-IE MONUMENT NOS. 1851 AND 1852, FOUND IN FLACE AND DE&CRII3ED I3ELOW FER CITY OF RENTON I-IORIZONT AL CONTROL NETWORK FUI3L1SI-IED NOVEMI3ER I!>, 1994. PT"IS!:>2 • 3" BRA5S SU~ACE DISC. IN TI-IE INT. NE 4TI-I ST. (SE. 12STI-I STJ • 146TI-I AVE S.E. EL 454.11 OR (136"",14 METERS) PP'2103 • I3ROKEN I3RA55 5U~ACE DISC. IN THE INT. 5.E_ 126TI-I ST .• 15t.TI-I AVE S.E. EL !>41_94 OR (1",1.013 METERS) D A TUM: NAVD 19S8 DATUM PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY (425) 421-014'3 CONTACT, ROI3IN I3ALES ,11/ • iOL.HD :!,. GRA.3S ----../ W SURF ~.CE DISK ui (BROKD'J) W/PUr,IC'l FLANNERIENGINEERl5URVEY OR W ~I I CORE DESIGoN INC. 14111 N.E. 29TI-I FL_ SUITE 100 I3ELLEVUE, WA5I-IINGoTON S8001 (425) 865-1611 tol L{') CONTACT, LAFE 13.I-IERMANSEN -FLANNEl'" DAviD E. CAYTON, P.E. -ENGoINEER STEFI-IEN J. SCI-IREI. PL.S. -SURvEYOR SITE STATISTICS 6ETI3ACK6, TOTAL SITE AREA, FROFOSED USE, NO. OF LOT5, ,~VERAGoE LOT SIZE, FROFOSED DEN5ITY, FERMITTED DENSITY, EXISTING ZONING, FROPOSED ZONINGo, PUI3LIC R-O-W TRACT 'A' -STORM DETENTION FRONT -20' REAR -3D' SIDE -5', 20' adjacent to street 164,140' SF. DET ACI-IED-SINGLE FAMILY 11 1,S81 SF. 4.6 DUlAC. 5 D,UJAC. 1"'-1 1"'-5 30,599± 5F. 16,451± SF_ DENSITY CALCULATIONS GROSS AREA OF PROPERTY, -FUI3L1C R-O-W -FRlvATE ACCESS TRACTS -WETLANDS NET SITE AREA, NO.":;;= LOTS, NET DENSITY, 184,140' OF 30,599' OF N/A NlA 154.141' OF OR 3.54 ACRES 11 4.80 DU/ACRE 11 LOTS WOULD RESULT IN A NET DENSITY OF 4.80 DWELLINGo UNITS FER ACRE. ""RUNE DAMAGED TWGS .4FTER PL.4" TI'-'G FLACE IN vERT. PQ5TION" DOuB_E LEADERS WILL.. BE REJECTED NOTE, 5TAKING 0" "AS NEEDED I3ASIS" ""=R "OTES, ALL GUYS -C BE FLEYIBL= KEEF ROOTBAL_ '1QIST AND FROTEC-ED .4T ALL TI'1=S I-IOLD CRO.JN OF ROOTI3ALL .4T OR JUST ABOVE FNISf-'ED GRAD= ="!OTECT TRUNK AND LlMI3S FROM INJURY I3ACKFILL TQ BE SETTLED USING WATER ONLY -NQ MECI-IANIC.4L COMFACT 0'-' RE'10vE ALL WRAF. TIES ~ CONTAINERS. REGARDLES5 OF MATERIAL_ (2) 2x2 DF, STAKES, -PLUMB (I 1/2" DIA. Y IQ' SCH 40 GA_ v. FIPE AT STREETS) WITH ELA5TIC CHAN-LOCK TYPE QR "!UElBER GUY5 TIE::> IN FIGURE EIGHT, f<l:MOvE AFTER ONE GROWING SEASON PROTECTIVE WRAPPIN,:;' ::>URING SHIFMENT TO SITE • I"STAL_ATION REMOvE AT COMPLETION 0:= FLANTING TURF PLANTING, PROV::>E 3' "NC GRASS' TREE RING ~ 3" DEEP Ml-LCI-I IN WELL. MULCH, I/r -." SIZE HCLD I3ACK F'<:OM TRUNK 8" TO 10" FINISf-'ED GRADE FREFARE FLANTING BED PER SFEC'S, AT MIN LOOSEN AND MIX SOIL TO 113" OR DEFTI-I OF f':OOTEl.4LL AND 4 TI'1ES BALL DIA RE'1ovE ALL WRAF TIES AND CaNT .41"ERS SCORE ROOTBAL_ AND WORK NURSERT SOIL AWAT FRCM FERIMETER RCOTS_ 5PREAD RCOTS INTO EXCAVATION. SET BALL ON J"DISTURI3ED 3ASE OR COI""PACTED MOUND UNDER BAL..L FEHE-RAT!O'-' -C SUBBASE 1+) 12' TREE PLANTING AND STAKING PLANT LIST SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME ACER RUBRUM COMMON NAME e~ARLET MAFL= SPECIFIC VARIETIES "ARMSTRCNG' 'AUT JMI\ I3LAZE" "BOWH.4LL" "KARFIC<". AND "SCARLET SENTI"EL" W I « o is In '5 w [L 1 1 PROJ=:CT NU~BE" 04027 .". '" ~---~~. 