Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-31-89 - SOUTHCENTER ASSOCIATION - SUNWOOD APARTMENT PHASE IIISUNWOOD PHASE III NEW APARTMENT COMPLEX & PARKING AREA 62ND AVE. S. & SUNWOOD DR. EPIC -31 -89 UK OF TUKWILA ILA CITY W 6200 Sodiihcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 MEMORANDUM TO: J P < V- ?cT FROM: DATE• 3ia8/1) SUBJECT: CR^t3 210 S C l4rewut.4) r c� 6N1Sv l� Ft NA-1 Co mzE,p o p/tn,c1 hay (0)i L 1 I S S PL1 LLC �iu � GoN S LIL V\'ITl&f tINJI Fo 1V , F-Lowc s tt_TtrIlow -To `a LYNN m 17 'No P 1 T1_.11 S JD C- t- tMa.71MWN N\-JTA6tD111L s nA. CIO-ATI vv ■- '� O 0'u w S __ 'P Q\ S -R`t \\-{.S rpThONZ.o q MBA t -i fact_, n l cTh- T&L UPE. off- Q N,ia1 �� � - STE 1 NVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. • • GENERAL CONTRACTOR March 27, 1991 #STEINCC131 CO Mr. Phil Fraser City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98189 Dear Phil: RECEIVED MAR 2 7 1991 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS (206) 822 -6440 FAX (206) 827 -7258 Enclosed are separate letters from D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. and Associated Earth Sciences both of which respond to your concerns expressed in our March 18, 1991 meeting. After review of these letters we are confident that each of your concerns 1) No excessive flows or debris (silt) downstream. 2) A T.E.S.0 plan that provides for a safety factor above the design requirements. 3) A T.E.S.0 plan that will handle predictable storm events. have been thoroughly and properly addressed and that this design meets all King County and City of Tukwila code and design. requirements. Your other concerns regarding soil inspection, T.E.S.C.P monitoring and maintenance have 'already been addressed in detail per the letter from Associated Earth Sciences to Jack Pace, dated February 26, 1991. (Please find a copy of that letter enclosed). If you should have any questions, please contact me at my office. Sincerely yours, Gary R. Steinvall President cc: William Jeude, Univest, Inc. Bruce Blyton, Associated Earth Sciences Donald Hill, D.R. Strong Engineers Rick Beeler, City of Tukwila Planning Dept. Jack Pace, City of Tukwila Planning Dept. P.O. BOX 2458 • KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98083 -2458 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 Reconstruction of Sunwood Drive. Sunwood Drive is the only access for the proposal and the developed areas to the north (Sunwood I and II). The roadway is narrow and contains a median strip dividing the lanes. Reconstruction of the roadway will interfere with access to the developed areas unless special provisions are made. The applicant will need to provide a plan so that access to the developed areas is not unduly restricted. See Condition # 12. G. UTILITIES The proposed sewer line along the south property line is proposed at a depth of approximately 12 feet below grade. Because Buildings are located close to the south property line, the City's concern is that access to the sewer line could be a problem if repair is needed. The applicant will need to provide documentation that repair /and or servicing . of the sewer line can be accomplished if necessary with the proposed locations of the buildings (B,C and D) with respect to the south property line. See Conditions # 4 and 15. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issuance of a Determination of Non - Significance is appropriate since the environmental review indicates no probability of significant adverse environmental impacts from the proposal. NOTE: Additional mitigation may be required during the Design Review process which is not included below. Additional Mitigation required of the proposal includes: A. EARTH 1. Add 1 � I rev^ 2. B. WATER Te mitigate ea h w. 'k o item . suc be accompli e erosion and sedimentation impacts of the art ' ork and .ss4c ted st c•io of re a n is shall d dur g the dry •mmer ion► s. Instructions for retaining topsoil (as noted in a letter from the project's landscape architect /dated 3- 38 -90)) shall be included on the face of the drawings submitted for a Grading Permit. 3. To mitigate any adverse storm drainage impacts from the proposal, the civil design plan shall complies with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual; including -5- 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 upstream and downstream analysis and shall include provisions for regular maintenance access to clean /maintain the proposed detention system. 4. To mitigate any adverse storm drainage impacts from the proposal, the applicant's Geoengineer shall provide to the City a report documenting his review of the final civil design plan (including storm water, retaining walls and maintenance access) and include any recommendations. o mitigate adverse impacts to water quality from A&&pro osal, final draina e plans shall provide biof' tra ion an i1 ater separa ors per the 1990 King C ty Surface Water Design Manual. 6. To mitigate adverse impacts to water quality from siltation impacts, temporary siltation control measures should be review and approved prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Control measures should also include a "gravel wedge" in front of the silt fences as per the Geotechnical Consultant's letter (p. 2, of Associated Earth Sciences letter dated March 28, 1990). 7. To mitigate adverse water quality impacts to the storm water system from sedimentation, tire cleaning provisions should be made and any existing catch basins where mud is likely to collect should be protected by filter fabric. C. PLANTS 8. Proposed new trees should not be planted in compacted soil unless gravel drain sumps are installed under each tree or the subgrade soil is rototilled. D. AESTHETICS 9. The retaining walls shall be darkened to reduce the impact of the natural light color of the concrete. E NOISE 10. Incorporate the recommendations (a through e) for mitigation of interior noise levels (glazing) contained on page 4 of the Noise Assessment (Michael R. Yantis Associates, Inc., April 1990). March 25, 1991 Project No. 8911 -04G Mr. Phil Fraser City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98189 Subject: Geotechnical Review of T.E.S.C.P. Crystal Ridge Apartments Tukwila, Washington Tukwila Utility Permit No. 89- 362/89 -381 Dear Mr. Fraser: ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has performed a geotechnical review of the 1bmporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan (T.E.S.C.P.) for the proposed project. This plan was prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. and consisted of Sheet 7 of 7 dated January 18, 1991, and revised February 22, 1991. In addition, we have reviewed D.R Strong's March 19, 1991 letter to you. The geotechnical aspects of these plans and letter are in conformance with the recommendations contained in AESI's Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering report dated November 17, 1989, and Design Review letter dated March 28, 1990. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. t G� ..L.....8� Y j!li1 roF . sit Gary A')Flowers, P.G. Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Principal Senior Engineer xc: Lyle Landrie, Steinvall Construction Don Hill, D.R. Strong BLB /Id - 0911 -04G - DK3 /10/91 Id 911 - 5th Avenue Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827 -7701 FAX '(206) 827 -5424 MO D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 10602 N.E. 38TH PLACE, SUITE 101 • KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 • TOLL FREE (Washington State) 1- 800 - 962 -1402 • FAX NUMBER (206) 827 -2423 89- 268.92 March 19, 1991 Mr. Phil Fraser City of Tukwila 6200 SouthCcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98189 RE: Utility Permit #89- 362/89 -381 Crystal Ridge Apartments Dear Phil: We are writing in response to our meeting yesterday at your office. This meeting was attended by: Bruce Blyton, Associated Earth Sciences; Gary Steinvall and Lyle Landrie, Steinvall Construction; and Ross Heller and you. You summarized the City's concern that the proposed project and it's submitted Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan show that there are "no excessive flows" and "no de- bris /silt deposited downstream of the site ". Our plans, as submitted to you (Ross Heller) by cover letter on March 7, 1991, along with pre- vious submittals of calculations, represent our design of the Storm Drainage Collection, Detention, and Conveyance, as well as the TESC facilities, in accordance with the 1979 King County Surface Water Man - agement Manual (1979 Manual). As stated previously, and as confirmed by a previously - submitted cal- culations, our design conveys the 100 -year storm event. The detention facility is designed to detain the difference between the 10-year pre - development peak flow and the 25 -year post - development peak flow. Of particular note is the capability of the designed TESC facilities. Similarly, these facilities are designed in accordance with the 1979 Manual which has as it's purpose "...to collect and store sediment from erodible areas to protect properties and streams below the in- stallation from excessive siltation and detain runoff water from the site ". The purpose is listed in the Supplemental Construction and Water Quality Manual prepared by King County Conservation District, April 1981. Our design conforms to the predictable 2 -year, 24 -hour precipitation event of 2 inches of runoff, in accordance with that Manual's design procedure. As noted on our submitted Plans, Sheet 7 of 7, the contractor is required to provide "1 cubic foot of sedimen- tation volume behind each sedimentation trap for every 25 feet of dis- turbed area tributary to the inlet trap ". This value is in accordance with the Manual's purpose for collecting and storing sediment and protecting properties below the installation from excessive siltation, and for conveying runoff water from the site. Our design meets or exceeds the requirements of the 1979 Manual in the following ways: Mr. Phil Fraser March 19, 1991 Page 2 1) The 1979 Manual does not require the detention facilities to be operational prior to construction clearing. As you review our design, you will see that we have outlined the construction se- quence in such a way as to require the installation of the deten- tion facility as one of the first steps of construction; 2) As noted above, the sedimentation trap design that we have shown on our test facility, provides for the 2 -year, 24 -hour precipita- tion sedimentation storage in accordance with the 1979 Manual; 3) The storm drainage facility collects appropriately -sized drainage areas on the site, and directs these areas into catch basins which are sized for the 100 -year storm event. These catch basins in turn convey the storm drainage via the new conveyance system through the detention facility to the existing 62nd Avenue South storm drainage system. The 1979 Manual only requires hydraulic capacity for the 10 -year storm event, unless in a Critical Drainage Basin; 4) Breaking up the site and collecting runoff during construction from numerous smaller drainage areas reduces the potential for major concentrated flows, with potential significant impacts; 5) The detention facility will provide additional sediment stor- age /removal capacity beyond the sedimentation trap design re- quired by the 1979 Manual; 6) The detention facility will reduce the peak flow discharges from the site to below predevelopment conditions; 7) Most of the existing areas discharging by sheet flow on the imme- diate downstream parcels will be directed to the 62nd Avenue South storm drainage from the beginning phase of construction. These remarks affirm the design that we have used, which has been re- viewed by Associated Earth Sciences. AES will provide you with a separate letter which reviews our design, as well as slope stability during and after construction. Additionally, our remarks do not ad- dress the issue of maintenance and response to potential storm drainage system problems on the site during construction, both of which will be addressed by the Applicant separately. Sincerely yours, D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. e r `> �- DONALD J. HILL,t P.E. DJH : l f cc: Bruce Blyton, Associated Earth Sciences Gary Steinvall, Steinvall Construction • February 26, 1991 Project No. 8911 -04G City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Mr. Jack Pace, Sr. Planner i.� • ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC FEB 28 1991 Re: Crystal Ridge Apartments (Formerly Sunwood Phase III) Response to February 15, 1991 Letter from Ross Heller and January 23, 1991 Memorandum from P. Fraser to J. Pace The purpose of this letter is to respond to the above, letter and memorandum regarding the proposed Crystal Ridge Apartments project at 62nd Ave. and Sunwood Boulevard South in Tukwila, Washington. It is our understanding, based on the letter and memorandum, that the City continues to have strong concerns regarding the construction of the project during any time other than "dry weather months ". In response to Mr. Fraser's memorandum, dated January 23, 1991, we would like to make the following comments: 1) Paragraph 3 - "the overall construction shall be scheduled in such a manner as to assure no situation will be contemplated by which downstream properties could experience erosion of materials or excessive flows from this Development. We feel the hillside is too steep " The position of AESI is that all appropriate measures must be taken to mitigate the potential for impacts to downstream properties. This is currently being done with the TESC plan, the recommendations contained within our geotechnical report, and ongoing meetings with the applicant. In our opinion, the currently proposed TESC properly addresses all of these measures and is suitable for the topographic, soil and hydrologic conditions anticipated on the subject site regardless of the time of construction (subject to the restriction recommended in para. 2, item no. 5 below). When properly implemented, the TESC will protect the downstream properties from excessive erosion and storm drainage flows from the subject property. 2) Paragraph 4 - "The Sunwood Phase III Project is dependent on the stability and protection of downstream properties. Excessive flows and /or erosions...could create a significant amount of damage...and undermine the downstream properties which this project relies on. Therefore, a recommendation....must.be limited to a no silt /excessive flow potential to downstream properties..." 911 - 5th Avenue Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827 -7701 FAX (206) 827 -5424 • • As shown in the geotechnical report for this project, and subsequent addendums, the subject site is entirely underlain by glacially consolidated till or bedrock except for a small amount of overlying fill. As such, the overall stability of the site is not in question, with or without the downstream properties. We understand that the site to the immediate west experienced a significant failure which had the potential to impact the Denny's restaurant. Based on the encountered subsurface conditions on the subject site, and the planned drainage and erosion controls, it is our opinion that a similar circumstance will not occur. A "no silt /excessive flow potential to downstream properties recommendation" is not a reasonable request from the City. As with any construction project on a sloping site the best precautions can only mitigate the potential to impact downstream properties. In addition, it is well documented that high intensity storms can also occur during the usual drier months of the year. Therefore, if the City has no confidence in the proposed mitigations to be effective, then the argument over dry weather construction versus nondry weather construction is a moot point. It is always the recommendation of AESI to our clients that construction on sites such as the subject site be performed during the drier months of the year. This recommendation is intended for the economic benefit of the client because wet weather construction on any site (whether sloping or not) with moisture sensitive soils is much more expensive than is dry weather construction. The sloping site issue then makes it even potentially more expensive due to the need to control runoff and erosion. If the client understands and accepts these additional costs and responsibilities, and if the proposed mitigations are acceptable to AESI, it is then up to the client when the project is initiated. In response to Mr. Heller's letter, dated February 15, 1991, we offer the following comments and recommendations: Item No. 5 - It is the opinion of AESI, as stated above and in previous communications with the City, that construction be allowed virtually anytime provided the proposed mitigations for storm water runoff and erosion control are acceptable to all parties. However, based on our review of the TESC plan, and discussions with the applicant, it is also our opinion that the construction startup be restricted slightly in the sense that it should be initiated at a time when the weather forecast does not predict any high intensity storms for a week to ten days time period. This period of relatively low, high intensity, storm potential is recommended in order to successfully install the lowest elements of the TESC, ie. CB 1,3,4,5 and 6 and the storm water detention pipe with minimal impact to downstream properties. The silt fence at the bottom of the property should be installed even previous to this work. 2 • Once these elements of the TESC are in place, and the contractor properly provides interceptor drainage ditches between the CBs, the storm water and erosion impacts to downstream properties can be successfully controlled while the remainder of the TESC is emplaced. All spoils from this lowermost excavation activity should be placed on the upslope side of the excavation to provide an additional level of protection to the downstream properties. These spoil piles should be covered with visqueen, as necessary, until removed or used as backfill. The City must also understand that it will be necessary to install various elements of the TESC at various times in order to coincide with the planned staged clearing, grading and utility installation. In other words, the entire TESC will not be installed in one stage because the entire site will not be cleared in one stage. Item No. 21 - Through a series of discussions with the applicant the following maintenance /monitoring schedules and commitments have been agreed upon. The TESC will be continually maintained as necessary. AESI will be providing full time inspection during earthwork activities and will include the TESC into our monitoring. Any noted deficiencies will be reported to the construction superintendent for immediate action. AESI will monitor until the deficiency is corrected. The applicant has agreed to provide 24 hour monitoring of the TESC during any significant storm event. This monitoring will be performed by a laborer provided by the applicant. An equipment operator will also be on -call during these events. Labor and equipment standby for maintenance /repair of the TESC will be provided by the applicant, as needed. Initially, 1 laborer, with necessary hand tools, will be assigned full time duty to maintain the TESC. When maintenance is not necessary and a storm event is not occurring this laborer can be assigned other duties. However, in all cases his /her primary responsibility will be the TESC. In addition, 1 equipment operator and equipment, will be assigned primary TESC responsibility on an as needed basis to be determined by the full time maintenance person and AESI. As stated above, a maintenance person will provide full time (24 hour) monitoring during any significant storm event and an operator will be on -call 24 hours per day during any significant storm activity. Should you have any further comments or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Gary A. Flowers, P.G. Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Principal Sr. Project Manager GAF /me N911 -04G DK2 /10/91 ld 4 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 TO: Jack Pace FROM: Phil Fraser PHONE # (206) 4331800 M E M O R A N D U M DATE ::_ January 23, 1991. SUBJECT: Crystal Ridge Apartments (Sunwood Phase III) Storm Drainage Modifications and Scheduling During Adverse Weather Conditions Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Per our prior conversations, the final modifications presented by the Developer's civils for the detention of storm facilities for the Sunwood Phase III Development, were acceptible to Public Works staff. Per the drainage plan provided, the Development will construct the Project -in such a manner as to allow adequate access (structural sub -base with sod /small plantings on modest slopped land) to gain access to all portions of the lower storm system for repair, maintenance and monitoring and also respond to emergency situations. With respect to the' December 12, 1990 letter from Associated Earth Sc iences., Inc., it is noted in Paragraph 2: As you know, we have previously recommended to our client that construction on this site proceed during the dry months of the _year._ The recommendation remains prudent in that i t is the opinion of AEIS that construction during inclement weather will esult in additional`_.cost to the developer However, provided e' developer is willing to accept the higher costs associated with ;. the proper mitigation of erosion hazards and difficult . t: ,construction ;.;conditions,_ =.we . see no reason; why;. construction' .could not proceed' during, most inclement weather: which will, encountered. ub1ic ' Works has taken the position, based on:; our ; ' experience i with .; past :.projects on :this :_hillside. and the nature of this project, : ' that the construction and maintenance of ;temporary: erosion control. ;facilities, perivanent storm dram n facilities: and the overall construction shall' be'-scheduled in such a manner as to assure . 'no Situation will be contemplated by which 'downstream . properties could experience erosion :of;';materials or excessive flows from this Memo - Sunwood Phase III January 23, 1991 Page 2 Development. We feel the hillside is too steep to allow for some circumstances by which excessive silt or storm drainage flows could impact lower properties and cause damage. The Sunwood Phase III Project is dependent on the stability and protection of downstream properties. Excessive flows and /or erosions through these steep downstream properties could create a significant amount of damage to downstream properties and undermine the downstream properties which this project relies on. Therefore, a recommendation from the Soils Consultant of Record must be limited to a no silt /excessive flow potential to downstream properties recommendation. At this time, without further input from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., I believe this means, in essence, that a "dry weather only" construction period will be allowed for the project. I have called Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. and related this information through a phone message. If you have any questions regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact me. xc: Ross Heller Development File - Sunwood Phase III Attachments (2) PF /amc:hd:sunlll January 2, 1991 Project No. 891 1 -04G Roger H. Newell AIA, Architects 1102 — 19th Avenue East Seattle, WA 98112 Attention: Al Roberts SSOCIATED Aegaill EARTH SCIENCES, INC JAN 0 3 `x-9.0 Subject: Lateral Passive Resistance for Retaining Walls — Addendum 62nd Avenue Apartments Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Roberts: As requested, we are providing the following additional recommendations for lateral passive resistance for retaining walls at the abovementioned project. Retaining wall footings cast, directly against undisturbed. dense soils in a trench may be designed, to utilize the passive pressure above the key. This applies only to footings where concrete is placed directly against the trench side — walls without the use of forms. Passive resistance values include a factor of safety equal to 3 in order to reduce the amount of movement necessary to generate passive resistance. We are confident that this addendum will aid in the successful completion of your project. - If you should have any questions. or require further assistance. please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. e4F i so „, VP� DE Y Ash,. t� ` �.SS /ONAC Elfii\it Gary T. Lobdell, P.E.. P.G. Principal xc: Steirivail Construction 891104M GTL /hd /worksdat 911 - 5th Avenue Suite 100 Kirkland. Washington 98033 (206) 827 -7701 FAX (206)827 -5424 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 TO: Rick Beeler FROM: Phil Fraser DATE: December 27, 1990 SUBJECT: June 21, 1990 - D.R. Strong Letter Requesting Changes to the MDNS for 62nd Avenue South Apartments PHONE # (206) 433.1800 M E M O R A N D U M Gary L. Van Dusen. Mayor Per Department of Community Development request of 11/20/90, Public Works has reviewed the attached letter and has no objection to the changes requested. PF /amc:8:strong December 12, 1990 Project No. 8911 -04G City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Subject: Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC Crystal Ridge Apartments Construction During Adverse Weather Conditions Dear Mr. Pace: As requested by the proponent of the above noted project, 62nd Avenue South Partnership, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has further reviewed and discussed the plans and proposed construction schedule for the above noted project. The purpose for this was to evaluate the feasibility of construction during the nondry months of the year. As you know, we have previously recommended to our client that construction on this site proceed during the dry months of the year. This recommendation remains prudent in that it is the opinion of AESI that construction during inclement weather will result in additional costs to the developer. However, provided that the developer is willing to accept the higher costs associated with proper mitigation of erosion hazards and difficult construction conditions, we see no reason why construction could not proceed during most inclement weather which will be encountered. The stipulations which we would recommend in order to proceed with construction during nondry months would include full -time inspection by our field personnel, performance of a final review of all plans and construction scheduling by AESI, especially the temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan, and selection of a contractor who is both well informed and aware of the potential difficulties which may be encountered and experienced in wet weather earth work. Based on our client accepting these recommendations, we hereby request a modification of the mitigated determination of nonsignificance for this project dated June 3, 1990. The modification would be to Section A, Earth, page 5, regarding earth work and associated items such as the construction of retaining walls to be accomplished during the dry summer months. We request 911 - 5th Avenue Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827 -7701 that the section be changed to allow earth work and retaining wall construction during nondry months provided our recommendations are properly incorporated into the approved plans and specifications. Should you have any questions regarding this manner, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Gary A. Flowers, P.G. Principal GAF /ld L911 -04G DK12 /1/90 ld 2 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 10602 N.E. 38TH PLACE, SUITE 101 • KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827-3063 • TOLL FREE (Washington State) 1 -800- 962 -1402 • FAX NUMBER (206) 827 -2423 89- 268.5 June 21, 1990 Mr. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 JUN 251990 CITY Of. TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. RE: File #EPIC -31 -89 Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance 62nd Avenue South Apartments Dear Mr. Beeler: We are writing to clarify two of the "Conclusions and Recommendations" cited in the City of Tukwila Mitigated Declaration of NonSignificance which was issued on June 13, 1990. Both clarifications,relate to ,the fact that the proposal was originally submitted and vested with the City of Tukwila in November of 1989. Our discussions with the City of Tukwila and our calculations reflect the fact that our Preliminary Storm Drainage Plans were developed in accordance with the King County Department of Public Works Storm Drainage Control Requirements !and Guidelines Manual, May 1979 (1979 Manual). We discussedlthis clarifi- cation with Ross Heller, and Phil Fraser from Public Works, at a meet- ing with me and Rick Olson from our office, and Gary Steinvall, the Applicant, today at your offices. We therefore request that two of the "Conclusions and Recommendations" Paragraphs be changed to read as follows: Paragraph B.3: "To mitigate any adverse storm drainage impacts from the pro- posal, the Civil Design Plan shall comply with the 1979 King County Storm Drainage Control Requirements and Guidelines, in- cluding an analysis that confirms that the 100- year,storm is con- veyed through the proposed Storm Drainage Detention System in order to protect the immediate downslope properties, and shall include provisions for regular maintenance, access ' to clean /maintain the proposed Storm Drainage Detention System" . Rick Beeler, Director `,' June 21, , 1990 Page 2 Paragraph B.5: "To mitigate adverse impacts to water quality from the proposal, the Final Drainage Plans shall provide an oil /water separator in accordance with the 1979 King County Storm Drainage Control Re- quirements and Guidelines" We submit this clarification in accordance with your review proce- dures, and request that you amend the above - mentioned Mitigated De- termination of NonSignificance. If this is not the case, we ask that you would clarify the process, and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. DINALD J. HILL, P. DJH:lf enclosures cc: Ross Heller Phil Fraser Gary Steinvall A F F I hA V I T OF O I S T R I IT 10 N I, DJANN MARIINEZ hereby declare that: Q Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting E7 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet E] Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet [� Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit E7 Shoreline Management Permit [� Determination of Nonsignificance E11 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action E] Official Notice [] Other O Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on JUNE 13, 1990 , 19 _ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION CENTRAL OPERATIONS PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CAMPUS MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 -8711 Name of Project SUNWOOD PHASE III File Number EPIC -31 -89 0 1 _44L,„ • • • CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAILINGS ( ) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal Highway Administration FEDERAL AGENCIES ( )U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( )U.S. Department of H.U.D. (Region X) WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department ( ) Department of Fisheries ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) Planning & Community Affairs Agency ( )Dept. of Social and Health Services ( )Dept. of Ecology, Shorelands Division (K)Dept. of Ecology, SEPA Division * ( )Department of Game ( )Office of Attorney General * Send checklist with all determinations KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Dept. of Planning & Community Devel. ( ) Fire District 18 ( ) Boundary Review Board ( ) Health Department ( ) South Central School District ( ) Tukwila Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone ( ) Seattle City Light (. ) Washington Natural Gas ( ) Water District 75 ( ) Seattle Water Department ( ) Group W Cable ( ) Kent Planning Department ( ) Tukwila Board of Adjustment ( ) Tukwila Mayor Tukwila City Departments: ( ) - Public Works ( ) - Parks and Recreation ( ) - Police ( ) - Fire ( ) - Finance ( ) - Planning /Building ( )Fire District 1 ( )Fire District 24 ( )Building & Land Development Division - SEPA Information Center SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( )Highline School District ( )King County Public Library ( )Seattle Municipal Reference Library UTILITIES ( )Puget Sound Power & Light ( )Val -Vue Sewer District ( )Water District 20 ( )Water District 25 ( )Water District 125 ( )Union Pacific Railroad CITY AGENCIES )Renton Planning Department )Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Council Members: )- Edgar Bauch )- Marilyn Stoknes )- Joe Duffie )- Mabel Harris )- Charlie Simpson )- Jim McKenna )- Wendy Morgan OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Council of Government(PSCOG) ( )METRO Environmental Planning Division ( ) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Office /Industrial 10,000 gsf or more ( ) Tukwila /Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce Residential 50 units or more Retail 100,000 gsf or more ) Daily Journal of Commerce Renton Record Chronicle MEDIA ( )Highline Times ( )Seattle Times WAC 197 -11 -970 • MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal Construction of a 72 unit apartment complex (6 buildings), a recreation center (1 building), surface and covered parking (13 garages) for 150 vehicles, a stormwater runoff system and installation of landscaping Proponent Southcenter Associates (Roger Newell, Architects) Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 62nd Avenue South and Sunwood Drive (Private Street); SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23, RANGE 4E Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -31 -89 '' The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. [[ There is no comment period for this DNS [� This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by 5 P.M., JUNE 28, 1990 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Address Date Phone 433 -1846 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukj,i1 98188 /3/ /7fo Signature You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS PROJECT: DATE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: FILE REFERENCE: THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DECLARATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE 62nd Avenue South Apartments (formerly known as Sunwood III) June 13, 1990 To construct 20 structures containing 72 apartment units, garages and a recreation center 62nd Ave South and Sunwood Drive (private street) Southcenter Associates (Roger Newell, Architects) EPIC -31 -89 (89- 14 -DR) This is a Mitigated Declaration of Non - Significance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD The environmental review consisted of analyis based on the following documents included in the environmental record: o Traffic Impact Analysis - Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc. (March 28, 1990) o Geotechnical Engineering Report - Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (November 17, 1989) o Letter (March 28, 1990) to G. Steinvall (developer) from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. o Original development plans o Revised development Plans (stamped March 30, 1990) o Revised development Plans (stamped June 13, 1990) o Letter (March 28, 1990) to J. Pace, City of Tukwila from D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers o Letter (March 27, 1990) to J. Pace, City of Tukwila from The Johnson Associates (Landscape Architects) o Letter '(April 4, 1990) to South Center Associates from Ryan S. Thrower (Pres., Sunwood Homeowner's Association) o Letter (April 12, 1990) to Gary Steinvall (Developer) from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. o Letter (April 18, 1990) to Gary Steinvall (Developer) from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. o Noise Assessment - Michael R. Yantis Associates, Inc. (April 1990) -1- • • 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 o Letter (April 19, 1990) to J. Pace (City of Tukwila) from D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers o Letter (April 19, 1990) to Phil Fraser (City of Tukwila) from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. o Letter (April 24, 1990) to Phil Fraser (City of Tukwila) from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. o Aerial Photo with overlay (date 6- 12 -90) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BACKGROUND There has been no previous environmental review for this project. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal includes construction of a 72 unit apartment complex (6 buildings), a recreation center (1 building), surface and covered parking (13 garages) for 150 vehicles , a storm water water runoff control system and installation of landscaping. To accomplish the proposal the following actions will be required: import of approximately 1500 cubic yards of fill (structural), construct retaining walls, and re- construct on -site private vehicle access. DESIGN FEATURES The exterior of the apartment structures will include a combination of cedar siding stained from light to medium and stucco painted beige, trim with contrasting darker stain, peak roofs clad with medium dark asphalt shingles, aluminum railings painted green, and bronze anodized aluminum windows. The individual units will have concrete patios on the ground floors and projected outdoor decks on the upper floors. The exterior of the garages and recreation center will match the architectural theme of the apartment structures. The recreation center will include clear glazing for the skylights. PERMITS REQUIRED * Design Review approval * Grading permit * Building Permit * Street use /Utility permits * Developer's Agreement (for off - sites) -2- • • 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 CHECKLIST ITEMS A. EARTH The proposal is located on a parcel containing steep slopes. The soils report provided indicates presence of bedrock on the site. Soils borings appear to indicate that proposed building locations will not require any blasting to prepare for footings and foundations. B. WATER The topography of the site creates the potential for erosion and siltation resulting from construction activities. Limiting the grading activities to the dry portion of the year will help to mitigate the erosion potential. See Condition # 1. The original proposal contained an erosion control plan to mitigate these impacts. Additional analysis was performed by the geotech consultant (AESI) and additional recommendations were made. Those recommendations contained in the letter from the geotech consultant (AESI, dated 3- 28 -90) will need to be incorporated into the civil plans prior to obtaining a Grading Permit. See Conditions # 3, 4 and 6. Storm water runoff from the parking areas will contain oil, gasoline and other pollutants. See Condition # 5. C. PLANTS Site was previously stripped of most vegetation. Only a few significant trees remain on the site. The proposed landscaping will help to mitigate the impacts of the structures. D. AESTHETICS Retaining Walls. The revised development plans (stamped 6- 13 -90) include the use of several retaining walls on the site. The most prominent of these are located on the site's southern perimeter and at the entrance to Sunwood Drive. The visual impact of these walls is significant. The proposed horizontal and vertical modulation of the retaining walls will help to mitigate these impacts. -3- • • 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 In addition, the proposed walls should be darkened with design treatment so that the visual impact of the natural light color of the concrete is mitigated. See Condition # 9. Rooftops. The original development plans included as a design feature the use of flat roofs obstensibly to reduce any view impact. Since the many of the units in the adjoining Sunwood I and II will be looking down on the proposal, the roof configurations included the revised development plans will help to mitigate these impacts. The proposal is required to obtain a Design Review approval from the City which will also provide additional opportunities to mitigate aesthetic impacts. E. NOISE Temporary noise impacts due to construction activities will be mitigated by implementation of TMC 8.22.160. The applicant submitted a noise assessment (dated April, 1990) which outlined the impacts of noise on the proposal. The assessment contained recommendations (for glazing) to reduce interior noise levels in the units. These recommedations should be included in the plans submitted for a building permit. See Condition # 10. F. TRANSPORTATION Traffic and Sunwood Drive. The applicant provided a traffic analysis report (dated March 28, 1990) which evaluated the transportation impacts from this proposal. The conclusions (contained on page 6) indicated there is no significant traffic impacts as a result of this proposal except for the deterioration of the pavement on Sunwood Drive. The portion of the Sunwood Drive within the scope of the proposal has been examined and the determination made (see AESI letter dated 4- 12 -90) that the roadway does not contain a sub -base under the existing pavement. To mitigate the impacts of increased traffic on this roadway, reconstruction of the roadway within the scope of this proposal will be necessary. See Condition # 11. -4- 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 Reconstruction of Sunwood Drive. Sunwood Drive is the only access for the proposal and the developed areas to the north (Sunwood I and II). The roadway is narrow and contains a median strip dividing the lanes. Reconstruction of the roadway will interfere with access to the developed areas unless special provisions are made. The applicant will need to provide a plan so that access to the developed areas is not unduly restricted. See Condition # 12. G. UTILITIES The proposed sewer line along the south property line is proposed at a depth of approximately 12 feet below grade. Because Buildings are located close to the south property line, the City's concern is that access to the sewer line could be a problem if repair is needed. The applicant will need to provide documentation that repair /and or servicing of the sewer line can be accomplished if necessary with the • proposed locations of the buildings (B,C and D) with respect to the south property line. See Conditions # 4 and 13. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issuance of a Determination of Non - Significance is appropriate since the environmental review indicates no probability of significant adverse environmental impacts from the proposal. NOTE: Additional mitigation may be required during the Design Review process which is not included below. Additional Mitigation required of the proposal includes: A. EARTH 1. To mitigate the erosion and sedimentation impacts of earth work on the site, the earth work and associated items such as the construction of retaining walls shall be accomplished during the dry summer months. 2. Instructions for retaining topsoil (as noted in a letter from the project's landscape. architect /dated 3- 38 -90)) shall be included on the face of the drawings submitted for a Grading Permit. B. WATER 3. To mitigate any adverse storm drainage impacts from the proposal, the civil design plan shall complies with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual; including -5- 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 upstream and downstream analysis and shall include provisions for regular maintenance access to clean /maintain the proposed detention system. 4. To mitigate any adverse storm drainage impacts from the proposal, the applicant's Geoengineer shall provide to the City a report documenting his review of the final civil design plan (including storm water, retaining walls and maintenance access) and include any recommendations. 5. To mitigate adverse impacts to water quality from proposal, the final drainage plans shall provide biofiltration and oil /water separators per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 6. To mitigate adverse impacts to water quality from siltation impacts, temporary siltation control measures should be review and approved prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Control measures should also include a "gravel wedge" in front of the silt fences as per the Geotechnical Consultant's letter (p. 2, of Associated Earth Sciences letter dated March 28, 1990). 7. To mitigate adverse water quality impacts to the storm water system from sedimentation, tire cleaning provisions should be made and any existing catch basins where mud is likely to collect should be protected by filter fabric. C. PLANTS 8. Proposed new trees should not be planted in compacted soil unless gravel drain sumps are installed under each tree or the subgrade soil is rototilled. D. AESTHETICS 9. The retaining walls shall be darkened to reduce the impact of the natural light color of the concrete. E NOISE 10. Incorporate the recommendations (a through e) for mitigation of interior noise levels (glazing) contained on page 4 of the Noise Assessment (Michael R. Yantis Associates, Inc., April 1990). -6- 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 F. TRANSPORTATION 11. The portion of Sunwood Drive within the scope of the proposal shall be reconstructed to provide a sub -base and paving per the recommendations contained in a letter (date 4- 24 -90) from the geotech (AESI). 12. The applicant shall provide the City with a plan for their review and approval showing an alternative access for the residents of Sunwood I and II during Sunwood Drive reconstruction. An approved alternative access plan will be required prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. H. UTILITIES 13. The applicant's Geoengineer shall provide documentation that theportion of the proposed sewer layout and design adjoing the the south property line can be reasonably maintained /repaired. • re; F rs IL: JUN 8 199° _- CT'( (F T.\/VLA i PLANNiNG DEPT. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTIICENTEI? BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON !NI.-, Gary R. Steinvall President Steinvall Construction Co. P.O. Box 2458 Kirkland, WA 98083 -2458 I'HO \'Ii t (2(I(i) 433. I ti(AI RE: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 through #89 -381 Dear Mr. Steinvall: (:ury L. Va,,Uuses, aJavur Your letter of June 8, 1990 recently came to my attention as not having been answered. I apologize for this delay. Your project was evolving during this period, and I expected everything to be resolved much earlier. It seems that the issues raised in your letter are now answered. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued last week. Appearance before the Board of Architecture Review is scheduled for June 28, 1990. The final details of the project are today being discussed with your design team. Unless appeals are filed of the above environmental and design review decisions, the next, and final, step will be review of the revised building permit application. If you have any questions please call Jack Pace at 431-3680. L. Rick Beeler Director, Department of Community Development cc: Jack Pace • • STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR June 8, 1990 #STEINCC131 CO City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTN: L. Rick Beeler, Director RE: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 thru #89 -381 Dear Mr. Beeler: As the authorized agent for the above referenced Building Permit Applications, I have attached copies of Submittal Logs for the Building Permit Application and -the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) application. These Submittal Logs represent the extended period that the City of Tukwila staff has been reviewing the project without committing to a date for presenting the submittal to the BAR. The building permit applications were confirmed as complete and vested on November 29, 1989 (copy of letter attached). The Building Permit Application was confirmed on December 13, 1989 not to be subject to the sensitive area ordinance (copy of letter attached). The Board of Architectural Review Design Review Application was submitted on November 20, 1989. See Submittal Log and attached November 20, 1989 memorandum. The submittals as listed in the Submittal Log respond to the majority of your concerns and requests for additional information. It has always been our intention to furnish the City of Tukwila with as complete information as possible. I have directed the Architect and his staff to review and complete all outstanding items as they understand them, for submittal at the scheduled June 8, 1990 meeting. We are hopeful this completes all requirements for a confirmed date for the BAR review on June 28th. My partners and I have met with the Sunwood Condominium Association, have answered their letters, and have mitigated their concerns such as view blockage, traffic, repairs of Sunwood Boulevard, etc.. We are ready to complete our negotiations with The Association once we understand the status of the staff review. It is our judgement that as long term holders of developed Real Estate Property, that we have met the concerns of our neighbors, designed an apartment project that exceeds existing projects in quality and meets the market demand for housing in the area. P.O. BOX 2458 • KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98083 -2458 City of Tukwila June 8, 1990 Page Two • • Our major concern is the date of start of construction for the project. The geotechnical issues have been resolved, but state "Retaining wall construction should be complete during the dry months for good construction results ". As outlined in the Architect's letter dated April 20, 1990 (copy attached), the timing for the BAR Meeting has been delayed enough and we believe further delays are not necessary. Sincerely, STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. Gary R. Steinvall President CC: Gary Huff, Karr Tuttle Campbell William W. Jeude, Univest Capital Corp. Jack P. Pace - City of Tukwila Roger Newell, AIA Michael Aippersbach, Consultant File GRS:sa P) DING Rise.)—r- A PP ) F TU I LA SuBINA TTA L LOG 2 1 . i i L 714E c...) '(O _5taztolrEED__ 111111 II MI 1 WI LIKING P 1?.MiT 1PPL1 -1-1 111 iiiiiiii .1111 1 1 NI 1 IMO Illmilis. II 1 r 0 cHi-m.c-ru i sTzu uRAI . i E *, T,„ 1 1 1 1111 tudillis 1 11 11111 HI • 1 til s'IiHI _ I 11E11 1MM II M E. N IV N* E E I NT G : . . EE-1 * - IGh.t.. .1R.- ` f . H-2.1.J AIM .. i. . A - 5 1 11111 IIHhlllHt!P!II 111 1111 111 1 • ■ (T' gat HP plill rp! ii 1111 •Imm11 l • nil 1 1, ri., - _.,.. M P . . III 111 1 11111111 MN I i I 1111111111MEMPINIMINIMEMII 1 III IHNII IR .- • 1 III inul IN 1 . • . :„... ..... ..L ! log Elm pip 111111 IN III ., II • • 1li 111ERIMMIERMIERM111111 1111 IIIM n 1 1111 IllllII1IIlIllll IlIlllI!!IIIIM!!!!lll 1, • II ti111 111111 111E1 I • .E1)0121" a ! 1 •c_ --rm ..: ' i N1111 S I 1 • vial minim IPIII MEM inn n 111 1 1 SoILS RET4312,7" SuBN\ rrr.4. 1 ,, , . ,_7,0 , itu 1:1- , _ :. ,, . , . a .111 Ill ir 1i1 1 i 1 i_ in ll Im orammummonewuMinloml ri,201. I. Elul mew i ni min mom 13) C1TY Or TIIIMMA La II-_9- - 7 ' ill HI 1 II 111•11 HON IENIM MI I 11;1 • il 0 Tu \a L -1 - ._111111010111121 11 ii !I IUIIIRUIIIHI ein IH 1 . 5 5 Eii466,_ . -2 CoAPA _Alf ' 04-la M21151 IIIIIIIIIIVI !Mil ii • 11 HhuIuIII.uHu. IIIIIIHHIIIIHIIIIII NIIIIIII . 11 llIIllIllIlIIllIIIlllhll i! 11 IIIIIIIIHII dam L J 1111 1 1 1 1 1 BUILDINGIPE41 1cAIO CITY OFT 11 A Siah=r A 1 r c-, 11 • _DESCR ?T?O�! ch TEC.T 2:1 2 't Te ReoussrE By THE UN of TUKWILA UAT E SUBMITTED TO C1TY O F TUKWi 111_1111 !!! 1 Pr All ft! 1111 2' Ai DESIGN RaVIE,w APPLICATION - HEN, = 1 1 ARCH I TL= CT I- I 31 41 5 1: I 6 P1 li i GX- jc 1_,c,,;-rINC, 9 .1 121' li 1311 1411 1' 11 '$) E5IG' EVIc / APPIACAT ION - C1N OF TUKV411A �1) DESIGN !CE'11'EYd 1)P-� t ' 1 r_ o I � L„rL P (mod.- �1— .O��C:tTYD'= TI 11 it 0,) REQUEST Fog. Su ITTAL 11 15 11 C0•4UJRt1S A THRU IUp5 FAQ SEPI g C FL1C_UST rl RU z i M I C H F _ A L AIPPERSPAC -I U5(5 (0-- 14 -� 20 21 II R O.Y ST F. N01c 11 2211 23111 24 1 2511 261: 271i 281; 291: 3011 3111 :3211 Rs..--A) N I NCB ,',jAL.L 5T 3i CITY OF rJK'. / /11,L. 1 = n (01-- 111- 90Risuc Wow Ci 10 FEET E.1.5,/,ENT 1I"31).. rP -QJ0N CoNT 3L TcFTA,HINC" .,I4.1..LDF,Ie-...14 113' ST FREE So1LS i.tPO T SUNv roop v D P.R I G =� GEOTSC..HNC.* L PET--021 - UTILITY D S1GN l5 0 M11NTENANCE ACi71 F EN - 5LINVJCpT.> a.‘,/ 5,414ITeTR`/ Sic DRPii4S - REYI= 4- 4 4i MIUt;=AI AIPPERSP LETTER(^ 15 -c D�G ExTEN510i`1 P'iL:iNr. ,PJArr PsPDLic -A 1`P1 FIRE FF -r% rSSU F:S C E NN1CAL 3 TRANSPORTATION 1 WALL ISSUES PFDESTRIAt I557J17-S 04 I� L 4 5).M1c L-A.LPPERSPAC.H LETFER(o4- 2.-7-co- 331, 11 RE,YISION WAtLLS 341 351; it 36'1 -SEC rI NS OF R T A 1 N) ING Wad I S 20FILE,S OF RETAIN I G'rJAU S 381, 11 3911 40 ,. W pr. 0:4 O'4 © WILSON JONES COMPANY G7212 GREEN 7212 BUFF PAT. APPL. FOR. L 1' Il 1 II 11 Ii 11 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUN 0:.41990. . PERMITICENTER RE: , G9ncol': <Off ce Building I.:::have received . your revied civil site plan for the :above-referenced project. he revisions- include* ;0 Shifting.of the .budding location by 15- feet SMfti g-o::f::the dr veway.; to the west. by 20 t1 iniination of the east property line- retaining .011 :anc a wall rockery None. of. those changes <: are - of`-,such.,nature to negate,' or`requtre:augmentation of prior recortanefdations:.dn ry•part:. JAM SEATOW; PE GEOTECHid1CAL. SERVLCES' (206);682.- 6942:.. Box 126 •..Hobart; WA.98025 • STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR May 31, 1990 #STEINCC131 CO City of Tukwila 6300 South center Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 ATTN: Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner RE: 62ND Avenue South Apartments Dear Jack: 0010, .JUN -8 1990 cm( PLANNING DEPT. (206) 822 -6440 This letter is an intent to record the subject matter covered in the 10:00 A.M. May 29th, 1990 meeting held at your office with the following in attendance: Jack Pace - Senior Planner Michael Aippersbach - Consultant to City of Tukwila Roger Newell - Architect Al Roberts - Architect Asst. Gary Steinvall - Applicant Issues reviewed for the Environmental Determination are follows: 1) Public Work Comments By Mr. Phil Frazer - He will require a satisfactory maintenance schedule for the underground storm water system. This will be a condition of the Building Permit. The Sanitary and Storm Systems adjacent the South property line and will require adequate access for any repair. Planning Department - Comments by Jack Pace and Michael Aippersbach - They stated, "that the retaining walls that exceed 6 (six) Ft. (Feet) will requ -ire additional design attention as follows:" a) "Retaining Wall At North Side Of Entrance - Reduce height and step to allow planting areas. Large trees would be appropriate in planting area on both sides of entrance." b) "Retaining Wall Along South Property Line - indicate on drawings all areas that exceed 6 Ft. - those areas that exceed 6 Ft. will require modulation." Issues reviewed for the staff report for the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) 1) Recreation Space - All recreation space slopes must not exceed a 3:1 ratio. Provide calculations that meet or exceed recreation area required. P.O. BOX 2458 • KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98083 -2458 City of Tukwila May 31, 1990 Page Two 2) Recreation Building Location and Height : a) Location of recreation building is not central to buildings on proposed site plan which requires reasons for proposed location. Response by Roger Newell, "Location of Recreation Building is to buffer living units (Apartments) from Sunwood Condominiums, reduce structure height to accommodate view blockage issue with Sunwood residents, and to keep the building profile as low as possible in this area ". Jack Pace responded, "That view blockage was not an issue." 3) Retaining Walls That Exceed 6 (Six.) Ft. - All property line retaining walls require profiles to illustrate heights. All areas that exceed 6 (six) Ft. will require modulation and /or stepping. 4) Entries Into Building - Further study required for entry elevations. Typical detail of entry will be required which should indicate surfaces, location and the type of landscaping adjacent entry. 5) Adjust buildings to follow contours of site. Vertical steps in building will be studied to allow building to conform to natural contours. 6) Garages - The location of garages adjacent entries will require further study. Roger Newell stated, "That adjustments have been made to garages adjacent entries and are on revised site plan. 7) Location on buildings E and F - A review of the East end of building E and the West end of building F where the structure overlap will be required. 8) Parking Next To Carports And Garages - Study and provide adequate space to open car doors for parking spaces next carports and garages, walls or posts. 9) Landscaping - Study types of plants, distribution of plant materials (Design layout and mix), coverage and specified sizes. 10) Exterior Colors As Proposed In Submitted Color Board - The colors should be a.darker shade for structures to blend into hillside. City of Tukwila May 31, 1990 Page Three 11) Fire Lanes - This is a Fire Marshall issue and backing out of areas without a turn around as agreed will be allowed. 12) Landscaping Adjacent Garages - Provide typical details that indicate plant type, etc. In summary, Mr. Jack Pace stated "That view blockage was not an issue. Please find for reference page 1 of City of Tukwila Staff Report DR -01 -84 Windmark Homes Tukwila, Inc. Please review the above items and if I have not identified them as you understand them, please notify me. Sincerely yours, STEINVALLL CQNSTRUCTION CO. Gary R. Steinvall President cc: Michael Aippersbach Roger Newell Al Roberts Bruce Johnson, The Johnson Assoc. Gary Huff, Karr Tuttle Campbell Bill Jeude CAPITAL CORPORATION William'W. Jeude, President May 30, 1990 'Sunwood Homeowners! Association 'C /O Asset Management, Corporation. 1216,Pine Street Seattle,,Washington_..98101 \ ATTN:' Ryan S. Thrower ;.President RE: - 62nd °Avenue" South Apartments Dear Mr. Thrower: r, ,,..,77.7„,_ ■ _ -SUN "1.9 U . > WKWILA. ,.•. ;IiG DEPT. Through the. Design Review Process with the staff at the City of Tukwila and other design considerations incorporated by our Design ;.Consultants; we offer the following in response to your April 4th, 1990. letter. Under -your observations;" Your Par. 1) "Design is competent, etc." Consideration has been given to Architectural Design as follows: a) Exterior details have been added for more interest b); Pitched roofs have been added c) Buildings will,not be_identical A site plan and - elevations will be furnished at our next meeting. Your Par': 2) .'!The buildings are less modulated, -etc." Particular-design consideration has . been incorporated for . more modulation of the structures_with. exterior surfaces that are'. .equal or exceed Sunwood Phase I and II Buildings. Building elevations will be furnished at our next meeting'. Your Par. 3) "The layout is very stark, etc." The buildings will not -be identical or oriented in the same direction. The retaining walls have been designed with average heights -less than 6' to achieve site contours similar to Sunwood I and II There is less than 900 lin. ft. of retaining walls and there are no rockeries.' Cross- sections and soils reports Real Estate Investment and Development - Kirkland Place Building 911 5th Ave., Kirkland WA 98033 •(206) 889 -9060 i Sunwoo'd Homeowners' Association May 30, 1990 Page TwO • that we will furnish will demonstrate the stability of existing'and Design Slopes. Your statement, "that the City of Tukwiia's objective, etc. is preservation of natural landform", is in error and we request that you review'their current'policies. Your Par. 4) "Terracing of the site - etc." A • landscape plan will be provided that has had extensive review by. the City of. Tukwila and our staff. Consideration has been given to existing trees. Your Par. 5) "We assume that the Landscaping Plan" --- The Landscape Plan .that will- be furnished addresses the majority of your concerns. The Landscape Architect, Mr.' •Bruce Johnson, has reviewed your existing landscaping and has incorporated into the design\drawings, changes which increase density, etc.- Your Par. 6) "We feel that pitched roofs, etc." Pitched roofs have been incorporated in the Design. Your Par. 7) "The-slope below ,building C & Di-etc." We cannot respond to this because the location of buildings C & D are at the Southern most location on the site.