Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA99-013 --_ BASIS OF BEARING PER RECORD OF SURVEY. RECORDING NUMBER 9104309011. VOLUME 20, PAGE 71 CITY OF RENTON VERTICAL DATUM 20 10 0 20 AO GRAPHICAL SCALE t .20• Tog CERNER 0 ER' 4.DD.GP�9 1 4.DD o@o ED « 4.D.©.9�� T. P . >e' „E FENCE (•\ 9E9..OF mar cxorE \I CONCRETE P.K �.p^E FENCE I �/SOUTHEAST PROPERry wLw A r • ,5.n.I ,m. arL .nEcwom Ix NCE Lr ' IIIN„EL � " l l ����l�.Cis �'' �f �No OF FENCE 5 9�97 NORTHERLY. LOT,. N.WEST«THE« RLNE OF.0 R0.:, R«R«. CTR.OF,a. °'Ur. r °'s .; 6 DD u>o,� ...,.,t,.'°°° �` � 1 s>_H AND 0.2.CO...a P R�A so° o D, ° NNRR OF THE 70.DONATION CLAIN LP.SOUTH OF THE NORTH UNE OF S. --RG,x TARO WRDnc sGR ,�•: -- -_ i�.;9- j,ao ,o'°Tm ,,. WOOD FENCE I..a�„ 'o<w`.3.'o.RE I,s.iR.Ilk E«.,..w.�Illl�,o„.w. RE«..EEOROEo PENCE• N SHED 5 7' �°.a 4- NE E. ' II+"'/�� �poNwETE a«+WALL E. LOT 2 z 0..oucc.NORTHERLY. OF THE F.1 LINE OF SAD S 2 AN.o MAND WEST OF THE LOT 3 AND L n_«sw. 7.' CENTER ER DF w PETAL W E7o".r`rzPOvwouc .LEIS .RN ° , � 'R C w I• .•�' Ix ot PR.ERn �.PROPERTY.R CONCRETE F sumu a 4, TOBIN DONATION CLAIM as RE.w,kN« E WALL-, I, Cl)T.D.C.111 ,Q�....� E.,ERERT,. .F.RTNER SE.�N.F,NE RE..P..��EN.,« OF 7.5 o 1939. 000 CNI OGIONNIARK USED FOR THE AS 4.D6.9 g / IN � ,. �0wce/ s" I �,� sv nwLs:iF ; w ` YE..ELEVATIONS DESERVED RENTON BEN... 000 OF LEAD• «6mN,HEMT .N wn, N s� .Io 4 F °ELr•N . 7 FEET. OF RENTON I a, nl.e,NET.. 7'. a ofS05,IPo �nrgr •.e—r—« n i, I � r�� nLL ,' u _ , BUILDING A2b oEn (RESIDENT],R „_F nL.- u N9.PERC.«RENTON PLOWING DEPARTMENT. w HOWRESTRICT.IS I.5Er. .R OR.r of n.rN. .RENT.PLANNING oV,,L'. ,, `. r' R CONCRETE W4 sSIDE NPRD \ ©s.p h wi a «PINTREN, KRS R , NORTH re°N^, ps 47 sh 9 'I 1 v c° FLOOD ZONE 000k o•I o00: R.P7o�,04005 `,C09 . 11 CONCRETE x I9• �"= 2 1 ` 3W R E°;N0 EI 720000")007 a REM N> R� ' 1 __ __ I^ nN CORNER f WALL Ncr(rzRA)2c«wc7«L As PREVNRo n„R rz«Rr EaRRCENcr o P P — ',, p - 1,_ - ,gip .. R.R. LENT OCE 99ro W �9�D. NDWN a. r1..CON.-E . iti �T wr E.-N:m< 33 [.-- 0 '®�-. M. .y. t • -N W0.3'E IS 14i S•P .n.:•, •w P '°i''c°"c-w) ill i Elc..8 LOCATIONS 34.N NEIN.ARE UREA FROW•0.1EATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS NCI HE OCCUR.Of T.PUOJC 0 -0 RECORDS....ROUX°NIL.LOCATIONS NE ONLY APPRO..LIP.ROR0.10 —O—O o— 0—• o— . 2 o— o—. . - ._ .—.-3�— AGNI.L ES P.rI s RERF.LOCATIONS P.wN ro oR CONTAN OS OR GU.ES NOT S. dz}—P e e c Dc G ERA -' e• —0wi - . n CONCRETE NT W.N .wNc ANY coNSRucNOR. �s E._3".;a(BC.N..sj °' co—oc G• 51 c ,_cW Saso.OD- COMER IN IN 2.CONCER LEGEND4.0 i N OPRS•SO-E (BASIS of BCARINOS)i_s 91I.TT•___ s _.sI s_—s—r.� vLu4 'Wm M.NAIL .N 2] W CASE ___ _G —TS—G G — G �`sG"— G S—S G G S—s G G t G =0 G—sG y)X\ WRIER VALVE tom. .r P.IE RrrN LNa. q. SOW IR.•vy�rNP, ❑S —+ r`-�-, ,-1-7—T-7—T-7—, T—r , 7 BI WA,ER RErtR . S. MN•••I g >s°�y69 •• - 1..„9 12.O ® 22 ® ® .m W©.39 r , - . S. WATER VA.7 • sEr 1/z•RERw E EPD PIP eeY.Nc.N9C.STAMPED E-. in g• © z\ 7R(6.0.C.-EI CATCH 9R5n MA PLS 29252 .0 Cn s., i5.rm- 0 ...Nn R o ,,.„,RR,L, jcz WILLIAMS AVENUE SOUTH B STE•• MANHOLE va� °o°I R.. ) 39.96(9.0.0=E:3 SEWER CLEAN-GOT °GAS VAVE Po w..A,IDIS.wL, • i 0 LE._x.m'(E,R«.,PNNEL) G u=PETER nsus E., _w_ WATERLINE —0— ST.RR.RAN L. CH CHEREP - --5— SR.TNIN SERER LINE —T— UNOERCROUN.nucowRORCA7kN um PI R PPE —G— .As LOE W.-BRO.,. —P-I r 1Ec0RRLNR,TDN LINE C] CONCRETE SURFACE •,o• .CT ELN,TRW _< EDGE.F ASPw0T SURFACE NINDEX DATE 29 NOVOCT 98 BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY � REN9E0: T NOV 98 HEBRANK, STEADMANFOR :f� • ,. . or R&M Pc135 oRA.NBY'. NAN & ASSOCIATES, P.S. I • '•• g BLOCK 10151-3 NAP CHECK CA MKD DEVELOPMENT NC. FINAL CHECK. 55_ ''" :, ' s./B,NWA SEG,1; 98155.00 A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS CO. ,a u9 TIP.ux.ROE sE.•N 6564 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH,SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98108 (206)762-4982 CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON R. EVRE9❑9n1/9P a KNGCONrv.•A564TON SHEET 1 OF 1 RIDGE12 2.. a� a a _N TOP of PLATE i - ^ ' ` _ l �, `l 0 '� RD FLOOR H _iiL ___/ \_ I L-, 1 l rr l II . ._ �. I _ _R- _E.� • 2 ND FLOOR - _Li_ �I I� J .�--a.- --I O + CHIH -H �_ - - -1 I-�- -- - -- _ ,� L _R 7. o I ET FLOOR �,r I I I I I I I I I I I I e UPPER LEVEL ___'a, IIIII _ It I il�l7li UPPERPARKING :{ICI �- _ I,i LOWER LEVEL PARKING iL_ __�,_=_lt t WEST ELEVATION SCALE I/9"•I'-O" RIOGE 4 I 12 12 s .— TOP OF PLATE v r •_ter - - �y t� TE -_cam_r 0 3 MP FLOOR - r • 4 61 E _ . 2 NO FLOOR r Q r , [4-.. O I ST FLOOR i I_ at.__ Y 61 UPPER LEVEL PAQKING J 1. STREET LEVEL r-1LI _______ r d LOWER LEVEL PARKING LI _--h N 02TH ELEVATION SCALE I/0" : I'—O' RIDGE 41 2 i 14 LC`; s- ,i Tor LP PLATE *C H .., CI) CIO _IIH ,______ , _ t 3 RD FLOOR r 0 7�� �_ - f, � — if` 2 ND FLOOR o i °� 4 10 ( J 1 _ 5 ________ , I ST FLOOR 0 it 1011110/18161111 UPPER LEVEL PARKING 0, J Fail ( STREET LEVEL 1 d• i• q II �� �I ``'I--iV JI-u- -- - - 1, LOWER LEVEL P1h,RKING SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE I/g" = I'-O° w24 'kT%e O Id•w °1+ nl0 Q I n J I =o + p Q ,.o © No - 0 -, 4'•wN�11 F I'4° 1W..9• 0444 mill ��` ,. I ihI ,.1 it 1,,1 III 1�I IIII -_ I illil j , iIl 1111IIIII,II 11,.,,' I III I , _I 1i' $ ' vli' ,_ 1 1 1i. III,1II II 1II ill ' j li I �t 1 1,1 I II. I ;! I'' I ti 0 F.--- --- ' , 1 I. IIr III I 1 I ,,, I. — II III IIII b III I I� 1 1 IIIiI I III I a c — - _ • I II i:I 111I IIII I I I'''I'll!''' 1 II;,11'1 i 1II ' 1 1 I I iII IIII I' III I, a o i I I ! ,j! 1 IIII` I III IIIIII•I,I I II I I 1 I II ° h Nl' O _ °�1{ I I II I 1 .III I I I I I:'.. lip III I _ *j t 'NI 3 I illy I I I j inIIl III I III IIII I I I I I - _ t -•u:•." , 1( —��,al-lVllll'a I Ulll IIi6 IIII; IL I" I C I I�} �_ ,I III II1 UL�e�,�j, = L C • -..------italliCk,—,▪, . . ° o ta 0.,-M- § f •L`' N 1 -,---r-1-- III V _ on ar R IlH — - f I - d 4- I 1 i 4 , 1 :' . _ _ MD R'nNel"rLN 'D --. ® ■ewifiY .R• jr ®•\ - 94.0 1 F I ;OO° PROIE0.TY 200 O. }— '1� 1� � �iy; _- • wtia LINE /T�1 EICP,Tlu6 OT[!LT +LCap ERHTNO cu¢D * I •„4 10. Ir } e,d' L,axe, I f .11 . 1 NEW cunt CUT I SCUT c �JTRLR �i9NT `-- U — ` J, H O f' 177 TT IrNM CUY CUT 1 fl PAVEMENT SCHEDULE W ILLIAM4 STRE!CT yP{ 13 Mr�•D 1'y7"7 -TTS "Ave MENT "A' let so FT 1w2�"170!"1 �iG Hol�t' of Oi7O17f/' �fl►GET /AVEM ENT •O" 14E 00 FT OTPL + rAVEM ENT •C." 141 e0 FT '-T��-eev .rs.. ►U1449F-49- =I �6 A17 r'VEM ENT •P• 146�i0 FT j-) ~fir"y��•0•x fAVE,4 ENT "E" 50/ x FT (V Or 446A) a 24,000 40. T PoE.T(�...r}... '16'IGc•6•a enre 20 .p FT CC0U11•PWALV.)• Iv,TIo 4.,T p-gc7U /'•iT�{�t� TOTK i6T .(04,0 rr.RE.)• I,276_x VT F/a-17 ^�,.�„ pl o, creryeuy Anew)• 0,ao5 20,0 490N 12 s lye 1' SITE PLAN Pier o 0.a eeA�ec lis•-t-o, H61artT • .o6b ISLIPV..7Tw'-4 No 40 u4 rm.: 47•o me-4 ge.r- s•yo A9.'19 (I-or AO-W.) G9.15 I I-$IH//.G1`* II I.4 OI/7010H , d .=Mr...LW!'?.... '96;4 1tNM'U%3.. :MOTs: 'v e.VT a f.»`L 4"6 +YVd A�.:•o Am* one.mow _ �u r2."e..""Vrw3.4.s u.- •I_ I/ \ ✓"; ' 4.. `. ';ti-l�-./�.✓L✓1... ��!_- .✓4_,.k/� 7 "'4-�' .r Ja •i : .wne.OM Yas c-s i ~®fir • _f b e.:e M..,w wO1�s i ►a 4,,,.. r ..•. •. ,. . I1' v....4.► °.` T f eis .'u...•rs•ef -10P/ _. :ci.-.--- �' 6.....w ..L...wr.0, 1 . I.S: •.. I a,�...y� cn d = i. 'Or%1 I 1 m2...,nr �I ii�V � „o L. *7-lit .. a 1151 f • IIIIII_t Ip? - III__I ` ;s7 iill *it,�r0f w.0f w.w3q! -_ 1I`WNNIC�a.NC Q`I�';_� 1 r1�1 ♦dam 444.E4rve6 PoLVp,r ..uv 14,4410 q k 'A I a,taWr o. �f41 j10 � oo roe r. w. �nLs 0 '0,'MIJ/['1 KIWI'4..'C'.r,:R =I �I( i��v .am 4a.a..n4e ,-4 I �,tYi ."4.44 W,yV''�C¢ 4 .W./!1MM..u.l d.w 1P1.IMM. r, I v..w�ae i .x...�oeo.s a4.wTw4.r,e ..m :m 14w11. CMrtuf arA,�10 44./4 MOWS 4 ail (44.4•14.4a.Lfu f W. pNq '1que Pees ff4L.44164 t I� J M..M '.OY�.'� 4.0' ntwawara *ML I •yi ,YL~ \ tawwuf 00'40r '...Wy,.L L,*1 0, , ' 3a4L_ n..CW wear Sao sea � /��•`�. a ue.w is.. �_ a A _ ` r -o, �..w�u --r—\— au.41614.“ r.°.f.iuL ---,,-- ------ � - �A� IIMMill�s.»wer.. AV. ...All , ...-.� W- SPAen.uott N. fa./yes WILLI AMS sTr2r.r7 PAsmNG .-EGGND arnysrul 044.4. o.4rrtlTv WING.N0.Mn onc..,ra. 6'`.L.w�a mi.o'.".*w..wn s osv=..a.m.asy'(r'rr�,2. •wrws)®4.... .ALL N .-2 e•4rs.aren.t..n-a C r...4c.a..4,4 0{WefN 4TCr0We7C 14012 3.1.742044.L.LANDSC E AP PLAN 4 RAYMOND A.BRAUNER s/r./ss 44pfl7I1/B Seliii (g `if c 206- 323-:_7O7 Sent 'By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8928; Dec-30-98 9:23AM; Page 8 DEC-03-1998 THU 04:39 PM AESI FAX NO, 425 827 5424 P, 01 99-013 (Y) SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT • PRMSE1 47-UNIT IVIULTIFAM- ILY DEVELOPMENT L:1 CAN oENT-pL,RENTON, W ASHINGTON FRENT0N �� JUN 1 7 /999 RECEIVE D PREPARED FOR MKD Development PROJECT NO. KE98477G DECEMBER 1998 CORPORATE OFFICE 911 Fifth Avenue,Suite 100 Kirkland,Washington 48033 ASSOCIATED (425) 827-7701 EARTH FAX (425)827-5424 SCIENCES, IINC BAINBRIDGE 151AND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lana North Bainbridge Island,WA 98110 1206)780-9370 FAX(206)780.9438 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:23AM; Page 9 ' Received_ 12/ 3/98 4:42PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; gage e DFC-03-1998 THU 04:40 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 02 December 3, 1998 Project No. KE98477G MKD Development Company, Inc. 10020-A Main Street, Suite D-110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Victor Malen Subject: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed 47-Unit Multifamily Development Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Malen: We are pleased to present a copy of the above-referenced report. We have also provided six copies of this report to your architect, Norman Yeliu to submit to the City, and one copy to the project structural engineer, Amir Engineering. This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering studies and offers recommendations for the design and development of the proposed project. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. if you should have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Gary A. Fl ers, P.G. Principal MR11Anb K Q98477G3 17/I/98,,b-WPB Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:23AM;• Page 10 Hecetved: 12/ 3/98 4:42PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; rage .� DEC-03-1998 THU 04:40 PM AESI FAX NO, 425 827 5424 P. 03 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED 47 UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT 110 WILLIAMS AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON December 3, 1998 Project No. KE98477G I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1,0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering study for the proposed project. The proposed building location and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. in the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the structure are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and development of the above-mentioned project. Our study included a review of available literature, drilling test borings, and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and ground water conditions. Engineering studies were also conducted to determine suitable geologic hazard mitigation techniques, the type of suitable foundation, allowable bearing pressures, anticipated settlements, basement/retaining wall lateral pressures, floor support recommendations and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our current field work and offers development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Victor Malen of MKD Development Company, Inc. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter dated October 9, 1998. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of MKD Development and their agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Sent By: AMIR 'ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:23AM; Page 11 Received: 12/ 3/98 4:43PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; raga DEC-03-1998 THU 04:40 PH AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 04 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTJON This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on design drawings/sketches provided by Amir Engineering. We understand that the proposed project would include construction of a new 47 unit multifamily residential project, The project would include a total of 5 levels, with the lowest level consisting of a parking structure approximately 8 feet below existing grades. The project site consists of a rectangular lot that is occupied by one small, single-family home with detached garage, and a vacant residential lot. The site is relatively flat, with overall vertical relief estimated at less than 3 feet. The site is situated in downtown Renton, in a fully developed commercial and residential area, During our site investigation, we observed that the existing house on the site, as well as houses next door to the north and south, had below-grade basements. Finished floor elevations in these basements were visually estimated at 5 to 7 feet below existing grade, and the basement of at least one of the homes was nicely finished interior space. This would indicate that ground water levels remain lower than 5 to 7 feet below existing grades even during typical higher ground water periods. We also observed settlement indications, in the form of cracked mortar in brick walls and chimneys, that indicate that the existing house on the site and houses on adjacent properties have experienced structural settlement. Based on the subsurface conditions observed in our explorations for the project, observed settlement of the existing structures is likely to have been caused by the presence of very loose subsurface soils below conventional shallow foundations. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field study included drilling a series of exploration borings to gain information about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by measuring from known site features shown on a site plan provided to us. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the three exploration borings completed for this study. 1'he number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should he noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 2 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:24AM; Page 12 • Received: 12/ 3/98 4:43PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; t'age o DEC-03-1998 THU 04:41 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 05 3.1 Exploration Borings The exploration borings were completed by advancing a 41/4-inch, inside-diameter, hollow-stem auger with a truck-mounted drill rig. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at generally 21/2- or 5-foot depth intervals.The a exe prings were loration logs presented in the Appeusly observed ndixnd largged by e based an engineering geologist from our firm. p on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test(SPT) procedure in accordance with ASTM:D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard, 2-inch, outside-diameter, split-barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils; these values are plotted on the attached boring logs. The samples obtained from the split-barrel sampler were classified in the field, and representative portions placed in water-tight containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and laboratory testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions observed in the explorations varied significantly with lateral and vertical extent. The exploration boring at the northwest site corner encountered medium dense gravel with sand to the full depth explored of 26.5 feet, The east central boring encountered very loose sand to an approximate depth of 12 feet, underlain by medium dense, sandy gravel to an approximate depth of 30 feet, which was in turn underlain by very loose gravel to an approximate depth of 33 feet, which was underlain by very dense gravel to a depth of approximately 361/2 feet, where the boring was terminated. The boring at the southwest site corner encountered very loose to loose sand to an approximate depth of 40 feet, which was underlain by medium dense to dense sand and gravel to the full depth explored of approximately 46'h feet. The following section presents more detailed subsurface information organized from the upper(youngest)to the lower(oldest)sediment types. 4.1 Strat, raphy Fill soils (those not naturally placed)were encountered in borings EB-1 and EB-3. The fill ranged in thickness from 2 to 4 feet in EB-1 and CB-3 respectively. As noted on the exploration logs, the fill consisted of very loose to medium dense, silty sand with minor amounts of rubble and 3 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:25AM; Page 13/30 Received: 12/ 3/98 4:43PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEEIiINL+, irvv_ ; rAa� DEC-03-1998 THU 04:41 PM AESI FAX NO, 425 827 5424 P. 06 debris. These materials appear to vary in both quality and depth across the site. Since the quality, thickness and compaction of the fill materials is low or variable, the fill is unsuitable for structural support. Alluvium Below the existing fill, the borings encountered alluvium associated with the Cedar River. The alluvium was highly variable in grain size and density, ranging from medium dense gravel and sand at the location of EB-1, to very loose sand and gravel with varying silt content at the locations of EB-2 and EB-3. Due to the very loose nature of the alluvium in borings EB-2 and EB-3, and due to the fact that the risk of liquefaction of the alluvium encountered in these borings is considered high, shallow foundation support above the alluvium is not recommended. Undifferentiated Sand and Gravel Below the alluvium, borings EB-2 and EB-3 encountered medium dense to very dense sand and gravel, with low silt content. These deeper deposits are interpreted as an undifferentiated deposit, probably associated with Vashon age glaciation. The medium dense to very dense sand and gravel deposit is considered suitable for the support of deep foundations, as recommended in this report. 4.2 Hydrology Ground water was observed in each boring at depths between 17 and 18.5 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of drilling. Static water levels may be somewhat higher, since the exploration borings are only open a short time. Shallower ground water levels should be anticipated seasonally and following periods of high rainfall. 4 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:25AM; Page 14/30 Received: 12/ 3/98 4:44PM; 425 827 5424 -› AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; Page I DEC-03-1998 THU 04:41 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 07 December 3, 1998 Project No. KE98417G II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MTTIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic and ground water conditions as observed and discussed herein. The discussion will be limited to seismic risks associated with loose granular soils below the water table. 5.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. Fortunately, the vast majority of these events are small and are usually not felt by man. However, large earthquakes do occur as evidenced by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude event and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. Evaluation of earthquake return rates indicate that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5,5 and 6.0 likely will occur within the next 8 to 12 years. Recent published geologic evidence also indicates that larger magnitude subduction earthquakes occasionally occur within western Washington. The last such suspected event is thought to have occurred about 350 years ago, and has a 350 to 500 year recurrence interval. Generally, (here are 4 types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture; 2) seismically induced landslides; 3) liquefaction; and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 5.1 Surficial Ground Rupture Generally, the largest earthquakes which have occurred in the Seattle area are sub-crustal events with epicenters ranging from 50 to 70 kilometers in depth. For this reason, no surficial faulting, or earth rupture, as a result of deep, seismic activity has been documented, to date, in this area of King County. Therefore, it is our opinion, based on existing geologic data, that the risk of surface rupture impacting the proposed project is low. 5.2 Seismically Induced Landslides The site is essentially flat, and no significant slopes are located nearby. Therefore landslide potential as a result of seismic activity was not considered. 5 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:25AM; Page 15/30 Received: 12/ 3/9B 4:44PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; rage o DEC-03-1998 THU 04:41 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P, 08 5.3 Liquefaction The encountered stratigraphy is considered to have a high potential for liquefaction due to the presence of loose to very loose, granular soil deposits that occur below the ground water level. I-Iigh liquefaction risk, in combination with high total and differential settlement potential if shallow foundations were used, have resulted in a recommendation of a deep foundation system for the building. A deep foundation system supported on medium dense to dense sand and gravel as recommended in this report, would be considered to have low potential for damage due to liquefaction since foundation loads are supported below the liquefaction prone soils. 5.4 Ground Motion Based on the site stratigraphy, it is our opinion that any earthquake damage to the proposed structure, when founded on a deep foundation system, would be caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event and not any of the above discussed impacts. Structural design of the building should follow current UBC standards. The site is located in seismic zone S3, with a site soil profile of Sr„ Z=0,30, and Cy=0.36, in accordance with 1997 UBC Chapter 16. 6 lent by: AM111 tNUILNEEN1NU, 1NU. ; 425 452 bY2b; Dec-30-9b 9:26AM; Page 16/30 Received: 12/ 3/98 4 :44PM; 425 627 5424 AMIR ENGINEERING, INC:. ; ragu DEC--03-1998 THU 04:42 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 09 December 3, 1998 Project No. KE98477G III. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0 INTRODUCTION Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel is suitable for the proposed development provided the risks discussed are accepted and the recommendations contained herein are properly followed. Subsurface conditions at shallow depths are considered unsuitable for shallow foundation support of the proposed structure. Consequently, a deep foundation, bearing on the lower, medium dense to dense sands and gravels will be required for building support. • 7.0 SITE PREPARATION Existing buildings presently on the site should be removed. Any buried utilities should he removed or relocated if they are under building areas. The resulting depressions should be backfilled with structural fill as discussed under the Structural Fill section. It appears, based on visual reconnaissance,that another building formerly existed on the site. It is possible that grading on the site will encounter building remains and\or demolition waste in areas not observed in our explorations. Site preparation of planned building and road/parking areas should include removal of all trees, brush, debris, and any other deleterious material. Additionally, the upper organic topsoil should be removed and the remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose surficial soils exist due to grubbing operations should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. Site preparation of planned building areas should also consist of overexcavating the entire area to a depth of 2feet below the proposed lower floor grade, The upper 12 inches of the exposed soils should then be recompacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557, If organic materials are exposed, they should be further overexcavated to bearing or we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. The overexcavated material should then be replaced and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent compaction based on ASTM:D 1557 to provide support for the lower concrete slab-on-grade floor. The overexcavation and replacement could be avoided, if desired, by constructing a structural floor slab supported on the pile foundation system. It should be noted that although a floor slab supported on grade would be less costly, it is susceptible to cracking as a result of liquefaction during a seismic event, or due to the variability of soil density across the site. Floor slab construction is discussed further in section 11.0 of this report. 7 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:26AM; Page 17/30 Rece.iv©d: 12/ 3/98 4:45PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING, iwi:. ; raW. ... DEC-03-1998 THU 04:42 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 10 In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor,and should be determined during construction. For estimating purposes, however, we anticipate that temporary, unsupported cut slopes in the alluvium can be made at a maximum slope of 1.5II:1V (Horizontal;Vertical). As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. In addition, WISFIA/OSHA regulations should be followed at all times. The on-site soils contain a relatively small percentage of fine-grained material which makes them somewhat moisture-sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. If crushed rock is considered for the access and staging areas, it should be underlain by engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the rock and turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction equipment, thus reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least 10 inches of rock be placed over the fabric; however, due to the variable nature of the near-surface soils and differences in wheel loads, this thickness may have to be adjusted by the contractor in the field. R!1 STRUCTiJRAL FILL There is a possibility that structural fill will be necessary to establish desired grades or backfill perimeter walls. Any fill that will support buildings, roads, utilities, or that will be shaped into sloped surfaces should be considered structural fill. Alt references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type,placement and compaction of materials as discussed in this section. If a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section should be used. After overexcavation/stripping has been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground should be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. if the subgrade contains too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be treated as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. After the recompacted, exposed ground is tested and approved, or remedial subgrade preparation is completed, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non-organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts with each lift being compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. in the case of utility trench filling, the backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with current local or county codes and standards. The top 8 Sent By.: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:27AM; Page 18/30 Received: 12/ 3/98 4 :45PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING, INU. ; rag*, . 1 DEC-03-1998 THU 04:42 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 11 of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the location of any footings or roadway edges before sloping down at an angle no steeper than 2H;IV. The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 48 hours in advance of planned filling activities to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction) should be considered moisture-sensitive. Use of moisture-sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. The on-site soils generally contained small amounts of silt and are considered only slightly moisture-sensitive. if fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, filling activities should be discontinued and resumed during favorable conditions, Alternatively, if placement of structural fill must continue during wet weather or site conditions, a select import material consisting of a clean, free-draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free-draining fill consists of non-organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction, Structural fill should not contain particles larger than 8 inches in diameter deeper than 2 feet below finished grade, and should not contain particles larger than 6 inches shallower than 2 feet below finished grade. A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a suitable monitoring and testing program. 9.0 AUGER C AST PILE FOUNDATIONS Due to the site location being in a fully developed area of Renton, we recommend that cast-in- place concrete piles (Augercast) be used for foundation support. We recommend that the placement of all piles be accomplished by a contractor experienced in their installation. It should be noted that logs,boulders, and other debris can be encountered in alluvial soils, and any building debris that may be associated with previous buildings on site may also cause difficulty with pile installation. It may be necessary to have a backhoe present during pile installation to dig out obstacles and backfill the excavation prior to drilling piling. Because of the variable nature of the subsurface soils, it is inappropriate to give exact pile lengths. In general, pile lengths on the order of 15 feet to 45 feet below the art of the building generally longer pile lengths underthe lower parking a ' dlpile lengths required below the north p south part. 9 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; -3 30 98 9:27AM; Page 19/30 Received: 12/ 3/98 4:45PM; Dec 425 827 5424 -} AMIR Dec -AMIR .... DEC-03-1998 THU 04:43 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 12 Augercast piles with a diameter of 12 or 18 inches will be capable of supporting axial compressive loads of 20 or 30 tons, respectively, when embedded a minimum distance of 5 feet into the lower, medium dense to dense bearing stratum. Allowable design loads may be increased by one third for short term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlements of pile supported structures will generally be on the order of one half inch. 9,1 Lateral Pile Capacity Although the majority of lateral resistance to wind and seismic loading will be generated by the grade beams, the 12- or 18-inch piles will provide an additional capacity of 4 and 6 tons per pile, respectively (applied at the pile top), assuming that the pile head is fixed against rotation at the ground surface and deflection is limited to 1 inch. Due to the loose surficial soil conditions, a depth of fixity of 15 and 20 feet should be assumed for 12- and 18-inch-diameter piles, respectively, Piles within 10 feet of another pile along the direction of force should be considered to be in the zone of influence and the lateral capacity of only one of these piles should be used in design. If the lateral contribution of the piles is more critical to the practical design of the structure, we can provide a comprehensive lateral pile analysis. Such an analysis would present lateral pile capacities taking into account the interaction between piles. Uplift loads can be resisted by skin friction along the pile shaft neglecting the weight of the pile, For 12- and 18-inch- diameter piles, an allowable uplift capacity of 10 and 15 tons, respectively, can be used in design, assuming a minimum pile length of 15 and 20 feet. 9.2 Pile/Pier Tnspeetions The actual total length of each pile may be adjusted in the field based on required capacity and conditions encountered during drilling. Since completion of the pile takes place below ground, the judgment and experience of the geotechnical engineer or his field representative must be used as a basis for determining the required penetration and acceptability of each pile. Consequently, use of the presented pile capacities in the design requires that all piles be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm who can interpret and collect the installation data and examine the contractors operations. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., acting as the owner's field representative, would determine the required lengths of the piles and keep records of pertinent installation data. A final summary report would then be distributed, following completion of pile installation. 10,0 LATERAL WRLT, PRESSURES All backfill behind walls or around foundation units should be placed as per our recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Horizontally backfilled walls which are free to yield laterally at least 0,1 percent of their height, may be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 35 pounds per cubic foot(pet). Fully restrained, horizontally backfilled rigid walls that cannot yield should be designed for an equivalent fluid of 55 pcf. If parking areas 10 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:28AM; Page 20/30 Received: 12/ 3/98 4:46PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING. INC:. ; rage 10 DEC-03-1998 THU 04:43 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 13 are adjacent to walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil should be added to the wall height in determining lateral design forces. The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform backfill consisting of on-site, sand or gravel compacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557. A higher degree of compaction is not recommended as this will increase the pressure acting on the wall. A lower compaction may result in settlement of structures supported on wall backfill. Thus, the compaction level is critical and should be tested by our firm during placement. Surcharges from adjacent footings, heavy construction equipment, or sloping ground must be added to the above values, Perimeter footing drains should be provided for all retaining walls as discussed under the section on drainage considerations. It is imperative that proper drainage be provided so that hydrostatic pressures do not develop against the wall. This would involve installation of a minimum 1 foot wide blanket drain for the full wall height using imported, washed gravel against the walls. The drainage fill should meet the requirements of Washington State Department of Transportation 1997 Standard Specification 9-03.12(4) Gravel Backfill for Drains. Some of the site soils may meet the drainage fill criteria. We should be allowed to observe site excavation and recommend whether site soils are adequate for drainage fill applications. 10.1 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors Retaining wall footings, keyways, and grade beams cast directly against undisturbed, dense soils in a trench may be designed for passive resistance against lateral translation using an equivalent fluid equal to 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The passive equivalent fluid pressure diagram begins at the top of the footing, however, total lateral resistance should be summed only over the depth of the actual key (truncated triangular diagram). This value applies only to footings/keyways where concrete is placed directly against the trench sidewalls without the use of forms. If footings are placed on grade and then backfilled, the top of the compacted backfill must be horizontal and extend outward from the footing for a minimum lateral distance equal to three times the height of the backfill, before tapering down to grade. With backfill placed as discussed, footings may be designed for passive resistance against lateral translation using an equivalent fluid equal to 250 pcf and the truncated pressure diagram discussed above. Passive resistance values include a factor of safety equal to 3 in order to reduce the amount of movement necessary to generate passive resistance. The friction coefficient for footings or grade beams cast directly on undisturbed, loose to medium dense sand and gravel may be taken as 0.35. This is an ultimate value and does not include a safety factor. Since it will be difficult to excavate these soils without disturbance, the soil under the footings or grade beams must be recompacted to 95 percent of the above mentioned standard for this value to apply. ii Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec 30 98 9:28AM; Page 21 /30 Received: 12/ 3/98 4:46PM; 425 827 5424 -� AMIR ENGINEERING, 1NL:. ; reE1r� :a DEC-03-1998 THU 04:44 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 14 11.0 PTOORSUPPO As previously discussed, the site is underlain by soils of widely varying tdensiliquefaction. Inaddition to differences in the settlement potential, saraee{f�lo the or slab will be subject to total axed differentia! seismic event. As such, the parking g g settlement stresses, as well as potential additional stresses due to loss of bearing strength, should a significant seismic event occur in this area. libons that the rder to mowneinate�mues uce evaluate andtdec'de ial for damage to the floor slab, there are a series of op upon. These options, and their respective risks, are presented below. Option One: Pile Supported Structural Slab nd A pile-supported structural slab would eliminate th °the struential ctural engr ineent r would won d design la liquefaction- related damage to the concrete floor. For this option, beams, thickened and reinforced concrete slab that would be supported on a series of piles, grade and pile caps. This is the most expensive option, but a kfilluhthe one with ts1ubgrade would least risk to tbe he concrete floor. No overexcavation and structural b g of the slab required for this option. Option 71vo: Slab-on-Grade with Bar Reinforcement A concrete slab-on-grade with bar reinforcement could be utilized for the parking garage, provided the subgrade is prepared as described in the Site Preparation section2 l of thisreport.g the This expld osed d involve overexcavating the subgrade area by a minimum ground, and replacing the excavated material as a structural fill, compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density as determined by ASTM;D 1557. Potential total and differential settlement and loss of bearing from liquefaction will be reduced by the placement of the structural fill. Cracking of the floor should still be expected, but the bar reinforcement would tend to hold the cracks together, thus reducing the amount of differential movement across the cracks. Option Three: Slab-on-Grade with Wire Mesh Reinforcement A concrete slab-on-grade with wire mesh reinforcement could uldialobeutilized above,for thed the Site garage. This option would require the same subgrade prep presented Preparation section of this report, Without bar reinforcement, this option could lead to severe ic cracking of the floor slab with differential movement differential settlement ben of d�ni the event, should liquefaction occur, up to 2 inches floor slab, However, since the floor slab is only used the damaged slab.parking garage,Provided the owner at occurred could be rectified by placing a leveling slabp is willing to accept this risk, we see no reason ru why the owner would ctural engineer may requi�ed thet use tuseoofhbar However, from a structural standpoint, tlh reinforcement. 12 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec 30 98 9:29AM; Page 22/30 Received: 12/ 3/98 4:47PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING, iNu_ ; ra�tl .� • DEC.-03-1998 THU 04:44 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 15 Should this option be used, we strongly recommend that the wire mesh reinforcement be held in the u per on-third of the slab. Typically, the wire mesh ends up in the bottom of a slab due to the P lift construction workers walking on it and pushing it to the bhatom'emau st there.ereo rt We is rbelieve iuired ��t its the mesh to the upper one-third of the slab and assuring t case, the extra effort would be worthwhile. 12.0 DRAY AGE CO SID RAC All retainingand footing walls should be provided with a drain at hfooting gravelsee attachedDrains surrounded by washedpea should consist of rigid, perforated, PVC pipe Wall/Footing Drain Detail). The level of the perforations in hoe pipuldbee sho d beset winches below the bottom of the footing at all locations and the drains gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the building. In addition, all retaining walls should be lined with a minimum 12 inch thick washed gravel blanket�a provided rutff ould not discharge into the wall, and which ties into the footing drain. Roof and su rigid tight line drain. In planning, footing drain system but should be handled by separate, from the structure to achieve exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away surface drainage. 13,0 PROS CT D JGN AN CONSTRUC N MONITORING At the time of this report, site grading, structural plans, an construction eareavow sable to provide have not been finalized and the recommendations presented herein are preliminary. additional geoteehnical consultation as the project design develops and poss S iblyc chang Inc from perform that upon which this report is based. We recommend that Associated our a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design co and implemented tion. Inthisa ,in the design.earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted We are also available to provide geotechnical engineeringr proper site ,nonitoring ctonstructi during construction. The integrity of the foundation depends on p Ppreparation and procedures. in addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. 13 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec 30 98 9:29AM; Page l 23/30 ' Received: 12/ 3/90 4:47PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; Page to DEC-03-1998 THU 04:44 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 16 We have enjoyed working with you on this study�a�faro uconfident have any questions, or require ations will aid in the successful completion of your p Y further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington tt,,,,,Ait— V--• Bruce Guenzler Project G logist R 13' MEp• k , 4 • I... ..Ay. . z 3 t3 n; ,. 0.0 4 3,, 2 4 �'.9.��s rs-,3. <q viEree )3 \‘ -'' • 10 N AL 0[EXPIRc6 11 /20 4'7 1 Gary A owers, P.G. Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. 6.14\Principal Senior Geotechnical Engineer riwc mh Kl &417G3 12/1/9e rob•WPB 14 2 M m ,+ n 2 CD • - ,uf.r-.O - - , .R f•y - iv.I q'c m < I n m I Q D ,PA.`fq•.O o •. M - ,,.r ' - - so..ata c •g ?f uurc as - -- _ / -. H �C� ,a. aEa.ai :- f:�.r lam, I Lk) 37 .UL1GYo NJ-I - r.1r . . .r�4- f0 f0. - a:n.IIL. EB-2,.__ _ ca N m Il z .. W 11 maths a 1 —3 ` z 11 h 1.•_ _I I ' 1 c m m f.•1 1 II t•..m v r.:.,.,Ir•a I JJ t:r = I �. L I 1 I i 1 1 A • z 11`1 v I.11.rius �'. a II - ataye am piw..rue•1 }}If V m..a 6 ) _tft. ., 1 13 I--1 1 rflf 101 I- I — g I ' VI 1. 11 .n.a. fc r ro+ .„,+ I i_ 0.... •-1 •y Eray.[ I .'.` t . �� B. orrx II 1 1 1 1 E i �r u . ` . a.sn u. .r.•r �r .•r.- ♦ .•r I s•f lra r-0• ,IV 41 lfr„ : F I .- 1' r u 71 • It I Wait r I , ] d .6 6`-� y N Li y I r......ti , ,1r0.f MIRK foals 1E• `�� �, �— V a1.Li m r �� al 1 ni NJ 01 �� 'Il �.. f • 4,1 a.m.„ CO01 VI . -� - I I! u•n. s•,�. ..• 1r_r 1r-- �• IV Il•r N Cr) { r ,„r ,,,,; a...c 0 WS ov rJ A0) i 1 , 3(. 1-1 y atr..w..m..f f...o : ma,.�� , 1 , i r.ti... MOM / a AY • q�_I:. ! _!. S> C '�.. IA.rr•4 ufm+;f,n.soa MI X H 11 •rtaGvr: •- Ka Ire ,..•t 1s[. !+r nL•n.Y 71mcr1¢1 nta ,•�1- R•-7-IMAMis 1 .: Z (D I,avc :R�ml a ntr.!`c r nN itl__- ont_ .. - aum>:ufa m.t••v��l � n n -- -- r r _unl>`Mal -- CN Z CJ sI m O JJ Nam— = I co m •-- -I' f N H CO cam.-- iINC YY\<..1...— IST1.1EKT \.1 H CO -- - -rs. Z - ! r.,.' ? a .tom co 1t Z O [ LEGEND Q 30 00 -• i EB-1 • �uarnste location of.ipio.won balm i 1 SCALE IN FEET n' REFEF NCE: MOW DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,NC. rc r rt • y FIGURE 11198 70 'co . I JIM A880CIATED SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN EARTH RENTON APARTMENTS DATE 1 N 6CIENCE9. INC RENTOd1, 1hfASHlNGTON PROD.NO. KE984771 0 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:30AM; Page 25/30 Received: 12/ 3/98 4:47PM; 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENCS1Nttt1JI" , i �v. •-s,- •- DEC-03-1998 THU 04:45 PM AE5I FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 18 APPENDIX Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:30AM; Page 26/30 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINttMimu, • Reeeelvad: 12/ 3/98 4.47PM; iiv... , �+ ,.• •— DEC-03-1998 THU 04:45 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 19 EXPLORATION BORING LO( ; Number EB-1 W o ce STANDARD PENT=TRATIC SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION a n a RESISTANCE Q0< BIOWs/Foot U) 0 Grass and topsoil to 6 10 20 30 40 - - Damp, brown, fine SAND, some silt, trace fine gravel. 18 A (Fill).._.... ,• - Damp, brown, fine to medium, sandy, fine GRAVEL, 5 [ — -- — trace to little silt. (Alluvium) 28 grades to fine to coarse GRAVEL, trace silt. — 10 I- • A 24 - 15 T. _ ATD grades to saturated, brown, fine gravelly, fine to coarse 20 f 17A SAND, trace silt. (Alluvium) —. 25 --- — — [ r 31• BOH §26-1/2' — 30 _ —..-_ --• •— 'Subsurface conditions dupidud nap! un'our observations al the lime and location or this exploraytory geologic Interpretations.engineering analysis,and Judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other time*�ocations. w accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of Information presented on this log. We will not Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Renton Apartments Kirkland, Washington 98033 Renton, Washington Phone: 425-827-7701 KE98477 Fax: 425-827-5424 (-Inn • Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:30AM; Page 27/30 Received:• 12/ 3/98 4:48PM; 425 827 5424 -� AMIR DEC -03-1998 THU 04:45 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 20 Number EB-2 Page 1 oft EXPLORATION BORING LOG 9 w o oC STANDARD PENETRATION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION °-- ii RESISTANCE WI d Blows/Foot u) Ur 10 20 30 40 Grass and topsoil to 6", •I 4. Moist, brown, silty fine SAND, trace fine gravel, (Alluvium) grades with trace silt(Alluvium) 5 o O 10 r 2----_- Damp, mottled brown, fine to coarse, sandy fine - GRAVEL, trace silt (Alluvium) - A23 — 157.A _. Saturated, brown, fine gravelly, fine to medium SAND, 20 -�- — trace silt. (Alluvium) _ �_ •14 Saturated, brown, fine to medium, sandy fine GRAVEL; - • 25 1 I _4 ..-. trace to little silt. (Alluvium) A3• - V ATD Saturated, gray, fine GRAVEL, some fine sand, 30 C A2 . - trace silt (Alluvium) Saturated, gray, fine to coarse, sandy fine GRAVEL, little silt, - Sub:urfaco condibona depicted reprosent our observations al the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by geologic Inlorpretetione,engineering analysis,and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. Wo wit not accept rusponslbility for tho use or Intaryralallen by others of information presented on this log, Reviewed lay I Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Renton Ap artments Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Renton, Washington Phone: 425-827-7701 KE98477 Fax: 425-827-5424 fr-tnhr loon Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:31AM; Page 28/30 425 827 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; Page 21 ja�dcefived: 12/ 3/98 4-4t3PM; DEC-03-1998 THU 04:45 PM RESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 21 EXPLORATION BORING LOC Number EB-2 Page 2 of 2 = w q lcr STANDARD PENETRATION SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION n_ a RESISTANCE Blows/Foot cc co 0 10 20 30 40 53 k BOH @ 36-1/2' — I -• 40 • - 45 — 50 ..._-_. - 55 — 60 —. • 65 3ubeurioce condition.rin Icted re P presont our oDsorvalions of the Wee and location of his exploratory hole,modrfied by geologic itrrrprobvtlone,onglneoring analysis,and Judgment. Thoy are not necessarily representative of ether times and locations. We will not .,ccapt racponslblllty for the use or interpretation by others of Information presented an this Ion, Reviewed By I _ I Associated Earth Sciences, Inc, 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Renton Apartments Kirkland, Washington 98033 Renton, Washington Phone: 425-827-7701 KE98477 Fax: 425-827-5424 nrfnh,ar '1000 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:31AM; Page 29/30 .fipcPj.ved: 12/ 3/98 4:48PM; 425 827 5424 -, AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; Page 22 . DEC-03-1998 THU 04:45 PH AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 22 EXPLORATION BORING LOC Number EB-3 Page 1 of 2 = w o STANDARD PENfT-RArlor.. SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION a. a F- RESISTANCE U Q Blows/Foot C7 Grass and topsoil to 6". - 10 20 30 40 Moist, dark brown, fine SAND, some sift, trace debris. (Fill) - Damp, tan, fine SAND, little silt. (Alluvium) 5 [ ♦3 A 3 — 10 C -..,. ._ ♦ 2 Wet, brown, fine to coarse, sandy fine GRAVEL, -- 15 trace silt. (Alluvium) q - �- A ATD grades to saturated — 20 [ .y — 25 - - - grades with some wood (Alluvium) L ♦ 2 _— 30 — .