52 Cl.Nlj l/:t REBAR--'/ N/VPC "DEI 2.3238" J.1 S ~,: .30 ow ('If .OR~::R 53 NW 1/4, NE 1/4 SEC. 14, TWP. 23 No, RGE 5 E, WM N.E. 4TH ST. (S.E. 128TH ST.) 2622.3.:S (f<CAS; 295.25 I'--~~' 6Q'. ._--t- ~ F~POS!:D 12" CPJ:F ~ STO~ DRAIN (TYF) ffiOF05!:D e" PVC SANITARY 5!:UJER (TYP) ... ~ FROFOS!:P 6" D.I. ~. UJAT!:R MAIN (TYF) \ \ \ \ N' ~ SCALE: 1" -40' ~~O ____ ~T REFERENCES I. eeCTION eu6DlVISI0N A:R F'LAT OF MAF'LEtroOD ESTATES, F'f.lAeE I, (MEl), RECORDED IN VOL. 201; OF F'LATe, FG. &1 TO b2, RECORDS OF KINe;, COUNTY, WASJ.!INe;,TCN BENCi-iMARK,S: F'T'i8&2 = 3" 6RA55 eu1'i!'ACE DISC. IN T.e INT. NE 4Tf.I ST. (S.e. 12&TH STJ. I4&Tf.I AVE S.e. EL. 454.11 OR (138b14 METERS) F'T"2103 • 6FWKEN 6RAee eu1'i!'ACE DleC. IN T.e INT . 5E. 128TH ST.. 156 TJ.-I AVE 5E. EL. 541.94 OR (lb1.o13 METERS) DATUM NAYO 1988 DATUM A:R CITY OF f<£NTON 5URVEY BASIS OF BEARINGS N88'2Z'I1"W 6ETWEEN THE MONUMENT NOS. 1651 .oN!) 1652, FOUND IN F'LACE AND DE!CRI6ED 6ELOW PER CITY OF RENTON HORlZCNTAL CONTROL NETllX?RK R.l6L1Sf.lED NOVEMBER 10>, 1994. REFERENCE MONUMENTS; 42' R/W l~L:1 16' TYPICAL ON-SITE ROAD SECTION NO SCALE STRUCTURAL fiLL SLOPE EXTEND ROAD TO FULL WIDTH ~'~~5' ~_~ 42' EXlST1NG ROAD~ . 2":8'1 11, ,;':,;. ~~~~ ""n""" """ "" "","wm J AREA TO PROVIDE A SUITABLE SUB-BASE 5' CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK (6" THICK IN DRIl1:WA YS; 4" THICK ELSEWHERE) CEMENT CONCRETE l1:RllCAL CURB AND GUTTER N.E 4TH Sf. HALF-STREET IMPROVEMENTS NO SCALE LJ f-« CJ "<t co co C\.j l5 ~ ~ fu Vi U f- <{ 0 '" () '" z. c-o "-~ '<i :.. !! 0 co LI.J ;g co co :> '" '<i Il " Q( 0 '" ~ l! " ::> 0> 0 OJ') £ .S u.. ii ~ '" ~ '" R: <: () -Q)" l.(j R ~ "" z. w '" :! '" '<i . '" z. '" ... ::z "t: .... Q~ I..j 0.: 0:: ~ <:' W (~ ?; K 2 " )... )...~ gs ~ G :<::2' ~ \.if-~ I..j u "0.:' I..jW c:i -, --; Lc: ~~ ll:i 0 SCL CJ W C§ Ld > Z Z 0 ( ') s CL en <{ 0.. uJ 0:: 0:: 0 n « SC-FFT n=- 1 1 P:;:O,JECT f'JI Hv10CR 04027 o RADIO TRAN5MITiER N e IJ.i uj 4 5 10 4 13.62 Ac. @ <j. ~TRF c::~ 2 ~ ~;;: tt "",,, /'" ~ ~' "I 10 ZI 'I""~-U 10 'it 'r. 'L ;'-' D .. ~ ~ ___ '" r..y ll)~ l1.'f Jp·'OA. (ON. 2) __ 40 ~ I ~ ~ -,~ 20 < ~ = \I 20 ~ -!.I < It 'F <3 H ~ I 19 ,I II· 12 13 18 ,I II< n 13 @) __ .••. 14 3' Maplewood > ~ ghborhood Par k @ @ @ @ ® 1.35Ac. 4.(07 Ac. ® NEIGI-I130RI-IOOD DETAIL MAP AMBERWOOD DIVISION II RENTON, WASI-IINGTON CORE DESIGN INC., ENGINEERING PLANNING' SURVEYING SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 CORE NO. 04021 TR. A ~~ r-VJ ~ 1 s.