- Your Par. 8) "The City has, etc.P_ We will furnish you the City approved site plan'that includes fire-truck turning areas. Under your recommendations; Your Par. 1) Pitched roofs have been added. Your Par. 2) Building modulation, etc. will be furnished at our next meeting. Your Par. 3) A revised site plan will -furnished that - incorporates your concerns. Your Par. 4) A revised Site and Landscape Plan will be furnished that'-incorporates your concerns. Your Par. 5) Same as Par. 4 above. Your Par. 6) The recreation areas as designed exceed the City of Tukwilas' requirements and exceed similar apartment projects. We seeno reason for our residents to use your facilities. You are in error when you state, _ - Sunwood Homeowners' Association ;r May 30, ?1990 'Page Three, "most of the balance of the site would be unsuitable cut.. and fill areas." The site plan - will` demonstrate this Your Par. 7) Sunwood Boulevard issues are as f�11os: 1) Repair of Sunwood Blvd. =See attached Associated Earth Sciences,' Inc. reports dated April 12th and April 24th for recommendations for the repair of Sunwood Blvd. The estimated cost to repair Sunwood Blvd. is $60,000 which includes a $12,000 contingency for unforseen items.,_ 2) Maintenance Agreement for Sunwood Blvd. for above surface- and underground utilities. Sincerely. 62nd Avenue SW Limit ,-d Partnership UNIVEST f PTA "CO IORAT+.. - GENERAL PARTNER William W. Jeu•e President `.COPIES DISTRIBUTED AS. -SHOWN ON 'FOLOWING-PAGE.. Sunwood'Homeowners' May 30;. -1990 Page Four Association CC: • SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM..ASSOCIATION c/o Asset'Management Corporation 1216. Pine Street. Seattle -, Washington \98101 ,PAUL DUDLEY ET UX 15126 Sunwood Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 (GARY POLK ET UX 15103 Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila., Washington 98188 J _ RYAN - THROWER ET UX 15232 Sunwoo'dr Boulevard Tukwila, Washington: 98188 KATHY VERHALEN ET VIR 15255,Sunwood Boulevard', - Tukwila,' Washington. 98188 DON WILSON •ET UX 15249-Sunwood Bouevard. Tukwila, Washington 98188 KARR'TUTTLE CAMPBELL ATTN: ' Walt Maas and Gar' y Huff 411 - 108th Avenue NE _Suite 1600 Bellevue, WAS 98004 TEWELL & FINDLAY ATTN: Dulan Findlay 1700 Bank of Calif.. Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98164 -1011 OLD STONE REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC. ATTN: Marilyn Mortensen' 3605.132nd -Ave SE, #100 Bellevue, WA 98006 HUNT & ASSOCIATES ATTN: John L. Hunt 4040 Lake Washington Blvd. Kirkland, WA. 98033 L. RICK BEELER, DIRECTOR City of .Tukwila 6300 South-Center Blvd. Tukwila, WA- 98188 JACK P. PACE,; SR. PLANNER City. of Tukwila 6300 South Center. Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 P. 1 P, INC. . Gary Steinvall, Pres. PO Box 2458 Kirkland, WA 98083 -2458 CITY OF TUKWILA ATTN: Michael'Aippersbach 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA .98188 / /rVfYV./ /_) 4o7 • /54.32(cacc. ) /59 P/(t EGlt) :IM /NY/N) ,[3 ?. 83 /NV. (S.) /328E /NV(W.) /3298 /NY (E.) /32. 90 Zr. CEM. CONC. CURB f 67/7TER (1//'/CAL FIGURE 2 CITY OF TUKWILA ROADWAY SPECIFICATION ?3' /5' R'AN7 /M 5TR /P /;; Yi/,c&Y7% ?" CV,NPI. DEPTH C7. B " ASPHA /7 CONC. /'/z ",W,W. CO/I/7." OEP,W CR SURI. TOP Ca'/RSE COM/°T. B&%' CR. SURE. BASE COU,QSC A'OAD SECT /ON A - A NO SCALE 41-6" MAY 24,'90 14 :03 ROGER NEWELL ARCHITECT 322 -5161 • sir ti,` TRANSMITTAL P. 1/2 111111■1 MM. 11111111111111 IMM ROGER H. NEWELLAIA ARCHITECT 1102 19TH AVENUE EAST • SEATTLE 98112 • (208) 322 -1192 DATE 24 YY1A b PROJECT 0 V JOB # 590s TO ..J AC .Et FALL Crbitt 11..114U3 ! t + - F 43I ■5 COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION F*' \11 'Li u \ AI( t. S TZS WMA J`CU REMARKS FDA- 1OLW?. 3 ; f '1-e=. i/�l' BY AL., F T 1'S MOW MAY 241990 _---� J : LA cf•Y ..."1171-4724 .'13 14:04 ROGER NEWELL ARCHITECT 32?-5161 . e yap tu. 1..011 • . =Au* ...... Num ImaY1111.1a/m11•11M1.M.111Y1 -r I 1-cal, LA,' ifo".01, Ato m- di %Goo aini Wall C fc.01.17 i • • PERFORMING INCOME PROPERTIES, INC. P.O. BOX 2458, KIRKLAND, WA 98083 -2458 • (206) 822 -6440 May 23, 1990 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTN: Jack P. Pace, Senior Planer RE: Building Permit Applications Dear Mr. Pace: 11 V' "; ( 1 toy 2 4 1990 iY l • #89 -362 thru In our continuing effort to provide design information for the community development department for the threshold determination and after meetings with Mr. L. Rick Beeler on May 15th, 1990 and Mr. Phil Fraser and Mr. Ross Heller on May 17th, 1990 and a review of Mr. Aippersbach April 27th, 1990 memorandum, on this date we are providing the following: 1) D.R. Strong civil consulting engineer, cross - sections and profiles of retaining walls and cross - sections thru site. Roger Newell, Architect, design features of entrance and South property line retaining walls, cross sections, etc. Associated earth sciences geotechnical engineer letters dated May 21, 1990, in regards to construction, operation and maintenance of South property line retaining walls. Thank you in advance, for your interest in this matter. Please contact me at 822 -6440 should you have questions. Sincerely, STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. Gary R. Steinvall President CC: Gary Huff, Karr Tuttle Campbell Bill Jeude, Univest C. Michael Aippersbach Roger Newell, AIA, Al Roberts D.R. Strong, Donald Hill GRS:sa • Date: May 22, 1990 MAY 2 21990 CITY OFi Uicvv,a_fi, Jack Pace, Tukwila Comm. Devt. Dept _ PLANNiP"� DEPT. To: From: Michael Aippersbach, Consultant (523 -3764) Subject: North Hills Office /Design Rev. Appl. /(89- 17 -DR) STATUS REPORT June 28, 1990 is the tenative Hearing Date for the B.A.R. The likelihood of the proposed project being ready for that meeting date is the subject of this memo. As you know, two items must be completed in sufficient time to permit the hearing to proceed: (1) a Threshold Determination and (2) a Design Review Staff Report. To that end, I spoke this morning with Dale Johnson, project architect. We discussed the timing of an upcoming meeting with the geotech (Hobart) and the Public Works Department. It appears as if the meeting to resolve the remaining geotech issues will not take place before friday and most likely some time next week. Since, monday is a holiday for you that means tuesday (29) or later. In addition, Public Works had asked for clarification on the effects of the proposed retaining wall to the 30 -foot ingress, egress and utility easement for the neighboring property (east). The concern by Public Works on the treatment of the that easement was first raised in the City's letter from you dated February 21, 1990. The latest reminder of those concerns were voiced at thursday's meeting, May 17, with Public Works. It's not clear to me when that issue will be resolved by Gencor to the satisfaction of Public Works. It's my understanding that these two areas of concern must be resolved before the City would be in a position to issue the Threshold Determination. The architect has been holding off preparing design /landscaping details on the retaining wall because of the possibility it may be redesigned or possibly eliminated. The remaining design issues, I believe, can easily be addressed per my converation with the project architect. I indicated to the architect per my previous discussions with you that all the materials (re- submittals) need to be received by the City 30 days prior to the tenative meeting date. Since monday is a holiday, tuesday, May 29 would be the deadline to still retain a spot on the June 28 B.A.R. agenda. cc. Dale Johnson, LDG Steve Friedman, Gencor C. Michael Aippersbach - Consultant tuk.dev.rev.dsk., file May 21, 1990 Project No. 8911 -04G City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Phil Fraser Department of Public Works Subject: 62nd Avenue South Apartments (Formerly Sunwood, Phase III) Dear Mr. Fraser: ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC Gfri_T.C3 �JIJ�o� MAY 211990 CITY OF Jii\ \VUiLA PLANNING DEPT, We understand that you and other City of Tukwila building officials remain concerned about the construction of the southernmost retaining walls for the 62nd Avenue South apartment complex. Apparently this concern is due to the lack of a construction easement between the project site and the adjacent property to the south. While we agree that the construction of these walls would be somewhat simpler and less expensive with an easement in place, it is certainly feasible, from a geotechnical standpoint, to safely construct them without an easement. The two most likely choices for the southwest wall, where bearing soils are 6 to 7 feet below existing ground surface, would be either a pier- supported cantilever retaining wall or a soldier -pile wall with cast -in -place concrete panels. Properly designed, both would function equally well and could be constructed entirely on the apartment complex property with no impact to the adjacent, downslope property. For the southwestern wall, where bearing soils are at or near existing surface elevation, a standard, cantilever retaining wall is anticipated. All walls will have drainage safeguards implemented into the design to protect the adjacent property from seepage behind the walls. Good construction scheduling to allow only the excavation and clearing necessary for the wall construction, and performance of the work during the upcoming, drier weather months, will also be important for reducing potential impacts to downslope property. No matter what type of wall design is ultimately chosen, and no matter whether or not a construction easement is granted, concerns for the adjacent property and for the placement of the stormwater detention pipe behind the southwest wall will be addressed and implemented into the design. 911 - 5th Avenue Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827 -7701 We hope that the City realizes that we as professional consultants are equally concerned about these items and will do our utmost to mitigate them. We also hope the City realizes that the easiest way to mitigate many of the water and erosion issues is to allow construction to proceed during the upcoming, dry summer months. Delaying the project into next winter will certainly exacerbate these issues and make all of our jobs more difficult. 'Should you have any further questions please contact us immediately. Sincerely, ary W. Flowers, P.G. Principal 1--DR cc: Gary R. Steinvall GAF/kc I911-04G DK:5/10/90LB N. tat < A PI° Gary T P. P . G .51'11t1c) j;", .'Is Princip& vc;,, 41, ro {-Pp re 10 MAY 2 1 1990 1 CiTY • • CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DECLARATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT: 62nd Avenue South Apartments DATE: May 2, 1990 4-ZS -90 PROPOSAL: To construct 20 structures containing 72 apartment units, garages and a recreation center LOCATION: APPLICANT: FILE REFERENCE: 62nd Ave South and Sunwood Drive (private street) Southcenter Associates (Roger Newell, Architects) EPIC -31 -89 (89- 14 -DR) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: This is a Mitigated Declaration of Non - Significance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD The environmental review consisted of analyis based on the following documents included in the environmental record: o Traffic Impact Analysis - Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc. (March 28, 1990) o Geotechnical Engineering Report - Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (November 17, 1989) o Letter (March 28, 1990) to G. Steinvall (developer) from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. o Original development plans, Sheets (insert references) o Revised development Plans, sheets 1 -17, S1 -3 (stamped March 30, 1990) . o Letter (March 28, 1990) to J. Pace, City of Tukwila from D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers o Letter (March 27, 1990) to J. Pace, City of Tukwila from The Johnson Associates (Landscape Architects) o Letter (April 4, 1990) to South Center Associates from Ryan S. Thrower (Pres., Sunwood Homeowner's Association). o Letter (April 12, 1990) to Gary Steinvall (Developer) from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. o Letter (April 18, 1990) to Gary Steinvall (Developer) from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. o Noise Assessment - Michael R. Yantis Associates, Inc. (April 1990) o Letter (April 19, 1990) to J. Pace (City of Tukwila) from D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers P. 2 /MDNS for 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 o Letter (April 19, 1990) to Phil Fraser (City of Tukwila) from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. o Letter (April 24, 1990) to Phil Fraser (City of Tukwila) from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal includes construction of a 72 unit apartment complex (6 buildings), a recreation center (1 building), surface and covered parking (13 garages) for 150 vehicles a n ng. To accomplish the proposal the following actions will be required: export (import) cubic yards of fill, construct retaining walls, construct on -site private vehicle access DESIGN FEATURES The exterior of the, apartment structures will include a combination of cedar siding stained from light to medium and stucco painted beige, trim with contrasting darker stain, peak roofs clad with medium dark asphalt shingles, green aluminum railings, and bronze anodized aluminum windows. The individual units will have concrete patios on the ground floors and projected outdoor decks on the upper floors. The exterior of the recreation center will include stucco painted beige and clear glazing for the skylights. PERMITS REQUIRED * Design Review approval * Grading permit * Building Permit * Street use /Utility permits * Developer's Agreement (for off - sites) CHECKLIST ITEMS A. EARTH Soils report provided indicates presence of bedrock on the site. Soils borings appear to indicate that proposed building locations will not require any blasting to prepare for footings and foundations. • P. 3 /MDNS for 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 B. WATER The topography of the site creates the potential for erosion and siltation resulting from construction activities. The original proposal contained an erosion control plan to mitigate these impacts. Additional analysis was performed by the geotech consultant (AESI) and additional recommendations were made. Those recommendations contained in the letter from the geotech consultant (AESI, dated 3- 28 -90) will need to be incorporated into the civil plans prior to obtaining a Grading Permit. C. PLANTS Site was previously stripped of most vegetation. There are a few significant trees remaining on the site as well as some evergreens previously planted on the north boundary. Where possible the significant trees should be retained. D. AESTHETICS Retaining Walls. The original development plans submitted included the use of numerous retaining walls on the site. The most prominent of these are located on the site's perimeter and along Sunwood Drive: o The retaining wall on the north property line is approximately 230 feet in length and ranges in height from 3 to 13 feet. o The portion of the retaining wall at the southwest corner of the site along the south and west property . lines is approximately 305 feet in length and ranges in height from 1.5 to 10 feet. o The retaining wall at the southeast corner of the site along the south and east property lines is approximately 130 feet in length and ranges in height from 1 to 9 feet. o The retaining wall along Sunwood Drive is approximately in 125 feet in length and ranges in height from 2.5 to 9 feet. The visual impact of these walls, particularly on the adjoining property to the south, is significant. Mitigation in the form of horizontal and vertical modulation will mitigate these impacts. Rooftops. The original development plans included as a design feature the use of flat roofs obstensibly to reduce any view impact. Since the many of the units in the adjoining • P. 4 /MDNS for 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 Sunwood I and II will be looking down on the proposal, mitigation in the form of an alternative roof design will be required. The proposal is required to obtain a Design Review approval from the City which will also provide additional opportunities to mitigate aesthetic impacts. E. NOISE The applicant submitted a noise assessment (dated April, 1990) which outlined the impacts of noise on the proposal. The assessment contained recommendations (for glazing) to reduce interior noise levels in the units. These recommedations should be included in the plans submitted for a building permit. F. TRANSPORTATION Traffic and Sunwood Drive. The applicant provided a traffic analysis report (dated March 28, 1990) which evaluated the transportation impacts from this proposal. The conclusions (contained on page 6) indicated there is no significant traffic impacts as a result of this proposal except for ae deterioration of the pavement on Sunwood Drive. The portion of the Sunwood Drive within the scope of the proposal has been examined and the determination made (see AESI letter dated 4- 12 -90) that the roadway does not contain a sub -base under the existing pavement. To mitigate the impacts of increased traffic on this roadway, reconstruction of the roadway within the scope of this proposal will be necessary. Pedestrian Traffic. The only existing walkway on the site is along the north and east sides of Sunwood Drive. This walkway provides a direct connection to the public sidewalk along 62nd Avenue South. Although no direct connection to the existing walkway is proposed, Buildings E and F have paved surfaces to allow them reach the walkway on Sunwood and to access the sidewalk on 62nd Avenue South. No walkway exists on the opposite side of Sunwood Drive which would serve the recreation center and Buildings A, B, C and D. Although there are walkways along the front of those buildings, the walkway does not directly access the sidewalk on 62nd Avenue South. For pedestrain safety and • • P. 5 /MDNS for 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 convenience, walkway connections which link the recreation center and Buildings A, B, C as well as provide a connection to the sidewalk on 62nd should be provided. Reconstruction of Sunwood Drive. Sunwood Drive is the only access for the proposal and the developed areas to the north (Sunwood I and II). The roadway is narrow and contains a median strip dividing the lanes. Reconstruction of the roadway will interfere with access to the developed areas unless special provisions are made. The applicant will need to provide a plan so that access to the developed areas is not unduly restricted. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issuance of a Determination of Non - Significance is appropriate since the environmental review indicates no probability of significant adverse environmental impacts from the proposal. Additional Mitigation required of the proposal includes: A. EARTH 1. To mitigate the erosion and sedimentation impacts of earth work on the site, the earth work and associated items such as the construction of retaining walls shall be accomplished during the dry summer months. 2. Instructions for retaining topsoil (as noted in a letter from the project's landscape architect /dated 3- 38 -90)) shall be included on the face of the drawings submitted for a Grading Permit. B. AIR 3. To mitigate adverse air quality impacts of construction during dry weather, the construction area should be watered to suppress dust and the roadways flushed. C. WATER 4. To mitigate adverse impacts to water quality from siltation impacts, temporary siltation control measures should be review and approved prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Control measures should also include a "gravel wedge" in front of the silt fences as per the Geotechnical Consultant's letter (p. 2, of Associated Earth Sciences letter dated March 28, 1990). 5. To mitigate adverse water quality impacts to the storm water system from sedimentation, tire cleaning provisions should be made and any existing catch basins • • P. 6 /MDNS for 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 where mud is likely to collect should be protected by filter fabric. • D. PLANT'S/ 6. xisting trees on the site to be retained should be 1.- n the plans submitted for a Grading Permit. Details for retaining and protecting the trees (out to the dripline) during construction should be included on the face of those plans submitted for a Grading Permit. 7. Proposed new trees should not be planted in compacted soil unless gravel drain sumps are installed under each tree or the subgrade soil is rototilled. E. AESTHETICS. 