- subsurfgce condhiorre depidvd represent our observations of the lime end location of this exploratory halo,modified by geologic Interpretations,anglneertng analysis,end judgment, They BIB nut nucossarily representative of other times and locations. We will not Accept responsibility ror Ure use or Intorpralarion by others of inhumation pr"senlod ow this log. Reviewed By L-^ Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Renton Apartments Kirkland, Washington 98033 Renton, Washington Phone: 425-827-7701 KE98477 Fax: 425-827.5424 October 1998 Sent By: AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; 425 452 8926; Dec-30-98 9:31AM; Page 30/30 Received: 12/ 3/98 4:48PM; 425 B27 5424 -> AMIR ENGINEERING, INC. ; Page "L:7 DEC-03-1998 THU 04:46 PM AESI FAX NO. 425 827 5424 P. 23 EXPLORATION BORING LOG Number EB-3 Page 2 of 2 STANDARD PENETRATION J Z uj uj RESISTANCE SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION W 0- 0 Q Blows/Foot o cn �3 10 20 30 40 Saturated, gray, fine to coarse, sandy fine GRAVEL, _ 6 A trace silt, (Alluvium) ._ • -21 Saturated, brown, fine gravelly, fine to medium SAND. L • Saturated, brown,fine to coarse, sandy, fine to coarse 45 1 . .. .., �... A44 GRAVEL, trace to some cobbles. — aOH cQ 46-1/2' - — 50 —T.. -- -- — 55 -- 60 —_ _., — --- — • Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location modified on of lisle exploratoryby geologic Inlorpretations,engineering analysis,and judgment. They ore not necessarily representative of other times end leo:Wone. We will R9VIBW9d B)/ accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc, Renton Apartments 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Renton, Washington Kirkland, Washington 98033 KE98477 Phone: 425-827-7701 October 1998 Fax: 425-827-5424 r , ,..x, Li......... 1-7 4 1 t•6/ :71..3 . - ‹...Nej;i0,-zfiV1/4 . .:„ X. rt 'S. .3 o I 77 I ri '‘ccN �� �� ,�� 8t Tt : o RI r O�,5;� �/4I • � r / n IQ87 2N 41"9>I4 Lo b4 TL53 4, < Tr_log a �i Ian rL/6f 9 �, p S �j T< '1� w -1-1X -.L./2z ,o gi TL 55 99 7188 6. JONES p{/M .L. rL. � r.��cs r.� 99 , PARK . ,s 12 T� C 10 20 ET, 1 t,•. r.z.93 Riti - ;- '6z. k );-a 3 hC Lti(9_---Qion , � �� 10`' t �., � �0� �,�, ___� . C— - 1 [1. r1,10S 3 $ in 9r. 2 1 '�.::.� 71.90 . [i 0 84r .s22 1.8/ i YP . .1,1-1 la i . ? IE = ® 4 P-,15 AT.C./`6B` z 118 .91 )19 l�' — - tf,i.126rA � alei �, ,. T.L.b'S ,T.I B yy __. ._ `L7L�UZTRSlab'- — ' - . 1� q. -°-1,i'h,,�� 6 '3 2 ,,,, 1-23-- - I , I I N. n;q 8 A N K` ,0 r Z vi 'Li',Qi. /,'": .- k' It- is- N1 /re, /lv 4 `� v ....,0 :: .i IS 2ND1 . „.., .... _ :I ___,/. E '° lico. ., .-: ..° t • " a &)) Er t 1 , trio 2o5 .) 2a9 , AR J ► t 18 P 209 mil ,.... 10 — .n _ ,.. 71(i .1 17 2, 13 x 9 1 9 f i` , 11 'emitted c: © CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works E0 .305 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 ;ta � a�s� ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED WA j ,l � U.$. POSTAGE 000720-0145-05 BUENC MATHEW C+BUENC MGNICA709999 913 HARRINGTGN AVE NE „6 BUEN913 980565014 1997 19 OR/25/99 RENTON WA FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND BUENO td;,Ti;ELIVERA21E 98 WILLIAMS AVE 5 RENTON WA 98055-2150 AS ADDRf SSED V UNABLE TO FCRWARD aid 9 RETURN TO SENDER WHIM 4t9411�.52 I{,Iidi#fdliuddukhulUJAndildd.dJ.11,1 R IOGE S le 4 Ir_ -14 S TOP OF PLATE 10 I I ; 1 1 I '—'. _ , r ____ _... 3 RP FLOOR IIj�,� I ___ __ _ os , _I—, -- 1 J_ e L_� ,—�� __ _ _�— = 2N0 FLOOR -10 — _ ____, ____Li i— ' , • I___ I•YT FLOOR Li. N -. . • ______-___. _._ irr UPPER LEVEL PARKING 1 _- , .. ` STREET LEVEL It___I I +i L a- I: LOWRE A LEVEL NRxIN6 EAST ELEVATION SCALE I/5" = C-O" JOHNSON JAMES G RC576 CHARRA MICHAELi. 5N9999 ' 4258 SW SUNSET DRIVE °4 WILLIAMS AVE S .op LAKE CSWEGO OR 97034 RENTON WA 98056 000720-0062-04 000720-0081-01 CITY OF RENTON 912777 RIVERVIEW APARTMENTS 590267 BENNETT W E C/O GRAN INC 200 MILL AVE S 1C21 1ST AVE W RENTON WA 98055 cEATTLE WA 98199 000720-0082-00 000720-0085-07 MACGCNALC E B 889999 GOLDEN VIRGIL 8 C LANCE 0 002250 123 MAIN AVE S F763 OAKLAWN PL S RENTON WA 9en« cr • TT. ,- NA 98110 Se C4- 000720-0086-06 2 -t}3 NGUYEN ALEXANDER H+MARY 4U tht iHARON 681020 1C4 WELLS AVE S i AVE S RENTCN WA 9t k 98055 � _ � cm__ 000720-0090-00 ,,,,,, ,i,:-uu,.1-09 GANNON J K +L E LIVING TRST119999 CUSTER CHARLES L C/O GANNON JACK K+LCIS E TRSTEES 118 WELLS AVE S • 22925 SE 292ND PL RENTON WA 98055 KENT WA 98042 000720-0092-08 000720-0093-07 PORTERA KIMBERLY 057096 TOMALIN WILLIAM E E MARY E C/O DAVID P TRACY ATTY 10464 FOREST AVE S 108 WELLS AVE S SEATTLE WA 913175 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0094-06 000720-0095-05 CITY CF RENTON 912777 ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CHURCH 687777 BENNETT W E 99 WELLS AVE S 00938-001 200 MILL AVE S RrNTUN WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0096-04 000720-0098-02 STORWICK R E R1178 SCOTT JENNIFER M+EDWARDS ST609999 PO BOX 78327 119 MAIN AVE S SEATTLE WA 9817E RENTON WA 98055 000720-0104-04 000720-0109-09 TENNESSEE GROUP L.L.G. 670914 TENNESSEE GROUP L.L.C. 670915 710 S 2ND ST 71C S 2ND ST RENTCN WA 9E055 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0111-05 000720-0118-08 SCHULTZ NORMAN M+MARIAN 639999 COOPER ROBERT T 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD 87 WILLIAMS AVE SO SEATTLE WA 98178 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0122-02 000720-0130-02 SCHMICT MARGARET L 55995S ANDERSON ROBERT L 1N1243 7136 S SUNNYCREST RD 316 CAPT GRAY CT SE SEATTLE WA 98178 OCEAN SHORES WA 98569 0d0720-0145-05 000720-0147-03 BUENO MATHEW C+8UENG MGNICA7D9999 RYAN MAXWELL H 729999 913 HARRINGTON AVE NE ;;6 P C BOX 336 RENTON WA 98C56 RENTON WA 98057 000720-0162-03 000720-0164-01 GANNCN GREG 462176 ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CHURCH 687777 BREWER NANCY 99 WELLS AVE S 00938-001 30808 SE 384TH RENTON WA 98055 ENUMCLAW WA 98022 000720-0168-07 000720-0186-05 REN FOUR INC ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CH RENTONC0376 PO BOX 59 99 WELLS AVE S RENTON WA 98C55 RENTON WA 98055 723150- 1090-04 723150-1095-09 ESELL CCWPORATION 339599 FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS C LOAS-0177 126 WELLS AVE S PC BOX 358 RENTON WA 9E055 RENTON WA 98055 723150-1950-03 723150-1965-06 SCHULTZ NORMAN M+MARIAN 639999 SHAf3RO JEAN 8 830053 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD C/O OERTEL NANCY SEATTLE WA 98178 6018 SW CUPOLA DR NEWPORT CR 97365 723150-1970-09 723150-1979-00 BELMONOC FAMILY LTD PRTNRSH872980 U S BANK CORPORATE PROPS 883506 1935 NE 12TH ST 2900 F LAKE 5T RENTCN WA 9805E LAKL0012 MINNEAPOLIS NN 55406 723150-2005-06 723150-2020-07 BELMCNDC FAMILY LTD PRTNRSH872980 KING KENNETH 274268 1835 NE 12TH ST 350 SUNSET BLVD N RENTON WA 98G56 RENTON WA 98055 723150-2030-05 723190-2085-09 MCLENDON HARDWARE INC CUGINI ALEX JR 710 2ND AVE 611 RENTCN AVE S RENTON WA 9E055 RENTON WA 98055 723150-2120-06 723150-2125-01 TENNESSEE GROUP LLC 889999 STORWICK R E 704181 710 S 2ND ST PO PDX 78327 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 723150-2130-04 STORWICK R E 704181 PC BOX 78327 SEATTLE WA 9817E ty CITY of RENTON ..u. ; Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 27, 1999 Mr. Norman Yelin Norman Yelin Architects 1517 34th Avenue Seattle, WA 98112 SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments Project No. LUA-99-013, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Yelin: We have reviewed your revised pre-submission plans for the Cedar Apartments. Below, I have listed information that should be added to your site plan application. 1. The number of proposed units and density of the project should be listed on the site plan. 2. It appears that the proposal exceeds the 75% maximum impervious surface requirement of the RM-U zone. The plans should be revised to comply with the standard or the application 7�� should include a variance. The site plan legend should be revised to include the percentage c of building coverage and impervious surface proposed for the project. 3 The neighborhood map should be revised to clearly indicate the site area with a dark, bold line. At your request, I have forward the revised plans to our building plan reviewer, Craig Burnell. I am enclosing our informational handout regarding submittal requirements for revisions to existing land use applications. As I discussed with you over the phone, all site plan revisions must be coordinated and consistent throughout all materials in your revised application. Please call Laureen Nicolay with any questions regarding the submittal requirements. If you have further questions, please contact me, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, (er: Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Victor Malen Laureen Nicolay attachments: Submittal Requirements for Revisions to Existing Land Use Applications. APPRFV nor. 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL newspaper ofgeneralpublication and is now and has been for more than six months DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language COMMITTEE continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County RENTON,WASHINGTON Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the The Environme Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of State of Washington for King County. Non-Significance-Mitigated for the fol- The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County lowing project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers CEDAR APARTMENTS during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF Proposal to construct a 47 unit apart- ment structure. Location: 102, 110 Cedar Apartments Williams Ave.So. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), as published on: 9/13/99 WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or The full amount of the fee cha d f r s ' foregoing publication is the sum of$46.00, before 5:00 PM September 27, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both Charged to Acct. No. 80510 actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Legal Number 6573 Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed Legal Clerk, South °Linty ournal by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information II� regarding the appeal process may be Subscribed and sworn before me on this . -t day of .4�! 1 19 95 obtained from Office (425)430h65R0enton City Clerk's n S County Journal 001111111111//foP -- ir3 SeptemPublishedber 13i,1999the .6573outh `o N/40 .['1. •F�yew ,,T " NOTARY Notary Public of the State of Washington residing in Renton e� King County, Washington 6 r CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING {1 On the 1 � day of �� ,ptek;v�loer' , 1999, I deposited in the mails of the United 3 States, a sealed envelope containing Re k.w ,- x;iF\ ovvi lsec t Stc c A documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing V t c*0 - vv-i_ ern M Y- D uelo pm-e v7- c (Signature of Sender) L/?%4'L 0,-e G (A____ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that GU(e. -) C_0 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: -3 30) 196)1l � " (/1 Ri Notary bli6c in anWfor theState of Washington 1 MARLLYN KAMCHEFF ► 1 NOTARY PUBLIC Notary (Print)MARILYN KAMCHEFF STATE OF WASHINGTON My appointmi@12TMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 I COMMISSION EXPIRES I JUNE 29, 2003 * .--,.n Project Name: �-61av- "pis Project Number: t_Ua -99 . 013 ,SH}- 1,9 , ELt NOTARY.DOC 1 CITY IF RENTON miz Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 29, 1999 Mr. Victor Malen M.K.D. Development Co., Inc. 10020-A Main Street Suite B-110 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments Project No. LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr. Malen: This letter is to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination or the site plan decision. This decision is final. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(425)430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, I >' Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Mr. & Mrs. Mathew Bueno • FINALLTR 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF>RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the I0- day of S.et;•tewi c er' , 1999, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ?c avo DCctSlb-h documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing V t c"ttrr VV\a etn e- t Y\ALtt'kew Lkev o (Signature of Sender) S0.vtdtitx_ K- • Scc� STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ?/La_. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for-the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. )� Dated: r 1 i ' r� l ,- r 1 e 3 -.- Notary Publicjand for the State of i hington < MARILYN KAMCHEFF ► Notary (Print) NOTARY PUBLIC ' My appointment expirfaARILYN KAMGHtFF MY T EXPIRES.0.29-03 STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES Protect Nge iwv... Project Number: LOPS •�°I •O 13, SIP► ,ELF NOTARY.DOC REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW& ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION REPORT DATE: September 07, 1999, revised decision of September 13, 1999 Project Name: Cedar Apartments Applicant: M.K.D. Development Company Owner: M.K.D. Development Company File Number: LUA-099-013, SA-A, ECF Project Manager: Peter Rosen Project Description: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories (45-foot maximum height) and a basement level, with the upper three stories for the apartment units. A parking garage for 85 cars would occupy the basement level and the first story at street grade. The parking garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation to interior units. Project Location: 102, 110 Williams Avenue South Exist. Bldg. Area: Single family residence Proposed New Bldg. Area: NA Site Area: 24,000 sq. ft. Total Building Area: NA Ex 78 7�0p� 77 ` . 'L\ „,., 9� Z 0T c �L .../ ,`•� t G ®nnf 99„ f�-� A' X- N(.,T.t./t295 , alp.,n 99 nu '. JON EA. .M- rd.WS 7:1 99 . PARK 20 E; IN 17c9J x. zase..... - I '' t0 ua �-+x z pC _[Pai01 r .� l05 ,k1 ,p zu.a6 1p7 �; IIltifri 8 iO3 to 2�, 90 i08 « r i All '® 3 00` al ` .es Ff1s' Ib MIr 4 ,� Trirlex Ow .\rc.„e' r ae.U611 I 1 I51 i 124 / Idear e? ® T __�___� 14 .m ,, _ is rt� ,� 14 p 4-n..-, 6 . ' . 13 , rt2 _ 13 ;' •Ri r_klau o Pip- in, 1 P • h k .5 in !�r� C 07 . :� '0 � 3 acr, v S. Project Location Map —1 rer1714 .1 a .,, —, S/TERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department kdministrative Site Plan Approval&Environn I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 2 of 16 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories (45-foot maximum height) and a basement level, with the upper three stories for the apartment units. A parking garage for 85 cars would occupy the basement level and the first story at street grade. The parking garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation to interior units. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The subject site is basically flat, with overall vertical relief estimated at less than 3 feet. There is a single-family residence on a part of the site and the remainder of the site is lawn and pervious surface. The lower level of the parking garage would require excavating approximately 8 feet below the existing grade. The applicant has not provided an estimate of the quantity of cut material or grading anticipated with the proposal. A geotechnical report for the proposal has been prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Based on soil boring tests, the geotechnical consultant concludes that subsurface conditions at shallow depths are unsuitable for shallow foundation support of the proposed structure. Consequently, a deep foundation, bearing on the lower, medium dense to dense sands and gravels would be required for building support. Because the subject site is surrounded by existing development, the consultant recommends augercast concrete piers as the most appropriate type of foundation support. In general, pile lengths of 15 to 45 feet below the lower parking level are anticipated. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to follow the recommendations of the geotechnical report. Potential erosion impacts that could occur during construction would be mitigated by City Code requirements for a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) and Construction Mitigation Plan, approved prior to issuance of Construction Permits. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated December 1998, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., regarding general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and floor support. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 3 of 16 Policy Nexus: Environmental Review (SEPA) Ordinance. 2. Water Impacts: There are no surface water bodies or wetlands on the site. Runoff from the proposed structure would be collected and conveyed to an underground detention pipe, located at the north end of the site. Stormwater would then be released to existing stormwater facilities in Williams Avenue South. The proposal would be required to comply with requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual, as adopted by the City of Renton. Groundwater was observed in the soil borings at depths between 17 and 18.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Shallower groundwater levels should be anticipated seasonally and following periods of high rainfall. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are recommended. Policy Nexus: NA 3. Fire Protection Impacts: The proposal would add new construction to the City and would potentially impact the City's Fire Department. A Fire Mitigation Fee applies to all new construction at a rate of $388 per multi-family unit. The Fire Mitigation Fee for the 47 multi-family units is estimated to be $18,236 (47 units X $388 = $18,236). The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. Fire Department access is required within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. The proposal does not appear to comply with this code requirement. A variance from this requirement may be approved by the Fire Marshall on a case by case basis. If the proposed site plan were to require significant revision to meet the code requirement, additional environmental review may be required. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $388 per multi-family unit. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Policy Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting ordinance, Environmental Review (SEPA) Ordinance. 4. Transportation Impacts: An 85-space parking garage for apartment residents is proposed on two levels (basement and ground levels). The garage entry would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. The proposed multi-family development would result in an increase in the number of traffic trips on the local street system. However, the amount of additional traffic that would be generated is not anticipated to result in a significant impact on the street system. A Traffic Mitigation Fee would be assessed based on the number of average daily trips that are attributed to the proposed development. The number of trips is based on standards from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. It is estimated that the proposal would result in 6.47 average daily trips per unit, for a total of 294.6 new average daily SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department dministrative Site Plan Approval&Environn I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 4 of 16 trips for the 47-unit proposal. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated to be $75 per average daily trip. The traffic mitigation fee is thus estimated to be $22,095. The proposal includes a parking garage with 85 stalls to serve the 47 apartment units. This equals a ratio of 1.81 parking spaces per unit, exceeding the standard parking requirement of 1.5 parking spaces per multi-family dwelling unit and then 1 guest parking space per 4 units, for a total ratio of 1.75 parking spaces per unit. However, the subject site is located in the Downtown Core Area which specifically exempts development projects from all on-site parking code requirements. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan stating that construction hours would be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Truck hauling hours are limited to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. under the Development Guidelines Ordinance in order to avoid conflicts with peak hour traffic. Construction activity within 300 feet of residential areas is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 per new average daily trip attributed to the project. The traffic mitigation fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review (SEPA) Ordinance. 5. Parks and Recreation Impacts: The proposal would result in construction of 47 multi-family residential units. Future residents would make use of existing and future City park and recreation facilities throughout the City. In order to mitigate the impact of development on the City's parks and recreation facilities, the City has adopted a mitigation fee of $354.51 per new multi- family dwelling unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee is estimated to be $16,661.97. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee of $354.51 per multi-family dwelling unit. The Parks Mitigation fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Policy Nexus: Park Mitigation Fee Ordinance, Environmental Review (SEPA) Ordinance. 6. Environmental Health/Noise Impacts: Development of the site would result in noise impacts. These impacts would be limited to the construction phase of the project, which is estimated to have a total duration of approximately 8 months. Construction activity within 300 feet of residential areas is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan which includes measures to minimize construction impacts. Construction equipment noise would be mitigated by muffling equipment as required per standard construction standards and dust would be controlled using best management construction practices. The noise impacts are not considered significant due to the limited duration of the construction period and mitigations restricting the hours of construction and minimizing equipment noise. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environm Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 5 of 16 Construction of building foundations would consist of augercast concrete piers. The geotechnical report recommends this type of deep foundation construction to minimize the impact of ground vibrations during the earthwork and foundation construction on conventionally supported buildings around the site. After completion of the project, there would be noise impacts of increased traffic and impacts from activities normally associated with an introduced residential population. The Comprehensive Plan and zoning envisions downtown Renton as an urban center with a variety of residential and commercial uses developed at a high-density, intensity level. The potential conflicts between uses were known factors with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning for downtown. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are recommended. Policy Nexus: NA 7. Land Use Impacts: The subject site is located in the Center Downtown (CD) Comprehensive Plan designation and the Multi-family Residential Urban (RM-U) zone. The proposed multi- family residential development is consistent with the uses permitted in the RM-U zoning designation. Potential impacts of residential uses in the downtown were evaluated during the process of adopting the Comprehensive Plan and implementing zoning. The height of the proposed building is approximately 45 feet. A mechanical bulkhead on top of the roof brings the maximum building height to 52 feet. The ground elevation is 39.5 feet; therefore, the proposed building would have a maximum elevation of 91.5 feet above sea level. The building site is located approximately 2,100 feet from the Renton Airport runway. The maximum height permitted according to Airport height regulations is 179 feet above sea level. A Notice of Proposed Construction (FAA Form 7460-1) is required since the building height exceeds 100:1 slope unless provisions of Section 77.15(a) are established. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are recommended. Policy Nexus: NA. B. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. X Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Issue DNS-M with 15 day Period. Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department dministrative Site Plan Approval&Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 6 of 16 C. Mitigation Measures 1) The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated December 1998, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., regarding general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and floor support. 2) The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $388 per multi- family unit. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 3) The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 per new average daily trip attributed to the project. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) The applicant shall pay a Park's Department mitigation fee of $354.51 per multi- family dwelling unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 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. BUILDING 3-hour separation between garage/residential; piling per soils report; garage ventilation; exit enclosure 2 hours; no exterior exit balconies or stairs where protection of openings required; stairway identification; stairway to roof. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow required is 5,000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150-feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 3. Fire Department access is required within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. The proposal does not appear to comply with this code requirement. A variance from this requirement may be approved by the Fire Marshall on a case by case basis. If the proposed site plan were to require significant revision to meet the code requirement, additional environmental review may be required. PLAN REVIEW Sanitary Sewer: • This project is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. • There is an 8"sanitary sewer main in Williams Ave. S. City records also show that there is a sanitary sewer main that discharges to the north on the east side of this parcel. • A sanitary sewer main extension is not required for this project. The project utility plan will need to show the methodology to drain the underground parking garage which shall discharge into the sanitary sewer. The design may include a pump (it appears that the Finished Floor elevation will be lower than the existing sewer system). The proposed sewer system must include an oil water separator for the two floors of parking garages. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 7 of 16 • The minimum sidesewer pipe diameter is 6"for all commercial buildings. • The conceptual utility plan is approved. It is suggested that the applicant install a length of 8" pipe to the west from the existing MH on the east side of the parcel and then tie two separate sidesewers (one for the building waste and one with an oil water separator for the parking garages) into that new(private)8" pipe. • System Development Charges (SDC)are $350 per unit. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Water: • The site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. • The project site is located in the 196 Pressure Zone. • There is an existing 6"watermain in Williams Ave. S. • A 16"watermain extension will be required to be installed for this project. • The City of Renton Fire Marshal has determined that the preliminary fire flow is 5,000 GPM. A 16" watermain will be required to be installed in Williams Ave. S from the existing 24"watermain located on the south side of the river to the existing 8" watermain in S 2nd St to be able to meet the fire flow of the development. If the fire flow changes, the size of the required watermain will be reevaluated. The conceptual utility plan does not show the installation of a new water main and hence is not approved. • A looped water main may be required due to fire flow requirements. • Any new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. Secondary fire hydrants are required to be installed within 300 as a part of this project to meet City code. • A backflow prevention device is required for buildings over 30 feet in height. • Water System Development Charges of$510 per unit. The Development Charges are collected as part of the construction permit. Street Improvements: • There are existing curbs, gutters and sidewalks on Williams Av. S. • Streetlights are existing on Williams Av. S. Drainage: • Civil engineering calculations were submitted for the project. A storm drainage detention system was shown on the conceptual utility system and appears to be in order. • There appear to be storm drainage facilities in Williams Av. S. • The Surface Water SDC fees of$0.129 (but not less than $385) per square foot of new impervious area are required if not previously paid. General: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvement is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over$100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over$200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. AIRPORT Building site is located approximately 2,100 feet from runway. Maximum height permitted is 179 feet above sea level. Building height is indicated as 45 feet plus the top section, over 50 feet total. Notice of Proposed Construction (FAA Form 7460-1) is required since building height exceeds 100:1 slope unless provisions of Section 77.15(a)are established. PARKS Recommend removal of the 6 existing trees and lawn. Replace with approved 4-foot square tree grates, 2- inch caliper trees and concrete walk to tie into existing. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 8 of 16 PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION - REPORT & DECISION This decision on the administrative land use action is made concurrently with the environmental determination. A. Type of Land Use Action x Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Special Permit for Grade &Fill Administrative Code Determination B. Exhibits The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. 1, Site Plan/Project Information, (Received June 19, 1999, revised July 8, 1999) Exhibit No. 3: Drawing No. 2, Site Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 4: Drawing No. 3, Lower Level Parking Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 5: Drawing No. 4, Parking Plan at Street Level Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 6: Drawing No. 5, First Floor Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 7: Drawing No. 6, Partial Floor Plan (2"d to 3rd Floors), (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 8: Drawing No. 7, Partial Floor Plan (2nd to 3rd Floors), (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 9: Drawing No. 8, Building Elevations (west, north), (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 10:Drawing No. 9, Building Elevations (east, south), (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 11:Drawing No. 10, Window, Door Schedule, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 12:Drawing No. 11, Building Cross Section, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 13:Drawing No. 12, Wall Sections, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 14:Drawing No. 13, Landscape Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 15:Drawing No. 14, Site Survey, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 16:Drawing No. 15, Vicinity Maps, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 17:Drawing No. 16, Civil Cover Sheet, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 18:Drawing No. 17, Grading and Utility Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 19:Drawing No. 18, T.E.S.C. Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). SITERC.doc City,of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 9 of 16 C. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-31-33(D) of the Site Plan Ordinance, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: 1. GENERAL CRITERIA: A. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS & POLICIES The site is designated Center Downtown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The intent of the designation is to create a balance of land uses which contribute to the revitalization of downtown Renton and to reinforce downtown Renton as the regional commercial district in the City. (Objectives DT-A and DT-B) The following Downtown Element policies are applicable to the proposal: Policy DT-1. There should be a mix of uses, including retail, office, light industrial and residential, which generate the demand for goods and services. The proposed residential use is appropriate to the designation. Policy DT-3. Development and redevelopment of Center Downtown should strive for urban density and intensity of uses. The net density of the proposal is 85.45 dwelling units per acre. Policy DT-22. Maximize the use of existing urban services and civic amenities and revitalize the City's downtown by promoting medium to high density residential development in the downtown area. Allowed densities will conform to the criteria for Urban Centers in the countywide policies. Policy DT-24. Net residential development densities in the downtown area should achieve a range of 25-100 dwelling units per acre. Where parcels are less than one half acre no minimum density is required. The proposal density of 85.45 dwelling units per acre meets the high-end range of the policy. Policy DT-27. Medium rise residential (6 to 10 stories) should be located in the urban center primarily between the Cedar River and S. 2nd, and between S. 2nd and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. The proposed structure is four stories and therefore considered low-rise. Policy DT-29. Parking should be structured whenever feasible and serve more than one use. • Policy DT-47. Parking lots and structures should employ and maintain landscaping and other design techniques to minimize the visual impacts of these uses. The proposal includes a parking garage for residents. The 2-level parking garage is on the street level and basement level. The parking garage would dominate the appearance of the building from Williams Avenue S. The landscaping proposed in front parking garage consists of groundcover plants that would not be adequate for screening the parking garage and minimizing the visual impact. The proposal includes only a 2- foot wide landscape bed in front of a part of the garage. This landscape bed would not be sufficiently wide for larger plants that could provide screening of the parking garage. SITERC.doc City,of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 10 of 16 Staff is recommending a site plan condition that the applicant increase the width of the landscape bed in front of the building to a 5 feet width and provide taller plants to screen the appearance of the parking garage from the street. Policy DT-48. Site and building designs (e.g. signage building height, bulk and setback, landscaping, parking) should reflect unity of design to create a distinct sense of place and mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Policy DT-51. Design guidelines should be developed for building, parking and street appearance (e.g. facades, awnings, signs, planting, street furniture and fixtures) with broad input to provide projects with multiple options which would foster the unique downtown identity. Policy LU-305. The design of buildings and surrounding environment should be compatible with surrounding recent urban designs. Policy LU-307. Ensure that development relates, connects, and continues design quality and site functions from parcel to parcel. Policy LU-313. A variety of architectural design and detailing should be encouraged as long as site functions connect to adjacent development. Innovative use of building materials and finishes should be promoted. The policies cited above provide guidance and support for design review of the proposal. The recent urban design and district identity of downtown is established by the Renaissance Project (Daily Homes), the City of Renton Piazza development and the new Metro Transit Center. The City of Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan was prepared to guide the City and private investment in the Daily project, Piazza and Transit Center and this Plan focuses on craftsman style elements in site planning and streetscape. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies that address design guidelines. The proposed building design does not create a distinct sense of place or mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent uses. The design does not incorporate features or building details to suggest compatibility or connection with surrounding recent urban designs in downtown. B. CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS The subject site is located in the Residential Multi-family Urban (RM-U) zoning designation. The purpose of the RM zone is to provide and protect suitable environments for multi-family dwellings. The "U" suffix (Urban Center) corresponds to areas designated in the Center Downtown Comprehensive Plan designation. Development Standards Density - The RM-U zone requires a minimum density of 25 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Ordinance No. 4788, adopted July 19th, 1999, allows potential for up to 150 du/ac with design review. The subject proposal has a net density of 85.45 du/ac. There is not presently a design review process for development in the RM-U zone. Therefore, this report evaluates the proposal according to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed building design is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies addressing design guidelines for downtown. Setbacks — The RM-U zone requires a minimum front and rear setback of 5 feet. The proposal includes a 5-foot front setback and 5-feet 8-inches in the rear, complying with setback requirements. A minimum 12-foot setback is required for lot widths greater SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environn 1 Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 11 of 16 than 120 feet. The proposal includes a 12-foot side yard setback on the north side and a 12-foot 9-inch setback on the south. The code also requires that the entire structure shall be setback an additional 1 foot for each story in excess of 2 up to a maximum cumulative setback of 20 feet. Therefore, the proposed 4-story structure requires 14- foot side yard setbacks. The applicant should either revise the site plan to provide 14- foot side yard setbacks on the north and south sides of the building, or apply for variance approval from the setback requirement. Building Design - The RM-U zone, as amended by Ordinance No. 4788, requires modulation of vertical and horizontal facades at a minimum of two feet at an interval of a minimum offset of 40 feet on each building face. The proposed structure includes bay window features that provide a horizontal offset of the facade of approximately 1-1A feet. The bay windows are on all building faces and spaced at less than 40-foot intervals, complying with the code standard. The applicant should revise the bay windows to provide a 2-foot offset in order to meet the code requirement. The proposed building also includes a pitched roof facade or roof eaves along the front and rear of the structure. The roof facade pitch provides a vertical modulation of two feet. The pitched roof facade should be added to the sides of the building (the north and south building faces) to comply with the code requirement. Building Height - The RM-U zone allows a maximum building height of 95 feet and 10 stories. The height of the proposed building is approximately 45 feet. A mechanical bulkhead on top of the roof brings the maximum building height to 52 feet. The ground elevation is 39.5 feet; therefore, the proposed building would have a maximum elevation of 91.5 feet above sea level. The building site is located approximately 2,100 feet from the Renton Airport runway. The maximum height permitted according to Airport height regulations is 179 feet above sea level. A Notice of Proposed Construction (FAA Form 7460-1) is required since the building height exceeds 100:1 slope unless provisions of Section 77.15(a) are established. Building Lot Coverage — The RM-U zone allows a maximum building coverage and impervious surface area of 75%. The proposed building footprint is 16,719 sq. ft. and the pavement area 1,276 sq. ft. on the 24,000 sq. ft. parcel size. This equals a building coverage of 70% and a total impervious surface area of 75% of the lot area. Landscaping — The RM-U zone requires that setback and open space areas be landscaped, unless otherwise determined through the site plan review process. The proposal complies with the landscape requirement except for the north landscape bed in the front building setback is only 2 feet wide. The applicant should revise plans to provide a 5-foot wide landscape bed in the front setback. Parking — The RM-U zone requires parking to be provided either underground or in parking structures. The proposal includes a parking garage that occupies the first two levels of the building. The subject site is located in the Downtown Core Area which specifically exempts development projects from all on-site parking code requirements. The proposed parking garage includes 85 stalls to serve the 47 apartment units. This equals a ratio of 1.81 parking spaces per unit, exceeding the parking standard of 1.75 spaces per unit, required for multi-family development outside of the Downtown Core Area. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department dministrative Site Plan Approval&Environm 'Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 12 of 16 C. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES; The subject site is approximately 1 block north of the commercial-core downtown. The site is mostly surrounded by single family residences. There is an office use across the street on Williams Ave. S. The size, bulk and height of the proposed building would be greater than the existing one-story single family residences surrounding the site. The proposed building does not include sufficient modulation or articulation to reduce the appearance of scale or bulk in comparison to surrounding structures. The disparity in scale between the proposed building and existing size and character of existing buildings would negatively impact the residents and the neighborhood. The proposed 2-level parking garage is on the street level and basement level. The parking garage would dominate the appearance of the building from Williams Avenue S. The landscaping proposed in front of the parking garage consists of groundcover plants that would not be adequate for screening the parking garage and minimizing the visual impact. The proposal includes only a 2-foot wide landscape bed in front of a part of the garage. This landscape bed would not be sufficiently wide for larger plants that could provide screening of the parking garage. Staff recommends that the applicant increase the width of the landscape bed in front of the building to a 5-foot width and provide taller plants along the front of the building to screen the appearance of the parking garage from the street. Construction activities on the site would result in some noise, dust and traffic impacts on surrounding properties. These impacts would be limited to the construction phase of the project, which is estimated to have a total duration of approximately 8 months. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan outlining mitigation measures to be employed for minimizing dust, noise and traffic impacts during construction. Building foundations would consist of augercast concrete piers to extend through the loose fill and alluvial soils underlying the site. This type of deep foundation construction would minimize the impact of ground vibrations during the earthwork and foundation construction on buildings with conventional building foundations in the vicinity of the site. D. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE; There are no significant natural or human-made features on the site that would be impacted by the proposed development. The proposal would construct a building covering approximately 70% of the site area and impervious surfaces would cover 75% of the site area. Requirements to upgrade utilities and stormwater facilities would mitigate impacts associated with development of the site. E. CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES; The proposed development is expected to conserve area-wide property values in the vicinity of the site. Adding residential population to downtown would improve the customer base for commercial businesses and this is also expected to increase property values. SITERC.doc City, of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environm I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 13 of 16 F. SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION; The proposal includes a two-level, 85-space parking garage for apartment residents. The garage entry would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. The proposed multi-family development would result in an increase in the number of traffic trips on the local street system. It is estimated that the proposal would result in 6.47 average daily trips per unit, for a total of 294.6 average daily trips for the 47-unit proposal. The amount of additional traffic that would be generated is not anticipated to result in a significant impact on the local street system. A Traffic Mitigation Fee would be assessed through the SEPA environmental review process to mitigate for traffic impacts. G. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR; The height and bulk of the proposed building would be greater than existing, surrounding residences. The 4-story building would block sunlight and cast shadows on adjacent residences. The proposed building is not modulated to reduce shadow impacts on surrounding structures. The building design includes interior open courtyards or central light wells, proposed to meet Building Code requirements for light and ventilation in Group R occupancies (Section 1203 of 1997 Uniform Building Code). However, the proposed plans are unclear and may conflict with objectives to provide adequate light and ventilation. Building elevations (Sheets 7 and 7A) and the building cross-section (Sheet 9) indicate the courtyard openings are covered. It is also unclear if sufficient light and ventilation would reach the lower stories of units with the design of the interior corridors abutting the central light wells. The proposed building design does not meet the site plan criteria for provision of adequate light and air. In order to meet the day light/natural ventilation requirements for residential units, the proposal includes windows for bedroom spaces on the interior corridors, resulting in an open corridor concept in which bedroom spaces abut public corridors. This arrangement seriously compromises the privacy of residents of those units. H. MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS; It is anticipated that the most significant noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan which provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. The proposed development would not generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions. There would be noise impacts of increased traffic and activity that are normally associated with a residential population. SITERC.doc City,of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environm 'Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 14 of 16 I. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE; AND There are adequate and available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed development. A discussion of existing utilities and planned improvements is provided in the advisory notes section of this report. The applicant would be assessed fire, traffic and park mitigation fees to compensate for the increased demand on public services. Fire Department access is required within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. The proposal does not appear to comply with this code requirement. A variance from this requirement may be approved by the Fire Marshall on a case by case basis. If the proposed site plan were to require significant revision to meet the code requirement, additional environmental review may be required. A looped water main may be required due to fire flow requirements. As part of the decision issued September 9, 1999, it was stated that a looped water main around the building would need to be located within a 15-foot wide utility easement and that the proposed building does not include sufficient side yard setbacks for a 15-foot easement. Subsequent to that decision, utility staff has commented that a looped water main would not necessarily have to be looped around the building to accomplish the required fire flow. Therefore, the discussion and conclusions related to the looped water main have been revised for the September 13 decision. J PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORATION AND BLIGHT. The proposed building is not in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and the building design does not include features to mitigate for impacts. The proposal would not prevent neighborhood deterioration and blight. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. D. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1) Request: The applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for development of the Cedar Apartments. 2) Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent documents was entered as Exhibit No. 1. 3) Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2 through 19. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environm 'Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 15 of 16 4) Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is in the Center Downtown (CD) Comprehensive Plan designation. 