~ 480d35 313.57 C")I In :-:. ~Io . @I 01 @~II[:' • S.E. 137TH ST. Q .:-, 1-· 5~3,95 (600.10) "'( :::: ~ g o:'B ~N ~~------~------~g~ ~~ ~ ~i H6e ;.~ 5~4.'5 2.97,13 ~9 i=:: ;:::11 I::: I '-("II i"li) j" BRASS / c,'JRFA=E DISK "K111C / 20UI'HY MOI'1" I ~ENTON CON ! "W. 1852 ~ 26r86IJ~:,~:~;,:EIITOI{110T'~11_ _ \ EASIS OF BEWI~GS. 15 14 I...-..-REnTON CONTROL 1\101-1 f\O. 1851 L.J Z LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: I~ « w -1 Z 1311 ?4 LOT 1 OF KING COUNT'( SHORT PLAT NUMBER 1075015, ACCORDING TO SHORT PLAT RECORDED NOVEMBER 4, 1976 UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7611040904, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. PARCEL 8: LOT 2 OF KING COUNT'( SHORT PLAT NUMBER 1075015. ACCORDING TO SHORT PLAT RECORDED NOVEMBER 4. 1976 UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7611040904. RECORDS OF KING COUN TY. WASHINGTON. PARCEL C: -mE NORTlH HALF OF -mE NOR-mEAST QUARTER OF -mE NORTlHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, lOWNSHIP 23 NOR-m. RANGE 5 EAST. W.M., IN KING COUNT'(, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT -mE EASl 1166.01 FEET -mEREOF, AS MEASURED ALONG -mE NOR-m LINE THEREOF: AND EXCEPT -mE NORTlH 42 FEET -mEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNT'( FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 5758686; AND EXCEPT PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY RIGHT-Of-WAY. PARCEL 0: TRACT 999, PLAT OF AMBERWOOD. ACCORDING TO -mE PLAT -mEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 207 OF PLATS, PAGES 90 THROUGH 92, RECORDS OF KING, COUNT'(, WASHINGTON, NOTES 1. ALL TI11.E INFORMATlON SHOWN ON -mIS MAP HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM FIRST AMERICAN TI11.E INSURANCE COMPANY TlTlJE COMMITMENT FILE NO. NCS-77315-WAl SECOND REPORT, DATED SEPTEMBER 12. 2004. IN PREPARING -mIS MAP. CORE DESIGN HAS CONDUCTED NO INDEPENDENT l1TlJE SEARCH NOR IS CORE DESIGN AWARE OF ANY TI11.E ISSUES AFFECTING -mE SURVEYED PROPERTY O-mER -mAN -mOSE SHOWN ON TlHE MAP AND DISCLOSED BY -mE REFERENCED FlRST AMERICAN 1111.E COMMITlMENT. CORE DESIGN HAS REUED WHOLLY ON FIRST AMERICAN'S REPRf5ENTATIONS OF -mE TITlJE'S CONDITION TO PREPARE -mIS SURVEY AND -mEREFORE CORE DESIGN QUALIFIES -mE MAP'S ACCURACY AND COMPLIETENESS TO -mAT EXTENT. 2. -mIS SURVEY REPRESENTS VlSISLIE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT CONDI110NS EXISTING ON APRIL 09 2004. ALIL SURV£Y CONTROL INDICA TED AS "FOUND" WAS RECOVERED FOR TlHIS PROJECT IN APRIL. 2004, 3. PROPERT'( AREA ~ 184,740± SQUARE FEET (4.2410± ACRES). 