8. The retaining walls shall be modulated both vertically and horizontally. Planters or other acceptable design features shall be incorporated as part of the modulation. The design shall incorporate a surface treatment so bare wall portions do not exceed 12 lineal feet and are not continuous. F. NOISE The c trac s muf le •r •ould 011• -, .-n. or silenced. e hours of con e - an v sib - t• cone pr. ide air -p c- ifica o hat all red e. •ment is • operly truction should be posted at or near the 'old to whe = it is readily actors at t e site a o the public. 11. Incorporate the recommendations (a through e) for mitigation of interior noise levels (glazing) contained on page 4 of the Noise Assessment (Michael R. Yantis Associates, Inc., April 1990). G. TRANSPORTATION 12. The portion of Sunwood Drive within the scope of the proposal shall be reconstructed to provide a sub -base and paving per the recommendations contained in a letter (date 4- 24 -90) from the geotech (AESI). 13. The applicant shall provide the City wid1 a plan for their review and approval showing an for the residents of Sunwood I and II during Sunwood Drive reconstruction. An approved alternative access ternative access • • P. 6 /MDNS for 62nd Ave South apartments /EPIC -31 -89 plan will be required prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. 14. A Right -of -Way Permit should be required for off -site construction activities. The Permit should specify traffic control, haul routes, and hours of construction. • • Date: April 28, 1990 To: Jack Pace, Tukwila Comm. Devt. Dept. From: Michael Aippersbach, Consultant (523 -3764) Subject: 62nd Ave So. Apts /Design Rev. Appl. /(89- 14 -DR) Jack, attached are the following: o Draft of the MDNS o Copy of Memo to G. Steinvall (which I faxed on friday to him at his request as well as to Ross Heller) 1. Gary Steinvall indicated to me on Friday, he will be attempting to meet with Phil F. on Monday about the items stated in the attached memo. Gary feels they are not necessary to make the Threshold Determination. Please review the draft MDNS (I have supplied a copy to Public Works). I believe I have listed all of the pertinent environmental file documents except for the drawings submitted on thursday (4- 26 -90) by Al Roberts. Also, I believe I have included the necessary content (along with the letters from the geotech and civil engineer contained in the file) for. issuance (with perhaps some modification from your office and Public Works as well). NOTE, however, that Public Works has stated their further needs in the attached memo. Whether or not the additional revised drawings are necessary given the letter documentation by the geotech and the civil engineer is more of a judgement call than a technical need in my opinion. If another DRC review is necessary, we can discuss the contents of the draft MDNS with the staff at thurday's meeting if there's a time slot available. I did not include any comments about fire safety since I felt they can be covered in the Design Review process. I also raised the point about the rooftop design, but did not make it a condition of the MDNS. I intended to make it a condition of the design review if the drawings are not revised from the original submittal. If the City cannot come to closure on the Determination by wednesday, I suggest we schedule a meeting with the applicants and outline the process from here. If we can't make the May 24 meeting, can we make a June 10 meeting? Please keep in mind the need to have them do site work during the dry summer months. Please let me know how and where to proceed from here. Aippersbach & Ryan - Consultants tuk.dev.rev.dsk., file Date: April 27, 1990 To: Gary Steinvall, Steinvall Construction From: Michael Aippersbach, Consultant (523 -3764) Subject: 62nd Ave So. Apts /Design Rev. Appl. /(89- 14 -DR) My discussions with Public Works on the project at the City's DRC meeting yesterday resulted in the reaffirmation that they need specific information for the proposed project to provide the Community development Department with their recommendation on a Threshold Determination. They commented they requested, but did not receive the following information as per their previous requests: o A site and civil plan showing the (1) revisions to the retaining walls and also (2) an easement for construction, maintenance, and operation of the retaining wall on the south property line; o Revised cross - sections }e showing the new retaining wall heights and slopes; and o Profiles showing the design of the retaining walls. cc. Phil Fraser, Tukwila Public Works Department Aippersbach & Ryan - Consultants tuk.dev.rev.dsk., file Date: April 26, 1990 To: Jack Pace, Tukwila Comm. Devt. Dept. From: Michael Aippersbach, Consultant (523 -3764) Subject: 62nd Ave So. Apts /Design Rev. Appl. /(89- 14 -DR) Jack, I thought you and the City staff may be interested in this information. The following language was used by the City of Issaquah Police Department to relate security concerns to the development review staff (and eventually the developer). 1. Building should have quality locking mechanisms and dead bolt locks on exterior personnel doors. Consideration should be given to providing, hardened coverings for ground level windows in personnel doors or other areas where glass breakage would allow for access to building interiors by burglars. Exterior lighting for these personnel entrances should be provided and exterior shrubbery placed and maintained to provide visibility and prohibit hiding places for unauthorized people around ground level door and window' areas. 2. Steps should be taken to improve and upgrade the fence barrier normally separating a state freeway from abutting properties to discourage pedestrian access to freeway and provent access to the site by unwanted night time burglars. 3. The vehicle driveways and parking areas should contain lighting and enough space for proper parking and large vehicle movement for fire trucks. 4. Parking for service trucks off from the main driveways and particularly the 12th Avenue extension should be provided to eliminate the need for service vehicles parking in the fire lanes and obstructing traffic. 5. An agreement with a local impound company for removal of abandoned or unwanted vehicles and the proper posting of the parking areas should be accomplished. Obviously, the provided language applies to a specific situation, but it does illustrate a more precise statement of emergency service concerns. Aippersbach & Ryan - Consultants tuk.dev.rev.dsk., sunwod2 file MINIM R ► . R H. NEWELL AIA ARCHITECT 1 102 NINETEENTH AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 • U . ■ ■ 1111 ■ III ■ I• ■ 'tt`i�`I`i'! ■ ■ .., i : ■ ' ■'IT T a N IN lainialgatalill ■■ MR ■ ■1i ■■ ■ ■■ .�_ 11.1011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIINMIIIIIIMIIMIMIIIMIMIIINIIINIIIINII co MO INIPIIIIIMMIIIIII .S. 0 : AFL • - C \t__ L. 11111ralli PIRM MIEN • emiiii Era ■■ OIL ■■iii■■ ' ■ ■�■ ■EMI' • mot ■ ■■ mu= I ■ .. -iL■ ►-� mom TA 1111111111111111111111111 , ■■ 111111111111111111 11111111111111 * . ■ 4 ■■■■■ ■■ 211 .. swim pox) ■■ e- 11-is • ■■ ■�. ■1■ M■■■■■ to coptet s rT Mtn t ►4_,14-b�--4 sal .. -a. 1 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC April 24, 1990 Project No. 8911 -04G City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Phil Fraser Department of Public'Works Subject: 62nd Avenue South Apartments (Formerly Sunwood, Phase III) Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to address the remaining geotechnical concerns for the above noted project. Specifically, this letter addresses and provides recommendations for the following: 1) engineered pavement section for Sunwood Boulevard; 2) suitability of the planned retaining walls; 3) additional subsurface exploration to further determine potential impact of bedrock; and 4) geotechnical review of final civil engineering plans to verify that they are consistent with the recommendations contained in our Geotechnical Engineering Report dated November 17, 1989 and subsequent letter addendums. Each of these items are individually addressed below. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS As has been stated in two previous letters by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., (AESI) dated April 12 and 19, 1990, the existing pavement section on Sunwood Boulevard does not meet the City of Tukwila's design standards, nor does it have a suitable subgrade for either existing conditions or the additional traffic loads due to the planned project. We therefore recommend that the existing pavement be removed and replaced with the following pavement section. Due to the high silt content and apparent pumping of the current subgrade, the existing pavement and subgrade should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 17 inches below planned finish grade. The subgrade should then be proofrolled with a fully loaded, tandem axle, dump truck, and any localized soft spots should be further overexcavated down to firm, non - yielding sediments. An imported, free - draining "pit -run" should be used to fill the deeper excavations and provide a minimum 12 inch thick subgrade. This material must be compacted to 95 percent of its Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. This higher 911 - 5th Avenue Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827 -7701 compaction standard is recommended in order to further identify soft areas. Once the subgrade is in place and approved, a leveling course consisting of a .minimum of _ 3 inches of 5/8 inch crushed rock should then be placed and compacted, followed by a minimum of 2 inches of Washington State Class B asphaltic concrete pavement. RETAINING WALLS From a geotechnical standpoint, the planned retaining walls will be suitable provided they are designed and constructed according to the recommendations contained in AESI's Geotechnical Report and the Addendum Letter dated April 18, 1990. Based on our review of the proposed plans, none of the retaining walls will be surcharged by buildings, except for the retaining wall to the south of the recreation building. The structural engineer should incorporate this surcharge into the design for this particular wall. As was also stated in the April 18, 1990 letter, the proposed retention pipe will not impact the planned, retaining wall provided the recommended earth pressures and drainage requirements are incorporated into the design. It must be noted that exploration pit EP -15, near the southeast corner of the site, encountered additional fill materials. An extended footing or overexcavation and backfilling will be required for proper foundation support. If overexcavation and backfilling is utilized, it will be necessary to use a relatively impermeable capping on the fill or else an impermeable, reinforced liner must be placed at footing level. Once the wall design is finalized, AESI will coordinate with the structural engineer to determine compliance with this requirement. All other recommendations previously provided apply to this wall. BLAST FREE PROJECT On April 21 and 23, 1990, additional exploration pits (EP -9 through EP -15) were excavated in order to further evaluate the location and depth of bedrock on the site, and to determine whether or not the proposed project will be "blast free." The exploration pits were excavated to depths between 11 -1/2 and 16 feet deep ,using a small trackhoe. The explorations generally encountered fill soils over natural deposits of till and occasional sandstone bedrock. The sandstone was interpreted to be the Renton Formation from the Eocene age. The exploration pit logs (including logs EP -1 through EP -8 from previous explorations) and location map (Figure 1) are attached with this letter. In addition, Table 1 (attached) presents the 15 exploration pits, the approximate top and bottom elevation and depth of each pit, and the elevation of the bedrock, if encountered. The additional exploration pits were located in the areas where the anticipated cuts will be the deepest (i.e. Buildings D, E, and F, sanitary sewer between and above Buildings B and C, and the retaining wall above Buildings E and 'F). Buildings A, B, C and G have relatively shallow cuts or will be placed on structural fill. 2 Based on the sediments encountered in the exploration pits, it appears this will be ..a„. "blast- free" site. Bedrock was only encountered in 4 of the 15 exploration pits, and where . encountered the small trackhoe was able to rip into it about 4 -1/2 feet with little difficulty. Footing elevations, determined from the finished floor elevations, should be above bedrock elevation for all buildings. The utility lines will also apparently be above bedrock elevation. The only location where it appears bedrock may be encountered is at the retaining wall footing near the northeast corner of the site. Due to the apparent case of ripping, bedrock should not be an issue at this location either. REVIEW OF CIVIL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS As stated in AESI's April 19, 1990 letter, we have previously reviewed the preliminary civil engineering drawings by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., and have made several additional recommendations. Some of these recommendations have already been incorporated into the plans and the remainder will be included in the final plans. Once the civil plans have been finalized, they will be reviewed by AESI to verify that they are consistent with our geotechnical report and additional recommendations. Our final plan review will be conducted as soon as copies of the final plans are available. If you should have any questions regarding any other issues for this project, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Aito1 .:fey S / Battermann, Geotechnical Engineer Gary T. Princip obdell, P.E., P.G. xc: Jack Pace, City of Tukwila, Senior Planner Michael Aippersbach, City of Tukwila, Review Engineer Gary Steinvall, 62nd Avenue South Limited Partnership Don Hill, D.R. Strong Al Roberts, Roger Newell, Architects JSB /lb H911 -04G DK4/10/90 lb 3 TABLE 1 Approximate Bedrock Planned Exploration Approximate Approximate Depth Encountered Footing Pit No. Top El. Bottom El. (ft.) (el.) Elevation 1 175 160 16 161 2 161 144 17 145 3 145 130 15 None 4 130 113 17 None 5 143 131 12 None 6 138 124 14 None 7 173 161 12. None 8 159 144 15 145 9 173 158 15 None 10 182 170 12 175 11 174 158 16 None 12 168 153 15 None 13 142 127 15 None 14 143 129 14 None 15 126 113 13 117 175 This table presents the elevations where bedrock was encountered in the 15 exploration pits only. Bedrock may also be encountered at other locations on the site. JSB /lb H911 -04G DK4/10/90 lb 4 NUMBER EP -1 0 5 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRPT)Ofi NUMBER EP -2 0 5 10 15. SEDIMENT DESCRIPT}ON Loose, moist, brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel and numerous roots and occassional. debris. (Fill) Medium dense, damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel. Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel. (Till) Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel. (Till) The upper 1 to 2 feet was in a medium dense weathered condition. Medium dense to dense, damp to moist, grey, fine sand with some silt, interbedded with stiff silt layers and dense, fine to medium sand layers. Top 3 feet contained some gravel. Medium dense to dense, damp, grey, fine to medium sand with some silt, interbedded with stiff silt layers 1 to 4 inches thick. ' 1 Sandstone bedrock. / . BOH 152'Note: No seepage, no caving NUMBER EP -2 0 5 10 15. SEDIMENT DESCRIPT}ON 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G [November 1989 1 Loose, damp, brown, silty, fine to medium sand with numerous 1 roots. (Topsoil) / Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel. (Till) . Medium dense to dense, damp to moist, grey, fine sand with some silt, interbedded with stiff silt layers and dense, fine to medium sand layers. Top 3 feet contained some gravel. Dense, damp, light brown, medium sand. (Weathered bedrock) 'BOH 17' Note: No seepage, no caving. ' 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G [November 1989 1 NUMBER EP -3 0 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LOt3 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION NUMBER EP -4 0 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Loose, damp,'btown,.silty, fine to medium sand, with numerous with roots. (Topsoil) 1' Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel, and occassional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper I Dense, moist, grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. Medium dense to dense, wet to saturated, brown, silty, fine to medium sand. Gravel in top 2' IBOH 17' Note: No seepage, no caving BOH 15' Note: Minor seepage at 14', sloughing at seepage face NUMBER EP -4 0 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 5- 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES INC 8911 -04G .I November 1989 Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty, fine to medium sand numerous roots. (Topsoil.) with Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with . trace gravel and occassional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper 1' ' Medium dense, damp to moist, grey /brown, fine to medium sand with interbedded stiff silt layers. Some gravel in top 12' I Dense, moist, grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. IBOH 17' Note: No seepage, no caving 5- 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES INC 8911 -04G .I November 1989 NUMBER EP -5 0 5 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LOGS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION NUMBER EP -6 0 10 15 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Loose, damp,'brown, silty, fine to medium sand with numerous roots. (Topsoil) Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty,,fine to medium sand with trace gravel and occasional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper l' . .1 BOH 12' Due to refusal by boulder Note: No seepage No caving NUMBER EP -6 0 10 15 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -0.4G ,November 1989 I Medium dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. Buried tree at 2' (Fill) Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel and occasional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper 1' Very dense, damp to moist, grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. BOH 14' Note: No seepage No caving 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -0.4G ,November 1989 I NUMBER EP -7 0 5 10 15 LOGS PIT G SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION - Very dense, damp. to moist, grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. BOH 12' . Note: No seepage No caving 1 NUMBER EP -8 0 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Loose to medium dense, damp, brown, silty, sand. (Fill) Thin topsoil horizon between fill and underlying sediments. Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel and occasional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper 1' . Medium dense to dense, moist, grey /brown, fine to medium sand . interbedded with stiff silt layers. Sandstone bedrock. BOH 15' . Note: No seepage, no caving 5- 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G INovember 1989 I Loose, damp, 'brown, 'silty-, fine to medium sand with numerous 1 roots. (Topsoil) Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel and occassional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper 1' NUMBER EP -8 0 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Loose to medium dense, damp, brown, silty, sand. (Fill) Thin topsoil horizon between fill and underlying sediments. Dense, dry to damp, light brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace gravel and occasional cobbles. (Till) Weathered in upper 1' . Medium dense to dense, moist, grey /brown, fine to medium sand . interbedded with stiff silt layers. Sandstone bedrock. BOH 15' . Note: No seepage, no caving 5- 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G INovember 1989 I 5- 10 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments Sunwood Boulevard Tukwila, Washington. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G INovember 1989 I NUMBER EP -9 0 5 10 15 • EXPLORATION PIT LOS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION NUMBER .EP -10 .0 5 • 10 15 DIMENT DESCRIPTION Medium dense, moist, orangish brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and rocks. (Fill) `Topsoil Loose to medium dense, moist, orangish brown, silty sand.with occasional pieces of 'rock. 3 -12" in Dia. (Fill) - Dense, moist, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. (Till) Very dense, damp to moist, blue /grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and occasional cobbles and boulders. (Till) . BOH 15' . Note: No ground water, no caving NUMBER .EP -10 .0 5 • 10 15 DIMENT DESCRIPTION 62nd Avenue S. Apartments ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911-04G 1 April 1990 1 Medium dense, moist, orangish brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and rocks. (Fill) Medium dense, moist, grey, medium sand. Dense, damp, orange then tan, fine to medium grained sandstone. " " " . BOH 111' Note: No ground water No caving 62nd Avenue S. Apartments ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911-04G 1 April 1990 1 NUMBER EP -11 0 5 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LAS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION , Medium dense, moist, orangish'brown, silty, fine to medium sand with'some gravel and cobbles. (Fill) . ---____J .. Dense, moist, grey /brown, silty, fine to medium.sand with some gravel and occasioanl cobbles. (Till) weathered on top ,. BOH 16' Note: No seepage, no caving NUMBER EP-12 5 10 15 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 62nd Avenue S. Apartments ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G 1 April 1990 j Loose to medium dense, moist, brown /dark brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and cobbles. (Fill) • Dense, moist, grey /brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. (Till) weathered in upper 1 -2' Dense to very dense, moist, blue /grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. (Till) 1 . BOH 15' Note: No seepage, no caving 62nd Avenue S. Apartments ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G 1 April 1990 j NUMBER EP -13 0 • EXPLORATION PIT L S SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 5- 10 15 NUMBER EP -14 0 5 10- 15- INN SEDIMENT DE Medium dense, moist, orangish brown, silty, fine to medium. sand. Dense, moist, grey /brown, silty, gravel. (Till) weathered in top • fine to medium sand with some 1 -2' Very dense, moist, blue /grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel, occasional cobbles and boulders. (Till) BOH 15' Note: No seepage No caving • 5- 10 15 NUMBER EP -14 0 5 10- 15- INN SEDIMENT DE 62nd Avenue S. Apartments ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -040 l April 1990 1 Medium dense, moist, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and cobbles. (Fill) Dense, moist, grey/brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. Weathered in top 1' (Till) Very dense, moist, blue /grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel, occasional cobbles and boulders. (Till) ' BOH 14' Note: Minor ground water at 11' No caving 62nd Avenue S. Apartments ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -040 l April 1990 1 NUMBER EP -15 0 5 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LOS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION NUMBER 0 5 10 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION eml 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 3911 -040 1 April 1990 1 Loose, moist, dark brown, silty, fine sand with numerous roots. (Fill) . Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty, fine to medium sand with trace of gravel. Dense, moist, grey, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel. (Till) . Dense, damp, tan, fine to medium grained sandstone. -1 BOH 13' Note: No ground water No caving • NUMBER 0 5 10 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION eml 15 62nd Avenue S. Apartments ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 3911 -040 1 April 1990 1 APR 241990 Or( C; • 4 • • ROGER H. NEWELL AIR ARCHITECT April 20, 1990 Jack Pace City of Tukwila —6200 South - Center -Blvd — - Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: 62nd Avenue Apartments Job No. 89 -14 -DR Dear Mr. Pace: 1102 - 19TH AVENUE EAST • SEATTLE, WA 198112 • (206) 322 -1192 I am writing this letter to confirm the proceedings of our meeting Thursday, April 12, 1 ,1990, called to discuss the comments from the Design Review Committee meeting held earlier that day. Those present at the meeting: Michael Aippersbach, Gary Steinvall, Jack Pace and myself. The items reviewed were covered in list form in the memos given to me by Michael Aippersbach Tuesday, April 10, and Thursday, April 12, with traffic mitigations to follow.. In addition to these lists, the fire department has requested that we either move the garage or provide a space equivalent to four parking stalls between garages for ladder truck access. I believe that this request is due to misinterpretation of the Building Section. I will be in contact with the City of Tukwila Fire Department regarding truck access for 2 story buildings. It is also becoming clear through this incident and misreading of retaining wall heights and requesting information which we have already provided that information is not being properly processed and reviewed at the City of Tukwila. We Nave made every, effort to clarify our drawings so that further misinterpretations and delays do not occur.' The grading plan will clarify many of the issues raised and will be completed by April 24. After discussing these issues witliyou, we requested information on the city-of Tukwila's riming for getting us on the B.A.R. schedule. I was disappointed to find out our application was not to be heard at the May 10, 1990 B.A.R. Despite the fact we provided you with all the information indicated as necessary by you and your consultant, Mr. Aippersbach, per his letter dated April 4, 1990. Instead you informed us we will now be required to complete all changes requested in the two above mentioned memos four weeks prior to our B.A.R. We were, however, pleased when you informed us that it would be a "maximum of six weeks" to get our building permit from the time we apply and that we could apply for the building permit prior to our B.A.R. With these comments in mind we will continue to refine our drawings. I am sure we will be in contact with you soon. Sincerely, Al Roberts AR:bet cc: Michael Aippersbach Gary Steinvall Io»s/ D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 10602 N.E. 38TH PLACE, SUITE 101 • KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 • TOLL FREE (Washington State) 1- 800 - 962 -1402 • FAX NUMBER (206) 827 -2423 April 19, 1990 Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Design Review Application 62nd Avenue South Apartments Additional Information Dear Mr. Pace: Ifs re V\`P 3 ls �l `IVI��,��. APR 251990 CITY OF -6 Ue(WI6_A Pf_ANNINC DEPT' 89 -268.5 1 We are writing to address additional issues identified by the City's Review Engineer, Mr. Michael Aippersbach, that were summarized in his letter to Al Roberts of Roger Newell, Architects, on April 18, 1990. These issues were detailed in the Memorandum from Phil Fraser and Ross Heller (City of Tukwila, Department of Public Works) to Michael Aip- persbach dated April 12, 1990. Our original Plans (Road, Storm, Sewer, Water and ESC) were dated November 13, 1989, Drawing #89 -268 (5 sheets), and were a part of the original Design Review submittal to the City of Tukwila for the 62nd Avenue S. Apartments, submitted for South Center Associates by Roger Newell, Architects. Our original Plans were followed with a letter and its attachments to you dated March 28, 1990 which addressed concerns that you had listed in your initial Design Review of the project The recent concerns indicated by the City that relate to our Plans are addressed as follows: 1) You have requested a copy of the "... 10 -foot Temporary Erosion Control and Construction Easement on the south side of the pro- ject ". The Owner will secure this from the adjacent Owner and we are preparing the actual Easement. It will be a part of our fi- nal submittal to the City. This Easement will be of the width necessary to not only construct the retaining wall along the south property line, but will also provide adequate room to install the silt fence and imbedded, continuous line of straw bales for erosion and sedimentation control as indicated on our Revised Sheet 4 of 5, dated March 28, 1990; Mr. Jack Pace April 19, 1990 Page 2 2 3 4 We would like to point out that contrary to what is indicated on your above - mentioned Memorandum, there are no new rockeries pro- posed for the project. All accommodations for elevation change are addressed through the use of retaining and /or foundation walls. We also refer you to the recent submittals by the Geo - Technical Engineer, Applied Earth Sciences (AES). We would like to point out that there are no retaining walls "... 20 feet or more in height ..." proposed in the project. We do concur the need for providing fencing to protect the users of this property. Fencing will be provided, and will be indicated on the final submittal. You have indicated a concern about the "... lack of Temporary Erosion Detention Ponds and the reliance on swales to capture erosion through the construction phase of this project ". May I point out, as indicated on the Plans, we have provided Sedimentation Traps that, when coupled with straw bales in the indicated swales, are capable of filtering silt -laden storm drainage during construction. Though the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan' has already been reviewed by AES, and it's adequacy has been affirmed, we propose to add two adequately -sized Temporary Detention Ponds around Catch Basins #6 and #13 to further allay your concerns. Most of the drainage during construction is diverted to one of these catch basins, and each of these catch basins is at or near existing grade. Each of these two catch basins will be shown on the final Plans to be surrounded by an adequately -sized Temporary Detention Pond. Each catch basin will be protected by a Sedimentation Trap as a minimum and as indicated on the Plans, Sheet #5. In addition to this, you have indicated that it will be necessary that our Plans be reviewed by a Geo- Technical Engineer. May we point out that to our knowledge this review has been completed, and that any clarifications and /or additional descriptions proposed in this letter are being reviewed by the Geo - Technical Engineer at this time, and he will forward his remarks to you. 5) You have a question whether the ownership of Phase I and Phase II of Sunwood have "... released the use of the extra detention ca- pacity ..." indicated in our original submittal for use by the 62nd Avenue S Apartments, in particular for the area of the pro- ject northeast of Sunwood Boulevard. The project owner is clari- fying this use and he will confirm the adjacent owners release. Mr. Jack Pace April 19, 1990 Page 3 6) You have indicated that your interpretation of the Plans show the Sanitary Sewer Mains are placed in the same "location" as the Storm Water Detention Facility. May I point that there is a 5- foot separation between the Sanitary Sewer Main and the Storm Drainage Detention pipe alignment to the south of Building "D ". The Sanitary Sewer Main and the Storm Drainage Detention pipe are near one another, but not in the same location. Specifically they have been designed to be installed with a clearance from the southern edge of the 8 -inch Sanitary Sewer main and the northern edge of the 52 -inch Storm Drainage pipe (ie. from edge -of -pipe to edge -of -pipe) by 27 inches. To confirm this location and it's orientation to the retaining wall and to Building "D ", the final submittal will have the necessary details to clearly show the location of these pipes in this vicinity. We feel that this type of separation is acceptable since the San- itary Sewer pipe length is only 132 feet and the Storm Drainage Detention pipe length is only 137 feet. These are relatively short lengths. Also, at the end of each of both the Storm Drainage Detention pipe and the Sanitary Sewer Main there are ac- cess manholes which are for the primary purpose of maintenance. Additionally, if in the future for some reason it is found neces- sary to excavate down to either the Storm Drainage Detention pipe or the Sanitary Sewer Main, a backhoe would be able to excavate either pipe without affecting the other, since the exact alignment of the pipes will be clearly marked by being centered in their respective access manholes, as well as located on the As -Built Plans. Therefore, since the manholes are readily available and will be easily accessed, and since adequate clearance is provided between the Sanitary Sewer Main and the Storm Drainage Detention pipe, we feel that these two utilities are maintainable. 7) You have requested that the retaining and building footing drains be located and sized in such a way to drain without connecting directly into the roof drains. The building finished floor and footing elevation are such that adequate drop in elevation is provided to reach adjacent catch basins without connection to the roof drainage system. Our final submittal will show how the retaining wall and building footing drains will not need to be connected to the roof drainage system adjacent to the buildings. 8) In addition to the above item, you have indicated that the drainage for the retaining walls are not identified on the Plans. As mentioned above, our final submittal will show how this drainage is provided. In order to assist your review at this time, may we point out that there is adequate elevation drop to drain the southeast retaining wall to Catch Basin #1, the • • Mr. Jack Pace April 19, 1990 Page 4 retaining wall south of Building "A" to Catch Basin #8, and the retaining wall south of Building "G" to Catch Basin #11. The southwest retaining wall could be drained in one of the following three ways: a) Convey the drainage to Catch Basin #1, along with the drainage from the southeast retaining wall; Convey the drainage to the existing access easement along and to the south of the project that serves the interior lot to the southwest of the project; c) Drain thru weep holes as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and as incorporated in the Structural Engineer's Final Design. In either case, this detail will be detailed in our final submittal. 9) You have asked whether the rockery under Building "C" is to be removed. May I draw your attention to our original submittal on Sheet 2 of 5 that this rockery is to be removed. Similarly, the rockery adjacent to the north /south property line in between Buildings "C" and "D" will be removed and reconstructed in the same location, and adjacent to the Storm Drainage System. Our above remarks address your concerns and our final drawing submit- tal will detail these issues. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. DONALD J. HILL, P.E. DJH:lf cc: Phil Fraser, City of Tukwila, Public Works Michael Aippersbach , City of Tukwila, Review Engineer Gary Steinvall, Southcenter Associates Gary Flowers, AES Al Roberts, Roger Newell, Architects TEL No . 2il6 -0 • RPr.19,9n 1 :Ci ?., 7 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 10602 N.E. 38TH PLACE, SUITE 101 • KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827.3063 • TOLL PI (Waahingion Moto) 1400•852.1402 • FAX NUMBER (206) 827.2423 DATE: ! TIME:- TRANSMISSION TO: ATTENTION: FROM: D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENTNEER$ INC. L cw4g7 /JsU- PROJECT NUMBER: ggart,s-- AM M FAX NUMBER: 4/3 3 - /g.33 .fry OF r'<<LQi,� NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE:__ emmmm asudliW ,naosnn -- s. k+ to is kt a.a¢ 0 e a naca, WIR COMMENTS: A' 5" WAXED rb CG- ft-El; ct Pi rAJTS (J i IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE . • C. MICHAEL AIPPERSBACH. - I�' l �l Consultant � Development Permits • Urban Planning APR 19 1990 April 18, 1990 Al Roberts Roger Newell Architects 1102 - 19th Ave East Seattle WA 98112 Re: Design Review Application (89- 14 -DR) 62nd Avenue Apartments /Tukwila, Washington (Formerly Sunwood Apartments, Phase III) Dear Al, CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. -l8 -90 My thanks to you and-Gary for coming to the meeting on thursday afternoon, April 12. I hope the traffic . on the return trip was less of a problem for you. This letter is to confirm our discussion following an earlier DRC meeting. At the DRC meeting, I met with representatives of the Building and Planning Divisions of the Community Development Department as well as those from the Fire, Police, and Public Works Departments to discuss your application and the status of the Threshold Determination for your project. The following items were discussed at the meeting: -TENATIVE HEARING DATE 1. Although the City received the requested noise assessment on time as requested, unfortunately, all of the neccessary information regarding geotechnical issues were not available so that the Threshold Determination could be completed by April 13. This means that the application cannot be brought before the B.A.R. on May 10 as tenatively•scheduled. The next available B.A.R. meeting date would be May 24. To make that meeting, the City would need to be able to schedule a follow up DRC meeting on April 26 and issue a Mitigated Determination of Non Significance on April 27. Unless other arrangements are made, the City staff would need to have a minimum of one week to review the material before the DRC meeting. BUILDING DEPARTMENT ISSUES 2. I was advised by the Building Official that you must request in writing an extension for your Building Permit application. The existing application will automatically expire at six months unless you request an extension. P.O. Box 95429, Seattle, W'\ 98145 -2429 • (206) :- 9.Fri ? _4- P. 2 /letter to A. Roberts from M. Aippersbach 62nd Ave Apts /Design Review application 4 -1$-90 Look closely at the barrier -free design aspects to this project including, but not limited to the slope of parking area for handicap stalls, number of handicap stalls, and the proximity of the handicap stalls to the entrance of the buildings. FIRE SAFETY ISSUES 3. The location and size of the proposed garages will hinder the use of a ladder truck and equipment in the event of a fire emergency. A redesign will be necessary. The minimum width for fire access is 20 feet. Any dimension less then 20 feet requires approval from the Fire Department. GEOTECHNICAL AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 4. The geotechnical and transportion issues remaining to be resolved are discussed in detail in a memo (dated 4- 12 -90) from Phil Fraser /Ross Heller to myself which was distributed to you at the meeting. Copies of the letter (dated 4- 12 -90) from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. regarding the Sunwood Boulevard Exploration Borings have been provided to Public Works. I might note that Public Works will require roadway design recommendations from your consultant. 