5) Zoning: The subject site is located in the Residential Multi-family Urban (RM-U) zone and the Downtown Core Area. 6) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: Single-family residential: East: Single-family residential; South: Single-family residential, commercial; and West: Office, Commercial, Single-family residential. E. Conclusions 1. The subject proposal does not comply with policies of the Center Downtown Comprehensive Plan designation in regards to policies related to building design and compatibility with surrounding recent urban designs in downtown. 2. The proposal does not comply with development standards of the Residential Multi-family Urban (RM-U) zoning designation. The proposal does not meet requirements for side yard setbacks or landscaping. 3. The proposal would adversely impact surrounding properties and uses. The size, bulk and height of the proposed building is incompatible with existing single family residences surrounding the site. The proposed building does not include sufficient modulation or articulation to reduce the appearance of scale or bulk and address the disparity in scale between the proposed building and the size and character of existing buildings. 4. Fire Department access is required within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. The proposal does not appear to comply with this code requirement. A variance from this requirement may be approved by the Fire Marshall on a case by case basis. If the proposed site plan were to require significant revision to meet the code requirement, additional environmental review may be required. 5. The proposed building design does not meet the site plan criteria for provision of adequate light and air. Interior courtyards or central light wells are proposed to meet the day light/natural ventilation requirements for residential units. However, the proposed plans (building elevations Sheets 7 and 7A and the building cross-section Sheet 9) indicate the courtyard openings are covered. In addition, due to the width of corridors abutting the central light wells, very little natural light would reach these bedroom areas. The interior corridors would result in an open corridor concept in which bedroom spaces abut public corridors. This arrangement seriously compromises the privacy of residents of those units. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environm Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 REVISED SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 Page 16 of 16 F. Decision (revised September 13, 1999) The Site Plan for the Cedar Apartments, File No. LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF, is denied based upon the conclusions stated above. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURES: /31T7 Jana Hanson, Zoning Administrator date TRANSMITTED this 14th day of September, 1999 to the applicant and owner: Victor Malen, President M.K.D. Development Co., Inc. 10020-A Main Street, B-110 Bellevue, WA. 98004 TRANSMITTED this 14th day of September to the following parties of record: Monica and Mathew Bueno 98 Williams Avenue South Renton, WA. 98055 TRANSMITTED this 14th day of September to the following: Larry Meckling, Building Official C. Duffy, Fire Prevention Neil Watts, Public Works Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney South County Journal Environmental Determination and Land Use Decision Appeal Process Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 27, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. 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 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. SITERC.doc 9 I Y T T CD11 'k�1'iJ 1d•loi l■ nLp n=o I�:n I+L n nLe nL i e nb l nb 1 �'+oh 10=0 YI4 I I I _1fROfeRTV LING _ II M.b 1 _� �� �_—`��C- turf-� I - _ I 1 A I ,I - isr I I I II .r-.r L 7ys� 1 ),(In i — III hi t I III�II!I I I-I� fj 1. :! . II = !- I I I III ! • �I F, -1 f • • ' z ^ - - f! I 1� II � • I + / i,.1 1 :I �,I III;; I �G I I III '.rIR, • t I1 • �' I II I I •I,I II1 P �� I I• I;I I jl ii F i t Il ill III! III,I. I•l�(III'�'11. ill I I' 11 ; ,, I,'Ii II.I II I I ILII !I _ • --_ 1.�, I • !III III II��II!�IIII I1�1 ill lluhil liliii lil Il I L I I' I iu a u' �II ������ {ri ti 11IIII+1_ _ :,� a I u I ,, I I I o = _ �' : --4'—@s OIeN —S ili 11: ' - \ i g o pp11 .. „ col n" ___.:_,...__ _ F,. _ it:: I I1� l; M ,I O • t il --41 •iiiiiiiii. 21a -eI, I w I11I^wE1". .e `IM•— M.a ..},.._1► .G7«T01 : / /> \kit +de 0 • I yp'-o; M a zoo a �_� == �; __ ►'MMf• 1O. cx,s,wp •I eRH,rro cws .rl.,,we I p•►1�/T I }I e'•d rnaG,cu,w I Is tW �, 0-D I I NEw CufO'art I CLOT 1+M cu■�on 1 h'.p• 17 ( ,II CLOT PAVEMENT SCHEDULE WIILIAMO 97¢e0T 1WA ).1t-�.p/•Yr� -T.�DfVT ►AVE M ENT 'A' Zee 60 PT �L�1�L'Y` ✓I"1 Ii0 I-1oI'3M or ��1' �rGST PAVE IA GNI' •Ce 166 0.FT /Y1� PAVEP1ENT •c" 1♦, *0rt �fP•1..CYV0'YOB••�i v fWfrJO .1 � sA'r6� fAVEM ENT •0' 140.•*0 FT - ?�F I6'IiPSM IAVEM ENT "I. 0011 00 PT (),D'r ARGA) •0,1,000 b•PT. FO9TFb04. .0. 6AT0 2D2 •JD fT 0JIYPMY.MFLA)• 141,1e •O.fT r.O{U //M,Tcr.. TOTAL iris — (II.."a-. ARGA). I,2,b v.T �IYfI� O'On b10 (fI■v,oU4 At■A)• ,,005 1.0,0. DOIVON 10..r IZ-i t WrAa tit:. 14�!' SITE PLAN r '•r' '•m , ecALe IiG• -W HEaortr -0INF VI.wTtorK. No 9r Ur`4 rrb: 47,o DENE;4Y: E.. 'o^cri-P (Lor ••••-)Ei) eats u1-11•pr.,//.Fri► • i.I1.4'T . 11.AA1, too u.N O 7rO'P/ONH/-Wit. ' WeL�af • • tiM- 313-.'?fill • Iris Y:W lw NUN IGir tar :ANT • YN • �_ �,n"-e-.ev'iw'r"ro 911:11/17• "",,..1.e..e.. ' •�\ � 'j--- •,..1../\r'1..��w.. ��C' 1 .✓4-.+n,.../��!'i y r- y V "'',�' .i./� _,.♦ .waw�wye�coma Li' l'' c ik.r. lo - • -.. - .vr,11....tv,,,...1-_,:g......... • i ,..,.....,.,,,w,..m, :r II►I II o•1 Ir v v..«uW.• ;r W1i1. :.\ r`n' _ • rz•eNfA1 M•nY9.! •liti Ct turor=O•c :a�(u f •� =11 .t , I G:uY ar. .Y I •:f : = a ,. •Laall� _ !) !� 476,....gir-,...!7 Mil 1410i1 havro• ay,u. OD . • !�'�I swan.•ICYN w E,.uaa.M`MO" =I ' �41 „.i �� • y,��//�,ii"; L weer = TS.O¢.11+T•N5�'TMIN..Ii ,pie , , I . .. .�. 1►► r.. ,..i ,, .11;44,) *1 •Zia•wasLt.ohareN a 11 4 *MOMNwu.11Y1°..e1f TM IeIMi WI Lltmew....,. I.G nc1O1Y...a.. asw. 1- 1•"""'c�y .v wrno vn iu. aaaeoo1.0 S�cAN I I wi A.- - E11 - / w.nm taaua in II ,1 r WI Itit WILLIAM9 9TRtCT PLANTING LP-GeV-AO m'wic.. N o.WRITY Ca.NaN N.re aces*ma ..,,I..Z...iny ao..., -o...a.n..ti:or—, c •tawc)s•e.. •tc,.. ww v?Amarasa an s mair+TGoI 44...rnwl r F02 APP.... LANDSC E AP PLAN <—) SGA- VG 1'-0" • RAYMOND A BRAUNER IYAN...f APCAUCt M Ir w"rti r.N/J..Cre.I.J ./nM o.1+.M iVir ff aH 1 (4II . ktfrr 206% NJ':.1O7 RIDGE . 4T---- N TOP OP PLATE IM'5 RP FLOOR IIIII Ell - 2 NO FLOOR O 0 ri M] I--1---I 11 - H-E- rit rr-r -- -Hi idu ' - II ri 1 11 1 1 OT FLOOR - UPPER LEVEL -,I. I --: _'I1" IIIIIIIIIIIIIMIWM I. LOWER LEVEL PARKING i :-=_____ _ - 1, t • _ WEST ELEVATION SCALE I/9".C-0" RIOGE 4 1 TOP OF PLATE _ I u, l' 11.1 I E:1 "MI! i il "Ea 11111 , Ill 0 co 3 RD FLOOR 1.1 ,■1 1.1 1111 1U1 i 2 Ina 1 1 mi III 1U1 u i 11"i _ 2 ND FLOOR 1■' 1 O II �i O r IN 1 4r FLOOR ,-, i-1--- --'I IMO UPPER LEVEL PARKING .\ STREET LEVEL In n n -� --__� d I *- -I I J I1--, LOWER LEVEL PARKING I } t I izzzt N ORTH ELEVATION scAL..E i/e" = c-o' t RIDGE `1 4 r 12 T4 k 'I s � 1 ZU 'Ii ErI TOP OF PLA.•r ,—ir a0 ;0 3 RD FLOOR 0 1 �IH r� m I _—1,--I s 1 —J f I2 ND FLOOR —��_ 4 4� �� — I I , 1 ST FLOOR ti 61 \ � of_ — — UPPER LEVEL PARKING, _4 r i u` STREET LEVEL O - 1 `�1 fi i n I i _- �`1 u i 11 I1 I i _L- --- --- --- — ------ _II a—il --------- _ ---- _i_ LOWER LEVEL PARKING SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE I/8" : I,-Ou _ R1DOf S <1--- -14 Lis TO/of PUTS ii, iiiii _ E i I l _I c— On _ R U a T J 1M1 3 VW PLC JI li. ' +U- _ IIL_ RJlfl : 21.D FLOOR i ar ►Looe 0 N: -tl ---------- --- --_- ----- xr•• uPPER Level OKiKINC • �, r _ .4 1t__-li • 11 LOWeQ N Level Pkag Y EAST ELEVATION SCALE 1/e •I'-co BASIS OF BEARING PER RECORD OF SURVEY, RECORDING NUMBER I 9104309011, VOLUME 20, PAGE 71 • CITY OF RENTON VERTICAL DATUM 20 10 0 20 .0 • 5r�]� //,�.�a SeS�/�2,� ryA 00..04 SCALE.1 -20' IV 031 :.\ wpr..ry�K° �I[Sa I °WU 4 rwP. a. 1 1 rK[.].w uG Wiwn.r,Y.6.P.+O n.rt[arIXD w Yu SSW ."..,:.-1",:',.:';_ Ir r \\\\\\\ \\\ ` �1 1\1� �' !.a��9s° 3.1 OF�.,�., .°.Loy.ono•ORP ...SOL n,w 1.2 n,.e.K n >n , .00 a° . 1rU 1e Ste. n, . E L r S 0015'SVW ,Z!..1 200.oC 9 j 1Ta fi 7":;.o ww.w cau. .,,W,..,. ,.•"-, ^r..M~ _--.:03- • ]♦-_M.'ap�'O].° / `t',.a o �K w,au+E,o PLATS.P 10..,>n c AMOR.10 Tit PIA/n .w ro iYn.,Ycaa° r'—_s_.u—.NO:wr..m c:..Y=-- = " - - I 'S-f.1y -__ �"' r co.,E:n•�«... W .o]..�:]..0 . •> TOBIN DONATION CLAIM c " Cl) 8 �..,w4 T.D.C.1 1 1 _ I_� / y'1�• ;J ___ n .a,.ms. w rw«..vw..n n. coo w ae+..0 ' w 1. ••a •,^ f' ,,U'% 6, °��Aw. 'He.,>tM'g: sti e, ' A >r Sn 2i, R I • '�4 I--'_-,p r'IT:. 'En \fa' lS i°\\\ Fir ,,. FA11 «nft a.�'.rc> 4:LV:�.,1.1'.4 a, • s'„;J„i5.`.�d'.� I . a• « _ ___" - O° `r 0.010t, o,"KWo„rWin.R �.. COW.1.2.."O"".r•« or • ir'„ ir % ice/ 9° �l 95 s�l I-Jr.o rs'.tw1). ` „° .'R � �" 8 .,.H ..wO.nO,.r«.a,.,.....°a,..OY. ..t.n.».�.,,,,.,a. i ���� �t e'>, ",aF1"�'," .Nlb>p .. Ix ammo p g .w', MS.... ,w.. °.-,wYw, CRY n.,...w..w.> {p; .3r. n. « I .0011422 ranke coca.,.' f 9 { ,i sa i # 0. 'a010.1.Z. w%�I PM Of°. >.,., - R .n °s: u I. >t . ..«wa.nw c°.... NO >':.°m�'Ccu w.r°.�w`,>wiw„° r..c. ° • • '„".. 2 ..,�°""" 1 $J v Y ...w.n,w S0.11.14,COW. . w.<u..nK..N. WAL Kn=.°.,.3 t«t SOUP w.KY°.a. • - _o ,� > a �, �' _ •N 00010'E. :-1r O4�y10 r r s .r-a°xfl N• '°'r./�I`..> iW.V..I o ti. .�+.os. �1 tY, .51 .f1 »:"` inr. "7t'7Uo 7t >-:_�t 3 nt _i • �x'•q>'+>-. PS•°'ice ..,«,.,o AWN.... .,.ww.,.,w .. `1 ♦• ! --. . 2r>aw. . aw«w..w>,.w,.w °t�,i IA:ii, ; —' LEGEND W. 4..1 1001ONS MI I. — 1 - _ ° y _`._t ` `s5°.oi•-- tro wY..,, AYE --«S.____ t CUPS or xal.ws),.- o -}-- i —y>= t 13in C.0 o.. ....��. i _.—--V.. .C--G� G>-.G 1_� _` iG -rG—yI{ I -le o tom• rat..,..o,. tom UHF ♦ ,t ,.,°-.a.°J., ..,w,,w... ,CAP ..., 12. m WILLIAMS AVENUE SOUTH ,.-302WIR a .w.0 ",.."� a w:�Olain w �, .....,.4. 0 e CS.... 0 9 .w.. F =0- 905s0 C.. . s° ew,Ot...o. toa O w.,5..4. t' BOUNDARY Qc TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY1 VP I �r NDEX NEWYO: ]NOV 98 t el* , . .. ,... FOR low v 4Nwr.wE..w.a I NAP CHECK CD A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 'i A ) I)F L O P M E N rFCO. , INC. , 'I ] w1 sn.PIMA stC 98t® fi 23 N,�.5 C.lY. > IBM FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH.*ATTLf.WASHINGTON N/01 I1061]YN9t1 CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON 1. A_, '°""A"'""a"�'O' SHEET 1 OF 1 REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW& ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION REPORT DATE: September 07, 1999 Project Name: Cedar Apartments Applicant: M.K.D. Development Company Owner: M.K.D. Development Company File Number: LUA-099-013, SA-A, ECF Project Manager: Peter Rosen Project Description: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories (45-foot maximum height) and a basement level, with the upper three stories for the apartment units. A parking garage for 85 cars would occupy the basement level and the first story at street grade. The parking garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation to interior units. Project Location: 102, 110 Williams Avenue South Exist. Bldg. Area: Single family residence Proposed New Bldg. Area: NA Site Area: 24,000 sq. ft. Total Building Area: NA .....uR O -[.,r ' 8 •7a u!e/ 77 + •\; ny 87 a im 7� reef ®r.,61 A'ES T.t./tZ 95 ,a8p ran 99 nu iS JON ES if1 ARK rtwr rt P ARK 20 1 !`l rl r` lLi; ` . 7•L9! to cax?,,... - l - 105 I (0 t^71'86 .ia51Q� OC fi i.:.J 7 1 8 [03 2\ L! �[.90 iU9 rz.22 L[ei r .17_® 3 16 ® • ® 4 g•'ro b 4 .,rr e� � u.a9.1� 1 �1a „ , ® .[z� —_. t,VuaR-J � Irmes.- 14 1 6 c 3 a rt.2 - 13 �v • • ~ e P f gy.3 o } t� r EAMR • . S 2ND 144/ F0 11111 2 I 11' 209 • 'rft'"�"63 11 Los • -- zo9' 21,0 18 18 7Id h n I 7i7 nci, Project Location Map SITERC City of Renton P/B/PW Department administrative Site Plan Approval&Environs I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 2 of 16 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories (45-foot maximum height) and a basement level, with the upper three stories for the apartment units. A parking garage for 85 cars would occupy the basement level and the first story at street grade. The parking garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation to interior units. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The subject site is basically flat, with overall vertical relief estimated at less than 3 feet. There is a single-family residence on a part of the site and the remainder of the site is lawn and pervious surface. The lower level of the parking garage would require excavating approximately 8 feet below the existing grade. The applicant has not provided an estimate of the quantity of cut material or grading anticipated with the proposal. A geotechnical report for the proposal has been prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Based on soil boring tests, the geotechnical consultant concludes that subsurface conditions at shallow depths are unsuitable for shallow foundation support of the proposed structure. Consequently, a deep foundation, bearing on the lower, medium dense to dense sands and gravels would be required for building support. Because the subject site is surrounded by existing development, the consultant recommends augercast concrete piers as the most appropriate type of foundation support. In general, pile lengths of 15 to 45 feet below the lower parking level are anticipated. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to follow the recommendations of the geotechnical report. Potential erosion impacts that could occur during construction would be mitigated by City Code requirements for a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) and Construction Mitigation Plan, approved prior to issuance of Construction Permits. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated December 1998, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., regarding general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and floor support. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department dministrative Site Plan Approval&Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 3 of 16 Policy Nexus: Environmental Review (SEPA) Ordinance. 2. Water Impacts: There are no surface water bodies or wetlands on the site. Runoff from the proposed structure would be collected and conveyed to an underground detention pipe, located at the north end of the site. Stormwater would then be released to existing stormwater facilities in Williams Avenue South. The proposal would be required to comply with requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual, as adopted by the City of Renton. Groundwater was observed in the soil borings at depths between 17 and 18.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Shallower groundwater levels should be anticipated seasonally and following periods of high rainfall. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are recommended. Policy Nexus: NA 3. Fire Protection Impacts: The proposal would add new construction to the City and would potentially impact the City's Fire Department. A Fire Mitigation Fee applies to all new construction at a rate of $388 per multi-family unit. The Fire Mitigation Fee for the 47 multi-family units is estimated to be $18,236 (47 units X $388 = $18,236). The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. Fire Department access is required within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. The proposal does not appear to comply with this code requirement. Additional environmental review may be required if the proposed site plan requires significant revisions to meet the code requirement. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $388 per multi-family unit. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Policy Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting ordinance, Environmental Review (SEPA) Ordinance. 4. Transportation Impacts: An 85-space parking garage for apartment residents is proposed on two levels (basement and ground levels). The garage entry would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. The proposed multi-family development would result in an increase in the number of traffic trips on the local street system. However, the amount of additional traffic that would be generated is not anticipated to result in a significant impact on the street system. A Traffic Mitigation Fee would be assessed based on the number of average daily trips that are attributed to the proposed development. The number of trips is based on standards from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. It is estimated that the proposal would result in 6.47 average daily trips per unit, for a total of 294.6 new average daily trips for the 47-unit proposal. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated to be $75 per average daily trip. The traffic mitigation fee is thus estimated to be $22,095. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report ' CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 4 of 16 The proposal includes a parking garage with 85 stalls to serve the 47 apartment units. This equals a ratio of 1.81 parking spaces per unit, exceeding the standard parking requirement of 1.5 parking spaces per multi-family dwelling unit and then 1 guest parking space per 4 units, for a total ratio of 1.75 parking spaces per unit. However, the subject site is located in the Downtown Core Area which specifically exempts development projects from all on-site parking code requirements. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan stating that construction hours would be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Truck hauling hours are limited to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. under the Development Guidelines Ordinance in order to avoid conflicts with peak hour traffic. Construction activity within 300 feet of residential areas is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 per new average daily trip attributed to the project. The traffic mitigation fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Policy Nexus: Environmental Review (SEPA) Ordinance. 5. Parks and Recreation Impacts: The proposal would result in construction of 47 multi-family residential units. Future residents would make use of existing and future City park and recreation facilities throughout the City. In order to mitigate the impact of development on the City's parks and recreation facilities, the City has adopted a mitigation fee of $354.51 per new multi- family dwelling unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee is estimated to be $16,661.97. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee of $354.51 per multi-family dwelling unit. The Parks Mitigation fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Policy Nexus: Park Mitigation Fee Ordinance, Environmental Review (SEPA) Ordinance. 6. Environmental Health/Noise Impacts: Development of the site would result in noise impacts. These impacts would be limited to the construction phase of the project, which is estimated to have a total duration of approximately 8 months. Construction activity within 300 feet of residential areas is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan which includes measures to minimize construction impacts. Construction equipment noise would be mitigated by muffling equipment as required per standard construction standards and dust would be controlled using best management construction practices. The noise impacts are not considered significant due to the limited duration of the construction period and mitigations restricting the hours of construction and minimizing equipment noise. Construction of building foundations would consist of augercast concrete piers. The geotechnical report recommends this type of deep foundation construction to minimize the impact of ground vibrations during the earthwork and foundation construction on conventionally supported buildings around the site. SITERC.doc I City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environn I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 5 of 16 After completion of the project, there would be noise impacts of increased traffic and impacts from activities normally associated with an introduced residential population. The Comprehensive Plan and zoning envisions downtown Renton as an urban center with a variety of residential and commercial uses developed at a high-density, intensity level. The potential conflicts between uses were known factors with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning for downtown. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are recommended. Policy Nexus: NA 7. Land Use Impacts: The subject site is located in the Center Downtown (CD) Comprehensive Plan designation and the Multi-family Residential Urban (RM-U) zone. The proposed multi- family residential development is consistent with the uses permitted in the RM-U zoning designation. Potential impacts of residential uses in the downtown were evaluated during the process of adopting the Comprehensive Plan and implementing zoning. The height of the proposed building is approximately 45 feet. A mechanical bulkhead on top of the roof brings the maximum building height to 52 feet. The ground elevation is 39.5 feet; therefore, the proposed building would have a maximum elevation of 91.5 feet above sea level. The building site is located approximately 2,100 feet from the Renton Airport runway. The maximum height permitted according to Airport height regulations is 179 feet above sea level. A Notice of Proposed Construction (FAA Form 7460-1) is required since the building height exceeds 100:1 slope unless provisions of Section 77.15(a) are established. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are recommended. Policy Nexus: NA. B. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. X Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Issue DNS-M with 15 day Period. Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 6 of 16 C. Mitigation Measures 1) The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated December 1998, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., regarding general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and floor support. 2) The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $388 per multi- family unit. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 3) The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 per new average daily trip attributed to the project. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) The applicant shall pay a Park's Department mitigation fee of $354.51 per multi- family dwelling unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 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. BUILDING 3-hour separation between garage/residential; piling per soils report; garage ventilation; exit enclosure 2 hours; no exterior exit balconies or stairs where protection of openings required; stairway identification; stairway to roof. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow required is 5,000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150-feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 3. Fire Department access is required within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. The proposal does not appear to comply with this code requirement. Additional environmental review may be required if the proposed site plan requires significant revisions to meet the code requirement. PLAN REVIEW Sanitary Sewer: • This project is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. • There is an 8"sanitary sewer main in Williams Ave. S. City records also show that there is a sanitary sewer main that discharges to the north on the east side of this parcel. • A sanitary sewer main extension is not required for this project. The project utility plan will need to show the methodology to drain the underground parking garage which shall discharge into the sanitary sewer. The design may include a pump (it appears that the Finished Floor elevation will be lower than the existing sewer system). The proposed sewer system must include an oil water separator for the two floors of parking garages. • The minimum sidesewer pipe diameter is 6"for all commercial buildings. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environn I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 7 of 16 • The conceptual utility plan is approved. It is suggested that the applicant install a length of 8" pipe to the west from the existing MH on the east side of the parcel and then tie two separate sidesewers (one for the building waste and one with an oil water separator for the parking garages) into that new(private) 8" pipe. • System Development Charges (SDC)are $350 per unit. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Water: • The site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. • The project site is located in the 196 Pressure Zone. • There is an existing 6"watermain in Williams Ave. S. • A 16"watermain extension will be required to be installed for this project. • The City of Renton Fire Marshal has determined that the preliminary fire flow is 5,000 GPM. A 16" watermain will be required to be installed in Williams Ave. S from the existing 24" watermain located on the south side of the river to the existing 8" watermain in S 2nd St to be able to meet the fire flow of the development. If the fire flow changes, the size of the required watermain will be reevaluated. The conceptual utility plan does not show the installation of a new water main and hence is not approved. • A looped water main may be required due to fire flow requirements. A looped water main around the building would need to be located within a 15-foot wide utility easement. The proposed building does not include sufficient side yard setbacks if a looped water main is required. • Any new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. Secondary fire hydrants are required to be installed within 300 as a part of this project to meet City code. • A backflow prevention device is required for buildings over 30 feet in height. • Water System Development Charges of $510 per unit. The Development Charges are collected as part of the construction permit. Street Improvements: • There are existing curbs, gutters and sidewalks on Williams Av. S. • Streetlights are existing on Williams Av. S. Drainage: • Civil engineering calculations were submitted for the project. A storm drainage detention system was shown on the conceptual utility system and appears to be in order. • There appear to be storm drainage facilities in Williams Av. S. • The Surface Water SDC fees of$0.129 (but not less than $385) per square foot of new impervious area are required if not previously paid. General: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvement is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over$100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over$200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. AIRPORT Building site is located approximately 2,100 feet from runway. Maximum height permitted is 179 feet above sea level. Building height is indicated as 45 feet plus the top section, over 50 feet total. Notice of Proposed Construction (FAA Form 7460-1) is required since building height exceeds 100:1 slope unless provisions of Section 77.15(a)are established. PARKS Recommend removal of the 6 existing trees and lawn. Replace with approved 4-foot square tree grates, 2- inch caliper trees and concrete walk to tie into existing. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environn I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 8 of 16 PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION - REPORT & DECISION This decision on the administrative land use action is made concurrently with the environmental determination. A. Type of Land Use Action x Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Special Permit for Grade &Fill Administrative Code Determination B. Exhibits The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. 1, Site Plan/Project Information, (Received June 19, 1999, revised July 8, 1999) Exhibit No. 3: Drawing No. 2, Site Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 4: Drawing No. 3, Lower Level Parking Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 5: Drawing No. 4, Parking Plan at Street Level Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 6: Drawing No. 5, First Floor Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 7: Drawing No. 6, Partial Floor Plan (2nd to 3rd Floors), (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 8: Drawing No. 7, Partial Floor Plan (2nd to 3rd Floors), (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 9: Drawing No. 8, Building Elevations (west, north), (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 10:Drawing No. 9, Building Elevations (east, south), (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 11:Drawing No. 10, Window, Door Schedule, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 12:Drawing No. 11, Building Cross Section, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 13:Drawing No. 12, Wall Sections, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 14:Drawing No. 13, Landscape Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 15:Drawing No. 14, Site Survey, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 16:Drawing No. 15, Vicinity Maps, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 17:Drawing No. 16, Civil Cover Sheet, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 18:Drawing No. 17, Grading and Utility Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). Exhibit No. 19:Drawing No. 18, T.E.S.C. Plan, (Received June 17, 1999). SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environn I Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 9 of 16 C. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-31-33(D) of the Site Plan Ordinance, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: 1. GENERAL CRITERIA: A. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS & POLICIES The site is designated Center Downtown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The intent of the designation is to create a balance of land uses which contribute to the revitalization of downtown Renton and to reinforce downtown Renton as the regional commercial district in the City. (Objectives DT-A and DT-B) The following Downtown Element policies are applicable to the proposal: Policy DT-1. There should be a mix of uses, including retail, office, light industrial and residential, which generate the demand for goods and services. The proposed residential use is appropriate to the designation. Policy DT-3. Development and redevelopment of Center Downtown should strive for urban density and intensity of uses. The net density of the proposal is 85.45 dwelling units per acre. Policy DT-22. Maximize the use of existing urban services and civic amenities and revitalize the City's downtown by promoting medium to high density residential development in the downtown area. Allowed densities will conform to the criteria for Urban Centers in the countywide policies. Policy DT-24. Net residential development densities in the downtown area should achieve a range of 25-100 dwelling units per acre. Where parcels are less than one half acre no minimum density is required. The proposal density of 85.45 dwelling units per acre meets the high-end range of the policy. Policy DT-27. Medium rise residential (6 to 10 stories) should be located in the urban center primarily between the Cedar River and S. 2nd, and between S. 2nd and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. The proposed structure is four stories and therefore considered low-rise. Policy DT-29. Parking should be structured whenever feasible and serve more than one use. Policy DT-47. Parking lots and structures should employ and maintain landscaping and other design techniques to minimize the visual impacts of these uses. The proposal includes a parking garage for residents. The 2-level parking garage is on the street level and basement level. The parking garage would dominate the appearance of the building from Williams Avenue S. The landscaping proposed in front parking garage consists of groundcover plants that would not be adequate for screening the parking garage and minimizing the visual impact. The proposal includes only a 2- foot wide landscape bed in front of a part of the garage. This landscape bed would not be sufficiently wide for larger plants that could provide screening of the parking garage. Staff is recommending a site plan condition that the applicant increase the width of the SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Idministrative Site Plan Approval&Environn t Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 10 of 16 landscape bed in front of the building to a 5 feet width and provide taller plants to screen the appearance of the parking garage from the street. Policy DT-48. Site and building designs (e.g. signage building height, bulk and setback, landscaping, parking) should reflect unity of design to create a distinct sense of place and mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Policy DT-51. Design guidelines should be developed for building, parking and street appearance (e.g. facades, awnings, signs, planting, street furniture and fixtures) with broad input to provide projects with multiple options which would foster the unique downtown identity. Policy LU-305. The design of buildings and surrounding environment should be compatible with surrounding recent urban designs. Policy LU-307. Ensure that development relates, connects, and continues design quality and site functions from parcel to parcel. Policy LU-313. A variety of architectural design and detailing should be encouraged as long as site functions connect to adjacent development. Innovative use of building materials and finishes should be promoted. The policies cited above provide guidance and support for design review of the proposal. The recent urban design and district identity of downtown is established by the Renaissance Project (Daily Homes), the City of Renton Piazza development and the new Metro Transit Center. The City of Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan was prepared to guide the City and private investment in the Daily project, Piazza and Transit Center and this Plan focuses on craftsman style elements in site planning and streetscape. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies that address design guidelines. The proposed building design does not create a distinct sense of place or mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent uses. The design does not incorporate features or building details to suggest compatibility or connection with surrounding recent urban designs in downtown. B. CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS The subject site is located in the Residential Multi-family Urban (RM-U) zoning designation. The purpose of the RM zone is to provide and protect suitable environments for multi-family dwellings. The "U" suffix (Urban Center) corresponds to areas designated in the Center Downtown Comprehensive Plan designation. Development Standards Density - The RM-U zone requires a minimum density of 25 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Ordinance No. 4788, adopted July 19th, 1999, allows potential for up to 150 du/ac with design review. The subject proposal has a net density of 85.45 du/ac. There is not presently a design review process for development in the RM-U zone. Therefore, this report evaluates the proposal according to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed building design is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies addressing design guidelines for downtown. Setbacks — The RM-U zone requires a minimum front and rear setback of 5 feet. The proposal includes a 5-foot front setback and 5-feet 8-inches in the rear, complying with setback requirements. A minimum 12-foot setback is required for lot widths greater than 120 feet. The proposal includes a 12-foot side yard setback on the north side and a 12-foot 9-inch setback on the south. The code also requires that the entire structure SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department dministrative Site Plan Approval&Environn Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 11 of 16 shall be setback an additional 1 foot for each story in excess of 2 up to a maximum cumulative setback of 20 feet. Therefore, the proposed 4-story structure requires 14- foot side yard setbacks. The applicant should either revise the site plan to provide 14- foot side yard setbacks on the north and south sides of the building, or apply for variance approval from the setback requirement. Building Design - The RM-U zone, as amended by Ordinance No. 4788, requires modulation of vertical and horizontal facades at a minimum of two feet at an interval of a minimum offset of 40 feet on each building face. The proposed structure includes bay window features that provide a horizontal offset of the facade of approximately 1-Y2 feet. The bay windows are on all building faces and spaced at less than 40-foot intervals, complying with the code standard. The applicant should revise the bay windows to provide a 2-foot offset in order to meet the code requirement. The proposed building also includes a pitched roof facade or roof eaves along the front and rear of the structure. The roof facade pitch provides a vertical modulation of two feet. The pitched roof facade should be added to the sides of the building (the north and south building faces) to comply with the code requirement. Building Height - The RM-U zone allows a maximum building height of 95 feet and 10 stories. The height of the proposed building is approximately 45 feet. A mechanical bulkhead on top of the roof brings the maximum building height to 52 feet. The ground elevation is 39.5 feet; therefore, the proposed building would have a maximum elevation of 91.5 feet above sea level. The building site is located approximately 2,100 feet from the Renton Airport runway. The maximum height permitted according to Airport height regulations is 179 feet above sea level. A Notice of Proposed Construction (FAA Form 7460-1) is required since the building height exceeds 100:1 slope unless provisions of Section 77.15(a) are established. Building Lot Coverage — The RM-U zone allows a maximum building coverage and impervious surface area of 75%. The proposed building footprint is 16,719 sq. ft. and the pavement area 1,276 sq. ft. on the 24,000 sq. ft. parcel size. This equals a building coverage of 70% and a total impervious surface area of 75% of the lot area. Landscaping — The RM-U zone requires that setback and open space areas be landscaped, unless otherwise determined through the site plan review process. The proposal complies with the landscape requirement except for the north landscape bed in the front building setback is only 2 feet wide. The applicant should revise plans to provide a 5-foot wide landscape bed in the front setback. Parking — The RM-U zone requires parking to be provided either underground or in parking structures. The proposal includes a parking garage that occupies the first two levels of the building. The subject site is located in the Downtown Core Area which specifically exempts development projects from all on-site parking code requirements. The proposed parking garage includes 85 stalls to serve the 47 apartment units. This equals a ratio of 1.81 parking spaces per unit, exceeding the parking standard of 1.75 spaces per unit, required for multi-family development outside of the Downtown Core Area. C. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES; The subject site is approximately 1 block north of the commercial-core downtown. The site is mostly surrounded by single family residences. There is an office use across the street on Williams Ave. S. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department dministrative Site Plan Approval&Environmi Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 12 of 16 The size, bulk and height of the proposed building would be greater than the existing one-story single family residences surrounding the site. The proposed building does not include sufficient modulation or articulation to reduce the appearance of scale or bulk in comparison to surrounding structures. The disparity in scale between the proposed building and existing size and character of existing buildings would negatively impact the residents and the neighborhood. The proposed 2-level parking garage is on the street level and basement level. The parking garage would dominate the appearance of the building from Williams Avenue S. The landscaping proposed in front of the parking garage consists of groundcover plants that would not be adequate for screening the parking garage and minimizing the visual impact. The proposal includes only a 2-foot wide landscape bed in front of a part of the garage. This landscape bed would not be sufficiently wide for larger plants that could provide screening of the parking garage. Staff recommends a site plan condition that the applicant increase the width of the landscape bed in front of the building to a 5-foot width and provide taller plants along the front of the building to screen the appearance of the parking garage from the street. Construction activities on the site would result in some noise, dust and traffic impacts on surrounding properties. These impacts would be limited to the construction phase of the project, which is estimated to have a total duration of approximately 8 months. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan outlining mitigation measures to be employed for minimizing dust, noise and traffic impacts during construction. Building foundations would consist of augercast concrete piers to extend through the loose fill and alluvial soils underlying the site. This type of deep foundation construction would minimize the impact of ground vibrations during the earthwork and foundation construction on buildings with conventional building foundations in the vicinity of the site. D. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE; There are no significant natural or human-made features on the site that would be impacted by the proposed development. The proposal would construct a building covering approximately 70% of the site area and impervious surfaces would cover 75% of the site area. Requirements to upgrade utilities and stormwater facilities would mitigate impacts associated with development of the site. E. CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES; The proposed development is expected to conserve area-wide property values in the vicinity of the site. Adding residential population to downtown would improve the customer base for commercial businesses and this is also expected to increase property values. F. SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION; The proposal includes a two-level, 85-space parking garage for apartment residents. The garage entry would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. The proposed multi-family development would result in an increase in the number of traffic trips on the local street system. It is estimated that the proposal would result in 6.47 average daily trips per unit, for a total of 294.6 average daily trips for the 47-unit proposal. The amount of additional traffic that would be generated is not anticipated to result in a significant impact on the local street system. A Traffic Mitigation Fee would SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department dministrative Site Plan Approval&Environm, Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 13 of 16 be assessed through the SEPA environmental review process to mitigate for traffic impacts. G. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR; The height and bulk of the proposed building would be greater than existing, surrounding residences. The 4-story building would block sunlight and cast shadows on adjacent residences. The proposed building is not modulated to reduce shadow impacts on surrounding structures. The building design includes interior open courtyards or central light wells, proposed to meet Building Code requirements for light and ventilation in Group R occupancies (Section 1203 of 1997 Uniform Building Code). However, the proposed plans are unclear and may conflict with objectives to provide adequate light and ventilation. Building elevations (Sheets 7 and 7A) and the building cross-section (Sheet 9) indicate the courtyard openings are covered. It is also unclear if sufficient light and ventilation would reach the lower stories of units with the design of the interior corridors abutting the central light wells. The proposed building design does not meet the site plan criteria for provision of adequate light and air. In order to meet the day light/natural ventilation requirements for residential units, the proposal includes windows for bedroom spaces on the interior corridors, resulting in an open corridor concept in which bedroom spaces abut public corridors. This arrangement seriously compromises the privacy of residents of those units. H. MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS; It is anticipated that the most significant noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan which provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. The proposed development would not generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions. There would be noise impacts of increased traffic and activity that are normally associated with a residential population. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE; AND There are adequate and available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed development. A discussion of existing utilities and planned improvements is provided in the advisory notes section of this report. The applicant would be assessed fire, traffic and park mitigation fees to compensate for the increased demand on public services. Fire Department access is required within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. The proposal does not appear to comply with this code requirement. Additional environmental review may be required if the proposed site plan requires significant revisions to meet the code requirement. A looped water main may be required due to fire flow requirements. A looped water main around the building would need to be located within a 15-foot wide utility SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department dministrative Site Plan Approval&Environmi Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 14 of 16 easement. The proposed building does not include sufficient side yard setbacks if a looped water main is required. J PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORATION AND BLIGHT. The proposed building is not in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and the building design does not include features to mitigate for impacts. The proposal would not prevent neighborhood deterioration and blight. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. D. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1) Request: The applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for development of the Cedar Apartments. 2) Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent documents was entered as Exhibit No. 1. 3) Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2 through 19. 4) Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is in the Center Downtown (CD) Comprehensive Plan designation. 5) Zoning: The subject site is located in the Residential Multi-family Urban (RM-U) zone and the Downtown Core Area. 6) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: Single-family residential: East: Single-family residential; South: Single-family residential, commercial; and West: Office, Commercial, Single-family residential. E. Conclusions 1. The subject proposal does not comply with policies of the Center Downtown Comprehensive Plan designation in regards to policies related to building design and compatibility with surrounding recent urban designs in downtown. 2. The proposal does not comply with development standards of the Residential Multi-family Urban (RM-U) zoning designation. The proposal does not meet requirements for side yard setbacks or landscaping. SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department dministrative Site Plan Approval&Environm Review Committee Staff Report CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 15 of 16 3. The proposal would adversely impact surrounding properties and uses. The size, bulk and height of the proposed building is incompatible with existing single family residences surrounding the site. The proposed building does not include sufficient modulation or articulation to reduce the appearance of scale or bulk and address the disparity in scale between the proposed building and the size and character of existing buildings. 4. Fire Department access is required within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. The proposal does not appear to comply with this code requirement. Additional environmental review may be required if the proposed site plan requires significant revisions to meet the code requirement. 5. A looped water main may be required due to fire flow requirements. A looped water main around the building would need to be located within a 15-foot wide utility easement. The proposed building does not include sufficient side yard setbacks if a looped water main is required. 