4. ALIL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET. 5. -mIS IS A fiELD TRAV£RSE SURVEY. A SOKKIA FlVE SECOND COMBINED ELECTRONIC TOTAL STAnON WAS USED TO MEASURE TlHE ANGULAR AND DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN -mE CONTROLLING MONUMENTATION AS SHOWN. CLOSURt RATIOS OF -mE TRIWERSE MET OR EXCEEDED -mOSE SPECIFIED IN WAC 332-130-090. DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN COMPARED TO AN N.G.S. BASElJNE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DATE OF TlHIS SURVEY. 6. UTILITIES OTlHER 1HAN -mOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST ON -mIS SITE. ONLY -mOSE UTIUTIES WI-m EVIDENCE OF -mEIR INSTALILATION VISIBLIE AT GROUND SURFACE ARE SHOWN HEREON. UNDERGROUND UTILlT'( LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. UNDERGROUND CONNECTIONS ARE SHOWN AS STRAIGHT LINES BETWEEN SURFACE UTILlT'( LOCATIONS BUT MAY CONTAIN BENDS OR CURVES NOT SHOWN. SOME UNDERGROUND LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM PUBLIC RECORDS. CORE DESIGN ASSUMES NO LlABILlT'( FOR -mE ACCURACY Of PUBLIC RECORDS. FOUND ,j" [hA~-):; IJISe -7 WITH X STAMPED "LS / 22335" ON LlI,E / I rCUND ;J1J~H:IIED 3" ERA'3S I DISC STA\!PEIl "Ls .Itl477" ~~-/ -$~'-2S.90- I \ II r)'.!C:;'::ri~),;) w._ I ,,,r~ :;FO;:';v, EH « I ~ FOUNC 1/2" I,CArl W'lIH --, - YELLDW PL,<'\STlC CAP STAIvIPE2 ''"'' () "CORE 30427" 0 rc Ol~ eln ti LIN: ___ L ~''\ I~ Ail.'HERWW'1) XL'. !)(-,'~ ·)0-92 11[[.11;0 20:"l)el]lO(i7~'C;' ,OUND 1/2' REBAR WITH--~ YELLOW Pl..AST!C CP STAMPED '-..."'. "CORE 30427" ON °ROP. LNE }:" _~ I __ ---,,,, 1 ' ; I I I FOUND 1/2' REBAR WITH -~, YELLO~ FLAS~C CAP STA~FED " "'mm" 3il47 I" ,A, 1 CORNER "'" --_I -I- I -~;:';!\iIH 1(Ii,,1 s'· '\"C ~:)() J.t:-: NW 1/4, NE 1/4 SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, W.M N.E. 40TH t,; w I z 1 I , I ".: I I I I r-----'30' ROAD Mm UTILITY . I ~~~~~~~liJ;5 I I Lr---..., ' I' I I If .1:-:' I~SLl<VL[) I OH lH.lfT Cf WA 'r RE~. -NQ. 76922~,OJ9~ (;1 f< o '" ,'-FE'~CE IS a.G'W / OF PROP. LINE. I /~fEI'lC::: IS OA'W :' ~J~ [-',Of-' IIN~ i[-" f" F'i(' W Ii f/' f~'.'C g, r-END OF FENCE <D i/~SR6F6ELS[ ~ z W 'S-E ':i, '~ 5\ 8 ~ z - " z ::0 ,-E~D'OF FEN~E :' IS O.7'E\OF I PROP. ulic <1' __ 1 [c z 1311.23 101 S, 98 FOUN[ 3" BRASS SuRFACE DISI~. (BROKE!'J) W/PU~C-t LJ vi w ~I I tol L() :: ~m '" o o z \ \ \ N' ~ SCALE: 1" 40' BASIS OF BEARINGS N88'22'17"W BETWEEN -mE MONUMENT NOS, 1851 AND 1852. FOUND IN PLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW PER CIT'( OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 15, 1994, REFERENCES 1. SECTION SUBDIVISION PER PLAT OF MAPLEWOOD ESTATES, PHASE 1, (MEl). RECORDED IN VOL. 205 OF PLATS. PG. 51 TO 62, RECORDS OF KING COUNT'(, WASHINGTON DATlJM NAVD 1988 DATUM PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY BENCHMARK PT#'B52 ~ 3" BRASS SURFACE DISC. IN -mE INT. NE 4TH ST. (S,E. 128TH ST.)" 148TH AVE S.E. EL. 454.77 OR (138.614 METERS) PT#2103 = BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC. IN -mE INT. S.E. 128-m ST." 156-m AVE S.E. EL. 547.94 OR (167.013 METERS) REFERENCE MONUMENTS: NO. 1851 31>" DOMED BRASS SURFACE DISC W/PUNCH MARK AT -mE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF N.E. 4-m ST. (S.L 128-m ST.) AND 140-m AVE. S.E. NO, 1852 -3" FLAT BRASS SURFACE DISC AT -mE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF N.E. 4-m ST. (S.E. 128-m ST.) AND 148TlH AVE. S.E. LEGEND CD TELEPHONE MANHOLE t!l SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE I:l CATCH BASIN (T'iPE I) [ME] MAl L BOX • UTILlT'( POLE t UTILlT'( POLE WI-m STREET LIGHT OH W OVER HEAD WIRE E--GUY ANCHOR [5<:J CABLIE RISER U FIRE HYDRANT lXl WATER VALVE EE WATER METER () WATER BLOW OFF 8-HOSE BIB .. STREET SIGN II TEST PIT • BOLLARD BWF BARBED WIRE fENJ;E- elf CHAIL LINK FENCE VB F VERTICAL BOARD FENCE HWF HOG v.tRE FENCE • rnEE A = ALDER F = FIR H ~ HEMLOCK C = CEDAR PL = POPLAR "t-~ ai ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 CIJ (fj lei 7 Z W (~ :5= 1--(jJ <.( q W 0:: o 0 0 o w b 0:: (L (L < S EET OF 1 1 "" Lu Lu Z o Z Lu PROJECT \lUtv1BER 04027 ! ()WI J 3" BIIA::;S / SURF,~CE CI$K. "!'-,II·IG I :::OUI'~-)' \~O~~" 26:23.87 / ~~~)~1"\{~-~2 ~:'o:JSHh \l:lT'y RnJTmJ;'10 '11 ~'f ---;;-8S:2~ ----l+~c:---~~_ \ BASIS JF EEAFINGS 15 14 \ PEr n8~,1 :':::)I'rROL rJON w z ~ « ~ z LEGAL DESCRIFTION FARCEL A, LOT I OF KING COUNTY Sl-+ORT FLAT NUMBER 101"01,,. ACCORDING TO SHORT FLAT RECORDED NOvEMBER 4, 1'31b UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1611040'304, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASl-+INGTON. FARCEL B LOT 2 OF KING COUNTY Sl-+ORT FLAT NUMBER 101"01,,, ACCORDING TO Sl-+ORT FLAT RECORDED NOvEMBER 4, 1'31b UNDER RECORDING NUMBER lbI1040'304, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. FARCEL C THE NORm l-+ALF OF Tl-+E NORTI-+EAST QUARTER OF THE NORTI-+WEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOUJNSI-+IF 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEFT THE EAST 1166.01 FEET THEREOF, AS MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH LINE TI4EREOF; AND EXCEFT THE NORTH 42 FEET TI4EREOF CONvEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD FURFOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER ,,1,,%86; AND EXCEFT FUGET SOUND FOWER AND LIGHT COMFANY RIGHT-OF-WAY FARCEL D, TRACT '3'3'3. FLAT OF AMBERU.OOD, ACCORDING TO Tl-+E FLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN vOLUME 201 OF FLATS. FAGES '30 Tl-+ROUGH 92. RECORDS OF KING. COUNTY, WASI-+INGTON. vICINITY MAP 1" .3000" NE 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N., RG£. 5 £., w.M. N.E. 4TH ST. (S.E. 128TH ST.) r-FOUND PUNCH£: 3" BRASS MCAS 2622. 