5.. The City will require some widening of the gaps in the planting medians on Sunwood Drive to facilitate turning movements and to allow others to pass should a vehicle become disabled on Sunwood Drive. The City is not seeking removal of the medians. RETAINING WALL ISSUES 6. From our conversation, it appears as if the some of the retaining wall on the south property line will be no higher than 12 feet (original data showed the wall over 20 feet in, height at certain locations). A 12 foot retaining wall, while less than 20 feet, in that location (adjoining the single family property) is still a substantial structure. The Community Development Department feels every effort should be made to reduce the height of that retaining wall. In addition, the further mitigations concerning appearance should include modulation and decorative treatment of the retaining wall. Resubmittal plans must include the heights of all retaining walls. P. 3 /letter to A. Roberts from M. Aippersbach 62nd Ave Apts /Design Review application 4 -16 -90 I have forwarded my copy of the Earthcalc, Inc. data and graphics (dated 3- 14 -90) to Public Works for their review. PEDESTRIAN ISSUES 7. A pedestrian connection which is handicap accessible will be required between the east end of the internal sidewalk . serving buildings B, C and D and the public sidewalk on the west side of 62nd Avenue, south of Sunwood Drive. ADDITIONAL ISSUES /CONCERNS J Of concern to the Community Development Department, but not discussed at the DRC meeting were a number of other items. These additional issues and concerns of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department were outlined in my memo to you (dated 4- 10 -90) and hand delivered at our meeting on April 10. RESUBMITTAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS The geotechnical issues are the ones to be resolved before a Threshold Determination can be made. Therefore the geotechnical information (including their review and comment on the civil plans) must be received by April 19. You must provide all other revisions to development plans and any additional materials required to resolve any non -SEPA issues by April 26 to make the May 24 hearing date. The scale of the submitted site plan is too small to understand the complexity of relationships. Resubmittal must include a larger scale. Fire safety issues should be coordinated with The Tukwila Fire Department. Chief Nick Olivas (575 -4407) is the contact person. All of the geotechnical and transportation issues should be coordinated with the Tukwila Public Works Department. Phil Fraser (433 -0179) is the contact person. Please direct any other questions to me (523- 3764). I hope the above is helpful to you. Sincerely, C Ralik C. Michael Aippersbach cc. Jack Pace Gary Steinvall • STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. GENERAL CONTRACTOR April 13, 1990 City of Tukwila 6200 Southceriter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 #STEINCC131 CO ATTN: Jack P. Pace, Senior Partner RE: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 thru #89 -381 Dear Mr. Pace: (206) 822 -6440 In response to your request at the April 12th, 4:00 P.M. meeting at the City of Tukwila, I Gary R. Steinvall as authorized agent request the building official extend the building permit application an additional 180 days. In addition, I request that you please forward a letter to this office confirming your acceptance of this extension and that our rights and interests in this application remain as vested. Thank you in advance, for your interest in this matter and your response to my request.:. Please contact me at 822 -6440 should you have questions. Sincerely, STEINVALL C NSTRUCTION CO. Gary R. Steinvall President CC: Gary Huff, Karr Tuttle Campbell Bill Jeude Warren Ballard Roger Newell, AIA File GRS:sa P.O. BOX 2458 • KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98083 -2458 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE # (206) 4331800 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Michael Aippersbach Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor 'ld30 ON!1\1Nd1d V1!Af!`■!_ ,'0 A110 [0661 Udtf nM-1 FROM: Phil Fraser /Ross Heller DATE: April 12, 1990 Sybject: Environmental and Design Review Resubmittals - Public Works Comments Environmental Per the attached 2 -15 -90 comments from Public Works and in review of the resubmittal documents the following comments are provided: 1. Item #1 - Page 3 - Add: Building Permits, Utility Permits, include Grade and Fill Permits and approvals include: Geotechnical /Hydrological study; traffic analysis should be added to the environmental. 2. The 10 ft. easement for temporary erosion control on the south side of the property - request a copy of these easements from property owner's to the south that make this a viable erosion control plan which the development depends on. 3. Viewing the nature and use of the retaining walls, a recommendation for use of any rockeries on this site does not appear to be appropriate for the following reasons: A. The City allows rockeries only 4 ft. in height used in non - structural wall situations. B. Your Soils Report dated 11/17/89 indicates that rockeries are not recommended by your own consultants. C. Down hill slopes are rather steep and disengagement in rocks could create a catastrophic consequence if they roll down the steep hillsides. D. Past practice of the City have since Sunwood Phase I and II have caused the City to reconsider and limit the use of rockeries under steep hillside condition presented on this proposal. 4. Provide structural engineer and your technical engineering design for retaining walls, to assure protection of public and private infrastructure and permanent slope stability to the upward and downward hillside is provided - - - is requested to assure Public Works that this project is feasible. Of specific concern is southerly edge of the property line, whether this retaining wall can be built within the property or additional easements are going to be necessary on properties to the south. It is not clear from the proposal if this is the case. And finally, the major detention facility put at the southerly property edge behind the retaining wall assurances from your structural engineer and geotechnological engineer that this facility is maintainable and will not affect the stability of the retaining wall needs to be incorporated into this design. 5. The height of the walls - - - in some cases 20 ft. or more in height - - - requires a recommendation for fencing to protect the users of this property. 6. A question of the Planning Department: Is there any concern with having a major 20 ft. plus wall at the property line to the property owner's to the south? This is equivalent to putting up a two -story building at the edge of the property in termsof visual effects. Is there any plantings or reliefs provided to such a major structure at the property line. 7. Per March 28, 1990 letter of Associated Sciences, Inc. to Mr. Steinvall, Page 3, ". . . based on (8) sub - surface explorations which were previously accomplished per prior mentioned Soils Report, there was no indication of bedrock being exposed approximately 16 -18 ft. of the existing ground surface. As the project design has evolved it has become apparent the excavation in the order of 16 -18 ft. may be required in the area of buildings E, F, and possibly D. For this reason, AESI has been requested to perform additional sub - surface explorations in the area of the project in order to reliably predict whether or not bedrock may be encountered during the construction. This work has been scheduled and will be performed at the earliest possible date, but is not available at present. . . " Public Works comment is that since the City is requesting a project that is "blast free" this information needs to be provided and made available prior to making any final determination as to the scope and nature of the project and mitigations be necessary to • • carry this project out. 8. Traffic /Access, Impacts /Mitigations: Per the Associated Sciences,Inc. letter Page 3, Paragraph on field evaluation it as determined the roadway the designs specifications attached and it has sub -grade and there is little or no evidence of base cores and top cores underline the asphalt. will be necessary, to rebuild the roadway to meet approved design section (City Standard). . . ." agrees with this mitigation. March 28, 1990 3 ". . . based does not meet an unsuitable crushed rock Therefore it the previously Public Works It may be necessary to provide a breakup of the isle width at access points and /or other points to allow for emergency vehicle turn - around. Per the attached report by Ron Cameron, City Engineer, in review of the traffic study by March 28, 1990, the appropriate mitigations required of the City are identified. (enclosed). 9. Per the Associated Sciences, Inc. report on Page 12 " . . . at the time of this report, site grading, structural plans and construction methods have not been finalized. We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend Associated Sciences, Inc. perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earth work and foundation recommendation be properly interpreted and implemented in the design . • ." Public Works requires that the geotechnical review the entire development plan and provide a supplemental report at this time to assure that the feasibility of this project is attainable and that the proper impacts and mitigations have been identified to the environmental process. Of specific concern is the lack of temporary detention ponds and reliance on swales to capture erosion through the construction phase of this project. The geotechnical needs to look at the situation and determine whether it is a realistic proposal or not. From my experience on this hillside, it is not in terms of adequate erosion control measures. 11. The common use street and drainage maintenance easement - proposed needs to be executed by all parties concerned. It is noted that this development is planning on using an unused portion of detention originally designed for Phase I and Phase II that has been discovered by the applicant and therefore they are taking over some of the detention capabilities that was originally designed for Phase I and II - Question: has the ownership of Phase I and Phase II released the detention capacity for Phase III use? • • 12. Per the November 13, 1989 report, Page 6 Item #7 -1 and Page 12 Item #15 - tightlining of all storm water drain systems and providing all retaining and building footing with a drain at footing elevations. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into footing drain system but be handled by a separate rigid tightline drain. (connected into storm drain system) per the site plan provided (Sheet 2 of 5). Roof drains, footing drains are not shown on the site plans. Therefore it is not possible to determine whether the drainage system is at an adequate depth to pick up these drainage systems. The inverts and slopes of drains completely described in the plans is necessary to determine the adequacy of the design system. 13. Sanitary Side Drains per plan sheet 3 of 5 it appears that the sanitary sewer mains placed in the same location as the major storm water detention facility. A composite plan indicating location of all utilities with a separation of 10 ft. between a storm water and sewer and also a minimum 10 ft. away from outside edges of buildings needs to be provided. It is questionable whether the proposed utilities are maintainable. The City Public Works staff has no intention of recommending that any of these lines - sewer, water or storm be taken over by the City as public. 14. The retaining walls are not identified on the utility plans along with the footing drains required on the geotechnical soils report. We question how these drains are going to be tied in and where. 15. Is the rockery under Building C to be removed? Also the rockery between Buildings C and D, how is this being dealt with? It appears you are constructing your storm systems right through it. PF /amc:l:Mike April 12, 1990 Project No. 8911 -04G Gary Steinvall, General Partner 62nd Avenue South Limited Partnership Performing Income Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 2458 Kirkland, Washington 90033 -2458 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC Subject: Sunwood Boulevard Exploration Borings 62nd Avenue South Apartments (Formerly the Sunwood Apartments - Phase III) Tukwila, Washington Dear `1r. Steinvall: .The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of 5 exploration borings drilled along Sunwood Boulevard for the above referenced apartment complex. The purpose of these borings was to attempt to determine the cause of the repeated asphaltic concrete .pavement (ACP) failures noted along this roadway and to make recommendations for correcting the condition. Initial conclusions on the nature of the substandard performance of the existing ACP were briefly presented in our letter to you which addressed the City of Tukwila Design Review dated March 28, 1990. The exploration borings were completed by advancing a 3 -3/8 inch inside - diameter, hollow -stem auger with a truck - mounted drill rig. During the drilling process, samples were obtained continuously below the ACP or at 2.5 or 5.0 foot depth intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by a geologist from our firm. The attached exploration logs are based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test procedure in accordance with ASTM:D 1586. The depth of the exploration borings ranged from about 40 inches to 11- 1/2 feet below the present ground surface. The exploration borings for this study were. positioned both within areas where there was s.urficial cracking of the ACP and in areas where no surficial cracking was evident. In addition, one boring was placed in a repaired section of the roadway. FINDINGS The ACP was about 4 inches thick in EB-1, EB-2, EB -4 and EB-5, and was approximately 6 inches thick in EB -3 (repaired section). No crushed surfacing top or base courses were noted below the ACP. 911 - 5th Avenue Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827-7701 Instead, the exploration borings generally encountered fill material consisting of loose to medium dense, moist, brown to dark brown, silty, fine sand to sandy silt. Rock fragments, interpreted to be broken fragments from quarry spalls, were noted in the upper 2 to 6 inches of this material. Pea gravel was encountered in EB -1 at a depth of approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface. Natural sediments were encountered at •a depth of approximately 7 feet in EB -1 and generally consisted of very stiff, moist, blue /grey, clayey silt. These sediments extended beyond the termination depth of the exploration boring. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field evaluation, it is our opinion that the roadway does not meet City of Tukwila design specifications in that there was little or no evidence of a crushed rock base course or top course underlying the ACP. It is also our opinion that the City specification is not adequate for this site since an unsuitable subgrade underlies the ACP. It appears that the subgrade becomes wet and then is subject to pumping under traffic loads which destroys the integrity of the ACP. In order to correct this deficiency, it may be necessary to remove the existing ACP and install an engineered pavement section. We are available to provide you with pavement design recommendations as needed. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Gary A.% Flowers, P.G. Principal Gary T. obdell, P:E.,.P.G. Principa GAF /lb E911 -04G DK4/1/90 lb 2 !XPLORATON BORING !OG EB -1 GRAPH USCS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION DEPTH c I ►- f' 3 ; STANDARD ►[NITRATION RE I$TANCI KOMf /SOOT 10 20 30 40 Asphalt. _ . — 5 - - ---10 "' - — 15 — 20 —25 -30 —35 1 - `4" 1 — — — Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown, fine sand, some silt and gravel. Quarry spall? rock fragments upper 2 " -3 ". (Fill) Loose, moist, brown., fine sand,' some silt. Lower 12" pea gravel (Fill) • Very stiff, moist, blue grey, clayey silt. BOH 111' Note: No seepage Boring in "Unbroken" section of roadway Sunwood Apartments -Phase III Tukwila, Washington. ` 8911 -040 March 1990 I 1125111ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC EXPLORATION BORING LOG EB -2 GR AP ti USCS SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 14" Asphalt. /�. "' «--10 ■-15 DEPTH _ -- 5 _ x--20 — 25 —30 —35 i o s 1 3 3 STANDARD 10 P 20 NITRATION „a.,,,w, 30 RISISTANCI , 40 Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown, silty, fine sand, quarry spall( ?) rock fragments upper 4 " -5 ".r Loose to medium dense, moist, becoming wet, brown, silt, trace fine sand. Rock in tip of core barrel. (Fill) BOH 40" Note: No seepage Boring in "Broken" section of Roadway • Sunwood Apartments -Phase III Tukwila, Washington. 8911 -04C March 1990 C.Ac ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC EXPLORATION BORING LOG EB -3 2 0. ¢ 0 sosn I , SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION - DEPTH ' ; STANDARD PCNSTRATION RlSISTANCS ' KOM.,,OOT 10 20 30 40 of Asphalt. • ‘6" / .� - 5 - --- 10 -- 15 — 20 —25 —30 Dense, moist, brown, silty, fine sand, quarry spall( ?) fragments upper 6 ". Medium dense, moist, brown, silty, fine sand. (Fill) B0H 3�' Note: No seepage Boring in "Patched" section of Roadway • Sunwood Apartments -Phase III Tukwila, Washington. . $911 -04G March 1990 i GK ASSOCIATED • EARTH SCIENCES, INC *EXPLORATION BORIN LOG EB —4 cn SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 4" of Asphalt. r-- ---- -- Quarry spall( ?) rock fragments. Medium dense, moist, brown, silty, some fine sand. (Fill) DEPTH r a3 BOH 40" Note: No seepage Boring in an unfractured dip in roadway - -10 — 15 -- 20 25 30 -- 35 •TANDARO PLNITRATION RCEIETAHCI • nowI,roor 10 20 3.0 40 Sunwood Apartments —phase III Tukwila, Washington. 8911 -040 March 1990 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC EXPLORATION BORIN LOG EB -5 a x cri U N z SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION DEPTH 4" Asphalt. / Dense, moist, brown, silty, fine sand, quarry spall( ?) rock fragments — upper 3 " -4" Medium dense, moist, brown, silty, - fine sand. BOH 40" Note: No seepage Boring in "Unbroken" section of roadway . STANDARD KNSTRATION RZSISTANC! • 64.OW11i /00T 10 5 —10 WOO — 15 Mal IMMO -- 20 Maw —25 RPM — 30 WIN Imm IMD 20 30 • • 40 Sunwood Apartments —Phase III Tukwila, Washington. 8911 -04G .March 1990 SalAARTSSOCIATEH E SCIENCES, INC cmcg iii ,ter #3 WALL /FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL, (Typical) Washed Drain Rock. • Vapor Barrier Typical Floor Slab 4' Granulithic Material or Pea Gravel Bearing Soil Onsite Backfill Bottom of 4' Dia. rigid PVC pipe • minimum of Y below the bottom of the footing. 