6. The proposed building design does not meet the site plan criteria for provision of adequate light and air. Interior courtyards or central light wells are proposed to meet the day light/natural ventilation requirements for residential units. However, the proposed plans (building elevations Sheets 7 and 7A and the building cross-section Sheet 9) indicate the courtyard openings are covered. In addition, due to the width of corridors abutting the central light wells, very little natural light would reach these bedroom areas. The interior corridors would result in an open corridor concept in which bedroom spaces abut public corridors. This arrangement seriously compromises the privacy of residents of those units. F. Decision The Site Plan for the Cedar Apartments, File No. LUA-99-013, SA-A, ECF, is denied based upon the conclusions stated above. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURES: - �-�� Jana Hanson, Zoning Administrator date SITERC.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department dministrative Site Plan Approval&Environm Review Committee Staff Report ' CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013, SA-A,ECF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 Page 16 of 16 TRANSMITTED this 9th day of September, 1999 to the applicant and owner: Victor Malen, President M.K.D. Development Co., Inc. 10020-A Main Street, B-110 Bellevue, WA. 98004 TRANSMITTED this 9th day of September to the following parties of record: Monica and Mathew Bueno 98 Williams Avenue South Renton, WA. 98055 TRANSMITTED this 9th day of September to the following: Larry Meckling, Building Official C. Duffy, Fire Prevention Neil Watts, Public Works Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney South County Journal Environmental Determination and Land Use Decision Appeal Process Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 27, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. 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 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. SITERC.doc CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING BIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE;BY MAILING . • On the lu14-" day of S.e tetnn oer' , 1999, I deposited in the mails of the United. States, a sealed envelope containing e atl er Wk\v1/4.a k c vas documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy (Signature of Sender) Savkai,tt I-. S .ur- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for-Ihe uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: /�/, /119 1 ] -.2. )' (5-4944-- Notary Publi in and for the State of Wngton .�.•F�-.Rao MARILYN KAMCHEFF Notary (Print) NOTARY PUBLIC r My appointment expires: MARILYN KAMCHEFF 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 COMMISSION EXPIRES r AI)rai~n- 2003 Aft Project Number: 4 l 3 , SW, Edo NOTARY.DOC 6 CITY ,.-1F RENTON sal. Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 9, 1999 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 - Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)on September 7, 1999: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories (45-foot maximum height) and a basement level, with the upper three stories for the apartment units. A parking garage for 85 cars would occupy the basement level and the first story at street grade. The parking garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation to interior units. Location: 102, 110 Williams Avenue South. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 27, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. 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 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at(425)430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vl Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy agncyltr\ 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 Thie n�nnr rnnraine Gno%rnr.rrinri m�re.iol 'Jno%nner rnne•mnr • CITY OF RENTON ..LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 9, 1999 Mr.Victor Malen M.K.D. Development Co., Inc. 10020-A Main Street Suite B-110 Bellevue,WA 98004 SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments Project No. LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr. Malen: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project. The ERC, on September 7, 1999, issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. The proposed Site Approval is denied in accordance with the enclosed City of Renton Report& Decision. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680J and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 27, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. 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 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at(425)430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, n✓`"ram Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Mr. & Mrs. Mathew Bueno dnsmltr 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development Company PROJECT NAME: Cedar Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories (45-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. A parking garage for 85 cars would occupy the basement level and the first story at street grade. The parking garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation to interior units. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 102, 110 Williams Avenue South MITIGATION MEASURES: 1) The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated December 1998, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., regarding general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and floor support. 2) The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $388 per multi- family unit. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 3) The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 per new average daily trip attributed to the project. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) The applicant shall pay a Park's Department mitigation fee of $354.51 per multi- family dwelling unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development Company PROJECT NAME: Cedar Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories (45-foot maximum height)and a basement level, with the upper three stories for the apartment units. A parking garage for 85 cars would occupy the basement level and the first story at street grade. The parking garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation to interior units. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 102, 110 Williams Avenue South 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. BUILDING 3-hour separation between garage/residential; piling per soils report; garage ventilation; exit enclosure 2 hours; no exterior exit balconies or stairs where protection of openings required; stairway identification; stairway to roof. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow required is 5,000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150-feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 3. Fire Department access is required within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. The proposal does not appear to comply with this code requirement. Additional environmental review may be required if the proposed site plan requires significant revisions to meet the code requirement. PLAN REVIEW Sanitary Sewer: • This project is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. • There is an 8" sanitary sewer main in Williams Ave. S. City records also show that there is a sanitary sewer main that discharges to the north on the east side of this parcel. • A sanitary sewer main extension is not required for this project. The project utility plan will need to show the methodology to drain the underground parking garage which shall discharge into the sanitary sewer. The design may include a pump (it appears that the Finished Floor elevation will be lower than the existing sewer system). The proposed sewer system must include an oil water separator for the two floors of parking garages. • The minimum sidesewer pipe diameter is 6"for all commercial buildings. • The conceptual utility plan is approved. It is suggested that the applicant install a length of 8" pipe to the west from the existing MH on the east side of the parcel and then tie two separate sidesewers (one for the building waste and one with an oil water separator for the parking garages) into that new (private)8" pipe. • System Development Charges (SDC) are $350 per unit. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Cedar Apartments LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF Advisory Notes (continued) Page 2 of 2 Water: • The site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. • The project site is located in the 196 Pressure Zone. • There is an existing 6"watermain in Williams Ave. S. • A 16"watermain extension will be required to be installed for this project. • The City of Renton Fire Marshal has determined that the preliminary fire flow is 5,000 GPM. A 16" watermain will be required to be installed in Williams Ave. S from the existing 24" watermain located on the south side of the river to the existing 8"watermain in S 2nd St to be able to meet the fire flow of the development. If the fire flow changes, the size of the required watermain will be reevaluated. The conceptual utility plan does not show the installation of a new water main and hence is not approved. • A looped water main may be required due to fire flow requirements. A looped water main around the building would need to be located within a 15-foot wide utility easement. The proposed building does not include sufficient side yard setbacks if a looped water main is required. • Any new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. Secondary fire hydrants are required to be installed within 300 as a part of this project to meet City code. • A backflow prevention device is required for buildings over 30 feet in height. • Water System Development Charges of $510 per unit. The Development Charges are collected as part of the construction permit. Street Improvements: • There are existing curbs, gutters and sidewalks on Williams Av. S. • Streetlights are existing on Williams Av. S. Drainage: • Civil engineering calculations were submitted for the project. A storm drainage detention system was shown on the conceptual utility system and appears to be in order. • There appear to be storm drainage facilities in Williams Av. S. • The Surface Water SDC fees of $0.129 (but not less than $385) per square foot of new impervious area are required if not previously paid. General: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvement is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over$200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. AIRPORT Building site is located approximately 2,100 feet from runway. Maximum height permitted is 179 feet above sea level. Building height is indicated as 45 feet plus the top section, over 50 feet total. Notice of Proposed Construction (FAA Form 7460-1) is required since building height exceeds 100:1 slope unless provisions of Section 77.15(a) are established. PARKS Recommend removal of the 6 existing trees and lawn. Replace with approved 4-foot square tree grates, 2-inch caliper trees and concrete walk to tie into existing CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development Company PROJECT NAME: Cedar Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories (45-foot maximum height) and a basement level, with the upper three stories for the apartment units. A parking garage for 85 cars would occupy the basement level and the first story at street grade. The parking garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation to interior units. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 102, 110 Williams Avenue South LEAD AGENCY: 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 either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 27, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. 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 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: September 13, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: September 7, 1999 SIGNATURES: Alit fgm 451 a Adm a r DA1/// ! 1epar Planning/Building/Public Works .._.:_a--'-------611-(4?6_277`i 7 ' Jim Shepherd, Admi istrator DAT� Community Se ces - 7— 9� Le eeler, ire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department dnsmsig.doc CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development Company PROJECT NAME: Cedar Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories (45-foot maximum height)and a basement level, with the upper three stories for the apartment units. A parking garage for 85 cars would occupy the basement level and the first story at street grade. The parking garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation to interior units. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 102, 110 Williams Avenue South MITIGATION MEASURES: 1) The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated December 1998, prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., regarding general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and floor support. 2) The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $388 per multi-family unit. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 3) The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 per new average daily trip attributed to the project. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 4) The applicant shall pay a Park's Department mitigation fee of $354.51 per multi-family dwelling unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development Company PROJECT NAME: Cedar Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories (45-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. A parking garage for 85 cars would occupy the basement level and the first story at street grade. The parking garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation to interior units. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 102, 110 Williams Avenue South 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. BUILDING 3-hour separation between garage/residential; piling per soils report; garage ventilation; exit enclosure 2 hours; no exterior exit balconies or stairs where protection of openings required; stairway identification; stairway to roof. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow required is 5,000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150-feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 3. Fire Department access is required within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. The proposal does not appear to comply with this code requirement. Additional environmental review may be required if the proposed site plan requires significant revisions to meet the code requirement. PLAN REVIEW Sanitary Sewer: • This project is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. • There is an 8" sanitary sewer main in Williams Ave. S. City records also show that there is a sanitary sewer main that discharges to the north on the east side of this parcel. • A sanitary sewer main extension is not required for this project. The project utility plan will need to show the methodology to drain the underground parking garage which shall discharge into the sanitary sewer. The design may include a pump (it appears that the Finished Floor elevation will be lower than the existing sewer system). The proposed sewer system must include an oil water separator for the two floors of parking garages. • The minimum sidesewer pipe diameter is 6"for all commercial buildings. • The conceptual utility plan is approved. It is suggested that the applicant install a length of 8" pipe to the west from the existing MH on the east side of the parcel and then tie two separate sidesewers (one for the building waste and one with an oil water separator for the parking garages) into that new (private)8" pipe. • System Development Charges (SDC) are $350 per unit. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Cedar Apartments LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF Advisory Notes (continued) Page 2 of 2 Water: • The site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. • The project site is located in the 196 Pressure Zone. • There is an existing 6"watermain in Williams Ave. S. • A 16"watermain extension will be required to be installed for this project. • The City of Renton Fire Marshal has determined that the preliminary fire flow is 5,000 GPM. A 16" watermain will be required to be installed in Williams Ave. S from the existing 24" watermain located on the south side of the river to the existing 8"watermain in S 2nd St to be able to meet the fire flow of the development. If the fire flow changes, the size of the required watermain will be reevaluated. The conceptual utility plan does not show the installation of a new water main and hence is not approved. • A looped water main may be required due to fire flow requirements. A looped water main around the building would need to be located within a 15-foot wide utility easement. The proposed building does not include sufficient side yard setbacks if a looped water main is required. • Any new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. Secondary fire hydrants are required to be installed within 300 as a part of this project to meet City code. • A backflow prevention device is required for buildings over 30 feet in height. • Water System Development Charges of $510 per unit. The Development Charges are collected as part of the construction permit. Street Improvements: • There are existing curbs, gutters and sidewalks on Williams Av. S. • Streetlights are existing on Williams Av. S. Drainage: • Civil engineering calculations were submitted for the project. A storm drainage detention system was shown on the conceptual utility system and appears to be in order. • There appear to be storm drainage facilities in Williams Av. S. • The Surface Water SDC fees of $0.129 (but not less than $385) per square foot of new impervious area are required if not previously paid. General: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvement is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over$100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. AIRPORT Building site is located approximately 2,100 feet from runway. Maximum height permitted is 179 feet above sea level. Building height is indicated as 45 feet plus the top section, over 50 feet total. Notice of Proposed Construction (FAA Form 7460-1) is required since building height exceeds 100:1 slope unless provisions of Section 77.15(a)are established. PARKS Recommend removal of the 6 existing trees and lawn. Replace with approved 4-foot square tree grates, 2-inch caliper trees and concrete walk to tie into existing NOTIME ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: CEDAR APARTMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-99a13,SA-A,ECF Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure.The building would be lour stories(45-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. A parking garage for 85 cars would occupy the basement level and the first story at street grade.The parking garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation to Interior units.Location: 102,110 Williams Avenue South. 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 either the environmental determination(RCW 42.21.0075(3),WAC 197-114801 and/or the land use decision must be Bled In writing on or before 5:00 PM September 27,1999. If no appeals are Ned by this date, both actions will became Mal.Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required 575.00 application lee wills Hering Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055.Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8.11B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-430-8510• JIB f 2\• .,:a0 "ra a38 44YiiLiiYY sminaJONES "� gm PARK 0113 t .11 ""�. Illtf 41• r.e • lb at n . 1l a aw VIM rtx «sue 1 S - ' sa'14 .t0 err It ? Ij N... S 2N0 ,19rFtn31 rjh• z� { '•709• • ••3 rim .110 .-N.. . .,,., f, t A[ n FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430.7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION '0 Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification. CERTIFICATION (04 e kui , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on S'6 Me 2 Iv I I ci1C, • Signed: _ ATTEST: Subcribed an worn before me,a Nortary Public in for the State of Washington residing in�,441'y'' , on the I 41 day of I qci . MARILYN A NOTRY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES MARILYN KAMCHEFF JUNE 29, 2003 MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal DETERMINATION newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months ENVIRONMENTALCOMMITTEE REVIEW prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language RENTON,WASHINGTON continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the Non-Significance-Mitigated for the fol- State of Washington for King County. lowing project under the authority of the MThe notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County Renton CEDARR PARl Code. APARTMENTS Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Proposal to construct a 47 unit apart- ment structure. Location: 102, 110 Williams Ave.So. Cedar Apartments Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-6801 and/or the land use as published on: 9/13/99 decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 27, 1999. If The full amount of the fee charged for s • foregoing publication is the sum of$46.00, no appeals are filed by this date, both 9 g 9 actions will become final. Appeals must charged to Acct. No. 8051 T — be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: - _" Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 Legal Number 6573 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Legal Clerk, South aunty Journal " Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be a obtained from the Renton City Clerk's ' /y'� Office,(425)-430-6510. Subscribed and sworn before me on this `1 day of , 199 Published in the South County Journal September 13, 1999.6573 c:r "6:', --")/--h,'-----qel.fLrj1s.._ Notary Public of the State of Washington =Y v tlOT4R�° ,� residing in Renton -0-- = King County, Washington 1i,4j•••• ? 6 . 2�•' NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. CEDAR APARTMENTS LUA-99-01 3,SA-A,ECF Proposal to construct a 47 unit apartment structure. Location: 102, 110 Williams Ave. So. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 27, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. 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 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. Publication Date: September 13, 1999 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Monica and Mathew Bueno CITY OF RENTON 98 Williams Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055-2150 AUG 1999 (4 2 5 ) 2 7 7-81 3 5 DEVELOPMENT PANNING CITY OF RENTOI RECE I VED AUG 1 , 1999 August 1 1 , 1 999 RECEIVED City of Renton and Mr. Peter Rosen: This, second, letter of appeal is in opposition of Land Use Number: LUA-99-013 , SA-H, ECF; Application Name: Cedar Apartments; Project Location: 102 - 110 Williams Avenue South. Although I have received no response to my letter of appeal submitted on March 14, 1999, I continue to be hopeful that my words do not fall upon deaf ears, or blind eyes. I am now responding to the revised notice of application regarding the aforementioned "Cedar Apartments. " The parking ratio has improved; 1 .80 parking spaces for each apartment unit is an improvement over 1 .05 . . .but this is not enough. How does the city plan to compensate for the, approximately, 75 people that will leave for work through the bottle neck of Williams Avenue South every morning? Noise and the possible increase in crime remain a problem. Everything in our backyard will be in full view of these residents, property and persons alike. Our privacy will be taken from us. The issue of sunlight, or lack there of, needs more than the subtraction of one story in height. Rather than landscaping the proposed courtyard, they should turn their plans inside-out and landscape the perimeter. This would allow for curbside appeal, decrease their ability to watch over our backyard, and lessen the shadow cast upon all of their neighbors. It is to the benefit of no one for property value to plummet for the sake of one outlandish project. Few perspective homeowners will be interested in residing next to an apartment full of people. The new wave of people purchasing homes in downtown Renton to fix-up, and raise their families in, will diminish. Our area will return to a land of rental properties. This is not what my husband and I want. This is not what our neighbors want. Why is this happening? Who is making these decisions for us? I am curious as to whether the representative fighting to see this project through is even a resident of Renton. Do you care how we, the people, feel? You should. Your responsibility is to be "a person who represents a constituency (the voters or residents in a district represented by an elective officer) or community in a legislative body. " I, a voter and resident in this district, represented by you, appeal the proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure as my next door neighbor. I appeal living beneath a 45-foot shadow. I appeal the traffic I will wait in just to exit my driveway. I appeal the notion that a courtyard should be built to ensure light and ventilation for apartment dwellers by stealing these elements from local homeowners, including myself. Sincerely, (j;(4ea/ Monica Lynn Hughes Bueno City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Co tuc-hati Se441C COMMENTS DUE: JULY 30, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 15, 1999 APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 Ci7Y n , f2r ON LOCATION: 102- 110 Williams Avenue South .%ft, SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 199 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The buildingfttlikkjour stories(45-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. There woUl(tfbonciln g garage for 85 cars with one basement level and one level at street grade. The garage entrance would be from two driveway ci ttf b3Aitipms Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the 'Aiding is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation. 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 Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Hour Separa+c-ov. be_-fr0GeN .f.3 C P11%4a, fcrso:Is fe7o1 s� w or (,. oa�ray v�r► f; Iaf�ovi ) �x �- evIctosvrc 2 hoof' / Jo e/ o�I— ex� X4-erg -+ b3 (co1ics or a;rS Loh Ere loroA-cc-4,6A of 0P-ev1; S r� S-4a<<'EA)altc(enf,{:curb s{a; r W zi ► roof, 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. -7 / 3 � 1 7 r Date Signature of Director or Representative DEVAPP Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Awpc:0.4 COMMENTS DUE: JULY 30, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 15, 1999 APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Apartments _ WORK ORDER NO: 78487 LOCATION: 102- 110 Williams Avenue South SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories(45-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. There would be a parking garage for 85 cars with one basement level and one level at street grade. The garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation. 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 V Air ✓ Aesthetics ✓ Water ✓ Light/Glare ✓ Plants ✓ Recreation ✓ Land/Shoreline Use ✓ Utilities ✓ Animals ✓ Transportation V Environmental Health ✓ Public Services ✓ Energy/ Historic/Cultural / Natural Resources Preservation V Airport Environment ✓ 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS Building site is located approx. 2,100 feet from runway. Maximum height permitted is 179 feet above sea level . Building height is indicated as 45' plus top section, over 50' total . Notice of Proposed Construction (FAA Form 7460-1) is required since building height exceeds 100: 1 slope unless provisions of Sect. 77. 15(a) are established. C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS None 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 whe - .dditiona ' formation is needed to properly assess this proposal. 1 'IUSA1 2e, tQ Signatur=Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP Rev.10/93 �� — C N i [4: j .- t M tl® iliTk ri1--L.---....—1 -i, / r E fidj' lail eY,M -••.._ IJ III Y `�I 14 Ii31,17'111A1 " ` N t� t . �� w, _ m .N r rri - ,.ia,.i. ,-4 � N ■ -fair ■f1� Iiiijr h..., ..., pp.) .._ 1101 ii li lea::: • 11 �, err a,% �,•LID __\\.\wiligt str. ,.. 1 \ r._ , 4-., , . ilkil c..11411111141 \\\ \.,/,- :I, :.) ..,, ,,,,,,t - '-'1._*.ill •, ri ... 40.1,. 4 ., 7 (ill ff - -.1W411,41/4..‹ ,,.. 1. _ I-J °Y Di 1 _. p rp 1-a b., *,,,_ ,Cli,11 iil, .. or .-- 1 11, 2. a liii :11V " CNN' iiAitabiogg.,. '' ,-+ "4\44.......-11 tts, I" 411 4111___\ IV NI, , "Wieliii I I I I I I P I Ojel: ' . U - iglEgiati -,' .;.Aiii &ft, 2 " !t. -- L.:.444.1[1}11" - fP-441.-..,_g 0 k ft• i _ r,,,,,..,„,,, . _ .,, rt--,.....„.. ,,,,, . , j 7 i X T1 .'" i-V ti fillid 160 'Al 1 TitilliftP4I Ilikimim's .0- ...,.. r Ail gr;C!. . ..am lans p � id ;-� ��' ®V A®� I< • Qc . .sand ® tl� 8 if, -/I ' t ,.....,,„,- =6,1",, 1,Nk. trociPe, .1 i: V 1 b-,,iik,q1111x2r11/ • a• H( ■t, IiT 4.4 . • In ri 1 vri 71 (I i + V" 4. ..- *4t* if__. n r r 11 ... 0�: :. .1 r■a L_J .5 p NCH `�� I-■ lQ.©r.LO' ����`-. I I i j '_r 7 t L�,���G�is�6� .a. ©:Jlia]G��np Ink � 3Q �C� �e I. •F��M• n RI III T._ �"nil I� ' i'juLiiirin milas jig on IT" Ntfir Iiiiii trin T:11 oa - .. j 4 II I' �). Itelh"'-', ..:\.. ..f ' _ _ Qa o ®awl t �Jb ' i"' V ' --..-::::::.:::-E::-::-::-::-::::::::-:.71:-.:::-:-:::::::::::-:.:-..--:::-ESH::__ r6;64(1-11Flit. .711,* I ' riaatit.4.-. lie 1. -' tuts, .._ .,_ I r 1 illi] ,, -0::-:::::-:---_::::::::::_flE::::::::::::::=2:-.,-::-_-::::KEE:_--::::_f_:::_,_,.._„-.. Q.a.,„,,,46 A,., N, 1 , ..,.„.,....._,. .....ri,„ -- . :JI: , \ %.1:::.::1-1--:-::::::-.EEE-EEEE.::. ---_5--..5.-::_EF:3_E::::::::_E-E::::::::1:-:_:±:1-E::::-E-:_.....-::_:::::_7_:::::_-_:33.3._,E::_:\ 'c ..., ----id, \).;04 ...clink J -el- Irg Lriwita'PI --.li,,,, 1 ,_,- — I - , ,.:EEE:iEEEEE:7::::i.: _EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE:EEEK-1:3-33:KEEEMEE3MLKEEEEEEEEEE:_::__ " '' er - ' irk17- 7.1.1 `11\ '' \ 4- Itir.r-- - J. ea -V.E-F.:13K- -_--.:K----.-.4-7.-.7-:-.:-:-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-____:z4_:•_:_:_,-__:_,_,....:::::::::::71* it- , ,,„„ vi, ' ,.... • •.( .1\ og __41_,_:V.I60MI&I Vili 0< ., LA A Vtle: R. i ,, _. . . ,„ tai _, ,,..,,,.„,‘,,-"_:_:::::_:_,_:::::::„....,,,w.„.„±„,,,,„,_::_-___::::::„:„_:„:_,_:_:::::„_:_:_:::,:_:_:_::.:_::::_,_:,:::::::::_:_:_:_:_s, .... . , . ,kiiid, _-,-,-,-,-,,,,_:_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,,,-,:,:,::_:„.-::_f_:„:„:„:2__-__::_f_,E,:;;;E::„_:,:,:::::_,:33_:::::______:___„,„ - -likkellti .- : .',-..- ...:,- -16•Fmviii 91*--2=IN N-\----7--]=3---a:-:::::{EF.1:-:_E:::-:::-::::-::::::::--:_E::::::::-:::::::_:::::EE:-EFEEE::::-:-:-E-=_=E:1-5::::::e:EEEE::--KE:IE:::::_EE_E::EE:t::::::3::--__:3-3:32:5-f. , ,tAh It. illt."\-- .r l,\iligilkNi t?7 t / r .t- l7f1r=,_Er-41 r__::7:: f•7.I-1. 21 10; ,fir _ == _-= = _ == -=_ _= =-= ==_=_= k - •-dr ::::::_::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::_:_::::::::::::::::::::::•,:-_-_-_:_:: iree :::::::-_-_-:-::-:_::::_:::::::::::-::::::::::::::_:::_::::::::::::-::::::::-..::::::::::::::::::::::::6,:.,-.::::-_:_::::::: )11‘ AN, rl == =========== te— ...�� _=====-= =:__ NOTICE(1C OROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION §77.13 Construction or alteration requiring notice. §77.15 Construction or alters tot requiring notice. (a) Except as provided in§77.15,each sponsor who proposes any of the following No person is required to notify tiic Administrator for any of the following construc- construction or alteration shall notify the Administrator in the form and manner ton or alteration: prescribed in§77.17: (a) Any object that would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and (1)Any construction or alteration of more than 200 feet in height above the ground substantial character or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater level at its site. height, and would be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement (2)Any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will outward and upward at one of the following slopes: not adversely affect safety in air navigation. (i) 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of (b)Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height except one that would increase the nearest runway of each airport specified in subparagraph(5)of this paragraph the height of another antenna structure. with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length,excluding heliports. (c)Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing aid,aircraft arrest- (ii) 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of ing device, or meteorological device, of a type approved by the Administrator, or the nearest runway of each airport specified in subparagraph(5)of this paragraph an appropriate military service on military airports,the location and height of which with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet in actual length,excluding heliports. is fixed by its functional purpose. (iii) 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from the nearest point of (d)Any construction or alteration for which notice is required by any other FAA regulation. the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport specified in subparagraph (5)of this paragraph. §77.17 Form and time of notice. (3) Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way for mobile objects, of a height (a) which,if adjusted upward 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National Each person who is required to notify the Administrator under §77.13 (a) shall System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed for send one executed form set of FAA Form 7460-1,Notice of Proposed Construction a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance, 15 feet for any other public roadway, 10 or Alteration,to the Manager,Air Traffic Division,FAA Regional Office having jurisdiction feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the over the area within which the construction or alteration will be located. Copies of road, which aver is greater, for a private road, 23 feet for a railroad, and for a FAA Form 7460-1 may be obtained from the headquarters of the Federal Aviation waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal Administration and the regional offices. to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it, would IN The notice required under§77.13(a) (1)through(4) must be submitted at least exceed a standard of subparagraph(1)or(2)of this paragraph. 30 days before the earlier of the following dates— (4) When requested by the FAA, any construction or alteration that would be in (1)The date the proposed construction or alteration is to begin. an instrument approach area(defined in the FAA standards governing instrument (2)The date an application for a construction permit is to be filed. approach procedures)and available information indicates it might exceed a standard However, a notice relating to proposed construction or alteration that is subject So of Subpart C of this part the licensing requirements of the Federal Communications Act may be sent to the FAA at the same time the application for construction is filed with the Federal (5)Any construction or alteration on any of the following airports(including heliports): Communications Commission,or at any time before that filing. (i)An airport that is available for public use and is listed in the Airport Directory of the current Airman's Information Manual or in either the Alaska or Pacific (c)A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 Airman's Guide and Chart Supplement feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation (ii)An airport under construction,that is the subject of a notice or proposal on and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden file with the Federal Aviation Administration, and except for military airports, it of overcoming that presumption.Each notice submitted under the pertinent provisions is clearly indicated that that airport will be available for public use. of Part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground,or an alteration (iii)An airport that is operated by an armed force of the United States. that will make an existing structure exceed that height must contain a detailed showing directed to meeting this burden.Only in exceptional cases,where the FAA concludes (b) Each sponsor who proposes construction or alteration that is the subject of a that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an notice under paragraph(a)of this section and is advised by an FAA regional office inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, that a supplemental notice is required shall submit that notice on a prescribed form will a determination of no hazard be issued. to be received by the FAA regional office at least 48 hours before the start of the construction or alteration. (d) In the case of an emergency involving essential public services, public health, Each sponsoror public safety,that requires immediate construction or alteration,the 30 day require- (c)notice under paragraph undertakes construction or alteration that is the subject of ment in paragraph (b) of this section does not apply and the notice may be sent a par g aph(a)of this section shall,within 5 days after that construction by telephone,telegraph,or other expeditious means, with an executed FAA Form or alteration reaches its greatest height,submit a supplemental notice on a prescribed 7460-1 submitted within five (5) days thereafter. Outside normal business hours, form to the FAA regional office having jurisdiction over the area involved,if— emergency notices by telephone or telegraph may be submitted to the nearest FAA (1) The construction or alteration is more than 200 feet above the surface level Flight Service Station. of its site;or (e) Each person who is required to notify the Administrator by paragraph (b) or(c) (2) An FAA regional office advises him that submission of the form is required. of §77.13, or both, shall send an executed copy of FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration,to the Manager,Air Traffic Division, FAA Regional Office having jurisdiction over the area involved. ADDRESSES OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES Western Pacific Region Southern Region Great Lakes Region New England Region HI,CA,NV,AZ,GU KY,TN,NC,SC,GA,AL, ND,WI,MI,SD,IL,OH,MN,IN MA,NH,VT,RI,CT,ME Western-Pacific Regional Office MS,FL,VI,PR Great Lakes Regional Office New England Regional Office Air Traffic Division,AWP-530 Southern Regional Office Air Traffic Division,AGL-530 Air Traffic Division,ANE-530 15000 Aviation Boulevard Air Traffic Division,ASO-530 2300 East Devon Avenue 12 New England Executive Park Hawthorne,CA 90260 3400 Norman Berry Drive Des Plaines,IL 60018 Burlington,MA 01803 Tel.310-297-1365 East Point GA 30344 Tel.312-694-7568 Tel.617-273-7143 Mail Address: Tel.404-763-7646 Southwest Region Eastern Region AWP-530 Mail Address: NM,TX,OK,AR,LA NY,PA,WV,VA,DC,MD,DE,NJ P.O.Box 92007 Federal Aviation Administration Worldway Postal Center Southern Regional Office Southwest Regional Office Eastern Regional Office Los Angeles,CA 90009 Air Traffic Division,ASO-530 Air Traffic Division,ASW-530 Air Traffic Division,AEA-530 P.O.Box 20636 4400 Blue Mound Road JFK International Airport Alaskan Region Atlanta,GA 30320 Fort Worth,TX 76193 Fitzgerald Federal Building AK Tel.817-624-5534 Jamaica,NY 11430 Alaskan Regional Office Northwest Mountain Region Mail Address: Tel.718-553-1228 Air Traffic Division,AAL-530 WA,OR,MT,ID,WY,UT,CO Department of Transporation Fax:718-553-1384 222 West 7th Avenue Northwest Mountain Regional Office Federal Aviation Administration Anchorage,AK 99513 Air Traffic Division,ANM-530 Fort Worth,TX 76193-0530 Tel.907-271-5893 1601 Lind Avenue,SW Central Region Mailing Address: Renton,WA 98055-4056 NE,IA,MO,KS Federal Aviation Administration • Tel.206-227-2530 CentralOffice Regional Alaskan Regional Office Fax:206-227-1530 Air TrafficDivision,ACE-530 Air Traffic Division,AAL-53060 East 12th Street 222 West 7th Avenue,Box 14 Kansas City,MO 64106 Anchorage,AK 99513-7587 Tel.816-426-3408 FAA Form 7460-1 11-931 Supersedes Previous Edition R E N TO N► F!R E D E PT FII ....MU City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW1lgI4E5E19'99 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: cure_ ereue,v-t-tirteN COMMENTS DUE: JULY 30, 1999 P: x V cD APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 15, 1999 APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 LOCATION: 102- 110 Williams Avenue South SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories(45-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. There would be a parking garage for 85 cars with one basement level and one level at street grade. The garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation. 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 Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment ' 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS A) 4 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENT fie, cam- C"p/ Co 14,—ove 1473 We have re iewed this applic ation wit . articular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or area whe additional info ation is a ed to properly assess this proposal. Signat e of Director or Authorized Represe ative Date DEVAP Rev.10/93 CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU - N�o MEMORANDUM DATE: July 21, 1999 TO: Peter Rosen, Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal 471V- SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments, 110 Williams Av. S Fire Department Requirements: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 5000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. A fire mitigation fee of$18,236.00 is required based on $388.00 per apartment unit. 3. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 4. Fire Department access is required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 3 5 G c3()) • .L.416R0 .......,.«..-w.,.n.,.,,a�r...-..r.N....i..,,...0....,a...:...�:..u.,....N•,.K.,,,,r..—.R.w.w�.,.......,...5..,,.,.FEE Project Name • Ce.da✓ Afai tiot45 Project Address 100 bOl l i iurnS Ave `; • Contact Person 1..)1L.tov Niultla MKD IJcveiolameh-C. Address 1°020-- A St $- !IO , ,>3e/if vue ggool+ • Phone Number Li25 - 4 tiLf - gRqQ ,teutset/ lief lb 4 s oYy Permit Number L -. RR- 013 1..7 uH►{ 44,t b/P(,y Project Description Srar �yov1 hlalp a ? cancv�, 7tvo /fv{/s eri Pit�Gu, `ro' �� 6�,-( ei0 3 5 5 p eve-!/3 . J c`rt f 24ri t l r //Carle 240 he .(t l•HO/, Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: ,Q.� (2Zo)) o 311 El Residential " ITE Trip Generation Manual u ❑ Retail 0 Traffic Study ❑ Non-retail 0 Other ��Hqk Fnoui1if - /•55.pm • Calculation: /Jet piety (ivev. 7" yips ; (70(eo !7) -- (!)(1.55) = 501 . 6 t vIPs • (50I 6) ($7S ) — 37 )20 • .�, 22 OL? Transportation Mitigation Fee: ) F 1"Gr 'I.s'c/ ? :1; 41 Calculated by: �)G� '1'%�( Date: ?/?y/49 Account Number: 10 5. 5RR. 3180, 70. 00. Date of Payment CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: July 22, 1999 TO: Peter Rosen FROM: Arneta Henninger X7298 k(4, SUBJECT: CEDAR APARTMENTS 102 WILLIAMS AV S APPLICATION LUA 99-013 I have reviewed the application for a proposed 47 unit apartment and have the following comments: SANITARY SEWER: • This project is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. • T sere is an 8" sanitary sewer main in Williams Av S. City records also show that there is. a sanitary sewer main that discharges to the north on the east side of this parcel. • A sanitary sewer main extension is not required for this project. The project utility plan ill need to show the methodology to drain the underground parking garage which shall d scharge into the sanitary sewer. The design may include a pump (it appears that the F nished Floor elevation will be lower than the existing sewer system). The proposed sl:wer system must include an oil water separator for the two floors of parking garages. • Tie minimum sidesewer pipe diameter is 6" for all commercial buildings. • Tie conceptual utility plan is approved. It is suggested that the applicant install a length of 8" pipe to the west from the existing MH on the east side of the parcel a id then tie two separate sidesewers (one for the building waste and one with an o I water separator for the parking garages) into that new (private) 8" pipe. • S/stem Development Charges (SDC) are $350 per unit. These fees are collected at tf e time a construction permit is issued. WATER: • Tie site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. • Tie project site is located in the 196 Pressure Zone. CEDAR APARTMENTS APPLICATION July 27, 1999 Page 2 of 3 • 1 here is an existing 6" watermain in Williams Av S. • / 16" watermain extension will be required to be installed for this project. • 1 he City of Renton Fire Marshal has determined that the preliminary fire flow is 5,000 ( PM. A 16" watermain will be required to be installed in Williams Av S from the existing 24" watermain located on the south side of the river to the existing 8" watermain in S 2nd St to be able to meet the fire flow of the development. If the fire flow changes, the size of the required watermain will be reevaluated. The conceptual l tility plan does not show the installation of a new water main and hence is not epproved. • F,ny new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM and shall be located within 150 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. Secondary fire hydrants are required to be installed within 300 as a part of this project to meet City code. • /. backflow prevention device is required for buildings over 30 feet in height. • Water System Development Charges of $510 per unit. The Development Charges re collected as part of the construction permit. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: • 1 here are existing curbs, gutters and sidewalks on Williams Av S. • . treet lights are existing on Williams Av S. DRA INAGE: • Civil engineering calculations were submitted for the project. A storm drainage c etention system was shown on the conceptual utility system and appears to be in c rder. • There appear to be storm drainage facilities in Williams Av S. • l he Surface Water SDC fees of $0.129 (but not less than $385) per square foot of r ew impervious area are required if not previously paid. GEh ERAL: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvement is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but CEDAR APARTMENTS APPLICATION July 27, 1999 Page 3 of 3 less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder vihen the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service r dated expenses. See Drafting Standards. cedara If City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:P'b ReUtew - I 1I$ COMMENTS DUE: JULY 30, 1999 CITY°F aet,rrokt APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 15, 1999 JUL APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN L r 19y� PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 gUILLr6, "'vwwtV LOCATION: 102- 110 Williams Avenue South SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories(45-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. There would be a parking garage for 85 cars with one basement level and one level at street grade. The garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation. 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 Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS >Sert a76117:C-4-e I/ .. --7--) '2., 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 why additional ation is n eded to properly assess this proposal. p / L-r info � 7 /Z 7/9/ Signature o irector or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:^(-,,ra.t. COMMENTS DUE: JULY 30, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 15, 1999 etTy APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN n Ow PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 ,/0` �' e ON LOCATION: 102- 110 Williams Avenue South 76 4999 SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. BUILDING AREA(gross): `•fv. (4.1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four storfiiV 4-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. There would be a parkin age for 85 cars with one basement level and one level at street grade. The garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation. 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 Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment ' 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 2,10 albt-C,A,,, IYA.,--- 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 addi'oval information is ne ded to properly assess this proposal. /1—",e/4, -.).0-1 — 1 7"Z-1 fil Signature of Director or Authorized epresentative1----- Date DEVAPP Rev.10/93 • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Svxstsce ) U)3.Jf site, COMMENTS DUE: JULY 30, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 15, 1999 C/i.), APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN f),,U. PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 £[� ✓G< J .N10H t<O b LOCATION: 102- 110 Williams Avenue South /icy. 4S'99 SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. BUILDING AREA(gross): Lii, iv SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories(45-fooLd maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. There would be a parking garage fdt 85 cars with one basement level and one level at street grade. The garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation. 