33 (r,:~:AS) / DISC STAMPEC lS 30427" \ \~-101;;-;-\ -_/ "---"l 1i I- I I I r '1 -:---, r:-- ')' I I I 2 I I- I I I I ~ I .;; l0=0 SF I l,,2;; SF !" I I I 3' 4 130'32 SF I ~ T I I. I I L I ------ -~ {:...Q' I I I I I I L ---___ J 60' I I I I 1----___ ,,] 68' !? 8415 SF / ON LINE 39,98 I ~1'"I::'--~-""""'----"--~ -- I I 'JS I I COri~JcR IS D.3 W,XO.4'N OF FROP. COR. ~ -------FEl-.JCE S O_7'W I C'F PROP. LINE. I I I ---_I I -J ~8'~'~\):_:"W .---i,-t---__ "_""~' .J~":,,.~... 3R..Q~I~.r /~FENCE IS Q.6'W CF Pf'OP, LINE. FO"I,D "/2"" REBAR WIT-~ (ELLOW PLASnc, CAP STAMPED "'- "COR:: 30427" 0.1 'E. o=-PRJP. LI NE 1-----'- z () "" [" ---- I I 11 I '32,,4 SF I I L ___ -131'-____ .J 4," ---.... ,-",,---_ ..... 1---------, I I I I I 16 I I 1882 SF I I I L ____ 121' _____ .J 1---------, I I I 15 I I I I l819 SF I I I ,-.. 6 8,,14 SF ~~-----1:'1' -, I I I I I _.J I---------l I I I I I 1 I I 1:'13:' SF I I I L_ ---121'--___ _ EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOvED (TYF.) '~FENCE IS o.fw Cf p",op L1N[ ,'-EN! OF FENCE ;/ IS 1.01. or PROP. LirJL •• ----~-".""~"".".""'.--'"~---.~_""."".,._" ___ l!) I----------~ I I I -I I " I I 12'9 SF I , c, N , .. I - ----131"---_ -,,] Ilfj----- I I 1__ "' ____ J ~UINI) 1/2" ~'EBAI-I l'illH -~ "'ELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMr'! 0 a 'CORE 3D427" UJ PROP. urr: "" 0:0 __ 1-~_ " fOUND 1/1" RFBAII WlIH --- 'rLLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "CCR:: 3042i" O\J PROP, LI~r I I I I ,---------, I I I ..... I " I 14 / " . 8830 SF I I I L19,-_.J ! --,-.. __ .""., ""'--"""---"" 1----------l I I I I I ~ I I 1=-0 SF I I I L----121"-___ J ,------- I I I 10 I 12'3;; SF I , I I I I I L---134'--~-_J z :: z _ Cb -:.-() }'J 0 & 0 ::g o .-z .- END OF 'E'CE IS 0,7'E, OF PROP, J"-E TRACT A 1B4"l s= ,...--.,..\..~.?~\Io."r-· "-"IL--r-'-6_6_"~--"'_-+_20' 0RlvATE ACCESS/ .; r-----I UTILITl EASEMENT _// I, --r II I i I I I I I I I I .I II I ~ 12 ~ I ~ "I I "-' I 8~00 SF !'ll I 8112 SF I I I I I I I I I I I ---~ L-____ .J L ______ .J 13 1422 &F FOUND 1/2" REBAR w'lITH -~ fEL_OW P "ASTIC CA' STAMPI n " /~FE'CE (CRNER "CORE 30427" AT CO~NER -'"" / IS O,:'E.X1.4'rJ --"T-------!.:IIL:::."--':-N8Eim~W-.i:£::.-.--L-;~?Q--L--:!:2.--J / OF PRep. COR. "NSS'03'47"W 60' ibO' 60 " 294.29 "",----s. LiNE. "J 1./'). fJE 1/"" 'T I~W 1/4, SE2. 14-';:'3-5 BASIS OF BEARINGS BENCI-IMARKS: SCALE: 1" -40' ~~------~r N88"22'I1"W BET1.!JEEN Tl-+E MONUMENT NOS. 18,,1 AND 18,,2, FOUND IN FLACE AND DE;;CRIBED BELOW FER CITY OF RENTON l-+ORIZONT AL CONTROL NETUJORK. PUBLISHED NOvEMBER 15, IS'34. FT"IS,,2 = 3" BRASS SURFACE DISC. IN THE INT. NE 4TH ST. (S.E. 128TH ST.) • 148Tl-+ AvE S.E. EL. 4,,4.11 OR (138.£>14 METERS) FT"2103 = BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC. IN THE INT. SE. 128TH ST .