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 Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment - 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS X„ t �?/1J� "�� 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 add'ional information is neyed to properly assess this proposal. og 1 72 i by Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP Rev.10/93 City of Ret.___. Department of Planning/Building/Public ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: e COMMENTS DUE: JULY 30, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 15, 1999 APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 LOCATION: 102- 110 Williams Avenue South SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories(45-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. There would be a parking garage for 85 cars with one basement level and one level at street grade. The garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation. 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 � 1 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 Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet �2e G�e. // /- B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS ,Q el--e--(ff cf fey? &Z/L2Y-7) C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS d /9-2M4, )/45/7)-7- ae-odi aryg 11 /-0/ ,-"4/-371/7p--- G?/-Y? C(Z-1? Gef, //r5 >zP __, 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. Zi.)/Signature of Director or utpresentative Date DEVAPP Rev.10/93 A Manzine/Pillo Preliminary Plat Preapplication 8/17/99 City of Renton Density Worksheet for Development in the R-8 Zone According to Renton's City Code, the standards for new development in the R-8 Zone require that residential densities fall within a range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per net developable acre. (Section 4-31-5.D.2) The code does not require that the lots be developed simultaneously. However, the land must be platted so as not to preclude future development at an appropriate density. 1) Total parcel size minus street r-o-ws and sensitive areas: 24000.00 square feet 2) Net Acreage (line 1 divided by 43560): 0.55 acres dwelling units net density 3) Maximum and minimum allowed dwelling units Max. 0.00 and respective net densities: Min. 0.00 4) 24000.00 sq ft and 47 dwelling units result in a density of 85.45 d.u./acre. Deductions from gross area: none H:\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.ING\DENCALC.XLS CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: July 30, 1999 TO: Peter Rosen 06v FROM: Rebecca Lind SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments Policy Comments The Comprehensive Plan Designation for the site is Center Downtown. The project is subject to the Downtown Policies in the Downtown Element, and Centers and Community Design Policies in the Land Use Element. The base density established in the Comprehensive Plan is 25-100 dwelling units per acre (Policy (Policy DT-24) in the RM-U zone. A density bonus allowing up to 150 dwelling units per acre is authorized by Policy DT-25. The density of 25 dwelling units per acre is also established through the zoning in the RM-U development standards. The RM-U zone was recently amended by Ordinance 4788, adopted July 19, 1999, requiring all projects to modulate vertical and horizontal facades at a minimum of two feet at an interval of a minimum offset of 40 feet on each building face. Projects are required to have additional design review in order to achieve density over 25 dwelling units per acre. If the applicant desires to work with the City and address the design issues, which could justify the increased density, we find a strong policy basis to do so. Several existing policies provide specific guidance. Key phrases in adopted policies are highlighted in the following text in order to provide a list of topics. Policy DT-27 Medium rise residential (6 to 10 stories) should be located in the urban center primarily between the Cedar River and South 2nd, and between South 2nd and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. Policy DT-47 Parking lots and structures should employ and maintain landscaping and other design techniques to minimize the visual impacts of these uses. Policy DT-48 Site and building designs (e.g. signage; building height, bulk and setback, landscaping; parking) should reflect unity of design to create a distinct sense of place and mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent uses. \\TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-G:\STRATPLN\PLANNING\GREEN-F\CEDAR2.doc\cor J ' July 29,1999 Page 2 Policy DT-51 Design guidelines should be developed for building, parking, and street appearance (e.g. facades, awnings, signs, planting, street furniture and fixtures) with broad input to provide projects with multiple options which would foster the unique downtown identity. Policy LU-305 The design of buildings and surrounding environment should be compatible with surrounding recent urban designs. Policy LU-307 Ensure that development relates, connects, and continues design quality and site functions from parcel to parcel. Policy LU-308 Roof tops should be designed to be visually attractive where they are visible from adjacent buildings or roadways. Policy LU-312 Design characteristics that establish neighborhood or district identity should be included in large,new development sites and building designs. Policy LU-313 A variety of architectural design and detailing should be encouraged as long as site functions connect to adjacent development. Innovative use of building materials and finishes should be promoted. Policy LU-314 Landscaping is encouraged to improve appearances and provide drainage control in all parking areas in the street side of the building. The recent urban design and district identity of the downtown residential area is established by the Renaissance Project (Daily Homes), the City of Renton Piazza development and the new Metro Transit Center. The unique downtown identity and design quality is further defined in the City Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan prepared to guide City and private investment in the Dally project, Piazza and Transit Center. While this plan was not formally adopted, it was used to guide decision making for these projects. This Plan focuses on Craftsman Style Elements in site planning and streetscape. In addition, the City's first design guidelines are now in place in the Centers Residential Demonstration District within the CN and CS zones. Council approved these guidelines in Ordinance 4777. Implementation of the guidelines requires submission of a Report on Design Criteria for Modifications issued by the ED/N/SP administrator for review by Development Services. We will send proposals to a consultant who will prepare a design review report based on the adopted criteria. The language of Policy DT- 25 A density bonus allowing up to 150 dwelling units per acre may be granted subject to design review and consistent with relevant ordinances and land use regulations (underline added). This reference to "relevant ordinances" could be interpreted to support using this new ordinance as a model for design review in the RM-U zone. The proposed design criteria and relevant definitions are attached for your information. In summary, our recommendation is to require design review for this project. We suggest using the Daily, Piazza, and Transit Center as standards to define district identity and to provide a context for evaluation of how site functions connect parcels in the downtown. These projects can also be used as a basis for evaluating innovative building materials, continuity of quality design from parcel to parcel and architectural design and detailing. The design guidelines and process from the Centers Residential Demonstration District could be used to establish additional design criteria and a review process. July 29,1999 Page 3 In addition to our concerns about the exterior quality of the project we have comments about the interior courtyards proposed to meet the day light/natural ventilation requirements for the residential units. The need to provide windows for bedrooms on the interior corridors results in an open corridor concept in which bedroom spaces abut public corridors. This arrangement seriously compromises privacy for residents of those units, and quality of the project. Due to width of the corridors abutting the central light wells,very little natural light will reach these bedroom areas. This type of project will not meet the quality of development anticipated by the redevelopment- oriented policies of the downtown plan. SEPA Comments Adverse impacts could potentially occur to Public Services. The proposed design is undesirable in terms of privacy,reasonable light and air and defensible space. cc: 7,__ e ® © City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: pot(Le COMMENTS DUE: JULY 30, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 15, 1999 APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 LOCATION: 102- 110 Williams Avenue South SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories(45-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. There would be a parking garage for 85 cars with one basement level and one level at street grade. The garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation. 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 Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet oTh ./4) plc 46/172/6z 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 in rmation i needed to properly assess this proposal. til ci-c,?/- 7? Signature of Director o1-Authorized epresi tive Date DEVAPP Rev.10/93 VosrCY O Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The proposal will be subject to the Cih/s Environmental Ordinance,Zoning Code, 0♦ �� ♦ Subdivision Ordinance,Public Works Standard's,etc. These adopted codes and 4� • standards will function to mitigate project impacts. �`-N`c• Proposed Mitigation Measures: NOTICE OF APPLICATION The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF 1.Traffic Mitigation Fee-575.00 per new average daily trip attributed to the proposal. NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS, M) 2.Fire Mitigation Fee-S388.00 per new mold-family dwelling unit. *REVISED* 3.Parks Mitigation fee•S354.51 per new multi-family dwelling unit. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Peter Rosen,Project Manager,Development Services DATE: July 20,1999 Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on August 11,1999. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF contact Mr.Rosen at(425)430-7219.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record APPLICATION NAME: CEDAR APARTMENTS and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Peter Rosen (425)430-7219 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four Modes(45-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units.There would PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION be a parking garage for 85 cars with one basement level and one level al street grade. The garage enhance would be from two driveway cuts o8 Williams Avenue South.The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South.In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation. PROJECT LOCATION: 102-110 Williams Avenue South 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.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional()NSW)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 t1li i4 •e.r "r period. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance `��;% „O; 17 � y\ Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. • - }�'�_ • ' iiiTitl x`e:n �. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 5,1999(REVISED 7/15/99) .9 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 20,1999 ^"le7 a Rol I y! • APPLICANT: MKD Development Co.,Inc. ri41®' �l4Waf; JON ES ''\ OWNER: MKD Development Co.,Inc. :(72 .I:1 ®rii PARK<< ur tUf t Cr u CL'� ..r.r..... Permits/Review Requested: SEPA Environmental Review,Site Plan Review �o}f r4 K• l n Ir' .. ie1 ,i;,J trA at Other permits which may be required: Construction Permits,Building Permits tr�� rye's A l EEI CJ a♦.rr�9e ios 'Jr Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report,Drainage Report r ,',-a 1 Id tt IIe1• a r^^r0O • Location where application may I 16 >, e" Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, i R9 +a resr.a De reviewed: Sil 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 MN•14 ®"��;--- IS _ spit u.r PUBLIC HEARING: No public hearing required.Administrative review only. 1 • r-k'ill 5i �L a �71 :___. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: .�..�I ��i. ' '� Analytical process Na11I7lin ���} "�'k# • Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations.or in MUM i�.l'Lfj{l:i`'r..cc their absence,comprehensive plan policies.RCW 36.7013.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA)include S. +�Z>RN'>i0 ilr`Y a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development, J infrastructure,and character of development If one has been made at the time of notice. Al a minimum,every NOA shall � new �,y � include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. a NE Use: The subject site is zoned Residential Multi-Family Urban(RM-U). It is also ^T09' r ^'"3 PIsow Mil located within the Downtown Core Area which exempts development protects • 1 ,. t from parking,setback,building lot coverage,and landscape requirements of the RM-U zone. The proposal is consistent with other applicable standards of the _ RM-U zone. Density: The net density of the proposal is 85.45 dwelling units per acre.The Residential Multi-Family Urban(RM-U)zone allows a maximum density of 100 dwelling units per acre or 150 dwelling units per acre with design review. GENMALOT GENIAALOr CERTIFICATION I, Q--1-ex RosQ , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in , conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on 6A ,� &2 l (6j q 9 Signed: 6D,f, ..,,,,. ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing Ihh ,, ,on the _3ej day of /►"9 • —may �// 7 -a /1.,e ! MARILYN KAMCHEFF NOTARY PUBLIC MARILYN KAMCHEFF + STATE OF WASHINGTON , MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 7. COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 29, 2003 c cet NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS, M) *REVISED* DATE: July 20,1999 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME: CEDAR APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal to construct a 47-unit apartment structure. The building would be four stories(45-foot maximum height)and a basement level,with the upper three stories for the apartment units. There would be a parking garage for 85 cars with one basement level and one level at street grade. The garage entrance would be from two driveway cuts off Williams Avenue South. The main pedestrian entry to the building would also be off Williams Avenue South. In the center of the building is an open courtyard to provide light and ventilation. PROJECT LOCATION: 102-110 Williams Avenue South 5(1A OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton y has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,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 ge14k lb �ttS period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance � j N Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. S P OD?- et PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: February 5, 1999(REVISED 7/15/99) a`r"'_NkGYS 1 I2't %' NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 20, 1999 S$ APPLICANT: MKD Development Co., Inc. OWNER: MKD Development Co.,Inc. Permits/Review Requested: SEPA Environmental Review,Site Plan Review Other permits which may be required: Construction Permits,Building Permits Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report,Drainage Report • Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: No public hearing required. Administrative review only. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Analytical process Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations, or in their absence,comprehensive plan policies. RCW 36.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA)include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use, level of development, infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice. At a minimum,every NOA shall include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. Land Use: The subject site is zoned Residential Multi-Family Urban (RM-U). It is also located within the Downtown Core Area which exempts development projects from parking, setback, building lot coverage, and landscape requirements of the RM-U zone. The proposal is consistent with other applicable standards of the RM-U zone. Density: The net density of the proposal is 85.45 dwelling units per acre. The Residential Multi-Family Urban(RM-U)zone allows a maximum density of 100 dwelling units per acre or 150 dwelling units per acre with design review. GENMALOT • 'Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The proposal will be subject to the City's Environmental Ordinance,Zoning Code, Subdivision Ordinance, Public Works Standard's,etc. These adopted codes and standards will function to mitigate project impacts. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. 1.Traffic Mitigation Fee-$75.00 per new average daily trip attributed to the proposal. 2.Fire Mitigation Fee-$388.00 per new multi-family dwelling unit. 3.Parks Mitigation fee-$354.51 per new multi-family dwelling unit. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Peter Rosen,Project Manager,Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on August 11,1999. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, contact Mr. Rosen at(425)430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Peter Rosen (425)430-7219 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION -.r L i 51 aid ,,." -[.$ Q � ., ,,,a e� al ��IIVYJ C`Z<Is ElU.... I.,.d2 95 . sit El n•• R. JON ES -xx T ----�� PVM N f� NOV T[.%/.5.- +' .•®'T.4M6 T.[. :99J. PARK 20 jT°�j ti .. 1:49J io r[.9e..... j r l to 3 18 103 i' 2\ Lj 7.(9a w8 7.52 re al 1.•47—I • i 3 g We'A .d7 P pp r,'"° _ ; 16 ® • 11® 4 .5`.. .cde' ." *115 u - IPRUUR 0 — - ,- IdH v 6 13 a. 1 is,.z 3yo _= t' I® iIi • pF f g , t l t+ � � I dANK ,�al l. ( 3 Ng ! r ( Clle- a S. 2 N D ,,, er4 ,[s 2 • .rl , �P�np"GI �) pc�cr iz 209 • 4ppp"'"63 11 tos gall 18 209, -i. .. , i.21,1. y n Li9 ,,, d` n ' GENMALOT • is i;.**>4*i; ac;c if* * is;c i,c>4;.>;t>; is*i. 1 is ,is*>i i,.i;i< •%•• }>::a . i.> 4.;: :>: >4 BATCH NUMBER : VK CCNMENTS 9q—o13 .: CUSTCNER NAME MKC DEVELOPMENT 20 5t1 of tbts 000720-0053-05 000720-0055-03 JOHNSON JAMES G R0576 CHARRA MICHAEL E 5N9999 4258 SW SUNSET DRIVE `. 4 WILLIAMS AVE S LAKE OSWEGO OR 97034 RENTUN WA 98056 000720-0062-04 000720-0081-01 CITY OF RENTON 912777 RIVERVIEW APARTMENTS 590267 BENNETT W E C/o GRAN INC 200 MILL AVE S 1C21 1ST AVE W RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98199 000720-0082-00 000720-0085-07 MACUCNALC E B 8E9995 G000EN VIRGIL El G LANCE U 002250 123 MAIN AVE S 5763 OAKLAWN PL S RENTON WA 98C55 SEATTLE WA 9811E 000720-00E6-06 000720-00E9-03 NGUYEN ALEXANDER H+MARY 4E9999 ELLIOTT SHARON 681020 1C4 WELLS AVE S 114 WELLS AVE 5 RENTCN WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0090-00 00072C-0091-09 GANNON J K +L E LIVING TRST119599 CUSTER CHARLES L C/O GANNON JACK K+LGIS E TRSTEES 116 WELLS AVE 5 22925 SE 292ND PL RENTGN WA 98055 KENT WA 98042 000720-0092-08 000720-0093-07 PORTERA KIMBERLY 057096 TOMALIN WILLIAM E S MARY E C/O DAVID P TRACY ATTY 10464 FCREST AVE S 108 WELLS AVE S SEATTLE WA 96178 RENTON WA 98059 000720-0094-06 000720-0095-05 CITY CF RENTUN 912777 ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CHURCH 687777 BENNETT W E 99 WELLS AVE S 00938-001 260 MILL AVE S RENTUN WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0096-04 000720-0098-02 STORWICK R E R1178 SCOTT JENNIFER M+EUWAROS ST609999 PO BOX 78327 115 MAIN AVE S SEATTLE WA 9E178 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0104-04 000720-0109-09 TENNESSEE GROUP L.L.C. 670914 TENNESSEE GROUP L.L. G. 670915 710 S 2ND ST 710 S 2ND ST RENTCN WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0111-05 000720-0110-06 SCHULTZ NORMAN M+MARIAN 635999 COOPER ROBERT T 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD fl7 WILLIAMS AVE SO SEATTLE WA 98178 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0122-02 000720-0130 SCHMIDT frARGARET L 559555 ANDERSON ROUERT L 1N1243 7136 S SUNNYCREST RD 316 CAPT GRAY CT SE SEATTLE WA 98178 OCEAN SHORES WA 98569 000720-0145-05 000720-0147-03 OUENO MATHEW C+BUENO MGNICA709999 RYAN MAXWELL H 729999 913 HARRINGTON AVE NE „o P C E'OX 336 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98057 000720-0162-03 000720-0164-01 GANNON GREG 462176 ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CHURCH 687777 BREWER NANCY 99 WELLS AVE S 00938-001 30808 SE 384TH RENTON WA 98055 ENUMCLAW WA 98022 000720-0168-07 000720-0186-05 REN FOUR INC ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CH RENTONCC376 PO BOX 59 99 WELLS AVE S RENTCN WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 723150-1090-04 723150-1095-09 ESELL CORPORATION 339555 FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS G LGAS-0177 126 WELLS AVE S PO BOX 358 RENTCN WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 723150-1950-03 723150-1965-06 SCHULTZ NORMAN M+MARIAN 639999 SHAf3RO JEAN U 630053 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD C/0 OERTEL NANCY SEATTLE WA 98178 6018 SW CUPOLA DR NEWPORT CR 97365 723150-1970-09 723150-1979-00 BELMONDC FAMILY LTD PRTNRSH872980 U S BANK CORPORATE PROPS 863506 1835 NE 12TH ST 2800 E LAKE ST RENTON WA 98C56 LAKE0012 MINNEAPOLIS NN 55406 723150-2005-06 723150-2020-07 BELMONDO FAMILY LTD PRTNRSH872980 KING KENNETH 274268 1835 NE 12TH ST 350 SUNSET BLVD N RENTON WA 98056 RENTCN WA 98055 723150-2030-05 723150-2085-C9 MCLENDON HARDWARE INC CUGINI ALEX JR 710 2NO AVE ' 611 RENTCN AVE S RENTON WA 9E055 RENTON WA 98055 723150-2120-06 723150-2125-01 TENNESSEE GROUP LLC 889959 STORWICK R E 704181 710 S 2ND ST PO PDX 72327 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 723150-2130-04 STORWICK R E 704181 PC BOX 78327 crArn G I A nn11c: . CITY uF RENTON LLe Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 20, 1999 Mr.Victor Malen M.K.D. Development Co., Inc. 10020-A Main Street Suite B-110 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments Project No. LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF Dear Mr. Malen: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on August 24, 1999. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at(425)430-7219, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ,"),_*QA e..-._ Peter Rosen Project Manager ACCPTLTR 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 dca MKD DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. 10020A Main Street B-110 Bellevue, WA 98004 `siv Tot 1-99 June 16, 1999 City of Renton �! Planning/ Building/ Public Works To Whom it May Concern: These address were supplied to M.K.D.Development Co. ,Inc. by King County. To the best of our knowledge they represent all the land owners that surround the property at 110 Williams Ave. South, Renton, Wa. 98055. M.K.D.Development Co. ,Inc. Victor F. Malen, President SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this /,5' day of NAME. 1999 �{1{11�1/���i •lo /),( '���,�;ABC gna ure of NorY, is • . •• gg10N .•.t �sOTq/Wp•5: Notary Public in and for the State of4 S44.A4; • cn. • w• as • _�• A �Z County of ih//1 ,Residing at rC 46L� c<`'.03-09401 ~• 000720-0145-05 00072C-0147-03 48UENO MATHEW C+f3UENO MGNICA709999 RYAN MAXWELL .. 729999 913 HARRINGTCN AVE NE 06 P C BOX 336 RENTON WA 98C56 RENTUN WA 98057 000720-0162-03 000720-0164-01 GANNON GREG 462176 ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CHURCH 687777 BREWER NANCY 99 WELLS AVE S 00938-001 30808 SE 384TH RENTON WA 98055 ENUMCLAW WA 98022 000720-0168-07 000720-0186-05 KEN FOUR INC ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CH RENTONC0376 PO BOX 59 99 WELLS AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 723150-1090-04 723150-1095-C9 ESELL CCkPORATION 339999 FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS G LGAS-0177 126 WELLS AVE S PO PDX 358 RENTCN WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 723150-1950-03 723150-1965-06 SCHULTZ NORMAN M+MARIAN 639999 SHAfKO JEAN B 830053 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD C/O OERTEL NANCY SEATTLE WA 98178 6018 SW CUPOLA DR NEWPORT CR (17365 723150-1970-09 723150-1979-00 BELMONDG FAMILY LTD PfINRSH87298C U S BANK CORPORATE PROPS 883506 1835 NE 12TH ST2800 E LAKE ST RENTON WA 98056 LAKE0012 MINNEAPOLIS NN 55406 723150-2005-06 • 723150-2020-07 BELMONDO FAMILY LTD PRTNKSH8729D0 KING KENNETH 274268 1835 NE 12TH ST 350 SUNSET B1.VD N RENTON WA 58056 RENTON WA 98055 723150-2030-05 723150-2085-09 MCLENDON HARDWARE INC CUGINI ALEX JR 710 2N0 AVE 611 RENTCN AVE S RENTON WA 9E055 RENTON WA 98055 i 723150-2120-06 723150-2125-01 TENNESSEE GROUP LLC 889999 STORWICK K E 704161 710 S 2ND ST PO f',OX 78327 RENTON HA 98055 SEATTLE WA 981761 723150-2130-04 STORWICK R E 704181 PO BOX 78327 SEATTLE WA 98178 ,uJOHNSON�JAMES G R0576 rHARkA MICHAt=L E ' 5N9999 4258 SW SUNSET DRIVE 94 WILLIAI AVE S LAKE CSWEGO OR 97034 RtN1GN WA 98056 000720-0062-04 000720-0081-01 CITY OF RENTON 912777 RIVERVIEW APARTMENTS 590267 BENNETT W E C/O GRAN INC 200 MILL AVE S 1C21 1ST AVE W RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE_ WA 90199 000720-0082-00 000720-0085-07 MACDCNALC E B 889999 GOODEN VIRGIL B E LANCE D 002250 123 MAIN AVE S 5763 OAKLAWN PL S RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 9811E 000720-0086-06 000720-0009-03 NGUYEN ALEXANDER H+MARY 4C9999 ELLIOTT SHARON 681020 104 WELLS AVE S 114 WELLS AVF S RENTCN WA 98C55 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0090-00 000720-0091-09 GANNON J K +L E LIVING TRST119999 CUSTER CHARLES L C/0 GANNON JACK K+LCIS E TRSTEES 118 WELLS AVE 5 . ' 22925 SE 292ND PL RENTON WA 98055 KENT WA 98042 000720-0092-08 000720-0093-07 PORTERA KIMBERLY 057096 TUMALIN WILLIAM E E MARY E C/O DAVID P TRACY ATTY 10464 FOREST AVE S 108 WELLS AVE S SEATTLE WA 9817 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0094-06 000720-0095-05 CITY CF RENTON 912777 ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CHURCH 68777 BENNETT W E 99 WELLS AVE S 00938-00 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 9805' RENTON WA 98055 000720-0096-04 000720-0098-02 STORWICK R E R1178 SCOTT JENNIFER M+EDWARDS ST60999 PO BOX 78327 119 MAIN AVE 5 SEATTLE hA 98178 RENTON WA 9805 000720-0104-04 000720-0109-09 • TENNESSEE GROUP L .L .G . 670914 TENNESSEE GROUP L.L.C. ' 67091 710 S 2ND ST 710 S 2N0 ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 9805 000720-0111-05 000720-0118-06 SCHULTZ NORMAN M+MARIAN 639999 COOPER ROBERT T 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD 87 WILLIAMS AVE SO SEATTLE . WA 98178 RENTON WA 980` , 000720-0122-02 000720-0130-02 SCHMIDT MARGARET L 559999 ANDERSON ROBERT L 1N12 7136 S SUNNYCREST RO 316 CAPT GRAY CT SE SEATTLE WA 98178 OCEAN SHORES WA 985 CITY OA RENTON soil ' Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 21, 1999 Mr. Norman Yelin Norman Yelin Architects 1517 34th Avenue Seattle, WA 98112 SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments Project No. LUA-99-013, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Yelin: We have received your revised application for the Cedar Apartments. There are still several problems with application materials that must be resolved prior to continuing our review. 1. Master Application —We require one master application with an original, notarized signature of the property owner. Also, the site address on the master application is incorrect. 2. As requested previously, the neighborhood map should be revised to clearly indicate the site area with a dark, bold line. 3. It appears that the proposal has been modified in order to not exceed the 75% maximum impervious surface requirement of the RM-U zone. However, the site plan cover sheet still lists lot coverage numbers from the original proposal which indicate the project exceeds the 75% impervious standard. To eliminate confusion, please rectify the discrepancy between numbers listed on the site plan regarding the percentage of coverage and impervious surface proposed on the site. 4. As noted previously, the project narrative still states that 87 parking spaces are provided while the parking legend on the lower level parking plan sheet indicates 85 parking spaces. Please correct this discrepancy. 5. The last paragraph of the first page of the project narrative states the site is classified as a "critical area." Please explain or correct. 6. Under the Background section#4 of the environmental checklist, the date prepared does not indicate the date the checklist was revised. Also, under the Earth Element, the checklist states 78% of the site would be impervious. Please make appropriate corrections. The subject application will remain on hold status until the requested corrections are received. Please refer to the handout on submittal requirements for revisions to existing land use applications to provide for a coordinated, consistent revised application. If you have further questions, please contact me, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, ed,„. P_,.„ Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Victor Malen Jennefer Henning apphold2.doc 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 era __. -, ,,} CITY vr' RENTON ..iL ` Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 27, 1999 Mr. Norman Yelin Norman Yelin Architects 1517 34th Avenue Seattle, WA 98112 SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments Project No. LUA-99-013, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Yelin: We have reviewed your revised pre-submission plans for the Cedar Apartments. Below, I have listed information that should be added to your site plan application. 1. The number of proposed units and density of the project should be listed on the site plan. 2. It appears that the proposal exceeds the 75% maximum impervious surface requirement of the RM-U zone. The plans should be revised to comply with the standard or the application should include a variance. The site plan legend should be revised to include the percentage of building coverage and impervious surface proposed for the project. 3. The neighborhood map should be revised to clearly indicate the site area with a dark, bold line. At your request, I have forward the revised plans to our building plan reviewer, Craig Bumell. I am enclosing our informational handout regarding submittal requirements for revisions to existing land use applications. As I discussed with you over the phone, all site plan revisions must be coordinated and consistent throughout all materials in your revised application. Please call Laureen Nicolay with any questions regarding the submittal requirements. If you have further questions, please contact me, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, 63L\ Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Victor Malen Laureen Nicolay attachments: Submittal Requirements for Revisions to Existing Land Use Applications. APPRFV no 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 al This naner contains SO%recycled material.20%oast consumer CITY OF RENTON '" IL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor March 17, 1999 Mr. Victor Malen, President M.K.D. Development Co., Inc. 10020-A Main Street B-110 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments Project No. LUA-99-013, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr. Malen: Subsequent to preliminary review of your application for the Cedar Apartments, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to continue the evaluation and permit processing of the subject project. There is a discrepancy in the application materials regarding the number of parking spaces proposed. The project narrative states that 87 parking spaces are provided while the parking legend on the lower level parking plan sheet indicates 85 parking spaces. Please change either the project narrative or the plans to clarify this discrepancy. Building Department comments indicate that it is not possible to construct the building as proposed. The maximum building height for Type V-1 hour wood construction is 50 feet. The proposed building height is 62 feet 6 inches. Other types of construction, such as III-1 hour, would allow the proposed building height but would require 2 hour non-combustible exterior walls and protected openings less than 20 feet to property lines. Please have your architect address this issue and clarify the proposed type of building construction. The City of Renton Regulatory Reform Ordinance requires a final decision on a permit application within 120 days. However, the code excludes time periods in which an applicant is requested to provide additional information, perform required studies, or to correct plans. Therefore, the 120 day time limit shall recommence when corrected plans or information is received to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division. I spoke to you by telephone on February 26 concerning the architectural design of the proposal. The Zoning Code only allows the proposed density with design review. We would like to meet with you and your architect regarding the architectural design of your proposed building. Please call me to set up a meeting. If you have any question, please contact me, at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Jana Huerter APPHOLD.DOC 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 ...,.,e...,...r.ni..e Ffl rorwiari rnatArlal an%host consumer r r DEVELOPMENT PLANP,ING Monica and Mathew Bueno 98 Williams Avenue South CITY OF RENTON Renton, Washington 98055-2150 (425 ) 277-8135 MAR 1 :) 1999 RECEIVED March -14 , 1999 3 eIEL-pVIT P�u`"'N' City of Renton and Mr. Peter Rosen: 1999 R1- This letter of is in opposition of Land Use Number: 1`,ED LUA-99-013, SA-H, ECF; Application Name: Cedar ApartmE . V Project Location: 100 Williams Avenue South My husband and I purchased the house located at 98 Williams Avenue South in September of 1997, two years following our wedding anniversary. Mathew has lived in Renton his entire life and I have held residence here for over 13 years. We were looking for an affordable home with mid-century character, located close to our parents. Mathew' s parents live in the Renton Highlands and my parents live in Bryn Mawr, making downtown Renton an equal distance between the two. In addition to location, I mentioned character. . .this house has great character. When we first looked at the house, it had been a rental property for 10 years and was very neglected. Each room on the main floor had a different color of remnant carpet, quite stained and full of animal odors. The kitchen had a brown free-standing stove, a five-foot tall refrigerator with a dilapidated ice-box, an old, stained porcelain sink, no dishwasher, and linoleum from the 1970 ' s. The basement had two "bedrooms" with a sheet-rocked wall separating the rooms and concrete serving as the exterior walls. . .no insulation. The other half of the basement is completely unfinished, with the washer and dryer taking up a corner of the room. The backyard was far from level with a weed invested, unkempt lawn, surrounding an overgrown rose bush. I give you this description of what we moved into, to paint a picture of how far we have come, and what our future dreams for this house have been. Our first project was to tear up the rugs and refinish the hidden oak floors in the hallway, living room and dining room. We painted the walls, and went so far as to remove the baseboards for refinishing. The next undertaking was tearing out the entire backyard, forming a vegetable garden along the back, a stone-walled flower bed along the left border and seeding a brand new lawn. We also widened the drive way to lessen our need to park along the street. Updating the kitchen with new appliances and refinishing the fir floors we discovered, was our next endeavor. So far the only project we have completed down stairs is the refurbishing of a bedroom with sheetrock and insulation over the concrete walls, a fresh coat of paint and new carpet. Our goals for this summer include painting the exterior of the house, building a front porch, carpeting and painting the remaining bedrooms, updating the bathroom, planting our second vegetable garden, and hopefully delving into more landscaping. Now to the subject at hand, the six story monstrosity of a building that is planned to be our neighbors. . .many neighbors. My husband and I had intended on raising our family here, at least two children. We purposely found a home with a large backyard with plenty of sunlight, close to schools, grocery stores, bank, post office. . .this location has all of the conveniences of living in town, with the peace of a fairly quiet, maple tree lined street. The one way flow of traffic cuts down on the volume of cars that travel by our home, keeping the noise level and pollution to a minimum as well as making it safer for children to play in the yard. Family is very important to both my husband and myself. Our decision to buy this house was very much centered around raising children here. Whenever you congest so many people living in such close proximity to one another, you encounter the problems of a higher crime rate, extreme elevation in noise, a traffic increase, and parking issues. The proposed plan suggests 79 multi-family residential units and only 83 parking spaces. I am personally unaware of a single family with only one vehicle. This means an estimated 75 cars are going to be without designated parking, searching for places along the streets of downtown Renton, in front of homes and businesses. The homeowners and their guests, as well as the patrons of our local businesses, will lose the convenience of parking curbside to their destination(s ) . This is likely to have an effect on patronage, not to mention those looking at Renton as a place to purchase a home. My husband and I have noticed a large percentage of people buying and renovating the older homes of downtown Renton, giving it a face-lift, if you will. Discouraging the propagation of this trend, is detrimental to our future as a community. A six story building will block the sunlight of many residents, us included. After growing our first, and very successful, vegetable garden last year, we had planned to continue harvesting for many years to come. This building would be located south of us, blocking all of our afternoon sunlight and destroying any chance for garden life. My husband and I refuse to raise a family in the literal shadow of this plethora of people. We would be forced to move from our home. Mathew and I do not stand alone in our appeal against this project. We have heard similar concerns from our neighbors. Being first-time home owners, we are unsure of exactly what steps to take in prevention of the proposed Cedar Apartments at 100 Williams Avenue South, but hope you will give merit to our plea. Si cerely, Monica y Hughe ueno 1► v WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources JENNIFER M.BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RENTONNING DATE: March 9, 1999 MAR 1 1999 RECEIVED TO: Peter Rosen, Project Manager City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 FROM: David John Weiss Resource Protection Specialist South Puget Sound Region SUBJECT REVIEW OF: Cedar Apt . LUA-99-013 , SA_-H,, ECF ACTION SPONSOR: MKD Development Co. , Inc ., PROJECT: Timber Harvest/Land Conversion [] We do not have an interest in the above project and have no comments on the proposal . [X] We do have an interest in the above project and wish to make the following comments: A *forest practices permit will be required for the harvest of timber associated with this project. CC: Dave Dietzman - SEPA Center - DNR SEPA#: 015444 SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1950 FARMAN ST N I PO BOX 68 I ENUMCLAW, WA 98022-0068 FAX:(360)825-1672 I TTY:(360)825-6381 I TEL:(360)825-1631 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER 0 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public ...,..,s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Poktce_ COMMENTS DUE: 3/8/99 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT 1 ITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 LOCATION: 100 Williams Avenue South SITE AREA 24,000s.f. BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY DF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a six story building with 79 multi-family residential units. The center of the building is designed as an open courtyard. Parking is provided in the building for 85 vehicles, with one parking level underground and one at:treet level. Access to the parking and the building entry is off Williams Avenue South. The density of the proposal is 143.6 dwell'ng units per acre. The site is zoned residential multi-family urban which allows a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per ac e with design review. 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/Shorelini Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resou ces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 7J (pg C� wackec wir l fit. B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE RELATED COMMENTS We have re vie Ned 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. ////1e 11-Q4' - - 9 c) SignatCre of Director or Authorike9 Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev '.. PROJECT LUA-99-13, SA-H, E(:r Cedar Apartments City of Renton Department of Planning /Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET (Continuation) POLICE RELATED COMMENTS 72.68 Police Calls for Service Estimated Annually CONSTRUCTION PHASE Theft from construction sites is one of the most common reported crimes in the city. To protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up when not in use. The site will need security lighting and any construction trailer should be completely fenced in with portable chain-link fencing. The fence will provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective thief and will demonstrate that this area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept locked when not in use, and should also have a heavy-duty deadbolt installed with no less then a 1-1/2" throw when bolted. Glass windows in the trailer should be shatter-resistant. I also recommend the business post the appropriate "No Trespassing" signs on the property while it's under construction (flier attached). This will aid police in making arrests on the property after hours if suspects are observed vandalizing or stealing building materials. COMPLETED BUILDING Each unit should have solid core doors, preferably metal or metal over solid wood with peepholes and heavy-duty dead bolt locks. The bolts need to be at least 1-1/2" in length when extended and installed with 3" wood screws. Lower unit sliding windows, including glass patio doors, will need additional locks; these locks will need to secure the panes from being pried out of the frames vertically. This means the locks will need to be placed into the top or bottom of the frames, in addition to any lock that limits horizontal movement. Alarm systems are recommended for each unit. There should not be any solid walls in any stairway or decking that would serve to limit the visibility and provide a place for a criminal to hide while waiting for a resident to return home. If there are any facilities provided for the tenants (i.e., pool, rec room, exercise room, etc.) entry to these locations should be controlled by either a pass key or keycode pad to deter trespassing as well. Page 1 of 2 PROJECT LUA-99-13, SA-H, ECF Cedar Apartments City of Renton Department of Planning / Building /Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET (Continuation) The underground parking will assist in protecting resident's vehicles from auto theft and theft from motor vehicle, but additional care should be taken when it comes to lighting the area. Proper lighting will help residents feel safer traveling to and from their vehicle and it will also help protect the vehicles that will be parked at these locations. It is recommended that any community building be a secured facility, with controlled entrances to dissuade trespassing of non-residents. Landscaping in and around the exterior of the property should not be too dense or high. It is important to allow visibility. Too much landscaping will give the property the look of a fortress and make the residents feel isolated, and could also possibly give a burglary sufficient coverage to break into a unit. Page 2 of 2 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public vvorKs ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWINC DEPARTMENT: CvAS-t41Aa10'Y1 sevvICe6 COMMENTS DUE: 3/8/99 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 Gury �C APPLICANT M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN WON PROJECT T TLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487te, LOCATION: 100 Williams Avenue South 4 4 1999 !NQ c:0IV SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross 7UIL0 IVt< SUMMARY i)F PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a six story building with 79 multi-family residential units. The center of the building is designed as an open courtyard. Parking is provided in the building for 85 vehicles, with one parking level underground and one at s reet level. Access to the parking and the building entry is off Williams Avenue South. The density of the proposal is 143.6 dwellirg units per acre. The site is zoned residential multi-family urban which allows a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acr3 with design review. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of thi 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-lealth Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resou/;es Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLIC'-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS (DT t R LE T co 1JS T R �HlS fit--) IIJG r'1/� >Cf('1uI-1 frtE 6, ht 15 So ` -4re0 RouA p ole TYPE l/ -1 1-12 vvooA G0h!STA,'-GTI0tit , OT/! 2 -r 'p CDr` 60ros-nevc-TI0rLJ /¢S 111 - r o2CziL.)lc2C 1-(0- NCN Co/'/€VS7' 113L_= 0 /Pti'O ( otEC7l=O OPEfJtiJC7S L 10` 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. C 'Lee— 3 0/ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City of Rencvrt Department of Planning/Building/Public vvurr(S ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1Ye Freee3A.um COMMENTS DUE: 3/8/99 APPLICATIC,N NO: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 APPLICANT M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN FEB 2 4 1999 PROJECT T TLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 R LOCATION: 100 Williams Avenue South '��-r V CO SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a six story building with 79 multi-family residential units. The center of the building is dh:signed as an open courtyard. Parking is provided in the building for 85 vehicles, with one parking level underground and one at s reet level. Access to the parking and the building entry is off Williams Avenue South. The density of the proposal is 143.6 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned residential multi-family urban which allows a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre with design review. A. ENVIR 3NMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of fh^ 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 Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resou ces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet /116Ale, B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /1/4 f‘j • C. CODE RELATED COMMENTS Q.4ot L 032 r,/ / 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. - //7407-t" Signature of Director or Authorized Representative 4 Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev 1:t,3 ��� o CITY OF RENTON &o FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: March 1, 1999 TO: Peter Rosen, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Code-Related Comments for Cedar Apartments 1. More information is needed on proposed buildings before preliminary fire flow requirements are determinable. Provide further details like type of construction and exact total square footage. Fire hydrant requirements will be based upon fire flow determinations. Looped fire mains are required for fire flows in excess of 2,500 GPM as anticipated in this project. 2. The fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $388.00 per unit. This fee is payable at the time of building permit issuance. 3. Fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems are required as well as an approved standpipe system. Separate plans and permits are required to be submitted to the fire department for review. CT:ct cedar City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public t.,,,,,s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: v)\?NvI ReV1eW, u1&1, COMMENTS DUE: 3/8/99 APPLICATIC N NO: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 APPLICANT M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT T TLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 LOCATION: 100 Williams Avenue South SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a six story building with 79 multi-family residential units. The center of the building is designed as an open courtyard. Parking is provided in the building for 85 vehicles, with one parking level underground and one at s reet level. Access to the parking and the building entry is off Williams Avenue South. The density of the proposal is 143.6 dwellir g units per acre. The site is zoned residential multi-family urban which allows a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre with design review. A. ENVIR 3NMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of th,, 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 y Light/Glare Plants Recreation Lancd/ShorelinE Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resou ces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS a G Jr, U Ct�rrl 1'tj S i\1 r C, : E X [ s t k 4 " i;, PA-r cd a"r • - Ca ( A c- f—y A v (5? u t ,elr.4.7 & v- 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 a itional inforrrlation is needed to property assess this proposal. � , q=75-742,--7 ,74 ram Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev 1C&3 M.K.D. DEVELOPMENT CO.,INC. APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT Cedar Apt.'s 79-Units 100 Williams AVE. S. Developments Services March 2, 1999 GENERAL ITEM: The City title Block to be eliminated from the Civil Utility Construction Plans. It is no longer required. The Consulting Engineering Firm to use their Title Block. WATER: 1 The Water System Development Connection charge is $40,290 as calculated for 79-units. 2. One fire hydrant is required for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow. 3. A loop water main is required when the fire flow exceeds 2500 gpm. The loop water system would be located in a 15-ft. Utility Easement. 4, The primary fire hydrant must be within 150-feet of the building, but not closer than 50-feet and all secondary fire hydrants to be within 300-feet. 5. A existing 6-inch water main in williams Ave. S will not support the fire flow requirement for the proposed size of building. The existing water main in Williams Ave. S will need to be replace with a 12-inch main by the Developer from S. Tobin St. To S. 2nd St. to obtain sufficient capacity. A Fire Flow Analysis is required to determine sufficient fire flow capacity. 6. For Buildings over 30-feet in height it will require a backflow prevention device on the domestic water meter. A backflow prevention device will also be required for the irrigation meter which its location is to be shown on the Construction Utility Plan. 99cm015W 99CM015W.DOC\ 4 City of Renron Department of Planning/Building/Public ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Su Jr*etc (c wa Y COMMENTS DUE: 3/8/99 APPLICATIC1N NO: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 APPLICANT M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT T TLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 Cfn, LOCATION: 100 Williams Avenue South SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY .JF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a six story building with 79 multi-family residential units. The center of the building is d.isigned as an open courtyard. Parking is provided in the building for 85 vehicles, with one parking level underground and one at street level. Access to the parking and the building entry is off Williams Avenue South. The density of the proposal is 143.6 dwelli ig units per acre. The site is zoned residential multi-family urban which allows a maximum density of 1.50 dwelling units per ac e with design review. A. ENVI! ONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of ti e 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 LightGlare Plants Recreation LandiShorelir a Use Utilities L Animals Transportation Envlronmentt I Health Public Services Energy/ HistoridCultural Natural Reso woes Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet CITY OF FEL z 4 /999 �aI� ,��%.4 LisviQIUN B. POLI„'.;Y-RELATED COMMENTS 2.e- fk G h. v Ir--) v- V I •,. S . C. COL E-RELATED COMMENTS We have n viewed 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. 2 ?-77 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ./ Date DEVAPP.DOC: Rev 1Cl?3 M.K.D. DEVELOPMENT CO.,INC. APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT 79-Units 100 Williams AVE.S. Developments Services March 2,1999 GENERAL ITEM: The City title Block to be eliminated from the Civil Utility Construction Plans It is no longer required. The Consulting Engineering Firm to use their Title Block. SEWER: 1. The Sewer System Development Connection charge is$27,650. 2. A sewer clean-out is required 5-ft. out from the building. 3 The side sewer line is to have a 2%slope to the property line. 4 The project is located in the Black River Sewer Basin. 5 A sewer main is available in the roadway fronting the property(Williams Ave. S). 6. If the project produces fats,oils or grease than an appropriate removal system would be required. 7. Any existing utilities to be removed from under where the new structure is proposed. 8. The project is located in the Aquifer protection area Zone#1. 9. A 8-eight inch sewer main is available in Williams Ave. S. adjacent to site. STORM DRAINAGE: 1. The Storm System Development Connection charge is $ 2,445.84 based on 18,960 sq. Ft. of new impervious surface area. 2. A Level One Storm Drainage Analysis is required in accordance with the 90 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Address the following Core requirements(2, 3, &4). Provide pre-developed map and Vicinity Map. Provide a written narrative description of detention and water quality analysis design. Describe any drainage problem that may occur if any. Describe conveyance System. 2-year, 10-year and 100-year pre and post analysis. 3. A storm line is available in Williams Ave. S adjacent to the site. 99cm015S 99CM015S.DOC\ City of Ria.„,•,1 Department of Planning/Building/Public woiKs ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING, DEPARTMENT: Thew,_. a fi COMMENTS DUE: 3/8/99 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 APPLICANT M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT T ITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 LOCATION: 100 Williams Avenue South SITE AREA 24,000s.f. l BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY DF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a six story building with 79 multi-family residential units. The center of the building is designed as an open courtyard. Parking is provided in the building for 85 vehicles, with one parking level underground and one at<treet level. Access to the parking and the building entry is off Williams Avenue South. The density of the proposal is 143.6 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned residential multi-family urban which allows a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per ace with design review. A. ENVIF ONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of ti e 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/Shorelire Use Utilities Animals Transportation Y Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resc aces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet CRY ^F.NTON B. POL CY-RELATED COMMENTS FED'. 2 4 1999 ,. v riiON C. COLE-RELATED COMMENTS 1 11 e Y r a s a �- ��i o �-c, 4,4 Fee,. is $3/ Sze), e. e-- Vt e----h-3*- -Co >3- C a L L 1-L_a...tt d k c� t, 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 addtional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative (\ Date DEVAPRDOt. Rev • . • - ,r':•- ; •M...r; *ITr- C) :.'fir. - ' �� �✓�T P:QRTATT if 1 . -' , 4;4 z , .-Lr- N . . , Project Name C e.da✓ 71 Paid'wte‘tt5 Project Address 100 (AJ;1/ikrttS Ave Contact Person V«tov ,t4lalcH j MK I) Dcvehy,K,,r,,t Address 160 20- A Mu111 St 33- )10 , ,Rc llcvke q'ooq. Phone-Number y 2 5 -- 14 IL+ - g qqO . • - Permit Number L L1¢1 Q q 013 r . Project Description S t)r syov1 ✓�/ t t4 71 c4n.uZ, 'Iwo /eve/s o/ Pa� J `ri.), 1`t,014 c-' I' 5P )y,t• er -,s7`, 1 lire„u 7,9 be Apple,bg: ez/, Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: 4/a (ZZO))P Aer. 311 .0 Residential . ' 1TE Trip Generation Manual ❑ Retail ❑ Traffic Study �� 0 Non-retail 0 Other sI l ttl k F0014.1ki - �.•55.I..,4,, Calculation: Jc/ oety (Ivey. a441ly -tviPs r. (71)(6 7) — 0)(q,55) = 5DI . (o VIA ; ( SOi . 6) ( -73 ) = $ 37 , G2-0 . Transportation Mitigation Fee: -')7t �ZZ9 Calculated by: „ 6i : (��z( r/ Date: 1l?y/1 �� 49 Account Number: _ io5. 5Rq, 3is0, 70. 00. Date of Payment City of RE I Department of Planning/Building/Public VvorKs ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: 3/8/99 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT 1 ITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 LOCATION 100 Williams Avenue South SITE AREA. 24,000s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a six story building with 79 multi-family residential units. The center of the building is designed as an open courtyard. Parking is provided in the building for 85 vehicles, with one parking level underground and one at street level. Access to the parking and the building entry is off Williams Avenue South. The density of the proposal is 143.6 dwel ing units per acre. The site is zoned residential multi-family urban which allows a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per ai:re with design review. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of te 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/Shore ine Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistoridCultural Natural Re;ounces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet TJAIZZO OZ2k._ if&C) 77b 672,/e‘L, B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • n U 7 ' -4D4107? (741 c"..///1.-1..4" C. ODE-RELATED COMMENTS We hale reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are- where ddditional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 6,--//a, - Signat�Director or Author d Representative Date f DEVAPP.DOC� Rev ' City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public ...,..:s ENVIPONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: kYpoy COMMENTS DUE: 3/8/99 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 APPLICANT M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 LOCATION: 100 Williams Avenue South SITE AREA: 24,000s.f. 1 BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY DF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a six story building with 79 multi-family residential units. The center of the building is designed as an open courtyard. Parking is provided in the building for 85 vehicles, with one parking level underground and one at street level. Access to the parking and the building entry is off Williams Avenue South. The density of the proposal is 143.6 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned residential multi-family urban which allows a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per ac e with design review. A. ENVIF ONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of tI a 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 Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 1o,000Feet yes x 14,000 Feet yes x B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS Maximum allowable height above sea level is 179 feet. A six story building should not exceed more than about half this height, plus ground level above sea level . C. COL EE-RELATED COMMENTS Non We have rrviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where add tional info ation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Sign. . a of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVA•cOC Rev ';', 11.0O -250 'i'.c Qieva. @ v45D 207 t Z 9' 6-14.L,Q 4.2w 9 uASL a.) 1t ------vmvatria._:_,,___________ •,-?„ . .,..,...,.. Akurint-h --,,,..:4-...E_E_E_EiE.::::::.Es-_:::::::::::::::::_E_E_E:_._::::::::zi,„_________„„,__::::::,_,_:.,_:::::::::::,..,,;;;;;;;;;;;;;:::_,__*,,,,, .1. „,,,-.. ._: ._ ..,,_.-,: ,\ IF T . ii == �omo ` \= _= = == = -2= :_ == - =,51 iti. .rat- ". , is � ,-I w ' ... _,:,,=== === =_ ___ __7 :E:::::::DissFEKEIRK.:::::REEKEEEE::-.1 :-.E.7-5E:E:K.:,, \\,y-, w re-" \') .- Eg§110a:' .J- CT n!' rnn n �® \� -______ -__-- =_ -_=_ --- r=rr=r_5 \ iff • ■ fit r fiil� Ku. rl ' "' ' c_, etiSF li . : ._ ii _!!rta I _.66 GI ULJW �L' ,\ _-- ______ __-r==sr , \ ■ tom.z-::::::::-::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::7__ k., n r,r ir, ■ v .Y-."aTr� ■" t ram!► ,,,i .,..„, .,,,...,.. Ti. gilt ramp . „.:, ._ _IINIF9h, 1 . -°-> 4 1":-::::::::::.::::-E:ER:.:::::2EtE::2:3..:533.:1:3E:E.::::::r----:-- "" PL.': 1 ---------------- rAkCIIIIiii ki\--::::*::::--:—:------------- A s_i ,---i,.... 0 4 .15' _. -.0 . `1! !ill"-, iittEiri ;d .. ti L_,....JC:=1 .. w Ea 1.11111M,,,r,r.,11.1‘ ---__--.1-.7-:::-:-:-::::-:-:::: 7 -. Mit r.II -1 If. Nr-- i v■:fr■� .�,i tom'. e ,, i n IEI frrii.4,,\VI''6, Q IIIp aJ ,.. Q ..I ii "!�, 1, t� W 01� �. r� III . I■f■%Anvil:- I i,.w y Elam./ ! i ., \ .17:4; 10 I I Mk.i, .ffinilviw A. \ 'wig . nII(�-II �a 4 ,,, 1� ICE �• jr� � \. — Dlio �► �tL . �`®11ji \ ;0110,148,,Eil •c1 ....i, " ; 4C w �t��I 9r- 21'.:a.44 f=I -, w rer. __.._,.. till it ,t. , .,t4k.4 ., • tir-c gal, i.;;: wrialli,n_i„„w,44,fir---iw ...43_0: ik,•.•,. _ mil . . ..egn 0....) .......i 7. ..,k Iii wpm ... _ r1.141.1... .„,,[Jae_ T/4 iril K.1 L i;-/ . - - IA PP" ...I) / co:1)4 : 1,al:a: 1 1 ' 7 iH.77--r . ,1,i ii .FrA , .,pn , 4, .5I-- .., Mk /. 60 - .'941[Silr 114mt17 ii,'a.•imniMie kl ei IN.'S, _1 _. til 41.•11! *Ti..."1111111,101111/1111111111111k, ,,ii_IL__4,... lr a pp gosim;it,d ./4r , ' '7.1.---"law4tfittilWriiii-.. :m(m[7j]7�Ff7}��I�{71 !,�t�M _tt :-.' i 1 ..... a \ . •-:a wrigitliv...h, -1 i dige--1\s....!.. ..it i 7,;-"iiala's p iir . \_:. Agoi . ...„,,,, itinari 1 a . . -00"4"ifi lesibits% ii3070, . 0, 41, . ,,,_. ti,J. . . w ` . .---7, . ..., ‘. r-L VIP .0. 011111 . mc >fiw pr," , t , _} . V_[.. !! \ \) #w-oldl 7,-...' . . \ .,,i3.--0-53•0304.5.7.r. gearai,„,.=- ".414y-j I. • , ,... 0 7 \\� 1, R. E' VI, / .` w cN'''''r 't > -,,..,i r , \ mop w w c• _ ..------------i, e - 1 ilk' . zs ibigi i% [ ,.w. -.I . al .) —--,..-11 116, Irl • I_____(-1-,..." •fi!d% fl ; � _1 /� ` . . L?14 t:I!a ly N ,• w = (n--P.M 1t �f._.... 1" 11 I ,:14:1'.%_41..1:'.. II. x��R] _ AlaIK--) 011 �, FF ■" ■-■ 1w■ ,:M w ' , • ■[,.1•Y 1 M j t�• h 1 I ` ; W U T•.•I r F`}'! ,II�* f MML t ; • I; { 1.47 ! S r , ,.5., 1.2....j . 4L-7114 i'''" 7:1.8 • <-) �Q ) ` `. er.,,,,771 1 "<v‘N -'-‘ ' 1, N tL /37 � I 78 r.c.1J9 1 L 130 81 a T.c p("4- InTL►4 7 Rs a -1 4-57ris ri !►8 57 v) 84 rL 53 w tL/09 la ` : rL/66. 9 !Z (�;.i..� TV.15 t 8 C�'A` L./22. 95 •,a n. 56 99 rL8e •. JON ES PUM At- r Hou 7:1.% [Hp, • IE 7:4Acis r4,1 , 99 , 0 . II., PA r . GA, i ) r46Z - -- - - - 7TD___ 3 60 2 ,6 1 \� 105 �� o �� „L 1 i07 ti !�.�.. I v-1, , ,_ , ' . T IOS F, 3 18 ►n y ge 2 ‘ i...-i 71.90 . i U B rt.92 7.L.8/ r17 11 +' 1 3 o`. 115 .. 1 FF nn .89 R)41 r,., 1 _ r 1 f p A > 16 ® ;i ® 4 bo5� ti TL./68- , 118 .9i t_JI19 8 ' ,;_--•-• wI2L� �, is lat,_ ; al T.L.BS .'r.CB 01 -�' - .- LTQLuR-S7oX -- -- �- ! l .t TY17:z. 2 i al0 - - - s..6v / v P " I r " yo7 • ..-', r I ! 1, 8AN/c . 10 NI •a _ ''�' ' cr- //5 /t 0 /2' ,() `, o, F ib /i , •r 2ND - - °,9 i, ck ,,, ,o .. leo 'Ilk , I: 9 , ! 2. I ; ! f, too z , i 6 5.1. e. ? 209 , R ., ► � t l8 f'P ?_49 MI 1 --I,1 _ , ', Lii-� 2 Zia x oi ') A . 11 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 11, 1999 TO: Peter Rosen FROM: Rebe'ca Lind SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments The Comprehensive Plan Designation for the site is Center Downtown. The project is subject to the Downtown Policies in the Downtown Element, and Centers and Community Design Policies in the Land Use Element. The base density established in the Comprehensive Plan is 25-100 dwelling units per acre (Policy (Policy DT-24). A density bonus allowing up to 150 dwelling units per acreis authorized by Policy DT-25. The density bonus is also established through the zoning in the RM- U development standards. Although policy direction clearly authorizes design review, a process and criteria are not yet established for this designation. In the absence of an adopted process, the project qualifies for the base density of 100 dwelling units per acre. Our recommendation is to reduce density to 100 du/ac. if we can not fmd a way to do a design review process at this time. The project as submitted does not include features which justify a bonus. The bulk and scale of the proposed structure is a direct result of the increased density of an additional 33 units on the site. The proposal maximizes the site in terms of coverage, setbacks, bulk and scale without providing any offsetting amenities in terms of quality architecture and site design, innovative building materials,recreation amenities, landscaping or other public benefits. If the applicant desires to work with the City and address the kind of design issues which could justify the bonus we fmd a strong policy basis to do so. Several existing policies provide specific guidance. Key phrases in adopted policies are highlighted in the following text in order to provide a list of topics. Policy DT-27 Medium rise residential (6 to 10 stories) should be located in the urban center primarily between the Cedar River and South 2nd, and between South 2nd and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. Policy DT-47 Parking lots and structures should employ and maintain landscaping and other design techniques to minimize the visual impacts of these uses. Policy DT-48 Site and building designs(e.g. signage;building height,bulk and setback, landscaping; parking) should reflect unity of design to create a distinct sense of place and mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent uses. \\TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-H:\COMMON\ECONDEV\STRATPLN\PLANNING\GREEN-F\CEDARDOC\cor March 10, 1999 Page 2 Policy DT-5 1 Design guidelines should be developed for building. parking. and street appearance (e.g. facades, awnings, signs,planting, street furniture and fixtures) with broad input to provide projects with multiple options which would foster the unique downtown identity. Policy LU-305 The design of buildings and surrounding environment should be compatible with surrounding recent urban designs. Policy LU-307 Ensure that development relates, connects, and continues design quality and site functions from parcel to parcel. Policy LU-308 Roof tops should be designed to be visually attractive where they are visible from adjacent buildings or roadways. Policy LU-312 Design characteristics that establish neighborhood or district identity should be included in large,new development sites and building designs. Policy LU-313 A variety of architectural design and detailing should be encouraged as long as site functions connect to adjacent development. Innovative use of building materials and finishes should be promoted. Policy LU-314 Landscaping is encouraged to improve appearances and provide drainage control in all parking areas in the street side of the building. The recent urban design and district identity of the downtown residential area is established by the Renaissance Project (Daily Homes), the City of Renton Piazza development and the new Metro Transit Center. The unique downtown identity and design quality is further defined in the City Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan prepared to guide City and private investment in the Daily project, Piazza and Transit Center. While this plan was not formally adopted, it was used to guide decision making for these projects. This Plan focuses on Craftsman Style Elements in site planning and streetscape. In addition, the City Council Planning and Development Committee is currently working on the City's first design guidelines which will apply in the Centers Residential Demonstration District within the CN and CS zones. These guideline were approved by Council for content on March 8th and will be adopted in March. Implementation of the guidelines requires submission of a Report on Design Criteria for Modifications issued by the ED/N/SP administrator for review by Development Services. We are anticipating sending proposals to a consultant who will prepare a design review report based on the adopted criteria. The language of Policy DT-25 A density bonus allowing up to 150 dwelling units per acre may be granted subject to design review and consistent with relevant ordinances and land use regulations (underline added). This reference to "relevant ordinances" could be interpreted to support using this new ordinance as a model for design review in the RM-U zone. The proposed design criteria and relevant definitions are attached for your information. In summary, our recommendation is reduce density unless the project can demonstrate how it meets policy criteria for a bonus. We suggest using the Daily, Piazza, and Transit Center as standards to define district identity and to provide a context for evaluation of how site functions connect parcels in the downtown. These projects can also be used as a basis for evaluating innovative building materials, continuity of quality design from parcel to parcel and architectural design and detailing. The design guidelines and process from the Centers Residential Demonstration District could be used to establish additional design critera and a review process. 3/4/99 Building Design 1)Variation in vertical and horizontal 1)Variation in vertical and horizontal Standards modulation of facades and roof lines. modulation of facades and roof lines. 2)Private entry features which are designed to provide individual ground floor connection to the outside, E. MODIFICATION PROCEDURE Application may be made for modification of the development standards in Section D. Applications shall be made pursuant to Section 4-9-250 D. of this title,. In addition to the decision criteria stipulated in Section 4-9-250D.2.. applicants must comply with the design criteria in Section 4-9- 250D.3. SECTION EIGHT 4-8-100 APPLICATION AND DECISION- GENERAL: A.PREAPPLICATION MEETING 1. Recommended: A pre-application meeting prior to formal submittal of a development application is recommended but not required unless waiver of submittal requirements is recommended4)72) a modification of development standards is requested in the Centers Residential Demonstration District. SECTION NINE TABLE 4-8-120C 4-8-120C Table 4-8-120C is amended to include Report on Design Criteria for Modifications 12 copies required. Note 6 is added to Table 4-8-120C footnotes to read: 6. Only required for modification to development standards in the Centers Residential Demonstration District. Amendments to Table 4-8- 120C are shown on Exhibit 2 SECTION TEN 4-9-250 VARIANCE,WAIVERS,MODIFICATIONS,AND ALTERNATES: D.MODIFICATION PROCEDURES 1.Application Time and Decision Authority: Modifications from standards, either in whole or in part, shall be subject to approval by the Planning Building/Public Works Department upon submittal in writing of jurisdiction for such modification. For a modification to development planning/zoning/2esdeii page 6 3/4/99 standards in the Centers Residential Demonstration District,the Department shall use the recommendations in a Report on Design Criteria for Modifications prepared by the Economic Development.Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Administrator or designee as the basis for approval or denial of the request. Application will be made prior to detailed engineering and design. 3.Additional Decision Criteria Only for Center Residential Demonstration District In addition to the criteria in Section 4-9-260D. 2. the request for modification in the Center Residential Demonstration District shall meet the following criteria. a. Project uses a modified street grid system where most buildings front on a street. Where no public streets exist,a grid system within the proiect is provided. b. Project orients residential developments to the street and has primary building entries facing the street. Entries are identified with a prominent feature or detail. c. Parking garages are designed in a way which does not dominate the facade of the residential building.When garages must be located with vehicular access in the front due to physical constraints of the property,they are stepped back from the facade of the building. d. Parking lots are oriented to minimize their visual impact on the site and are designed so that the size and landscaping support the residential character of the developments in contrast to adjacent commercial areas. e. Project provides direct pedestrian access from the street fronting the building and from the back where parking is located. f.Walkways through parking areas are well defined and provide access from public sidewalks into the site. Walkway width is adequate (approximately five feet). Pavers, changes in color, texture or composition of paving are used. g. Pedestrian connections are provided to the surrounding neighborhood. h. Distinctive building design is provided. No single architectural style is required. However, reliance on standardized"corporate"or"franchise"style is discouraged. i. Exterior materials are durable,easily maintainable and attractive even when viewed up close. These materials have texture,pattern,or lend themselves to a high level of quality and detailing. j. A consistent visual identity is applied to all sides of buildings which can be seen by the general public.An equivalent level of quality is provided for materials,detailing and window placement. k. At least one of the following features is incorporated in structures containing three or more attached dwellings: (i)For each dwelling unit,provide at least one architectural protection not less than two feet from the wall plane and not less than four feet wide. (ii)Incorporate building modulation to reduce the overall bulk and mass of buildings (iii)Equivalent vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades which adds interest and quality to the project. • planning/zoning/2escieni page 7 3/4/99 SECTION ELEVEN 4-11-130 DEFINITIONS M MODULATION: A measured setback or offset of a minimum of two feet,at an interval of a minimum of 40 feet on a building face. 4-11-170 DEFINITIONS R REPORT ON DESIGN CRITERIA FOR MODIFICATIONS : A written evaluation issued by the Economic Development, Neighborhoods And Strategic Planning Director, of whether a proposed project qualifies as a superior design and is eligible for modification of development standards based on adopted criteria. planning/zoning/2csdam page 8 n 0 GI] a City of Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan • Foreword This document originated from the need to define the future vision for the City of Renton's Downtown Core. Using the goals and policies in Renton's Comprehensive Plan, this document and the accompanying presentation boards describe future projects that will be part of Renton's Downtown redevelopment and how these projects can be connected with a unifying design vocabulary to create a comprehensive whole. Other concurrent planning including the Renton Downtown Nonmotorized Access to Transit Plan and the Transit Center Preliminary Planning Studies have been integrated into this work where appropriate. The Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan and accompanying boards serve as a general guide for the future improvements. It articulates a vision showing the possibilities of how the Downtown Core could be developed. It should not be thought of as a building code or even set design standards, although elements of this plan could evolve or influence future revisions to these documents. This work should be thought of as a visioning tool with ideas, suggestions, and images that can be used to help the community, local business owners, City staff, future developers, and others understand and implement the desired goals for the future of Downtown Renton. 5 ' Table of Contents City of Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan Page Section I. — Vision Statement 6 Section II. — Basic Principals of Pedestrian-Friendly Design 7 Basic Design Principals Inviting, Active, Interesting Streets and Spaces Convenience/ Walking Distances Protection from the Elements Way-Finding The Streetscape/Sidewalk Area Buffers from Traffic Accessibility Safety and Security Design Considerations Related to Maintenance Section III. — Strategic Implementation Plan 10 Craftsmen Style Elements Basic Description Craftsmen Style Architecture Details, Details, Details Section IV. - Features of Renton the Downtown Core 12 Gateways Focal Points Transit Center Piazza Extension Piazza Urban Park Pipeline Trail • Daily Mixed Use Project Downtown Commercial Business Connections • • `.•ram � ^�` II"; ... _:?1 M1 . • ^ ' \: ''' Lw4 :� •.V•. •• ce 7` `••':,: • s - e I .� ': .. f ".0 -. & '.str4'',,e 4.;;V:e."0 . .- 'c 41 t: 1, i.- •": ': '... .:'. ' 15-1'7,6" - ...:::: t.....-:.,;..0-4 0-e+-_,;-....„ ---.4.4-70,1 ---.•,,,,,,, ,,,, #..., ,•.:_,,,, •.....,A,,,,,if, .. . ..,. ,.„.„ .. ,....,. ,,, , .... • a 1 /.' 111. i �/e \ rr � \ _ �... j �. � „,•••••• •• --7/4t4? ..„..7, ,,,,,,..:„---, 7,1....0, .•••4.10 5! • --1/4 -1,.rst ,‘,. ;-,,...i.,!/:-C.;44 it.i. ',r, ' ' /try:',2fr. Y 4:1F . '1..< 1,0 :' .134011e. '1,4. ._,4,,,,,,,,,,, ,A. '1 1 • /.. '' •'`,•� '' it•s a V.�•. _ !.�'1 >".a, _7+tY 1f Apt/' AgRIAL VIEW CONCEPT • N SCALE 0A- • f'r 1 "The Craftsman Style image bridges Renton's past identity and pride in workmanship with it's future as a more active downtown." _ , IL Basic Principles of Pedestrian-Friendly Design Basic Design Principles Center, connecting trails and from central parking areas. Design principles that qualitatively and quantitatively improve the experience of Protection from the Elements pedestrians can be used to create a pedestrian-friendly Renton Downtown Core. Providing protective eaves, awnings and public and semipublic sheltered spaces ., a 7 7 - _- =-' --iv"; will increase the number of visitors on s ,i,fa ° :.i , inclement days and nights. During , sunny days, the protective areas provide =t :• ; shade. <y�A u _y4`� 1;�� .: .;. Way-Finding . y Clear orientation is important for 7;r _,; _ti.: ... '' pedestrians to feel safe and avoid i < < +� , �.-z4 frustration. Landmarks such as the key Cif :.: ... "t _1'.` •1-1.;: L.A..Cot e.s-T features and gateways will establish p p/.7%14 orientation. Clearly marked and easy to understand signs are also important, not Inviting, Active, Interesting only for pedestrians but also for drivers. Streets and Spaces A clearly defined connection north to the Cedar River should be enhanced to People will be attracted to the provide a clear geographic orientation Downtown Core if there is a variety of within the larger context of l Renton. interesting things to do and see. Integrating the Craftsman Style into the design of the new features, gateways and The Streetside/Sidewalk Area connections will provide appeal to the range of public and private spaces and Pedestrian routes should be safe, enterprises. Residents and visitors will convenient, unobstructed and generous be more inclined to take advantage of in size. The sidewalk is the main route shopping, dining, or just relaxing. As of travel and can provide a consistent improvements are made, more people will come to the area attracting more streetscape and urban design vocabulary for the Craftsman Style image in the businesses which, in turn, will provide a Downtown Core. draw for even more people. Convenience and Walking Buffers from Traffic Distances Pedestrians feel safer when buffered The Downtown Core will include from traffic. In the urban cbntext of the Downtown Core, on-street parking will convenient access from the Transit nani „ i, Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan 7 II. Basic Principles of Pedestrian-Friendly Design can help to solve not only with durable materials. Places with public art are typically respected especially if potential vandals feel some connection to these places. • • • Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan 9 otak III. Strategic Implementation Plan Details, Details, Details! A central paradox in the Arts and Crafts Movement was that individual craftsmanship often precluded the desire to create a democratic art. The art of hand-crafted materials was typically only available to the rich, while machine made products could be affordable to many, they weren't actually hand-crafted. The solution to this paradox is in the element that unites Craftsman Style detailing. A hand-crafted look can be achieved when care and thought in the overall design is expressed in the.details of the materials and their construction. Whether by hand or by machine, the vision of the Craftsman Style can be achieved through quality design and an attention to details. Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan 11 otak • IV. Features of the Renton Downtown Core . •cf - • _`•'`*" park plan in 1998. .: Proposal: The Piazza Urban Park is a '::-. - _ '1:� to : ..'N"``"'' , focal point and major public amenity for �� wg .• '�' "• the Renton Downtown Core. It should . 4iL : i *- �� I be the heart of the Renton community- isr:'' ' '- ` : `, the civic and social center. As a i urban ,;.'� = '�:��.., ii .�' M -j�'rr ., park, it will be a refuge from busy Ailt___ I a. _. '� '• 2 sidewalks, streets and buildings. People �_ �..n.., .':•.n-..- -�,.�-..- , can gather, socialize, or relax. It will ` "'0` also provide a place for outdoor public "l' -r—rtiiZA! <1 . •:s:/0',.... . events. I I I .. I I I Proposal: The Transit Center provides --r 1*: --�-: ;; ~ ` a unique opportunity for integrating the ( :i ; '; ,:- L t'i n Craftsman Style into the center of the ) `'""''` �j F' Renton Downtown Core. The bus ' .•", 4— shelters and main structure should - a ` architecturally integrate Craftsman • . `Fr 'A' .y _ . Style design elements while maintaining ` { D_ all functional and safety standards set by , ; =' 3`t)r- = r- - -�� 4_y (j'" - Metro and the City of Renton. The !-.-1.;.;; significant revisions to sidewalks and 0rpo�,.-..•eos «���^ streetscape that will be necessary for 0/*/r construction provide ample opportunity to integrate the pedestrian-friendly, Piazza Extension Plaza Craftsman Style vision outlined in this plan. It is also encouraged that the Location: Northwest corner of Logan design of the Transit Center include an and Third. art component. Community involvement Status: Owned by the City of Renton, through art would be a way for citizens currently is an empty lot next to Big 5 to take an active role in the process and Sporting Goods. Area will be improved develop a sense of pride and ownership to coincide with the developments of the with the Transit Center. surrounding projects. Proposal: With the development of the Daily Mixed Use Project, the Piazza Piazza Urban Park Urban Park, and the Pipeline Trail, this area is both a key gateway and a key Location: North side of Third between focal point. Emphasis should be on how Burnett and Logan. this space functions as a gateway and Status: Owned by City of Renton. The connects between the surrounding City is clearing the pavement and projects. It will extend the Piazza Urban demolishing the Southeast part of the Park and serve as a transitional space ^.,. existing building in preparation for the between the park, the Daily project and the Pipeline Trail. The relationship to park. The Parks and Recreation Dept. will use a design consultant to prepare a Big 5 Sporting Goods which borders the Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan 13 W. Features of the Renton Downtown Core Connections Connections to and from these key surrounding activity areas are important in making the Downtown Core part of the larger Renton community. The non- motorized pedestrian and bike trail systems connects the downtown with the surrounding area. Connecting the Downtown Core with the Cedar River Trail should be a major priority. Burnett could provide that link physically and visually with enhancements that tie together the area from the Linear Park all the way to the Cedar River. New development must include provisions for making . connections from the Downtown Core to the following: •Linear Park •Cedar River Trail •Lake Washington •Community Center •Senior Center •Renton High School • •Civic Center •Spirit of Washington Train •Renton Airport •Boeing •Other Businesses • Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan 15 V. Circulation and Parking intersections such as on Burnett at Second and Burnett and Third, button- Trucks/ Freight Traffic controlled signaled crossing is necessary to ensure safety. With the exception of servicing local businesses, large trucks should be discouraged in the Downtown Core to Cars enhance the pedestrian-friendly environment. Balancing the need for convenient access with the need to create a pedestrian- friendly environment is important in the Downtown Core. Currently, the major Transit through-fares are Second and Third. As Renton continues to develop and grow, Buses will be central feature in the there will be an increase in traffic Downtown Core with the addition of the volumes. Improvements to alternative Transit Center. The future RTA routes, and the enhancement to the commuter and light rail systems will be transit system will help in distributing tied together with the bus system. This the increased volume away from Second convenience will increase ridership and and Third. Transportation management bring many people into the Downtown will help in ensuring local traffic in the Core. Riders will be made up of a cross Downtown Core is generated from those section of the population. There will be who are residents or visitors rather than those coming to central Renton for those passing through. school, business or entertainment, commuters who live in Renton but work elsewhere, and persons who are Parking transferring busses at the Transit Center. Provisions for these various A major issue for both existing types of riders need to be incorporated businesses and future development is into the future design of key features parking. Currently there is a perceived and connections. lack of parking by many local businesses. This is not because of the number of spaces available, but because the Bicycles parking is poorly integrated into the overall layout of the Downtown Core. Bicycle, connections between the As new developments come in and other , Downtown Core and surrounding areas properties are redeveloped, new parking will be important. There are a variety of areas will be added and existing parking types of bicycle riders. Bicycle areas can be better configured to fit commuters use roads and high speed within the fabric of a pedestrian-friendly trails or a combination of bike and bus to environment. If properly designed and travel to and from their destinations. planned, travel to and from parking will Low speed recreational bicyclists will be be safe and convenient. pedaling for pleasure. The Lake Washington Loop Trail will draw all Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan o17 VI. The Renton Downtown Core streetscape Elements The streetscape will be the unifying factor is slip-resistant and has grate openings in the Downtown Core. It will articulate too small to catch heels. Centers must the Craftsman Style theme and be large enough to handle the girth of a pedestrian-friendly design articulated mature street tree. The Renton throughout the various streetscape Downtown Core should have tree grates elements. These elements must be detailed with geometric designs compatible with each other to reinforce evocative of the Craftsman Style. the overall concept and image. -,,A,'.0."-"p:..-.I_'..1t_t..-„1s.=;.z:..-4_,;.--•4's_4.%56..7-.,.-, w A.:-1.i.'• ,,r, yi ,4,;it1.,,,::r.•.i:-.,ir-;.-:,- ? } -.'.'lam 'Tr.rC'`-• - 5:4 t.-7-.i:i...t.,._-.„'.:Z tr`-^„•`. 41 -VATC- Vein s' Street Trees - "N2-1 ` , ' �. '•' '-'-,. 1' c.;5. . io b i y Street trees have a major effect on the "" ` "1,1' �.i'' 7.1- '" ' quality of a downtown. They provide , _ r: s Zt1 - shelter, scale, air quality, seasonal color, ` 17' �`''�' �" 1.h' =_ _--t ; '• '•ate' � � -_' . : visual interest, and they unify the �- " •. '„ L �1- " downtown with a common identity. '1`- There is a large variety of street trees 1="'0~~ "''•fi '" •` which do well in the Northwest. In the ' `ts�, ~ "` ;i','' Downtown Core a street tree plan or a •'�Y'".4� e ;.. = palate of appropriate trees should be ti k';yf. " :::. -- `='� ' established to ensure consistency. Some h�!t tiS:• ••-:;'_' "' r;;•::; . considerations when selecting include . ;^ v l• ,...� ,;4..., ; =<< size, growth habits, longevity, seasonal /4"-e-s i-71. t-,T4 colors, maintenance of leaf and fruit, Planters root behavior, resistance to pests and disease, and costs. Planters will add detail, texture, color ���,,;�� and scale. They can define exterior \J\C;�44' . tu''.G ''m» t-°" _h; -, spaces and enhance architectural ���;;, = facades. They will help to define routes >'" ^ `R \�/%/-,P.-�\ of travel and make the Downtown Core • ':7. ,•' /llilll .�ri a FAN' 4UACELCPE ECJ more pedestrian-friendly. In additions; the plant materials can add fragrance, (`� color and seasonal change. Ln ILL ev++a cEx \ c� There is a wide range of types and sizes 7���i;o of planters which can be used in a s- _� F� variety of ways. Custom planters can be �� � "p� built in place. Low one can be edged ' l:i t �gul'` with pavers, rocks, or lumber. Taller s2`Tc'.rs�" s"� RATplanters can be constructed of walls. t'�Jr'�t�2 .fir m ���� Tree Grates Large planter pots are typically round, Tree grates let water pass through, but square or rectangular and can be made protect roots and keep out debris. They out of plastic, metal, terra cotta, wood, must provide a safe walking surface that stone, or concrete. For public uses, cast Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan 19 ntak VI. The Renton Downtown Core Streetscape Elements Core. It will extend the business appropriate would have a similar level activity into the evening (which comes of styling and detail found in the other early in the winter), increase safety and streetscape elements. security, and add visual interest. The round balloon-like lights are pleasing, Other lighting can be used to further but do not cast as much light as the enhance significant features, gateways, downcast lights and may need and connections. Each key feature will supplemental fixtures for areas that have its own lighting needs, but should could be hazardous at night. Lights be thought out in terms of the context of should be positioned to ensure ground the streetscape as a whole. Significant plain is properly illuminated. areas should stand out at night and help to create evening activity. As more .yam _ businesses move in and buildings are ='% renovated, consideration should be given ^1.�_' -'.4 to the relationship between their a v. architectural lighting and the a ,. ' streetscape. Seasonal lighting such as ;� ,1, ,? ,� Christmas lights will also enhance `the s _:,f " '' Downtown Core and help to create the kl/4\i,e)7 ,-;.; 1 ' focus for the Renton Community. wi r :.c'X/. (.,r tig:: t. r ?% ( qr• r +:S . � ^.Sy i�pr��T4� Benches and Seating =try ' ;;;?,s, :�^':. -f. M _1 Providing places to rest, relax, read, ..3 e r• lunch, socialize or just people watch is r ) very important in a pedestrian-friendly �' . environment. Benches are the obvious ` f• , • choice for providing these places, but T • " • "'' a-! alternative, less formal areas should also ; 'ti=..i . . — •-ti I• be considered. Creating a variety of Via;-,...�-s .��y,��_� - 1 _+t. - ! seating places is best to give the users +; r.-0, ,-� t ,7- options in all sorts of weather. Some -_=- _ !'C-.:,:i;= seating should be sheltered, other areas ,_ I. :` should be more exposed. =�f--cam_ _ _ ' . . -- ': s: I: Benches can be constructed of many �;,,� types of materials, but they must be 7 - durable and non transportable when Lamp posts are not only functional, they installed in a public setting. In keeping are stylistic elements onto themselves. with the Craftsman Style theme, the Besides holding lights overhead, they steal and wood benches that have some can serve as holders for hanging plants, decorative detail on the legs and sides banners, and signs. There is a wide are a good choice and could be'placed in variety of styles, but the most the plaza or piazza. They can be secured Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan 21 VL The Renton Downtown Core Streetscape Elements such as the route to the Cedar River direct influence on the key features. could also be pointed out with the use of One example is having an artist work signs. A sign that has a map would with local schools to have students assist visitors in finding their way create individual tiles that could be around and to the other key connections affixed to interior walls of a bus shelter. that surround the Downtown Core. When the community is involved, they develop a sense of pride and ownership Businesses should have signs that that will add to the quality of the reflect the nature of their business while Downtown Core. The design of all key fitting into the overall context. Sign gateways, focal points and connections regulations identify size, placement and should have a public art element. quality, but businesses should be encouraged to be creative within these Creating public art should not be limited limitations. Signs can have a strong to the larger key features. An active and influence on creating not only the ongoing arts program could add to what business' image, but also the image of may seem to be a more mundane project the Downtown Core. Interesting, or streetscape element. Simple creative and varied business signs will additions to any of the streetscape ` be inviting and show visitors there is a elements such as paving, street trees, or wide range of interesting things to do even trash receptacles could add to the and see. interest of the Downtown Core. Public Art Water Features Art is the expression of thoughts, ideas, Having water features in the Downtown perceptions and emotions made real Core would be great public amenities through a medium such as sculpture or especially ones that provide interaction performance. For public art, the on hot summer days. The Piazza Urban expression is placed in a public setting. Park or Plaza extension are areas that Many successful public art projects could benefit from a central water enhance the identity of the community feature. A water feature could be deign by reflecting its intrinsic qualities to act as a gateway element. Besides whether historical, cultural, or physical. cooling the air on summer days, Public art will add to Renton's sense of fountains create a focus and have a civic identity by increasing awareness of relaxing effect because of the sound. the area and its history. Water features could be part of an arts program or incorporated into the Public art is also an opportunity for a proposal of these two projects. The community to get involved in the design or public art could draw on the strategic implementation of the civic thematic connection of the Cedar River improvements. When public art is Trail, Lake Washington or even the integrated into the initial stages of a water easement and pipeline. project, community groups can participate with artists and have a Renton Downtown Core Strategic Implementation Plan 23 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public vvorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: vwmtC Dtte r,vm,to COMMENTS DUE: 3/8/99 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 23, 1999 APPLICANT: M.K.D. Development(Victor Malen) PROJECT MANAGER: PETER ROSEN PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78487 LOCATI JN: 100 Williams Avenue South SITE AR EA: 24,000s.f. I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal to construct a six story building with 79 multi-family residential units. The center of the building s designed as an open courtyard. Parking is provided in the building for 85 vehicles, with one parking level underground and one at street level. Access to the parking and the building entry is off Williams Avenue South. The density of the proposal is 143.6 dv'elling units per acre. The site is zoned residential multi-family urban which allows a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre with design review. A. EN✓IRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element,,f the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environn ent Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Wafer Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Sha eline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POi_ICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have rt viewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addirional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. --2,79,0c-,,,,0 .vin( . 1 Signature of Director or Auionze Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC\ Rev ' 4 [ . ..':....:: '.1i.I'' .......i.,...,,,.',.....,.-...•• : CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT,SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site FROJECTNAME: C.--)I . 