• I"b Tl-+ AvE S.E. EL. 541.'34 OR (161.013 METERS) DATUM: NAVD 1'388 DATUM FER CITY OF RENTON SURvEY -/14 II FCUND 3" BRASS ~/ W ~,LPFJI.CE DISK vi (BROf',EI'J~ W/=>JNCH I W ~I I ~I L[) GO " o o z AFFLICANT STEVEN BECK 1'312'3 SE. 14"TI-+ STREET RENTON, WA '3<00,,'3 OWNER BALES LIMITED FARTNERSI-+IF FO BOX 301" RENTON, WASI-+INGTON '380"b (42,,) 421-014'3 CONTACT, ROBIN BALES FLANNERIENGINEERl5URVEYOR CORE DESIGN INC. 14111 NE. 2'3T1-l FL., SUITE 100 BELLEVUE, WASI-+INGTON '38001 (42,,) 88,,-1811 CONTACT, LAFE B. HERMANSEN -FLANNER DAVID E. CAYTON, FE. -ENGINEER STEFHEN J. SCHREI, FLS. -SURvEYOR SITE STATISTICS TOTAL SITE AREA, FROFOSED USE, NO. OF LOn", AvERAGE LOT SIZE, FROFOSED DENSITY, FERMITTED DENSITY, EXISTING ZONING, FROPOSED ZONING, FUBLIC R-O-W TRACT 'A' -STORM DETENTION FRONT -20' REAR -30' SIDE -,,', 20' adjacent to otr=t 184,140' SF. DETACI-+ED-SINGLE FAMILY 11 1,'381 SF. 4.8 DUlAC. " D.UJAC. R-I R-" 30.599± SF. 18,4,,1. SF. DENSITY CALCULATIONS GROSS AREA OF FROPERTY, -FUBLIC R-O-W -FRIVATE ACCESS TRACTS -WETLANDS NET SITE AREA, NO. OF LOTS, NET DENSITY, 184.140' SF 30,"'3'3± SF N/A N/A 1,,4,141± SF OR 3.54 ACRES 11 4.80 DU/ACRE 11 LOTS WOULD RESULT IN A NET DENSITY OF 4.80 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. NEIGI-I60RI-IOOD DETAIL MAP 1" :;; 200'± W f--« o U1 is V) >= W IL SHEET OF 1 1 04027 o o o "' " o o m .' ---~ l' 2 72 ~-S;I'~ CP TYPE f FF[r1' Il. ~1l~",,~a9a.g LOT 2 27475" lNl NT ooeo 9030 SF = j33, '," TA A OPEN SPliCE TRACT E OPEN SPACE •• TRACT F OPEN SPACE TA C O::lEN SPACE , ~ ~,l , Iii ~ 1"11 ;:;;. j! i " I 'i' , , I I, liX '" , I , , i m~ LOn ,',--------~C-~OOO<~__t r 50 KC 16"040904 , , ro ru IJ 19 ~r. "" ----t------I 65(0 3F !IO'O o " 453J/:; ~4-~,fil'1-~;-' ---., ,2 I.n, ", 10 I 9 I ~, , lA c. I~ C;(~~,'l i : :1.:1(.52 iOJ19 lHS / 115l SF 02.:51" .,. 3664 JAt\ 80 VOL \7. 1--------- 150® ISC.I2.@ ~0.50Ac. ! ~ !! @ll I .64 * '" g 0.50 Ac! -:! 144.6fD 1219,5& o 89.66 " 21 :.l:es.G2 • 22 • 23 69.61 • 24 69.69 '~25 @ 0 1 "" r-------------------------~~'llI1~26 :a 89.74 1~27 , 89.17 .>28 69.79 • 29 ISO.I2.@ 15Q,IZ@ 324.91 TRACT I TRACT B 12607 2 N D 12M~ ~ 4q~ ...,'!I 2A8~ 60 1~9.34 Q 44 ~ 84 -~85{;, EST ATE S'''~ ~"'"o \\ I I I 9713 82 ~~e7 ~----~ ~ * 90 ~ SS o RADIO TRANSMITTER N e Map I e woo d ghborhood Par k , , 13.59 Ac. ~32 \34.07 31 3D 29 28 21 24 23 22 32. 134.01 \34.07 31 3 30 3 4 29 4 28 5 6 27 6 ~ r-------t-----~ ~ ~----~ ~ ~ ! 1 26 ! 1 25 8 24 9 10 23 10 II 22 11 lH----l Wt----t------1 cri W 1-----1 cri 21 (i) S.E. 1<l132rfO s ~lIl.5)-·-m~.5-· ~W I~ L ~L'2 12 ST. ~ itT II 12 III 75 s~ 13 NEIGI-IBORI-IOOD DETAIL MAP AMBERWOOD DIVISION II RENTON, WASI-IINGTON 2.97.13 r "1 -'fl Jl_+--,-~_N,E, 4T1-4 ST, (S,E, 128TI-4ST) I I I L NE 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N, RGE 5 E, w.M. ii, 11 11 SCALE: 1" -50 a 25 50 100 ~ I pATUM: NAYD 1~88 DATUM FER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY BASIS OF BEARINGS N88'22'll"UJ 6ETUJEEN TI-IE MONUMENT NOS. 18&1 AND 18!;2, FOUND IN FLACE AND DESCRI6ED eELOW FER CITY OF RENTON I-IORIZONT AL CONTROL NETW01'l< FU6L1SI-IED NOYEMeER I!;, I~~. BENCI-IMARK5: PT"18&2 • 3" 6RASS SURFACE DISC. IN TI-IE INT. NE 4T1-! ST. (S.E. 128T1-! SV 4 148TI-I AVE S.E. EL. 4!;4.11 OR (138.614 METERS) PT"2103 • 6ROKEN 6RASS SURFACE DISC. IN TI-IE INT. S.E. 128TI-I ST .• 1!;6 TI-I AVE S.E. EL. !;41.':l4 OR (161.013 METERS) LEGAL DESCRIFTION FARCEL A, LOT I OF KING CoUNTY SI-IORT FLAT NUM6ER 1015015, ACCORDING TO 5I-I0RT PLAT RECORDED NOVEM6ER 4, IS16 UNDER RECORDING NUM6ER 1611040S04, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASI-IINGTON. FARCEL 6 LOT 2 OF KING COUNTY SI-IORT FLAT NUM6ER 101501!;, ACCORDING TO SI-IORT FLAT RECORDED NOVEM6ER 4, IS16 UNDER RECORDING NUM6ER 1611040S04, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASI-IINGTON. FARCEL C T"E NORT" I-IALF OF T"E NORT"EAST QUARTER OF T"E NORT"WEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, T0II.N5I-I1F' 2:3 NORTH, RANGIE !; EMT, Wl1., IN KING COUNTY, UJASI-IINGTON; EXCEFT Tl-!E EAST 1166.01 FEET TI-IEREOF, AS MEASURED ALONG TI-IE NORTI-I LINE TI-IEREOF, AND EXCEPT TI-IE NORTI-I 42 FEET T"EREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD FURPOSES 6'1" DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUM6ER !;1!;868b, AND EXCEPT f'UGET SOUND FOWER AND LIG"T COMFANY RIG"T-OF-WAY FARCEL D, TRACT SSS, PLAT OF AM6ERWOOD, ACCORDING TO TI-IE FLAT TI-IEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 201 OF FLATS, FAGES ':l0 TI-IROUGI-I 0;;2, RECORDS OF KING, COUNTY, WAS"INGTON. OWNER 6ALES LIMITED FARTNERSI-IIF PO 60X 301!; RENTON, WASI-IINGTON ~80!;6 (42!;) 421-014':l CONTACT, R061N 6ALES AFFLICANT STEVEN 6ECK 1':l12~ S.E. 14!;TI-I STREET RENTON, UJA ':l80!;':l PLANNER/ENGINEER/SURVEYOR CORE DESIGN INC. 14111 N.E. 2':lTI-I PL" SUITE 100 6ELLEVUE, WASI-IINGTON S8001 (425) 88!;-1811 CONTACT, LAFE 6.I-IERMANSEN -FLANNER DAviD E. CAYTON, F.E. -ENGINEER STEVEN J. SCI-IREI, F.L.5. -SURVEYOR TREE LEGEND A6H AeH A ALDER C CEDAI'< CW CCTIONWOOD DEC DECIDUOUS F FIR H I-IEMLQCK MAD MADRONA M MAI"~= w , « o 01 Z o Vi G Co: o z "<I-c::, c::, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V) ILl f--« 0 (; li ~' ~ -£ 0-'" '" Z -t::: :! ~ -.J ('I W L OJ ifj " co ~ 0 on 0- ~ '" .S i; ~ oJ" ~ > ~ '" .l: "-(3 ~ (.:) ...J Z 5 « 1"( 0 SHEFT 1 ~ M :z: '" '" "->-'<i on lLI on ~ '<i " "" .. , ::l .E '" ~ ~ ~ co :z: on ~ :z: .. z "" l.j 0.: <r ;::' t5 ~« )....~ -:'C 2 Uf-- U l.j "i 0 ~~ S(L W ~ > 0 er: (l (l « OF 1 PR0JECT NUMBER 04027