49 - PAR'\--MEtilT APPLICATION NO: LUA •91 - 013 ,gIR -114, tec,i 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 ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER S.e ,177-C(-/eD • DEVELOPMENT PLAN;LING CITY OF RENTON FEB 0b 1999 RECEIVED (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) (Continued) N4IE ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Applicant Certification I, /VD,' i A/j 25 7 / V1, hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: City of Renton Technical Services Records Title Company Records King County Assessors Records Signe Date 2 5)1 7 (Applicant) NOTARY ATTESTED: S bsci�be,^d and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, residing at rl on the S41 day of 3 , 19 91 . Signed —ILC (Notary Public) ****For City of Renton Use***' CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I, ` Y, 1 z& _ scc- hereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to (City Employee) each listed property owner on 2 Signed S lu..Y'- r x— Date: 2--�`� NOTARY ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing a H42-vaa..,., on the day of knra 1.q,',. , 19gc. Signed list prop.doc REV 07/98 MARILYN KAMCHEFF 2 COMMISSION EXPIRES C/29/99 cic**a4*a'<<a}cr•<*ski,<'c*9hsC**a3c******at*4,c**A**'***acs4*4 ;t (ci4*i4**xic* af<* ',< '****** ;caic**** ,•c*s4*******9ka4**** :t BATCH NUMBER: VK COMMENTS �< CUSTCPER NAME MKC DEVELOPMENT 000720-0053-05 000720-0055-03 JOHNSON JAMES G R0576 OFARRA MICHAEL E 5N9999 4258 SW SUNSET DRIVE 94 WILLIAMS AVE S LAKE CSWEGO OR 97034 RENTON WA 98056 000720-0062-04 000720-00E1-01 CITY OF RENTON 912777 RIVERVIEW APARTMENTS 590267 BENNETT W E C/C GRAN INC 200 MILL AVE S 1C21 1ST AVE W RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98199 000720-0082-00 000720-0085-07 MACOCNALC E 8 6895S5 GCCOEN VIRGIL B & LANCE 0 002250 123 MAIN AVE S 5763 OAKLAWN PL S RENTON WA 9E055 SEATTLE WA 98118 000720-0026-06 000720-00E9-03 NGUYEN ALEXANDER H+MARY 4C95SS ELLIOTT SHARON 681020 1C4 WELLS AVE S 114 WELLS AVE S RENTCN WA 96C55 RENTCN WA 98055 000720-0090-00 000720-0091-09 GANNON J K +L E LIVING TRST119S95 CUSTER CHARLES L C/0 GANNON JACK K+LCIS E TRSTEES 118 WELLS AVE S 22925 SE 292ND PL RENTON WA 98055 KENT WA 98042 000720-0092-08 000720-0093-07 PCRTERA KIMBERLY 057096 TOMALIN WILLIAM E E MARY E C/O DAVID P TRACY ATTY 10464 FCFEST AVE S 1C8 WELLS AVE S SEATTLE WA 98178 RENTCN WA 98055 000720-0094-06 000720-0095-05 CITY CF RENTON 912777 ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CHURCH 687777 BENNETT W E 99 WELLS AVE S 0C938—CC1 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 92055 000720-0096-04 000720-0096-02 STCRWICK R E R117E SCOTT JENNIFER M+ED'WARDS ST609999 PC BOX 78327 11S MAIN AVE S SEATTLE WA SE17E RENTON WA 98055 000720-0104-04 000720-0109-09 TENNESSEE GROUP L.L.C. 670514 TENNESSEE GROUP L.L.C. 670915 710 S 2ND ST 71C S 2NG ST RENTCN WA 5E055 RENTON WA 98055 000720-0111-05 000720-0116—C8 SCHULTZ NORMAN M+MARIAN 635995 COOPER ROBERT T 7634 S SUNNYCREST RC 87 WILLIAMS AVE SO SEATTLE WA 98172 RENTON WA 98055 VVV I C.V l/1 C.L vC . v•S I a..V V 1 U r SCHMIDT MARGARET L 559959 ANDERSON ROBERT L 1N1243 7136 S SUNNYCREST RD 316 CAPT G! CT SE SEATTLE WA 98178 OCEAN SHORES WA 98569 000720-0145-05 000720-0147-03 EUENC MATHEW C+BUENO MONICA7D9999 RYAN MAXWELL H 729999 913 HARRINGTON AVE NE ':6 P C BOX 336 RENTCN WA 98056 RENTON WA 98057 000720-0162-03 000720-0164-01 GANNCN GREG 462176 ST LUKES EPISCCPAL CHURCH 687777 BREWER NANCY 99 WELLS AVE S 00938-001 308C8 SE 384TH RENTON WA 98055 ENUMCLAW WA 98022 000720-0168-07 000720-0186-05 KEN FOUR INC ST LUKES EPISCOPAL CH RENTONC0376 PC BOX 59 99 WELLS AVE S RENTCN WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 ' 723150-1090-04 723150-1095-09 ESELL CORPORATION 339999 FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAS-0177 126 WELLS AVE S PC BOX 358 RENTCN WA 9E055 RENTON WA 98055 723150-1950-03 723150-1965-06 SCHULTZ NORMAN M+MARIAN 639999 SHABRO JEAN 8 830053 7634 S SUNNYCREST RD C/0 OERTEL NANCY SEATTLE WA 98178 6018 SW CUPOLA OR NEWPORT CR 97365 723150-1970-09 723150-1979—CO 8ELHCNDC FAMILY LTD PRTNRSH872980 U S BANK CORPORATE PROPS 883506 1835 NE 12TH ST 2800 E LAKE ST RENTCN WA 98056 LAKE0012 MINNEAPOLIS "oN 55406 723150-2005-06 723150-2020-07 BELMCNDG FAMILY LTD PRTNRSH872980 KING KENNETH 274268 1835 NE 12TH ST 350 SUNSET BLVD N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 723150-2030-05 723150-2085-09 MCLENOON HARDWARE INC CUGINI ALEX JR 710 2ND AVE 611 RENTCN AVE S RENTCN WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 723150-2120-06 723150-2125-01 TENNESSEE GROUP LLC 889999 STCRWICK R E 704181 710 S 2N0 ST , PO PDX 78327 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 723150-2130-04 STORWICK R E 704181 PC BOX 78327 SEATTLE WA 9817E VN. Y� 0rC� Dsneity: The net...,.,,,,athe proposal is 143.84 dwelling units per acre.The ♦ C� ♦ Residential Multi-Family Urban(RM-U)zone allows a maximum density of 150 .n dwelling units per acre with design review. r�j�rT.� Development Regulations Ueed For Project Mitigation: The proposal will be subject to the City's Environmental Ordinance,Zoning NOTICE OF APPLICATION Code,Subdivision Ordinance,Public Works Standard's,etc. These adopted codes and standards will function to mitigate project impacts. AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF Proposed Mitigation Measures: NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED(DNS, M) Mite urea address Mitigationproject impacts not coveredr by imposed codes an regulationse as cited above.recommended Mitigation The following ing be 1.Traffic Mitigation Fee-$75.00 per new average daily trip attributed to the proposal. 2.Fire Mitigation Fee-$388.00 per new multi-family dwelling unit DATE: FEBRUARY 23,1999 3.Parks Mitigation fee-3354.5/per new multifamily dwelling unit LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Peter Rosen.Project Manager.Development APPLICATION NAME: CEDAR APARTMENTS Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on March 15,1999. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on April 20,1999,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant,MKD Development Company,proposes to construct■six Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton. If you am Interested In attending the hearing,please contact the story building with 79 multifamily residential units.The center of the building is designed as an open courtyard. Parking Development Services Division,(425)430-7282,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled. Ls provided in the building for 85 vehicles,with one parking level underground and one at street level. Access to the If comments cannot be submitted in willing by the dale indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present parking and the budding entry Is off Williams Avenue South.The density of the proposal is 143.8 dwelling units per acre. your comments on theproposal before the HearingExaminer. Ifyou havequestions about this The site Is zoned Residential Multi-Family Urban(RM.U)which allows a maximum density of 150 dwellingunits proposal,0- 19.or won to be with design review. per acre made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mr.Rosen et(t25)430-721 g. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be noticed of any decision on this project. PROJECT LOCATION: 100 Williams Avenue South CONTACT PERSON: Peter Rosen OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of 'PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,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: February 5,1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 19,1999 u' ra 'a - '❑'r 17 \ n APPLICANT: MKD Development •,-«Q Co.,Inc. o t Q n >,�.�a e OWNER: MKD Development Co.,Inc. ".0 a lr] 4,T-57 <Penults/Review Requested: SEPA Environmental Review,Site Plan Review 'ss„ a.®, rQ.,- y, N. JONES �.9.Other Penults which may be required: Construction Permits,Building Permits Mt < + "�• PARKy Requested Studies: Geolechnicel Report,Drainage Report IBI F F� CO Location where application may _I• aJa rr �-�'q -r.. cos °0 ,�,r. air `ec be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1 c 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA g8055 - ;Al Li's� r•' ., p.? o`ge' ,aln ` f PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 20, 1999 before the Renton P '��I Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings -_1fi.0 ® 5`r, _ ar I �� g begin Shut, on 14 ,. —�— the 71h floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. IS ( � _ �..a". '•„[7, .ran r,r,�ly`y,- CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: 14 q I) Analytical process 11 I l01'IRiirry 'Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or In ' = - Y I , their absence,comprehensive plan policies. RCW 38.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA) �Q(�(�1 `(Include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of ' I Mil C development,infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice. At a minimum, ++�every NOA shall Include a determination of the projects consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and S development regulations. ZNd al ram Land Use: The subject site is zoned Residential Multi-Family Urban(RM-U). It is also . m located within the Downtown Core Area which exempts development projects la Ii @� Mil — li L • from parking,building lot coverage,and landscape requirements. The proposal i�� B is consistent with other applicable standards of the RM-U zone. " ,+ di ,, �r GENMO LOT.DOC GENMALOT DOC CERTIFICATION I, E5S,ick [ viQIpp-U , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on a. i Iq CI . Signed: lr:ti_... ..p_..-,.�lr--ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public, an the State of Washington residing in`-()A -, , on the 3 r 6 day of---)'rl 0-4 %__I, t ct ii. -------) -11 a_)4,,_ 541"a--,-v-L CA4,---6.°3 MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 A ''NTO NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS, M) DATE: FEBRUARY 23,1999 LAND USE N JMBER: LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF APPLICATIOI J NAME: CEDAR APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, MKD Development Company, proposes to construct a six story building with 79 multi-family residential units. The center of the building is designed as an open courtyard. Parking is provided in :he building for 85 vehicles, with one parking level underground and one at street level. Access to the parking and th 3 building entry is off Williams Avenue South. The density of the proposal is 143.6 dwelling units per acre. The site is zoned Residential Multi-Family Urban (RM-U)which allows a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre with design rep iew. PROJECT LO;ATION: 100 Williams Avenue South OPTIONAL D:TERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has d 3termined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as lyermitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M) process to give notice that a DI JS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single Comm ant period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significant e Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPL CATION DATE: February 5, 1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 19,1999 APPLICANT: MKD Development Co.,Inc. <- OWNER: MKD Development Co., Inc. Permits/Reviev,Requested: SEPA Environmental Review,Site Plan Review Other Permits vhich may be required: Construction Permits,Building Permits Requested Stu lies: Geotechnical Report,Drainage Report Location when application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARI JG: Public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 20, 1999 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 Grady Way South. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Analytical process Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations, or in their absence, comprehensive plan policies. RCW 36.70B.110(2)(g) provides that the Notice of Application (NOA) include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use, level of development, inl-astructure, and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice. At a minimum, every NOA sha I include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning, comprehensive plan and development reg ilations. Land Use: The subject site is zoned Residential Multi-Family Urban (RM-U). It is also located within the Downtown Core Area which exempts development projects from parking, building lot coverage, and landscape requirements. The proposal is consistent with other applicable standards of the RM-U zone. GENMALOT.DOC Density: The net density of the proposal is 143.64 dwelling units per acre. The Residential Multi-Family Urban(RM-U)zone allows a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre with design review. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The proposal will be subject to the City's Environmental Ordinance, Zoning Code, Subdivision Ordinance, Public Works Standard's, etc. These adopted codes and standards will function to mitigate project impacts. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. 1.Traffic Mitigation Fee-$75.00 per new average daily trip attributed to the proposal. 2.Fire Mitigation Fee-$388.00 per new multi-family dwelling unit. 3.Parks Mitigation fee-$354.51 per new multi-family dwelling unit. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Peter Rosen, Project Manager, Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on March 15,1999. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on April 20, 1999, 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, contact Mr. Rosen at (425) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Peter Rosen PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION :ai.7 N. „r.0 t.pC n rb el 'a /ZF "7I ca.,„, 99 I ti 70220 a• 1=J:. 99 ,u, R. 'ONES s NOV N t®rcar rr. ,99 . PARK Io .. rper20 �; r. 9J ir.sa... [mama 0 , • 3 8 103 ®2 LI 7e90 •U8 ra¢ re si lof :I)...-® . ^ 3 or'f Its No r ref— ) la ® • ® •5 wirnse� --xr e� r'•AB.u 15_ � � IaL tE1 .craz 4 i�i o a��,,� 6 I 3 v, r r..2 e Ri, 13 o � b a 3�� rb 2 Z —4-- no zc r • � � to H S. 2ND tte 19 n6 � K - ;2 1 c t ,, r 9 0-.,� 2, I r: 209 • .„0,0"63 Ig j Zoe — . IQ .,., 1 ?IA Il ZIl. 7i9 dt Il 1 !_tunnel nT nine. •• CITY F RENTON .i Planning/Building/Public Works Department Greggimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor gg February 22, 1999 Mr. Victor Malen M.K.D. Development Co., Inc. 10020-A Main Street Suite B-110 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments Project No. LUA-99-013,SA-H,ECF Dear Mr. Malen: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on March 23, 1999. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. The date of Tuesday, April 20, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., has been set for a public hearing to review the above-referenced matter. The hearing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Heariing Examiner, will be held in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Citiy Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. Please contact me, at (425) 430-7219, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Peter Rosen Project Manager ACCPTLTR.DOC 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 Thic nanny nnnrainc sn i rnn�nia�marnriai 2n i nncr nnr, n nr es CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION Note:;If there is more than one legal owner, please attach an additional notarized Master Application for each owner. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: M.K.D.DEVELOPMENT CO. ,INC. 47 PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 10020—A MAIN ST. B-110 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): CITY: BELLEVUE , WA. ZIP: 98004 -a3 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-454-8990 EXISTING LAND USE(S): APPLICANT of other than owner) PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: F I COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:` E d�1T�'-- 49pw es,T 4 ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applic. le) N� CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: 1�- k4 TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): CONTACT PERSON i .r T" SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE);:+ NAME: VICTORF. MALEN, PRESIDENT p ���++ r °3 COMPANY(if applicable): •-• PRO ECT VALUE: M.K.D.DEVELOPMENT CO. ,INC. ADDRESS: 10020—A MAIN ST. B-110 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? NO CITY' BELLEVUE,WA. ZIP: 98004 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTA .Y SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-454-8990 LEGAL DESC 'TION'OF PROPERTY (Attach ser...ate sheet if necessary) TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES Check all application types that apply--City staff will determine fees. _ ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLJN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE $ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ :,:?,1:OG _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CCU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _ VARIANCE $ (FRON,1SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _ WAIVER $ _ FINAL _ WETLAND PERMIT $ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _ VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charge \ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ 500.CO REVISION $ PRESIDE.AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name) VictorF. Malen declare mat fn (please.,c a one)XXthe owner of the property involved in this application,_the authorized representative to act for the property owner(pleas;�t�1c'Y[�o frpythorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein co h information herewith submitted are in all eihe�ts••p.• 4or ct to the best of my knowledge and belief. bVELOPMENT CO. INC. �•`��•••5\0N FAA 9�� 10020 MP'N ST. B-110 ...cr.:,` TARY� ' <" BELLE'/L _, WA 98004 - • 0''° Notary �- _ � AlA1�6 • subscribed and sworn to before me, a Public, in and '• • u the Ca of/,f,'45n .'7t'/Jesiding at (Name of Owner epresentative) = PuBt.1G , on the ?day of UDCeir -- 77/.44.,_,/ giii.... --, c�•. .;XL .- n nature of Owner/Representative) ����'QNl W` s j�,,y 7N f'/�� 4' '/' (Si �L ��z /, � (Sig ture of Notary Public) , (This section to be completed by City Staff.) City File Number: A AAD BSP CAP-S CAP-U CPA CU-A CU-H itZDLLA MHP FPUD ,<FP PP R `RVMP(SA-A�} SA-H SHPL-A SHPL-H SP SM SME , P V-A ''V-B V-H W TOTAL FEES: $ ii 0,(X3 TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED: $ • MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 Project Description • d Williams Street Cedar Apartments A 47 Unit Development The current use of the site is single family. The lot is zoned RM-U, and the proposed use is for 47 residential units with parking for 8' cars. There is no parking required for this project as per municipal records. There are two levels of parking one underground and one at street level. There are three levels of living spaces. The floor space for the living units consisting of two bedroans and two baths will be approximately 831 square feet. There are two elevators and three stairs included for access. Approximate project cost preliminary estimate is $ 4,000,000.00. The main entrance to the building will be through a security iron gate and covered couryard leading to stairs and elevators. The exterior of the building will be vinyl siding with accent sections of stucco. We are providing a substantial number of bay windows for aesthetics and additonal floor space. In the center of the building is a open courtyard providing desirable light and ventilation. All required utilities are available at the street frontage. We are anticipating installing a new 12" water main loop to service this project and fire hydrants if required. The access right-of-way is Williams Street. The street is fully improved macadam paved with concrete curb and sidewalk. Vehicular access to site shall be fran Williams Street and modification of curb cut location shall be required for driveways. The site is flat, A soils report has been prepared. The foundation has been designed on a piling substrate to accommodate soil conditions. A drainage plan has been engineered. Qn site storm water is to be collected and conveyed directly to municipal storm sewer located in Williams Street right of way. LL,r=LOPMENT PLAi:. 421 CITY OF RENTON JIN1i 1.959 RECEIVED There are a few trees on site which will be removed along with existing structures to allow for construction. The existing street trees in the right-of-may in front of the site shall be protected and shall remain. There is no landscaping required for this project as per municipal records. The site shall be excavated partially approximately to a depth of five feet to accommodate parking garage structure. The disposal site for the soils has not been established at this time. The development and construction company, MKD Development Co.,Inc. has been incorporated since 1974 in the State of Washington. For the past 12 years the company has done multi- family construction exclusively. This project is truly going to be an enhancement to the property and to the City of Renton. r..•so 1. ' i� (=7 /I Lt." 7.` 1, \ y ' _,1„ ?4' 78 ,-4! fig I � 1LJ.W 81 in r�i47 N. 'z' .149> 84 rL53 t C),..c. i< 09 lal 3 /2Z 95 r�55 Tc88 �� JONES 9� SUM 4-0. rl..v� E r *El �r.410 r.L. t 99 t PA/1.Jr •1 4 44 /00 rrii T.L.91 •. 1 20 M - �,!� TL.9.1 . . . -• T 6z --- - - 3 •i tC 2 I `\ 105 60 .• M• zL.86 i07 — r � t . T. .loS A777- 3 10;� P. u832 i._:. 71.90 ri. ni 1 U 8 rL• T.L.81 , -17 11i a 89 �c r -- • - ios �g PPS _.... 16 I = MI 4 ';1ST a T.C./6B` 118 .91 gig •L .! d7 IS . 12.4 1 , 14 c� ti m T.L.b'r 1.,T.CB Nil 'E 14 cr' . gyp-/ ..,-,.���" 6 13 _- - - 3-i- _ _ _ a i L. / �2 13 V p i �� 1 1 a . `'0 4 3 _ �� til 1/ " 1 /ro1. B A N A' _/2v `' ix r* 7N OF ` S 2NDFFR u51,09 w . ._ , , , / , i , 0 - ., , „ , t , ( qv ; D MV rot"' 1 1 .1 I s G I to, z ‘: 1 i 51. 1 r+�, zt75 ? 209 aPARK t � t 18 209 Mil 1 1.1 an i 17 2 zi3 x r) t /) AZ _ 11 Construction Mitigation /02-//O Williams Street Cedar Apartments A 47 Unit Development The construction shall proceed in a professional and orderly manner in cmnpliance with all jurisdicional codes and workmanlike construction practices. Construction shall commence at 7:33 A.M.and shall conclude at 6;00 P.M. Monday through Friday as required to complete the work. Construction is estimated to durate eight months, and shall commence upon receipt of required juridictional permits. Full detailed construction schedule will be furnished upon request as required. All traffic as required for construction shall proceed with minimum impact upon the cannnity. Streets and site shall be kept clear of all debris, and shall be cleaned if required. Site shall be properly barricaded and posted. All construction material shall be professionally removed and delivered as required. Traffic control plan for during construction and route of travel for construction traffic has not been established at this time, and will be adressed prior to camiencument of construction. CITY OFIJ REN OI+, 4 .11/A1 1 ./ 1999 D Cit of Y Renton DENSITY WORKSHEETii;i1;,:'"::•:'":':•:•-• • 1. Gross area property: 1. e00 square feet 2. Certain areas are excluded from the calculation. These include public roadways and sensitive areas*. Total excluded area: 2. square feet 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area (or total of lot areas): 3. square feet 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 4. acres 5. Number of dwelling units (d.u.) planned: 5. units 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. /4g. (l d.u./acre 447 lofs would result in a net density of dwelling units per acre. * Sensitive areas are defined as "areas not suitable for development which are included within the City's greenbelt, geologically hazardous, wetlands, or flood plain regulations." (City Code Section 4-31-2: Definitions -LOF'��, rlT Per.". .,. . CITY OF REt O;J FEB 05 1;;;;9 DENSITY.DOC RECEIVED CITY OF RENTON • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environs nental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse ii:rpacts 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 environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or"does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them m er 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 PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should<be, read- "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area,"respectively. (Wry of RE' 8N...,4' v RECEI VEO Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:�� f---- r W 7 I� 1 /O V`n t.. /A.,-- 5 A?' 2. Name of applicant: 47 PE.\/0--t9PNA 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: I Cdc 2-0 fr t�/lr"'GI►�"� �T 4. Date checklist prepared: / 12-. 24 °1 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. t--4 c � � 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List anygovernmental approvals orpermits that will be needed foryour proposal, if known. PP P P 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site, mod] V It-I�T PbNP,*a2--— ►v1 0-1 T u l locr`bc- 2 • • Environmental Checklist 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. �19� .. I 10 \r--1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS i 1. EARTH a. , General description of the site (circle one)411 rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) j...�1/gL... 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. ` Jp /,1.1D i, d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. e %4 Pam.- f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. }gyp/, g. About what percent of the site will be covered wr ;mpervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? • Environmental Checklist h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: t ( rJ fiJ ' yw w 4.4,Gsr 2. , AIR • a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If .any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. f—{ai►`'�� . C. Proposed measures to reduce orr control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: �0 'i v' r 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 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. • 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. 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. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5) • Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. 11 t7 4 '+ Environmental Checklist 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. dH b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water.be,withdrawn,.or will water be discharged to ground 'voter? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 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)w, are4expected to serve. Cam"—A.,' 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. ' 1-1 r 46v �N 1 c-+ per.,, yr..r�,, I - 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally desuibe. Ho d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 1 erDlcie--1174"1.4e=i 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs X' grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants:water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? ALL oN Srr' 5 Environmental Checklist C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. t- 0 h--CS d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Now- (2---F-az u (e-po 5. ANIMALS • a.• • -•;.Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on-or.near•the site or•are known to be on or near the site: (see next page) Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other PI 1' t if Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other s)I St.y f2�T/ r Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ria yF . • b. • List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. t) af--4F c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain HoN1G— d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet I the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. SI G b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. i 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: G-o D A- Tr) 7. 'ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 6 • Environmental Checklist 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. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. oHe 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if;•ny: C b. Noise 1) 'What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for e.:ample: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? � O 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with tl,e project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic,'construction; operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 1-4 or 0' ?. "t31Q-- " l-M e--cf9 $`T72-vim 0 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. I 6 tit L LX tkVIOS. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? lyl V f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? 4t12 7 Environmental Checklist g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. V� P -' SolLS ? i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? I5� J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?i -. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 1/t1 P 101-�� b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, . middle, or low-income housing. I p p1.-� c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Get F1.—I 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. ,b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstru ed? c. - Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: GUI !�dvt 1 L- As,3--1 G� 8 Environmental Checklist 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day ti'ould it mainly occur? 0t}---f,r 11iH I ePalirr !� f - c - 1.464-II- r--1 /00'-,4a b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? _y W7 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 12. RECREATION ' e7� ~��� --estNet PL. a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immedi to vicinity? N-O I---1 p b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. hoc' 40 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, includ'ug recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: ca�J DNA p1-I 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national °t.ate, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. 1-4 1)��� b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. a11--4•� c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14.. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe propo' ed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. uv 1 LL I,4bcr---1 S • �T 9 Environmental Checklist b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Cf7 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 85. fp-ols=n )t1- 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? e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate...vicinity of).:water,:::rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. • How many vehicular trips per day would be'generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. --7 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. fi—{ 4--I bNV-4 \ov ©cr�3 CT b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilitie rrently • le at the site: lectricit , atural ga water, refuse servic elephon , s Mary sew , septic system, other. 10 Environmental Checklist b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providin l the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might befneede�r 'G `=r4E 6FrM 'MU-4 �. S U C. SIGNATURE $T�. 0 ��'_ • .1, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the'above information is true and complete. It 'is.understood that the lead agency may :withdraw any declar- Lion of non- • significance that it might.issue in reliance upon this checklist .should there re any willful misrepresentation or willful la/'of full disclosure on my part. 403 Propon• t: / y Name Printe•: I'eI- Date: ('L 2 8 ` Rev c7/ 47( P-75Y 7/7/ • • it Environmental Checklist D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs <'You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. . When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to.water;;emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? / Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: / 3.. How would the proposal be likely to deplete/energy or natural resources? i Proposed measures to protec o r conserve energy and natural resources ale: 4. How would the proposal be lik y to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or unde study) for governmental protection; such as par';s, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 1 / 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? % , Proesed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 12 Environmental Checklist 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if•possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw. any declaration .of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be .any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Date: REVISED 9/94 • 13 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: REQUIREMENTS: BY: BY: Calculations, Survey, Drai rage Control Plan 2 Aitit s . Draiiage Report 2 Elevations, Architectural3ANoa Elevations, Grading 2 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy)4 Exi';ting Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Flood Plain Map, if applicable 4 Floor Plans 3 AND 4 Geotechnical Report 2 AND 3 Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Gr,ding Plan, Detailed 2 Kir g County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 La Idscaping.Plan, Conceptual 4 Legal Description 4 • List of Surrounding Property Owners 4 Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Master Application Form 4 Monument Cards (one per monument) , P irking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping A 1alysis 4 P an Reductions (PMTs) 4 Postage 4 Fublic Works Approval Letter2 Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 1 opography Map (5' contours)3 l raffic Study 2 ree Cutting/Vegetation Clearing Plan 4 Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wetlands Delineation Map4 Wetlands Planting Plan Netlands Study This requirement may be waived by: �� /G�/ 1 Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: 2 Public Works Plan Review Section MO kV( 5T 3 Building Section DATE: / /c 1 e 4 Development Planning Section /J ` / i QS�\IS°S11 c�0L�aiNs°aao�_�.�.� ���, ';mod • IALOOd ) NOS N I c+ 1 J d fl HJ- I. 11111 N 1_L-9<AIN c)V<� c} �!n01 e.---piPo (,) -7 ., ,:' .• ---ii-r ---Y-.)-IY? I (.4... ) - _ .-----sy i t.),,-;.,..' ) .:,-.? ye:.:;". (.?IV-(,!. • - • .1" .(-)2"-)6,-/ .--4- ..) )1.) ,.Y .--6 ) .1.., %., )-1-!-• 9 --)e-</ .02.44.0 v_-_- /4 ' . - ) - i • ' c2-09 A, - )0-0)--- 'A- .) i is , i --(,. i.:;v)-1 ,•,-,).' d...?:* vi .... -).- . 0e71 r 3 ii,)6( Ye1,-D1._ 9fr ("-- __. ' () ,-2k? C 2.0/ tr,---- I4.9 ./-,_, r , 0 .11.-,;•.:, , ,, k,.'.:4('i 1.4r rrVir V., ,./AV IA / ) ...--,).--t. 1-7 . .._6). • `7(c--; " 1/ i' •},--y3.0-1- , • . c, ., ....,t ) / .., e90--r • t.is' 'W.1""' \'' c .:L/:::;4r s i . () , //1 I.. 1 . L./ kp.) ('-' „I. i /y) )( --))."-y1) :.---1) - ,..• i ; ., ., ,/ ,.,...,,, ) ( ) 1 . ,1 '1 ___,/..-,-. ". .„:4 ;- •;-t,.)i ,/'.,. r-V-)-;)14 1 '1 ‘'.I1 " 4 .. , I d i 94. -01 r Z9 eo •-1-) ,,-.7) ., (.,i .,,Afry) iihk ( 1e., L- 1_7 ' • / CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: November 26, 1997 TO: Mark Pywell FROM: Arneta Henninger X6198 PA SUBJECT: CEDAR APARTMENTS 47 UNITS PREAPPLICATION I have reviewed the preliminary application for this 47 unit apartment building located at 110 Williams Av S in Sect. 17, Twp 23N Rng 5E and have the following comments: SEWER: • This project is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1 . • There is an 8" sanitary sewer main in Willams Av S. See City of Renton sanitary sewer drawing file 2110. • System Development Charges of $350 per unit are required to be paid at the time the construciori permit is issued. • WATER: • This site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1 . • This site is in the 196 Pressure Zone. • There is a 6" watermain in Williams Av S. • A watermain extension may be required for this project. • Any new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1 ,000 GPM fire and shall be located within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along a travel route. An additional fire hydrant may be required as a part of this project to meet this criteria. • Water System Development Charges of $510 per unit will be required for this project. These fees shall be paid at the time of the construction permit. City of Renton DENSITYW..: .. . k. ..SHEET 1. Gross area of property: 1.d4--/ at) square feet 2. Certain areas are excluded from the calculation. These include public and private roadways/easements (aside from driveways) and sensitive areas*. Total excluded area: 2. square feet 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area (or total of lot areas): 3. )21-rL r(7 square feet 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 4. - acres 5. Number of dwelling units (d.u.) planned: 5. C"; , units 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. 9+ _) d.u./acre lots would result in a net density of dwelling units per acre. *Sensitive areas are defined as "areas not suitable for development which are included within the City's greenbelt, geologically hazardous, wetlands, or flood plain regulations." (City Code Section 4-31-2: Definitions) H/devpl/density DOT Sample Density Solution TOTAL AREA: G9600 sq.ft Excluded Areas: Roadways ,14500 sq.ft Sens.areas 9400 sq.ft biofiltration 14500sq ft 23900 sq.ft. swale NET AREA: 45700 sq.ft. (9400 sq ft) 69600 sq.ft. total 1.Gross Area of Property: 1. 69600 sq.ft 2. Excluded Areas Total: 2. 23900 sq.ft. 3. Subtract Line 3 from Line 1 for Net Area: 3. 45700 sq.ft 4. Divide Line 3 by 43560 sq.ft for Net Acreage: 4. 1.05 acres 5. Number of dwelling units (d.u.) planned: 5. 8 units 6. Divide Line 5 by Line 4 for Net Density: 6. 7.61 d.u./acre 8 lots would result in a net density of 7.61 dwelling units per acre. 1SY O .27K)+ CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: November 25, 1997 TO: Mark Pywell, Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments Project, 110 Wi iams Av S Fire Department Comments: ( ,' 1. The preliminary Fire flow is 4250 GPM, which requires one fire hydrant within 150 feet of the building and four additional hydrants within 300 feet of the building. 2. Separate plans and permits arc required for fire alarm and sprinkler systems installation. 3. Provide a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on site. 4. A fire mitigation fee of $18,236.00 is required, based on $388.00 per unit. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. L �vvf • i rl -/ E' { 4 +t j',y nib RENTON FIRE DES i-iFF: ir..�;�?iT�i! i P!.i'-=,',�. NOV 211997 MEMORANDUM Ft - -, .e , Vlc-. DATE: 1I— 0'07 TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan Review, Project Planner FROM: Jim Hanson, Development Services Division Director 47 SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: ( � �$ Wir LOCATION: _110_14.464.C15 AVE 43. A eeting with �-/ the applicant has been scheduled for :00 'fThursday, C 4 in the 3rd floor conference room. If this meeting is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11 :00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11 :00 meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the applicant. You will not need to do a thorough "permit level" review at this time. Note only major issues that must be resolved prior to formal land use and/or building permit application submittal. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please send a representative. Please submit your written comments to 'IR= at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. beAr nn °11 - (ob: MEMORANDUM e& N try ,`9,9� L/ DATE: '" 7 viS�O /� 9 ti TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan Review, Project Planner FROM: Jim Hanson, Development Services Division Director 47 SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: OM LOCATION: e1(Q id)/LtJIt/1S 4VE 43. A_Inee ing with the applicant has been scheduled for/f:Or4_ rhursday, DEC I/60' in the 3rd floor conference room. If this meeting is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11:00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11 :00 meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the applicant. You will not need to do a thorough "permit level" review at this time. Note only major issues that must be resolved prior to formal land use and/or building permit application submittal. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please send a representative. Please submit your written comments tojt at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. �l �12/^mac • 662`/A- - r CEDAR APTS PREAPPLICATION 110 Williams Av S. November 26, 1997 Page 2 DRAINAGE: • Submit a Drainage Report with the formal application. See the attached Drainage Report content List. • There are storm drainage facilities in Williams Ave S. • The Surface Water SDC fees of $0.129 per square foot of new impervious (but not less than $385) applies to the proposed project. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: • The code requires the installation of curb, gutter & sidewalks and street lighting along the full frontage of the parcel being developed. • The Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 per new trip is to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. GENERAL: • Submit a conceptual utility plan with the formal application. If you have any questions call me at 277-6198. • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvement is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. CEDAPA DRAINAGE REPORT CONTENT LIST 1. Stamped and signed by a Washington Professional Civil Engineer on the front page. Complete Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet. 2. Briefly describe the construction involved. 3. Describe existing and proposed on-site drainage features. 4. Show that Core Requirements 1 through 5 from the King County Surface Water Manual (KCSWM) are addressed. 5. Show that all Special Requirements from the KCSWM that are applicable to the project are addressed. 6. Use the SBUH/SCS hydrograph method to compute required on-site detention. Use 2, 10, and 100 year 24 hour design storm events for pre-developed and post-developed conditions. this should show sizing for the peak rate runoff control (retention/detention) facility, with a routing table. 7. Biofiltration preliminary and conceptual design calculations, if the project site has 500 square feet of new impervious area subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. 8. Wet pond sizing preliminary and conceptual design calculations if there is more than 1 acre of new paved impervious area and meets other conditions of Special Requirement#4. 9. Conveyance velocity calculations, showing that major conveyance pipes have velocities of 3 fps or greater. 10. Conveyance capacity calculations. Show that all conveyance pipes on-site have capacity for the 25-year design event (hydraulic grade line at least 0.5' below rim of structure.) Also show that the 100-year design event conveyance fulfills Core Requirement #4. 11. A Level 1 Off-site Analysis, as described in Core Requirement #2. Level 2 or 3 analysis may be requested later if a downstream problem is found or anticipated from review of the initial submittal of the Drainage report. TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL 1. Proper design for containment of erosion on-site shown on construction plans. 2. Calculations for a sediment trap for sites less than 3 acres or a sediment pond for larger than 3 acres, as shown in Section 5.4 of the KCSWM. 10 CITY OF RENTON Planning / Building / Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: December 4, 1997 TO: Pre-Application File FROM: Mark R. Pywell, AICP SUBJECT: Cedar Apartments Pre-App 97-108 We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the proposed development. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. 1. The applicant plans to develop three existing lots for a 47 unit apartment complex with parking. The three lots encompass an area approximately 200 feet in width by 100 feet in depth. The site is approximately 0.46 acres (20,000 sf) in area. The proposed density is approximately 103 units per acre. 2. The project site is zoned RM-U. Apartment complexes are an allowed use in this zone. The applicant will need to submit an Administrative Site Plan and an environmental checklist for the proposed project. It will take approximately six to eight weeks to review the project once a complete application is accepted by the City. Appeals and request for additional information could extend this time line. 3. The RM-U zone seeks a density range of 25 to 100 dwelling units per net acre. Through design review the density range may be extended to 150 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed project must comply with the development standards for the RM-U zone. The applicant must provide the justification for any alterations to the development standards that may be considered through the design review process. 4. The maximum number of stories is ten, the maximum height is 95 feet. The proposed project appears to be within these parameters. 5. The project site is located in close proximity to the Renton Municipal Airport. This facility is used by pilots of a large number of aircraft on a 24-hours per day basis. The applicant will need to take the airport into consideration when designing the proposed building. The applicant is encouraged to discuss the proposed development with the Airport Supervisor, Gail Reed, prior to submitting the project for formal review. As part of the project submittal the applicant will need to demonstrate that the project does not violate the height limit established for the airport. The airport height limit is established as a conical plane that extends out from the airport runway. This height limit is established separately from the overall height limit for the zone. The height of buildings should be shown as feet above the ground elevation and elevation above sea level. CEDAR APARTMENTS Page 2 Pre-Application 97-108 ECEMBER 4, 1997 6. There are a number of other"high profile" projects being developed in the downtown Renton area at this time. The applicant may want to review these files when completing the design details for the proposed apartment complex. 7. The water table is quite high in most areas of downtown Renton. The applicant will need to take this into consideration when developing this proposal. 8. Signage, if known, should be shown on the site plan. A separate sign permit will be required before any sign are installed. This permit is obtained at the third floor counter. 5 1 /-/A4,-...A, • 971 08MMO.DOC CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 3, 1997 TO: Mark Pywell FROM: Rebecca Lind STAFF CONTACT: Owen Dennison(277-2475 ,--• SUBJECT: Cedar Apts-47 Units Preapplication-Long Range Planning Comments (110 Williams Ave. S.) 1. Intent of the land use designation The site is designated Center Downtown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The intent of the designation is to "create a balance of land uses which contribute to the revitalization of downtown Renton" and to "reinforce downtown Renton as the regional commercial district in the City". (Objectives DT-A and DT-B) 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The proposal is consistent with the following Downtown Element policies. Policy DT-1. There should be a mix of uses, including retail, office, light industrial and residential, which generate the demand for goods and services. The proposed residential use is appropriate to the designation. Policy DT-3. Development and redevelopment of Center Downtown should strive for urban density and intensity of uses. Policy DT-S. Redevelopment of the downtown area should be encouraged to maintain and revitalize the downtown core. The proposal would revitalize the downtown through increasing the hour population. Policy DT-6. The redevelopment of downtown Renton as a multi-use Urban Center should be encouraged to create a center for the community. Policy DT-8. Development in the Center Downtown designation should conform to the Downtown Renton Association's Vision. The proposal is consistent with the DRA's Vision. Policy DT-10. Development should be low- (1-5 stories) and mid-rise (6-10 stories) with an overall average floor to area ratio (FAR) of 2:1 within the Center Downtown designation on the Land Use Map. December 3, 1997 Page 2 NOTE: The 2:1 FAR is an overall average minimum to be achieved and not intended to require each project or parcel to develop at that specific intensity. The proposal has an FAR of about 3.4:1. Policy DT-1 S. Mixed use office and residential development may reach heights of 6-10 (medium rise) stories depending on other applicable ordinances (i.e. seismic considerations, airport flight patterns, and aquifer protection areas). Policy DT-22. Maximize the use of existing urban services and civic amenities and revitalize the City's downtown by promoting medium to high density residential development in the downtown area. Allowed densities will conform to the criteria for Urban Centers in the countywide policies. The proposal is low-rise, as this is apparently the maximum that the market will currently support. Policy DT-24. Net residential development densities in the downtown area should achieve a range of 25-100 dwelling units per acre. Where parcels are less than one half acre no minimum density is required. The net density of the proposal is about 85 units per acre. Policy DT-27. Medium-rise residential (6-10 stories) should be located within the urban center, primarily between the Cedar River and South 2nd, and between South 7th and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. The area between South 7th and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way should include a combination of low- (1-5 stories) and medium-rise residential to provide a transition between the employment area and the mixed use core. Policy DT-29. Parking should be structured whenever feasible and serve more than one use. Parking will be structured. Policy DT-40. Site and building design should be pedestrian/people oriented with provisions for transit and automobiles where appropriate. Policy DT-47. Parking lots and structures should employ and maintain landscaping and other design techniques to minimize the visual impacts of these uses. Objective DT-G: Improve the visual and physical appearance of buildings to create a more positive image for downtown. 3. Potential inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan No inconsistencies noted. I I:\DIVISION.S\P&TS\P LANN I NG\P REAP P\C D\C E DARAPT.DOC REG ED FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS 1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATIOry INF IVATION NAME: 5 - ( /v; ! 7; ('•vp� U.B.C. CLASS OF BLDG: / 1 ADDRESS: 1 1 0 I/4 1 I Jc s A✓ FIRE MGMT AREA: _ 2. DETERMINE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION - CLASS (CIRCLE ONE): I-II IV III V - )-7'd FIRE RESISTIVE NON-COMBUSTIBLE ORDINARY WOO AMMIXED (NOTE: IF "MIXED,"SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTION FOR AREA AND BASIC FIRE FLOW) 3. DETERMINE AREA: GROUND FLOOR AREA: FT2 NUMBER OF STORIES: q 3- ,%,,„,`I- TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 5 11t (A) 4. DETERMINE BASIC FIRE FLOW FROM TABLE 11 1, USING AREA (A): Sj 25 GPM (B) 5. DETERMINE OCCUPANCY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT: ' ADJUSTMENT: /3 /z: S GPM (C) (IF LOW HAZARD, SUBTRACT UP TO 25% OF (B): IF HIGH HAZARD, ADD UP TO 25% OF (B) 6. COMPUTE SUBTOTAL (B+C): q 7 (IF B+C IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM 3, /.7 7. 5 GPM (D) 7. DETERMINE SPRINKLER ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: -I, 9 Cl,. 7S GPM (E) (IF COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED, SUBTRACT UP TO 50% OF (D); IF LIGHT HAZARD OCCUPANCY AND FIRE-RESISTIVE OR NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONST11' '"!ON, SUBTRACT UP TO 75% OF (D). 8. DETERMINE EXPOSURE ADJUSTMENT: USING THE TABLE AS A GUIDE, ENTER THE SEPARATION AND ADJUSTMENT FOR EACH OF THE "FOUR FACES" OF THE BUILDING IN THE TABLE AT THE RIGHT: SEPARATION MAX. ADJUSTMENT EXPOSURE SEPARATION ACT. ADJ. 0-10 25% MAX NORTH )S T ADD Z00 % 11-30 20% MAX EAST i�- ADD Z5 % 31-60 15% MAX SOUTH S 7T ADD ZcO % 61-100 10% MAX WEST ADD % 101-150 5% MAX TOTAL % OF ADJUSTMENT 150 OR 4-HR WALL 0% MAX (NOT TO EXCEED 75%) & S TOTAL % ADJUSTMENT TIMES (D) ADJUSTMENT: 2/ 5`>/ GPM (F) 9. DETERMINE ROOF AND SIDING COVERING ADJUSTMENT: (IF SHINGLE COVERING, ADD 500 GPM). ; ADJUSTMENT: e. GPM (G) 10. COMPUTE ESTIMATED FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: i 5:2-g (IF D+E+F+G IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) I/ (IF D+E+F+G IS GREATER THAN 12,000 GPM, INSERT 12,000 GPM) REQUIRED FIRE FLOW (D+E+F+G): I({ .5 V GPM (H) • 11. SIGNED: e4/274- ,O71iYL/Z_ DATE: 11)/ 3/ 7 FPB020 MKD EVELOPMENT CO., INC 10020A Main Street 13-110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Novamber 12, 1997 City of Renton Current Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA. 98055 Attn: Ms. Laureen Nicolay RE: 110 Williams Street Cedar Apartments A 47-Unit Development Gentlemen; We are requesting a preliminary,review of our above referenced project. The current use of the site involving Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 24, 'lbwn of Renton'is vacant on lots 1 and 3 and has a single family home on lot 2. The property is zoned RM-U. We are planning to use the property for a building with 47 living units. We will provide 71 on-site parking spaces for tenants and an additional 12 spaces for guests. One level of parking will be underground, and one level will be at street level. The living units will be on three levels above the parking. The floor space of the living units will be approximately 831 square feet with two bedrooms and 2 baths. Each unit will have an additional storage space in the common area. An elevator will be installed for vertical transportation. The Main Entrance to the building will be through a security iron gate and covered courtyard leading to the stairs and elevator. The exterior of the building will be vinyl siding with accent sections of stucco. We are providing a substantial number of bay windows for esthetics and additional floor space in the units. The center of the building will be an open well to provide ventilation and light. The setbacks from the property lines will be: South 21 '-7", North 21 '-8", East 8'-2", and West (front) 6'-6" with a segment of the front at 2'-6". These setbacks are large and will provide open areas and adequate landscaping for the enjoyment of the tenants. All utilities are available at the street frontage. We are expecting to install a new 12" water main loop to service this project and future developments. We request.: a latecomers agreement if this is possible to share the cost. A minimum number of fire hydrants will also be installed. Our building will be fully sprinklered and will be constructed according to code requirements. . Our company has been incorporated since 1974 in the state of Washington. For the past 12 years we have done multi-family construction exclusively. We feel that this project will enhance the property and the City of Renton. Very truly yours, 7.14,6A Victor F. Malen, President MKD Development Co., Inc. N —— V,— \ffffiTl 1� 71.1 1' — b • -- — .--• • • • IA 9- 20._06 24._U�. 2U,_U.. 26'_U" 20._0" N,y • L. ti ,— b 1; y En �--• • • • I b V, •= 1 j • V. I • A 1Lt11J�_ In bl 1 z (� � spN I,: , b ,' I • % `3V 8 Q `1A n b 1 E r F_• 1 P. 1 •--) b r • L 8 • yl '1 •—is •\.,3 ' I ti — , I I • / ! 26'-II" YIL_U'• N" J — ,k_t it s— / m — a. .J I1 3 —`•--- — • '-. Z }I • (11 N — — — — —— t—cA— r.I.. II I MKD DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. IIAPKINUYl1. 10020A Main Street 0.110 Ilellevrre,WA 90004 (206)451-8990 Scaler I"- Io'-o" Sheet 47 Unit Apartment lionsc Ito WILLIAMS ti1REE1 RENION,WA. UST 1 N'-0' L__ 1•.r/•1 I ,e1•'; "M.mf(e 1 ( e ):msticn,._ a.�l.. na...0 j ;I: 1 1 .. ..n� p..0 J. , ,_ MO OD I _ Q:i.Ten I 11IY21.e 1 T •talul a 1 .•.:V. • ao f I I I l I 1 1 I I _ I . I i I I • 1 1 w.clw 12 121 1 I I1 Y IL —t't•—� i ^ r w..tor � 19�d �J.! � alma g I / t7r. ...me.. 1 lrl_r 1 a. _ nGl r',MS -x tl•x P{' ••••• ••X H'x .•x ... T u =1. - i. u '• I. • 1 I • I 11 : I II..r •/ . N _____ _ ... I— i I.I. J ) w'-T 1 1e.;, j I I 'I..' I I •._.H 2:• I .•x — Ili --1 1 UT 1 v:- COME? S.a..c'si.us j I 6 I Q I z py�p +aII N� a- _ o�.m,{,- msn.e a sees m. 1 ( __ • ti1F.nw Rom.Nm 4 5' .. 1 l ^sl....0 rtlSflr r'.fr--.^'_^L. . / vrs'nr4n.•r.l.. 9 '/ .n.-. :r ��J ql '(•? • 1•-0•rumi.c.nv •J n1.-..-0...-;.,s• ! 1 ........-- \ - r rslm•..a-v:n.t•c 1 r.x 1 Is,,• ao .cl ..11 • •AIfO,T'R:!•1 w.0. • 1 nt un r•r..t�.y.—.� cm:..•ats- F--1 1 .r101i.IL.2: M•a e0 soils 1x I! 1.•r • = -- __ _ - l01 CA-l.l.s..c Il.fl ly mm. •sm.. _�•7 Si wa: 01ry *;_r N 9 .t! 11••r N 0 WI.WE 11'-r _ w L`1 F. E E T 9 nnla.nra.a: Of rota !..— _ _ - W.I.s•.LIO: II R.113 • _ , T r0s fWj sr•tz •.u.arSW.�IU win. • ? - - CAS _ ? 1, 1E.ti y..r ss T..1•30.n.uIrc0 Im.n1.T SUS wnnM 55xr.0S: 15...n Mn.. 251.22.MOP CM / MIXDEVELOPMENT CO„INC e.1.15 UM.nit 10020A Mr.S.wn 8.110 nell.l..e.WA 90004 • (2061414.1990 $.•... r.In•x Sleet a Unit Apartment House 1•.Rlr..n Role?.OM.dlI.. — P.L. 200'-0" — — 'II - irt, VIZI _/— ____7—\_ / I I 1 / \N / II. 831 SC.57. 840 sQ.rr. 819 SQ.FT. B40 SQ.FT 819 SQ.Fr. 840 sg.rr. 831 SQ.FT. -r, I I ,.A ,it [ COVERED WALFWAT --ROOF ABOVE j --,4- ---. _ — __ _ . DNA Li=val. 1piLicarr I OP 'TO FIRST .RI 'EN o TO FIRST r . IT I 903 sQ.rr. -_ 915 5C.FT. 5 STORA I I 1 - . ,.: . p R 1 1 1 I . g1 • I UP GE1 L....ROOF ABOVE' COVERED WALKWAY 1 -/--- i ,... I 'II : ' B.R. -7-3-7 EPI B.=C 83 S.11.FT I 8Ao SO.FT. elc sQ.rr. 840 so.Fr. 819 SO.FT. CET. 831 sc.r:. 1 =4/.41.. S. =C r 0 I \ LIV.R4. TYPICAL UNIT 84111 SQ FT. / . 11.1. -\_--/---\---/- 1 / I 1 1 P.L. 200-0" I I i . 1S; f 1 f II. 22'-4 3/4" 1 22'-4 3/0 III 22'-4 3/0 2,..„. 22'-4 3/0 22'-4 3/0 II E./..-c la" t 22.-4 3/4' 156.-91" 1 SE:0ND FLJUR MKD DEVELOPMENT CO., INC THIRD FLOOR N --"C 10020A Main Street B-110 FOURT11 FLOOR Bellevue,WA 98004 (206)454-6690 Scale:. 1^..10'.ce Sheet: 47 Unit Apartment House ne WILLIAM*!STREET RENTOR4.wA. --—. 4.-4- ELEVATOR PD.-THOUS! . I I ,2 — • rrnIOR SHINCLS o m aIDI\ THIRD OR _ � � I I I I I I i 1 I 1�I I ill a :H1I I I I F . ..: . .y : ji I II II I I �SIDING ( I I I VINYL SIDZ. I Ipm• SEED FADR ^ E. f YI E E.I1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I i nes:.n03R ` kfilI R. • ..... i , SCREEN TENTING K .�Ei $CP.T\I1"IN il';IIII�I�pL I. —�11 i u UNDERGROUND PARKING i IIt F---- -- -- - - -- ----———— — — — —— — MKD DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.: VPs'etrvA71011 10020A Main Stnet B-110 Bellevue,WA 98004 (206)454-8990 Seale: I--IO'-0- • Sheet 47 Unit Apartment House III WILLIAMS STREET RENTON.WA. ,: Rr �tr1, '�. "F a-'. ,4 :A �•R 4",,alga. .a_ �� 1." a_ �. �1a_w:::x ,. " , ' '.q h � + a�; ,.., y+�p:y-��"'n a� Via`+.�- e a A. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION s:: OWNER'S POLICY 7 (10-17-92) ;: p. 1' h. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE 'Q901VIPANY ,' A4 F Op T • V ih • SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE ✓ CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, CHICAGO TITLE • INSURANCE COMPANY,a Missouri corporation,herein called the Company,insures,as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A,against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or !, • incurred by the insured by reason of: f I. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein; • 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; 3. Unmarketability of the title; 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. il .t` The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured, but f only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. 4 In Witness Whereof,CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to be signed and scaled as ,, of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A,the policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized signatory. } 04 yf 4. ', Issued by: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY By: ,; fr 1800 COLUMBIA CENTER 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 / ' (206)628-56669 C - A 6.a-c� ;# Piesident 4 AtNsU tic i ?OP"4X% ,, u, SEAL ,Pc 4, s..................0 ;?—a9-- l'‘&41,41 jk 6-1124A'VLA .‘: ri Scerelary IP i ' 0,0,a vp,„ ,togi!, � i.jid}- AIiaWlo r lyp, 4.ty k0Vl. 7Z ate ' "? rm Av.Tr +t.; - V1 :Z6 :%- -' Y itt ALTA Owner's Policy(10-17-92) 4. EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys'fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land;(iii)a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part;or(iv)environmental protection,or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances or governmental regulations,except to the extent that a notice of the cniorcement thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by(a)above,except to the extent that a notice of tr.o exercise thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. flights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims or other matters: (a) created,suffered,assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company,not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy;or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would riot have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim,which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors'rights laws,that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer;or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer;or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. • ..3NDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. DEFINITION OF TERMS (c)Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a The following terms when used in this policy mean: defense as required or permitted by the provisions of this policy,the Company (a)"insured":the insured named in Schedule A,and,subject to any rights may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent juris- or defenses the Company would have had against the named insured,those diction and expressly reserves the right,in its sole discretion,to appeal from who succeed to the interest of the named insured by operation of law as any adverse judgment or order. distinguished from purchase including,but not limited to,heirs,distributees, (d)In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to prose- devisees, survivors, personal representatives, next of kin, or corporate or cute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding,the insured shall fiduciary successors. secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide defense in the (b)"insured claimant":an insured claiming loss or damage. action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to (c)"knowledge" or"known":actual knowledge, not constructive knowl- use, at its option, requested by the Company,the insured,at the Company the name of the insured for this purpose. Whenever edge or notice which may be imputed to an insured by reason of the public 's expense,shall give records as defined in this policy or any other records which impart construc- the Company all reasonable aid (i) in any action or proceeding, securing live notice of matters affecting the land. evidence,obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or pro- d)"land":the land described or referred to in Schedule A,and improve ceeding,or effecting settlement,and(ii)in any other lawful act which in the merits affixed thereto which by law constitute real property.The term"land" thope estatesn of the Company may be of the Ca mpany is desirable todi establish the failure le to of does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or the ins of interest as a requir d the Company h pr ompand sy the to referred to in Schedule A,nor any right,title,interest,estate or easement in the insured under furnish the policy shall terminate, the Company's obligations oblige- abutting streets,roads,avenues,alleys,lanes,ways or waterways,but noth- the insured the shall terminate,including any liability or obliga- myherein shall modify or limit the extent to which a right of access to and from tron to defend,prosecute,or continue any litigation,with regard to the matter the land is insured by this policy. or matters requiring such cooperation. (e)"mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security 5. PROOF OF LOSS OR DAMAGE instrument. In addition to and after the notices required ur ider Section 3 of these Condi- (f)"public records": records established under state statutes at Date of tions and Stipulations have been provided the Company,a proof of loss or Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to damage signed and sworn to by the insured claimant shall be furnished to the real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge.With respect to Company within 90 days after the insured claimant shall ascertain the facts Section 1(a)(iv)of the Exclusions From Coverage,"public records"shall also giving rise to the loss or damage.The proof of loss or damage shall describe include environmental protection liens filed in the records of the clerk of the the defect in, or lien or encumbrance on the title, or other matter insured United States district court for the district in which the land is located. against by this policy which constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall (g)"unmarketability of the title": an alleged or apparent matter affecting state,to the extent possible,the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or the title to the land, not excluded or excepted from coverage, which would damage.If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the insured claimant to entitle a purchaser of the estate or interest described in Schedule A to be provide the required proof of loss or damage,the Company's obligations to released from the obligation to purchase by virtue of a contractual condition the insured under the policy shall terminate,including any liability or oblige- requiring the delivery of marketable title. Lion to defend,prosecute,or continue any litigation,with regard to the matter or matters requiring such proof of loss or damage. 2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE AFTER CONVEYANCE OF TITLE In addition,the insured claimant may reasonably be required to submit to The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company favor of an insured only so long as the insured retains an estate or interest in and shall produce for examination,inspection and copying,at such reason- the land,or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage able times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative given by a purchaser from the insured,or only so long as the insured shall of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and have liability by reason of covenants of warranty made by the insured in any memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Policy, which transfer or conveyance of the estate or interest.This policy shall not continue reasonably pertain to the loss or damage.Further,if requested by any autho- in force in favor of any purchaser from the insured of either(i)an estate or rized representative of the Company, the insured claimant shall grant its interest given in the land, or(ii)an indebtedness secured by a purchase money permission,in writing,for any authorized representative of the Company to mortgage to the insured. examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers,checks, correspon- dence3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY INSURED CLAIMANT and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party,which reason- The insured shall notifythe Company promptly in writing(i) case of anyablyythe pertain at thelloss t damage.od All information designated as confidential p y p p y in by insured claimant provided to the Company pursuant to this Section litigation as set forth in Section 4(a)below,(ii)in case knowledge shall come to shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the an insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the title to the estate or interest,as insured,and which might cause loss or dam- insured claimant to submit for examination under oath,produce other reason- age for which the Company may be liable by virtue of this policy,or(iii)if title to ably requested information or grant permission to secure reasonably neces- the estate or interest,as insured,is rejected as unmarketable.If prompt notice sary information from third parties as required in this paragraph shall lerrni- shall not be given to the Company,then as to the insured all liability of the nate any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim. Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required;provided,however,that failure to notify the Company shall 6. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS;TERMINATION in no case prejudice the rights of any insured under this policy unless the OF LIABILITY Company shall be prejudiced by the failure and then only to the extent of the In case of a claim under this policy,the Company shall have the following prejudice. additional options: 4. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS; DUTY OF INSURED (a)To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Insurance. CLAIMANT TO COOPERATE To pay or tender payment of the amount of insurance under this policy (a)Upon written request by the insured and subject to the options con- together with any costs,attorneys'fees and expenses incurred by the insured tained in Section 6 of these Conditions and Stipulations,the Company,at its claimant,which were authorized by the Company,up to the time of payment or own cost and without unreasonable delay,shall provide for the defense of an tenser of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. insured in litigation in which any third party asserts a claim adverse to the title Upon the exercise by the Company of this option,all liability and obligations or interest as insured,but only as to those stated causes of action alleging a to the insured under this policy,other than to make the payment required,shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute,or con- defect,lien or encumbrance or other matter insured against by this policy.The Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice(subject to the time any litigation,and the policy shall be surrendered to the Company for right of the insured to object for reasonable cause)to represent the insured as cancellation. to those stated causes of action and shall not be liable for and will not pay the (b)To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other than the Insured or fees of any other counsel. The Company will not pay any fees, costs or With the Insured Claimant. expenses incurred by the insured in the defense of those causes of action (i)to pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an which allege matters not insured against by this policy. insured claimant any claim insured against under this policy,together with any (b)The Company shall have the right, at its own cost, to institute and costs,attorneys'fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant which prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act which in its opinion were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest,as Company is obligated to pay;or insured,or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the insured.The Company (ii)to pay or otherwise settle with the insured claimant the loss or damage may take any appropriate action under the terms of this policy,whether or not provided for under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' fees and it shall be liable hereunder,and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any expenses incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the provision of this policy. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to paragraph.it shall do so diligently. pay. Upon the exercise by the Company of -r of the options provided for in (b)When liabi id the extent of loss or damage has been dcfitiitely fixed paragraphs(b)(i)or(ii),the Company's c tions to the insured under this in accordance v iese Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage policy for the claimed loss or damage,elf_...an the payments required to be shall be payable within 30 days thereafter. made,shall terminate,including any liability or obligation to defend, prose- cute or continue any litigation. 13. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT 7. DETERMINATION,EXTENT OF LIABILITY AND COINSURANCE (a)The Company's Right of Subrogation. This policy i a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or darn- Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this age sustained r incurred by the insured claimant who has suffered loss or policy,all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act damage by rea on of matters insured against by this policy and only to the of the insured claimant. extent herein d scribed. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and (a)The liability of the Company under this policy shall not exceed the least remedies which the insured claimant would have had against any person or of: property in respect to the claim had this policy not been issued.If requested by (i)the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A;or, the Company,the insured claimant shall transfer to the Company all rights (ii)the difference between the value of the insured estate or interest as and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect insured and the value of the insured estate or interest subject to the defect, this right of subrogation.The insured claimant shall permit the Company to lien or encumbrance insured against by this policy. sue,compromise or settle in the name of the insured claimant and to use the (b)In the ever,the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A at the Date of name of the insured claimant in any transaction or litigation involving these Policy is less than 80 percent of the value of the insured estate or interest or rights or remedies. the full consideration paid for the land,whichever is less,or if subsequent to If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the the Date of Policy an improvement is erected on the land which increases the insured claimant,the Company shall be subrogated to these rights and reme- value of the insured estate or interest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of dies in the proportion which the Company's payment bears to the whole Insurance stated in Schedule A,then this Policy is subject to the following: amount of the loss. (i)where no subsequent improvement has been made,as to any partial If loss should result from any act of the insured claimant,as stated above, loss,the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that the that act shall not void this policy, but the Company, in that event, shall be amount of insurance at Date of Policy bears to the total value of the insured required to pay only that part of any losses insured against by this policy which estate or interest at Date of Policy;or shall exceed the amount,if any,lost to the Company by reason of the impair- ( )where a subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial ment by the insured claimant of the Company's right of subrogation. loss,the Compa shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that 120 percent of the A unt of Insurance stated in Schedule A bears to the sum of (b)The Company's Rights Against Non-insured Obligors. the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A and the amount expended for The Company's right of subrogation against non-insured obligors shall the improvement. exist and shall include,without limitation,the rights of the insured to indern- The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to costs, attorneys' fees nities,guaranties,other policies of insurance or bonds,notwithstanding any and expenses for which the Company is liable under this policy,and shall only terms or conditions contained in those instruments which provide for subroga- apply to that portion of any loss which exceeds,in the aggregate,10 percent of tion rights by reason of this policy. the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A. (c)The Company will pay only those costs,attorneys'fees and expenses 14. AF1rtITRATION incurred in accordance with Section 4 of these Conditions and Stipulations. Unless prohibited by applicable law,either the Company or the insured may 8. APPORTIONMENT demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.Arbitrable matters may include,but are not If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels which limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured are not used as a single site,and a loss is established affecting one or more of arising out of or relating to this policy,any service of the Company in connec- the parcels but not all,the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata Lion with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation.All basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided pro rata as to arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is$1,000,000 or less shall the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel to the whole,exclusive of be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the insured.All arbitrable any improvements made subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or matters when the Amount of Insurance is in excess of$1,000,000 shall be value has otherwise been agreed upon as to each parcel by the Company and arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the insured.Arbitra- the insured at the time of the issuance of this policy and shown by an express tion pursuant to this policy and under the Rules in effect on the dale the statement or by an endorsement attached to this policy. demand for arbitration is made or,at the option of the insured,the Rules in 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY effect at Date of Policy shall be binding upon the parties. The award may (a)If the Company establishes the title,or removes the alleged defect,lien include attorneys'fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is located or encumbrance,or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the land,or permit r court to award attorneys'fees to a prevailing party.Judgment upon cures the claim of unmarketability of title, all as insured, in a reasonably the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s)may be entered in any court having diligent manner by any method,including litigation and the completion of any jurisdiction thereof. appeals therefrom,it shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Title that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. Insurance Arbitration Rules. (b)In the event of any litigation,including litigation by the Company or with A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request. the Company's consent,the Company shall have no liability for loss or dam- age until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdic- 15. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY;POLICY ENTIRE CON7 RACT lion,and disposition of all appeals therefrom,adverse to the title as insured. (a)This policy together with all endorsements,if any,attached hereto by the (c)The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any insured for Company is the entire policy and contract between the insured and the Com- liability voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or suit without parry.In interpreting any provision of this policy,this policy shall be construed the prior written consent of the Company. as a whole. 10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR TERMINATION OF (b)Any claim of loss or damage,whether or not based on negligence,and LIABILITY which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest covered All payments under this policy,except payments made for costs,attorneys' hereby or by any action asserting such claim,shall be restricted to this policy. fees and expenses,shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro tanto. (c)No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made except by 11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President,a It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance under this policy Vice President,the Secretary,an Assistant Secretary,or validating officer or an mayauthorized signatory of the Company. shall be reduced by any amount the Company y pay under any policy insuring a mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the 16. SEVERABILITY insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is hereafter ex- In the event any provision of the policy is held invalid or unenforceable ecuted by an insured 3hd which is a charge or lien on the estate or interest under applicable law,the policy shall be deemed not to include that provision described or referred to in Schedule A, and the amount so paid shall be and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. deemed a payment under this policy to the insured owner. 12. PAYMENT OF LOSS 17. NOTICES,WHERE SENT (a)No payment shall be made without producing this policy for endorse- All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing ment of the payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed,in which required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this policy case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the and shall be addressed to the Company at the issuing office or to: Company. Chicago Title Insurance Company Claims Department Reorder Form No.8256(Rev.1 r -s21 171 North Clark Street Chicago,Illinois 60601-3294 CI-I-' GO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 180 OLUMBIA CENTER, 701 5TH AVE SEATTLE, WA 98104 Policy No.: 528865 • STANDARD OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE A Amount of Date of Policy: SEPTEMBER 25, 1998 at 10:20 AM Insurance: $485, 000.00 1. Name of Insured: MKD DEVELOPMENT CO. , INC. , A WASHINGTON CORPORATION 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this policy is: FEE SIMPLE 3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in: MKD DEVELOPMENT CO. , INC. , A WASHINGTON CORPORATION • 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: PARCEL A: LOT 1, BLOCK 23, TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 1 OF PLATS, PAGE(S) 135, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; AND THAT PORTION OF THE TOBIN DONATION CLAIM LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 AND NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 PRODUCED EASTERLY, AND LYING EAST OF SAID LOT 1, AND WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAID BLOCK 23 PRODUCED NORTHERLY. PARCEL B: LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 23, TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 1 OF PLATS, PAGE(S) 135, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; AND THAT PORTION OF THE TOBIN DONATION CLAIM LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2 PRODUCED EASTERLY AND NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3 AND LYING EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOTS 2 AND 3 AND WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAID BLOCK 23 PRODUCED NORTHERLY. CI IICAGO TrI LE INSURANCE COMPANY ALTAOPA/9-10.93/soe CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Policy No.: 528865 STANDARD OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage(and the Company will not pay costs,attorneys'fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: A. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. B. Encroachments,overlaps,boundary line disputes,and any other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey and inspection of the premises. C. Easements or claims of easements not shown by the public records. D. Any lien,or right to lien,for contributions to employee benefit funds,or for state workers'compensation,or for services,labor,or material heretofore or hereafter furnished,all as imposed by law,and not shown by the public records. E. Taxes or special assessments which arc not shown as existing liens by the public records. F. Any service,installation,connection,maintenance,tap,capacity or construction charges for sewer,water, electricity,other utilities, or garbage collection and disposal. G. Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; Indian tribal codes or regulations,Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including casements or equitable servitudes. H. Water rights,claims,or title to water. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, PAYABLE FEBRUARY 15, DELINQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON MAY 1, SECOND HALF DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF THE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTIES) : YEAR: 1998 TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: 723150-1950-03 LEVY CODE: 2100 ASSESSED VALUE-LAND: $ 35,000 .00 ASSESSED VALUE-IMPROVEMENTS: $ 0.00 GENERAL & SPECIAL TAXES: BILLED: $466.12 PAID: $233.06 UNPAID: $233.06 AFFECTS: PORTION OF PARCEL A LYING WITHIN THE PLAT OF TOWN OF RENTON CIIICAGOTITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ALrnoPI3 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Policy No.: 528865 • STANDARD OWNER POLICY SCIILDULL B (Continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 2 . GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, PAYABLE FEBRUARY 15, DELINQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON MAY 1, SECOND HALF DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF THE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTIES) : YEAR: 1998 TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: 000720-0111-05 LEVY CODE: 2100 ASSESSED VALUE-LAND: $ 49,000 .00 ASSESSED VALUE-IMPROVEMENTS: $ 0 .00 GENERAL & SPECIAL TAXES: BILLED: $650.56 PAID: $325.28 UNPAID: $325.28 AFFECTS: PORTION OF PARCEL A LYING WITHIN TOBIN DONATION CLAIM 3. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, PAYABLE FEBRUARY 15, DELINQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON MAY 1, SECOND HALF DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF THE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTIES) : YEAR: 1998 TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: 723150-1955-08 LEVY CODE: 2100 ASSESSED VALUE-LAND: $ 84,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE-IMPROVEMENTS: $ 54,400.00 GENERAL & SPECIAL TAXES: BILLED: $1, 828.39 PAID: $ 914 .20 UNPAID: $ 914 .19 AFFECTS: PARCEL B 4. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: MKD DEVELOPMENT CO. INC. , A WASHINGTON CORPORATION TRUSTEE: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY BENEFICIARY: NORMAN M. SCHULTZ AND MARIAN SCHULTZ, HUSBAND AND WIFE AMOUNT: $ 388, 000 .00 DATED: SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 CI IICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Policy No.: 528865 • STANDARD OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE B (Conlinucd) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 25, 1998 RECORDING NUMBER: 9809250395 LOAN NUMBER: NOT DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT NOW SECURED BY SAID DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS UPON WHICH THE SAME CAN BE DISCHARGED OR ASSUMED SHOULD BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE HOLDER OF THE INDEBTEDNESS SECURED. ** END OF SCHEDULE B ** LPL zpit 5 l ' ' AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Loan Pblicy Endorsements: NONE Owner's Policy Endorsements: NONE CI IICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY N 7(3S '0 CHICAGO TITLL'1N FRANCE COMPANY 1800 COLUMHIA CENTER, 701 5TH AVE, SEATTLE, WASHINCTON 98104 IMPORTANT: This is not a Survey. It is furnished as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance hereon. o I I • til is i v I T ti 0 h /z 0 f— Z♦ ,00 iv ..__: 2 t 3 I .1. r is v1 '¢ i S C 0 �.f to Q J Ai 3 ) , _ c, --1 J Lit MO _ 7 / Z 8 Ii 9 is ° 60 / a0 / z0 Co • o 2 ND Al/ F, -11 a° �° L� ,... V V B IA CENTER, 701 5TH AVE a �a �o \�5 tea1 or0 goo COLCTM y � o � eo. gEATTLE, WA 98104 Policy No.: . 528865 yoaQ�00 �,.� Q° e �° dOcy�� �� STANDARD OWNER POLICY 0o\ 7Q9, 0 4-N.., �ayJea�� SCHEDULE A ai Amount of • DnteofPolicy: SEPTEMBER 25, 1998 at 10:20 AM Insurance: $485, 000 .00 • 1 Name of Insured: MKD DEVELOPMENT CO. , INC. , A WASHINGTON CORPORATION 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this policy is: FEE SIMPLE 3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in: MKD DEVELOPMENT CO. , INC. , A WASHINGTON CORPORATION CyMG ._ Or..,.ENT PIA4 i:_. Cll`( OF RENTON FFa 1999 DECEIVED 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: PARCEL A: LOT 1, BLOCK 23, TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 1 OF PLATS, PAGE(S) 135, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; AND THAT PORTION OF THE TOBIN DONATION CLAIM LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 AND NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 PRODUCED EASTERLY, AND LYING EAST OF SAID LOT 1, AND WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAID BLOCK 23 PRODUCED NORTHERLY. PARCEL B: LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 23, TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 1 OF PLATS, PAGE(S) 135, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; AND THAT PORTION OF THE TOBIN DONATION CLAIM LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2 PRODUCED EASTERLY AND NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3 AND LYING EAST OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOTS 2 AND 3 AND WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAID BLOCK 23 PRODUCED NORTHERLY. CIIICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ALTAOPA/9-IO.93/soc 1 v.. v1 r.mirr LrV11LL1111\4, 11\v, , `1 Gs) 'TJG V.7GV, I GU'J'.7.7 IG.YU! WI, rOye 1 • trzy In ENGINEERING, _INC.] STRUCTURAL. CIVIL CONSULTANTS 700 - 108TH AVENUE N.E., SUITE 207 BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON, 98004 PHONE, FAX (208)482-8202 CIVIL, ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS 47 UNITS APARTMENT_ -LoPMENT PACN:•; ''' CITY OF RENT� BUILDING 1 � 1999 RECEIVED FOR MKD DEVELOPMENT co k AT `� 4r `gyp 110 WILLIAMS STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON ` I Ex P i t z 5 1?J 141,C cov i JOB #: 9811058 DECEMBER 22, 1998 J Clll uy. /\IVll11 LIVU 11VL tlf llV l,a 1I'J . ; 425 452 ti92U; Feb-5-YY 12:491 M; Page 2 M . K . U. APARTMENTS 110 WILLIAMS AVENUE SOUTH UNDERGROUND DETENTION PIPE CALCS . BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: post-10 NAME: SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 0 . 55 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION • 2 . 50 inches AREA. . : 0 . 10 Acres 0 . 45 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10 . 00 min CN • 86 . 00 98 . 00 TC • 15 . 00 min 5 . 00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 . 20 PEAK RATE : 0 . 25 cfs VOL: 0 . 10 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min BASIN ID : post-100 NAME : SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 0 . 55 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION • 3 . 50 inches AREA. . : 0 . 10 Acres 0 . 45 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10 . 00 min CN • 86 . 00 98 . 00 TC • 15 . 00 min 5 . 00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF : 0 . 20 PEAK RATE : 0 . 37 cfs VOL : 0 . 14 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min BASIN ID: post -2 NAME : SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 0 . 55 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION • 1 . 60 inches AREA. . : 0 . 10 Acres 0 . 45 Acre: TIME INTERVAL 10 . 00 min CN • 86 . 00 98 . 00 TC • 15 . 00 min 5 . 00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF : 0 . 20 PEAK RATE : 0 . 15 cfs VOL : 0 . 06 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min BASIN ID : pre-10 NAME : SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 0 . 55 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION • 2 . 50 inches AREA. . : 0 . 48 Acres 0 . 07 Acre TIME INTERVAL 10 . 00 min CN • 81 . 00 98 . 00 TC • 15 . 00 min 5 . 00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 . 20 PEAK RATE : 0 . 11 cfs VOL: 0 . 05 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min aein by: A191H LNla1NhtHINU, INC.; 425 452 8926; Feb-5-99 12:50P1,1; Page 3;8 2- M. K.D. APARTMENTS 110 WILLIAMS AVENUE SOUTH UNDERGROUND DETENTION PIPE CALCS . BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: pre-100 • NAME : SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 0 . 55 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION • 3 . 50 inches AREA. . : 0 . 48 Acres 0 . 07 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10 . 00 min CN • 81 . 00 98 . 00 TC • 15 . 00 min 5 . 00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 . 20 PEAK RATE : 0 . 20 cfs VOL: 0 . 09 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min BASIN ID: pre-2 NAME : SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 0 . 55 Acres BASEFLOWS : 0 . 00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION • 1 . 60 inches AREA. . : 0 . 48 Acres 0 . 07 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10 . 00 min CN • 81 . 00 98 . 00 TC • 15 . 00 min 5 . 00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 . 20 PEAK RATE : 0 . 04 cfs VOL: 0 . 02 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min M . K. D. APARTMENTS 110 WILLIAMS AVENUE SOUTH UNDERGROUND DETENTION PIPE CALCS . ....L.. - HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min . cf\AcFt Acres 1 0 . 038 480 989 cf 0 . 55 2 0 . 152 480 2460 cf 0 . 55 3 0 . 108 480 2218 cf 0 . 55 4 0 . 255 480 4169 cf 0 . 55 5 0 . 201 480 3808 cf 0 . 55 6 0 . 370 480 6109 cf 0 . 55 11 0 . 038 670 2460 cf 0 . 55 12 0 . 108 530 4169 cf 0 . 55 13 0 . 206 510 6109 cf 0 . 55 J CII I Dy.. Hm'I1f1 LIVUlIVCCI111VU, IHU. ; 4CD 4JL (..) CO; r eu-u-yy I L:J I vIvI; rd Je 4 i 0 •7J M . K. D. APARTMENTS 110 WILLIAMS AVENUE SOUTH UNDERGROUND DETENTION PIPE CALCS . • STAGE STORAGE TABLE CUSTOM STORAGE ID No . Un-pipe Description: Pipe Detention + Dead Storage STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE - STORAGE----> (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- (ft) --•cf--- --Ac-Ft- 34.70 0.0000 0.0000 36.90 905.00 0.0208 39.10 1305 0.0300 41.30 1415 0.0325 34.80 36.000 0.0008 3?.00 950.00 0.0218 39.20 1310 0.0301 41.40 1420 0.0326 34.90 72.000 0.0017 37.10 982.50 0.0226 39.30 1315 0.0302 41 50 1425 0.0327 35.00 108.00 0.0025 37.20 1015 0.0233 39.40 1320 0.0303 41.60 1430 0 0328 35.10 144.00 0:0033 37.30 1047 0.0240 39.50 1325 0.0304 41.70 1435 0.0329 35.20 180.00 0.0041 37.40 1080 0.0248 39.60 1330 0.0305 41.80 1440 0.0331 35.30 215.00 0.0049 37.50 1120 0.0257 39.70 1335 0.0306 41.90 1445 0 0332 36.40 250.00 0.0057 37.60 1160 0.0266 39.80 1340 0.0308 42.00 1450 0 0333 35,60 282.50 0.0065 37.70 1200 0.0275 39.90 1345 0.0309 42.10 1455 0.0334 35.60 315.00 0,0072 37.80 1240 0.0285 40.00 1350 0.0310 42.20 1450 0.0335 35.70 347.50 0.0080 37.90 1245 0.0286 40.10 1355 0.0311 42.30 1465 0.0336 35.80 380.00 0.0087 38.00 1250 0.0287 40.20 1360 0.0312 42.40 1470 0.0337 35.90 427.50 0.0098 38.10 1255 0.0288 40.30 1365 0.0313 42.50 1475 0.0339 36.00 475.00 0.0109 38.20 1260 0.0289 40.40 1370 0.0315 42.60 1480 0.0340 36.10 522.50 0.0120 38.30 1265 0.0290 40.50 1375 0.0316 42.70 1485 0 0341 36.20 570.00 0.0131 38.40 1270 0.0292 40.60 1380 0.0317 42.80 1490 0.0342 - -36.30 - 620.00-.0:0142 - -38.50 ----1275--0.0293 40.70 1385 0.0318 42.90 1495 0.0343 36.40 670,00 0.0154 38.60 1280 0.0294 40.80 1390 0.0319 43.00 1500 0 0344 36.50 720.00 0.0165 38.70 1285 0.0295 40.90 1395 0.0320 43.10 1505 0 0346 36.60 770 00 0 0177 38.80 1290 0.0296 41.00 1400 0.0321 43.20 1510 0 0347 36.70 815.00 0.0187 38.90 1295 0.0297 41,10 1405 0.0323 43.20 1510 0.0347 36.80 860.00 0.0197 39.00 1300 0.0298 41.20 1410 0.0324 - - -I ••••+• �...-- .��"+....� +..v -i�v -i�+G tJ.�Gv� I CIJ-J-0CI I C...JGI I'll, 1 CI tU.G J/ V 1F M. K.D. APARTMENTS 110 WILLIAMS AVENUE SOUTH UNDERGROUND DETENTION PIPE CALCS . STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. orifice Description: Orifice Design Outlet Elev: 34 . 70 Elev: 33 . 20 ft Orifice Diameter: 1 . 0503 in . Elev : 36 . 40 ft Orifice 2 Diameter : 1 . 7109 in . Elev: 37 . 10 ft Orifice 3 Diameter : 0 . 0117 in . STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> STAGE <--DISCHARGE---> (ft) ---cfs (ft) ---cfs (ft) ---cfs (ft) - -cfs 34.70 0.0000 35.60 0.0284 36.50 0.0663 37.40 0.1286 34.80 0:0095 '35.70 0.0299 36.60 0.0768 37.50 0.1334 34.90 0.0134 35.80 0.0314 36.70 0.0858 37.60 0.1380 35.00 0.0164 35.90 0.0328 36.80 0.0936 37.70 0.1424 35.10 0.0189 36.00 0.0341 36.90 0.1006 37 80 0 1467 35.20 0.0212 36.10 0.0354 37.00 0.1069 37 90 0.1508 35.30 0.0232 35.20 0.0367 37.10 0.1128 38.00 0.1549 35.40 0.0250 36.30 0.0379 37.20 0.1184 38.10 0.1588 35.50 0.0268 35.40 0.0390 37.30 0.1236 38.20 0.1626 M. K.D. APARTMENTS 110 WILLIAMS AVENUE SOUTH UNDERGROUND DETENTION PIPE CALCS . LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY MATCH INFLOW -STU- -D15- <-PEAK-> STORAGE DESCRIPTION "> (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- <-STAGE> id VOL (cf) • 2-yr Post @ pre rate 0.04 0.15 Un-pipe orifice 36.33 11 633.94 cf 10-y Post @ pre rate 0.11 0.26 Un-pipe orifice 37.02 12 955.15 cf 100y Post @ pre rate 0.20 0.37 Un-pipe orifice 39.50 13 1325.08 cf sent by: FMIN LNUINELH.N(a, INU. ; 425 452 8926; Feb-5-99 12:52PM; Page 6/8 00 4 LEGEND Hyd No. 1 • Hyd Ho. 2 1 1 1 u c M S Y I 3 G 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 Tine in Hours Hyd No . : 1 Rate : 0 . 04 cfs Time : 8 . 00 hr Vol : 0 . 02 Ac f t Int : 10 . 00 chin Hyd No . : 2 Rate : 0 . 15 cfs Time : 8 . 00 hr Vol : 0 . 06 Ac-ft Int : 10 . 00 min vcn� uy. PVvllfl GYUIIVCCIIlIVU� 11VV. 44U 'tot OyLl7j reu-o-ay IC:zJI'IYI; rdy.e I /O 0 4 LEGEND Hyd No. 3 Hyd Ho, 4 Hyd No, 11 4 I. u c 4 r 4 a 6 9 12 15 16 21 24 Z7 30 Tine in Hours Hyd No . : 3 Rate : 0 . 11 cfs Time : 8 . 00 hr Vol : 0 . 05 Ac-ft Int : 10 . 00 min Hyd No . : 4 Rate : 0 . 25 cfs Time: 8 . 00 hr Vol : 0 . 10 Ac-ft Int : 10 . 00 min Hyd No . : 11 Rate : 0 . 04 cfs Time : 11 . 17 hr Vol : 0 . 06 Ac-ft Int : 10 . 00 min uy: NIYIIH tNUINttH1Nli, 1NU. ; 425 452 8926; Feb-5-99 12:54PM; Page 8/8 O a LEGEND Hyd No. 5 Hyd Ho. 6 Hyd Ho. 12 6 12 18 24 3U `6 Tine in Hours • Hyd No . : 5 Rate : 0 . 20 cfs Time : 8 . 00 hr Vol : 0 , 09 Ac-ft Int : 10 . 00 min Ilyd No . : 6 Rate : 0 . 37 cfs Time : 8 . 00 hr Vol : 0 , 14 Ac-ft Int : 10 . 00 min Hyd No . : 12 Rate : 0 . 11 cfs Time : 8 . 83 hr vol : 0 . 10 Ac -ft Int : 10 . 00 min **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 06/17/99 15 : 16 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9902916 Amount : 26 . 40 06/17/99 15 : 16 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: 1589MKDDEVELOPMT Init : CRP Project # : LUA99 -013 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 723150-1950 Site Address : 102 WILLIAMS AV S Total Fees : 1, 589 . 76 This Payment 26 . 40 Total ALL Pmts : 1, 589 . 76 Balance : . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 . 42 . 1 Postage 26 . 40 **************************** *********************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 02/05/99 15 : 17 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9900490 Amount: 1, 500 . 00 02/05/99 15 : 17 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: MKD DEV-1258 Init: CRP Project #: LUA99-013 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 723150-1950 Site Address: 102 WILLIAMS AV S Total Fees : 1, 563 .36 This Payment 1, 500 . 00 Total ALL Pmts : 1, 500 . 00 Balance: 63 .36 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 1, 000 . 00