4' of pee gravel, surround pipe. Perforations are In the tower 1/3 of M. pipe. NOT TO SCALE Southcenter Associates 62nd Ave. South Apartments Tukwila, Washington ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 8911 -04G 1 November 198 APR 12 '90 13:36 MICHA YANTIS'ASSOC 206454 0759 MICHAEL R. YANTIS ASSOCIATES, INC., P.S. consulting in acoustics and vibration FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE: P.1 /9 Td: COMPANY; FAX #: Ln. -16v)) REFERENCE: A/0/454 COMMENTS: A4 E Qag gY 4 v4Lt- QUICK CODE # THIS TRANSMISSION INCLUDES PAGES INCLUDING THIS TRANSMITTAL IF THIS TRANSMISSION IS NOT RECEIVED AS NOTED), PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE! 12509 Bel -Red Road, Suite 203 Bellevue, WA 98005 Office (206) 454.4283 Fax (206) 454 -0759 MICHAEL R. YANTIS ASSOCIATES, INC., P.S. consulting in acoustics and vibration [EM _E APR 121990 CITY OF TUK�ti'�LA PLANNING DEPT. Noise Assessment 62nd Avenue South Apartments For 62nd Avenue SW Limited Partners April 1990 12509 Bel -Red Road, Suite 203 Bellevue, WA 98005 Office (206) 454 -4283 Fax (206) 454 -0759 Noise Assessment: 62nd Avenue South Apartments Michael R. Yantis Associates Inc., P.S. Page 1 INTRODUCTION This report documents an acoustical study conducted for the 62nd Avenue SW Limited Partners regarding existing noise levels at the proposed 62nd Avenue South Apartments. The property is located to the north of Southcenter Blvd., near 62th Avenue S. in Tukwila, Washington. Included within this study will be a 24 -hour measurement of existing sound levels at the property site, comparison of measured levels to maximum allowable noise levels per the City of Tukwila, and a discussion of mitigating measures. MEASUREMENT DESCRIPTION A 24 -hour measurement of existing noise levels was taken on April 5, 1990 the 62nd Avenue S. Apartments site. Ambient noise levels measured at the site were primarily the result of traffic on nearby roadways, which included I -5, I -405, and Southcenter Blvd. A microphone was located as shown in Figure 1, at a height of 6' above the ground. The location of the measurement corresponds to the approximate building setback distance. MEASUREMENT RESULTS Measurement results, in terms of hourly average and maximum noise levels, and the 24 hour day -night equivalent noise level, are as follows: Noise Assessment: 62nd Avenue South Apartments Michael R. Yantis Associates Inc., P.S. Page 2 Existing Ambient Noise Levels (dBA) Hour Leq L(max) 1900 65 75 2000 65 70 2100 64 69 2200 63 70 2300 62 70 0000 61 74 0100 59 68 0200 60 72 0300 62 69 0400 66 71 0500 68 75 0600 67 74 0700 67 76 0800 68 85 0900 68 82 1000 68 78 1100 67 77 1200 67 75 1300 66 75 1400 67 84 1500 66 77 1600 67 88 1700 66 72 1800 66 78 Ldn 70 (dBA) The above noise levels are given in terms of A- weighted Leq and Ldn. Leq is the energy average sound pressure level, dB re 20 micropascals. "A- weighted" Leq is frequency weighted to conform to the human ear's perception of loudness. Ldn is the Day -Night Equivalent Noise Level, which is a 24 -hour continuous sample of Leq, with a 10 dBA penalty added to sound occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Noise Assessment: 62nd Avenue South Apartments Michael R. Yantis Associates Inc., P.S. Page 3 Since sound is measured on a decibel scale, loudness of sound is not linear (110 dBA is not 10 percent louder than 100 dBA). A 3 dBA difference in sound levels is a perceptible difference. A 5 dBA difference is significantly louder (or softer), and a 10 dBA difference is twice as loud (or soft). RECOMMENDED NOISE LEVELS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES The impact of ambient noise levels on the proposed 62nd Avenue S. apartments can be determined by comparing them to federal guidelines for land use and the corresponding recommended maximum noise levels. Federal guidelines (Department of Housing and Urban Development) consider exterior noise levels up to 65 dBA (Ldn) as generally acceptable for residential use. Exterior noise levels between 65 dBA and 75 dBA are considered generally unacceptable, but may be allowed if interior noise levels do not exceed an Ldn of 45 dBA. DISCUSSION The noise levels measured at the site exceed federal guidelines for acceptable exterior noise levels by 5 dBA. Building construction which meets current energy codes can be expected to provide 25 db attenuation of exterior noise levels with windows closed. With windows closed, expected interior noise levels will therefore meet federal guidelines of Ldn 45 dBA. Opening windows for ventilation will increase interior noise levels. Noise Assessment: 62nd Avenue South Apartments Michael R. Yantis Associates Inc., P.S. Page 4 MITIGATION REOUIREMENTS FOR INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS For building faces which are exposed to traffic noise, windows with an rating of STC -33 or more should be used to maintain a factor of safety with regard to the needed 25 dB attenuation of exterior noise levels. The following specification is included as an aid in making window selections for these windows: (a) Windows shall have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC -33; or (b) Windows shall be double glazed with panes at least 1/8" thick. Panes of glass shall be separated by a minimum 1/2" airspace. (c) Double - glazed windows shall employ fixed sash or efficiently weather - stripped, operable sash. The sash shall be rigid and weather - stripped with material that is compressed airtight when the window is closed so as to conform to an air infiltration test not to exceed 0.5 cubic foot per minute per foot of crack length in accordance with ASTM E- 283 -65 -T. (d) Glass shall be sealed in an airtight manner with a non - hardening sealant or a soft elastomer gasket or gasket tape. (e) The perimeter of window frames shall be sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction with a sealant conforming to one of the following Federal specifications: TT -S -0027, TT -S -00230 or TT -S- 00153. APPENDIX I: GENERAL DISCUSSION OF NOISE Environmental noise typically refers to the total acoustic environment as measured or heard by humans. This acoustic environment is made up of background noise caused by distant traffic, airplanes, etc., and higher level noise dominated by nearby sources such as car pass -bys, airplane flyovers, or close construction activity. The most commonly used measure of sound is the sound pressure level (SPL), which represents the magnitude of the sound pressure in the air. The human ear responds differently to sounds at different frequencies (pitch). This is demonstrated by the fact that we hear higher pitched sounds easier than lower ones of the same magnitude. To compensate for the different "loudness" as perceived by humans at different pitches, a standard weighting curve is applied to measured levels. This weighting curve represents the human ear's sensitivity, and is labeled "A" weighting. The units of magnitude of the sound are written dBA ( "A" weighted decibels), which is a logarithmic scale. The nature of dB scales means that individual dB ratings for different noise sources cannot be added directly to give the dB rating of the combination of these sources. Two noise sources producing equal dB rating at a given location will produce a composite noise that is 3 dB greater than the individual levels. Similarly, the loudness of sounds does not vary arithmetically. The ear has some difficulty detecting the difference in loudness between sounds that have a difference of 3 dB. A 5 dB difference is easily detectable, and a sound that is 10 dB more than another sounds twice as loud. The following table presents examples of common noise levels: SPL(dBA) Example 0 Threshold of audibility 20 Quiet rural area (no traffic) 40 Suburban neighborhood (distant traffic) 60 Normal conversation 70 Busy freeway 100 Jackhammer 130 Threshold of pain Annoyance of environmental noise is further affected by the maximum (peak) levels, and the amount of fluctuation of the noise. These factors can be described statistically by noise levels exceeded for given percentages of time during a prescribed time period. The statistical descriptors are L(1), L(10), L(50), L(90), and L(99), and represent the sound that is exceeded the percentage of time in parentheses. For example, L(50) is the sound level exceed '50% of the time in a given time interval. L(1) levels generally represent maximum levels, L(50) average levels, and L(99) background levels. Another noise descriptor is the Equivalent Noise Level (Leg), which is the dBA level of a constant sound which has the same acoustical energy as the time- varying noise. The EPA describes it: "The equivalent sound level is a single value of sound level for any desired duration, which includes all of the time - varying sound energy in the measurement period ". Therefore, a sound that was 60 dBA for ten minutes, and 70 dBA for ten minutes would have an Lea for the total time period of 67 dBA (remember, logarithms do not add together directly). It can be seen that the higher level sounds are weighted heavier in the calculation, because they have more energy. The Ldn, or day -night equivalent sound level, is the Lea measured over a 24 hour period, with a 10 dBA penalty applied 'to night- time levels (10:OOpm to 7:00am). • = • • • • SITE FOOTPRINT Fj ,RI- /\ = MEASUREMENT LOCATION (SET BACK 30' FROM PROPERTY LINE) 62ND AVENUE SOUTH 62ND AVENUE SOUTH APARTMENTS ACOUSTICAL MEASUREMENT LOCATION MICHAEL R. YANTIS ASSOC. SCALE: NONE DATE: 4 -11 -90 • Date: April 10, 1990 To: Al Roberts, Roger Newell, Architects uu J From: Michael Aippersbach, Consultant (523 -3764) Subject: 62nd Avenue Apartments (89- 14 -DR) Al, the following are comments from Jack Pace and several other staff on the proposed plans for the 62nd Avenue Apartments: SITE PLAN - Does recreation building meet setback - can't read drgs? - Want off -sets for Bldgs B & C (concerned about their appearance from Southcenter, et.al.). - Need finish floor elev. for all bldgs and adjoining parking areas so we can understand relationships. - Where are the off -site bldgs to the west and south (and what are their elevations)? - No gang mailboxes shown. Where are they? You must show the location of all rockeries /retaining walls. Must show street medians. - Site plans(s) must show existing and finished elevations. Can't read current site plan very well so you may need separate drawings. - Elev. of perimeter parking areas to be shown so we can understand relationships. Additional landscaping may be needed to prevent headlights from shining on to adjoining properties. What happened to swale shown on south side of property noted original site drainage plan? DRAINAGE PLANS Revised set of plans did not include new drainage plan? You need drainage plans for review. LIGHTING PLAN No exterior lighting plans provided. If you are planning on installing exterior lighting, we must see plans. SIDEWALKS - No sidewalk shown on south side of Sunwood Drive. Public Works may add sidewalk as a condition. How would that effect your site layout? NOTE: You at least need the sidewalk in front of Bldgs B,C & D to connect to the public sidewalk on west side of 62nd Avenue South. - Need pedestrian connection with sidewalk which serves Bldgs B,C & D to Bldg A and on up to the Rec. Bldg. P. 2 /memo to A. Roberts from M. Aippersbach 62nd Ave Apts 4 -10 -90 PARKING - Parking on east end of traffic aisle north of Bldg D will not function properly. - Only 2 of the 3 parallel parking stalls on the north property line will function properly. Can you re- orient parking east of Rec. Bldg? - Can you move garages for Bldgs C & D to the north side of the traffic aisle ? - The staff would like to see garages along the road in this location. How will you prevent the garages from being used as storage areas (There is no off - street parking)? What about carports instead of garages? Will garages have electric garage door. openers? - Parking stall (oncovered) next to garage north of Bldg B will not function properly - can't open door unless extra wide. RECREATION - To qualify as recreation space, the land must: o use sod, no ground cover o not exceed 4:1 slopes o be of useable dimensions (not generally less than 10 feet in any direction) o drainage swales may not normally qualify as a recreation area - Many of the areas shown on the recreation & open space sheet do not appear to qualify as open space DUMPSTERS - Need all elevations of all dumpsters. Need to show details (exterior materials, color, etc.). - Can the dumpsters accommodate recycling bins? Where is dumpster to serve bldg B? ELEVATIONS - Elevation dwgs not finished: o chimneys (flues) o finished grade references o exterior materials labelled o location of electrical meters (they should be screened) - Need to provide elevations for all buildings (doing typical elevations is exactly what B.A.R. is trying to avoid) - Need separate elevations for each size of garage: 6 car standard, 5 car standard, 4 car standard, and 3 car standard - Need gang mailbox elevations - Want off -sets for Bldgs C & D Sht # 14, I beieve the elevation references are reversed P. 3 /memo to A. Roberts from M. Aippersbach 62nd Ave Apts 4 -10 -90 - Sht# 9 implies parking underneath Bldg - Is that so ?. - Sheet # 10 needs exterior material call outs on elevations for garages & dumpsters LANDSCAPING - Need to show existing landscaping (tpye and size) in Sunwood Drive street medians What is "turfstone"? - All Rockeries /retaining walls need to be shown on landscaping plans - Need to show gang mailbox locations Where are earlier drainage swales on south property line? - For recreation areas, sod should be next to units, not ground cover Sod area on south property line because of retaining walls will be above adjoining property. You may be required to use hand rails on top of retaining walls. Will the sod go right up to wall - how about use of shrubs? - Where parking next to perimeter, shrubs are needed to prevent headlights from shining onto adjacent properties. Shrubs not shown in many of the areas. P yfra S&t (ohs 7 e -. -17;,( /s -5 2 )r) ) /'N 17) ,SPA.L Cebu,. ve ; szfA4kad 14 /7 s Aippersbach & Ryan - Consultants tuk.dsk., sunwood file TRANSMITTAL ROGER H. NEWELL Al DATE A'QA L 8 101010 PROJECT nDWVU 111=1111111101■ 1102 19TH AVENUE EAST • SEATTLE 98112 • (206) 322 -1192 JOB # 806- .tor •e g-== `tUI'Vtlit , W4 cfS lea COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION I ea-. LV,Etv#C►1 S ?J444t REMARKS Jg%itlQ • C. MICHAEL AIPPERSBACH Consultant Development Permits • Urban Planning April 4, 1990 Al Roberts Roger Newell Architects 1102 - 19th Avenue East Seattle WA 98112 Re: Design Review application 62nd Avenue South Apartments /Tukwila, Washington (Formerly the Sunwood Apartments - Phase III) Dear Mr. Roberts: This letter confirms our phone call today and an earlier phone call with Gary Steinvall. The re- submittal material unfortunately did not arrive in time for the Public Works Department to review and comment and me to have completed a draft Threshold Determination on March 26. The Threshold Determination had to have been issued April 2 to make the April 26 public hearing. I had a brief meeting with Jace Pace today to discuss the status of your project. Two additional additional subjects surfaced at that meeting: (1) the 12 -foot retaining wall on the south and (2) the issue of noise. Jack expressed skepticism about the acceptibility of a 12 -foot retaining wall on the south property line. He also indicated that you will need a noise study with any recommended mitigating measures prior to the Threshold Determination being issued. Please obtain that noise study as soon as possible. Jack also has asked me to schedule a follow -up meeting with the Development Review Committee (DRC) on April 12 for your project. At that meeting with the various departments represented, we expect to wrap up the environmental review portion of this process except possibly for the item of noise. We have tenatively setting up a meeting with you, Roger and Gary Steinvall at 4:00 pm. that same day to go over the results of that meeting. I will confirm that time with you at the end of this week or on Monday. Sincerely; C 444 *_ C. Michael Aippersbach cc. Gary Steinvall Jack Pace, City of Tukwila P.O. Box 95429, Seattle, WA 98145 -2429 • (206) 349. -Er29H 52-3- 3764- • • C. MICHAEL AIPPERSBACH Consultant Development Permits • Urban Planning April 4, 1990 Al Roberts Roger Newell Architects 1102 - 19th Avenue East Seattle WA 98112 Re: Design Review application (89- 14 -DR) 62nd Avenue South Apartments /Tukwila, Washington (Formerly the Sunwood Apartments - Phase III) Dear Mr. Roberts: This letter confirms my return call to you today. Your question to me (and Jack Pace) was that since the application cannot be heard before the B.A.R. on their April 26 meeting, can the City place the application before the B.A.R. on their May 10 meeting? Jack Pace and I have discussed this by phone today and he indicated a yes to that question if the noise study can be submitted to the City by April 12 (so that the Threshold Determination can be issued on April 13). If the the City does not receive the noise study by April 12, the application would be pulled from the May 10 meeting and placed on the May 24 meeting calendar. The 12 -foot retaining wall on the south property line needs to be resolved, but it is not necessary for that to occur for the issuance of the Threshold Determination. PLease contact me (at 523 -3764) if there are any further questions. Sincerely, Me4-6414 *OtAALk- C. Michael Aippersbach cc. Gary Steinvall Jack Pace P.O. Box 95429, Seattle, WA 98145 -2429 • (206) 321 C29O 523-3764- • INP 101990 )\ CITY OF, .. -...e- . Apr i 1 4, 1990 P1 -ANNA .._. ,..� South Center Associates 911 5th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 Attention: Mr. Bill Jeude, managing partner Re: 62nd Avenue Apartments Dear Mr. Jeude: In February, we had an architect and landscape architect visit your site with Mr. Hunt, reviewing the lay of the land and your proposed project design. Their observations are as follows: 1) Roger Newell's design is competent as far as it goes; however, as a designer, his "signature style" is what he would probably call "clean ". Many of us who would live next to it, however, would call it "boring ". The architect indicated that this particular style, particularly the use of flat roofs and the minimal use of detailing on a group of identical buildings set in the same orientation, is a substantial departure from both designs present in Sunwood. It is somewhat less of a departure from the Sunwood I buildings with stucco finish, west of Sunwood Boulevard. 2) The buildings are less modulated and have less visual interest than either Sunwood I or II. The materials and finish quality and the amount of modulation of surfaces would be higher than the Gencor apartments to the west, though less than Sunwood Phase I or II buildings. 3) The layout is very stark, with identical buildings all oriented in the same direction, and with extensive use of retain- ing walls which could result in recontouring virtually the entire site. Your plans show some 1830 lineal feet of free- standing retaining walls and new rockeries, plus over 1000 lineal feet of foundations containing substantial cut or fill; in all, over a half mile of retaining walls. This shows little sensitivity to terrain and leaves little if any natural ground surface. More important than the concern this causes us for the stability of the slopes and the aesthetics of a radically re- sculpted hillside, this appears to go directly counter to the City of Tukwila's objectives in designating the site as a part of a Hillside Sensitive Area. Preservation of the natural landform, or indeed virtually any natural aspect of the site, is not reflected in your proposed design. We assume that the City has noted this, and hope their comments reflect these same policies. 4) The terracing of the site and the maximum density leave little landscaping area. The design will .tear out most of the existing trees, including a 36" maple tree at the northeast Sunwood III - Plans review April 4, 1990 - Page two corner and the numerous pines and firs along the common boundary. At least two large cuts in the existing landscaped median would also be required; the plans do not show what trees would be lost. 5) We assume that the landscaping plan which you have submitted is merely conceptual; if it is not, we would find it very unsatisfactory. The planting plan indicates trees at 20' to 30' on center, and indicates driplines of 25' -30' in diameter. This seems to be both very sparse and misleading as to the spread or effective screening mass of the vegetation, which could be achieved even within a reasonable number of years after instal- lation. No installed tree sizes are indicated. Though Sunwood's landscaping has had the benefit of a decade of growth, it was installed with much greater density and substantial size. In addition to retaining and enhancing usable open space around the buildings, Sunwood also retained the landform of the central knoll in its natural state, as forested open space at the top of the hill, theough as a consequence of retaining this natural area and landform, density is substan- tially reduced. We conclude that the proposed landscaping does not come anywhere near reflecting the standard of Sunwood, and feel that it would be unlikely to adequately screen the large expanses of retaining walls and the regraded surfaces of the balance of the site. 6) We feel that pitched roofs would provide a visual improvement, especially on the buildings east of Sunwood Boulevard and close to us on the West. This may result in some additional blockage of views into the Kent Valley from the lowest units from Sunwood's Building C. However, about 40% of your building roof width would have mechanical enclosures blocking the level line of sight in any case, which your site sections do not indicate. 7) The slope below Buildings C and D should not be cut back to a barren retaining wall for parking, removing all of the trees in this transition area. The wall is 8 to 13 feet high below Building C. A slight "bend" in the layout could accommodate the trees and natural slope, and give the buildings adjacent more variety in orientation following the slope. We will also be directly interested in how you intend to construct and support these substantial walls on our property line. 8) The City has, we understand, indicated to you that they intend to require fire -truck turning areas at the ends of all the cul -de -sacs on the site. Our architect felt that these could substantially alter your design. We are therefore waiting to see how your architect responds to this before commenting on particu- lar aspects of the site density and layout. Pending review of your modifications to the design pursuant to the City's recommendations, we would summarize our review and Sunwood III - Plans review April 4, 1990 - Page three recommendations, which you requested at our last meeting, as: 1. Add pitched roofs to all buildings. 2. Add building modulation and detailing, plus color schemes reflecting Sunwood's wood - exterior buildings, in at least those two buildings north and east of the entry road. 3. Orient the same two buildings to follow the edge of the existing slope, with the parking area at the same line, pulling them away from the toe of the existing slope at the common boundary; this should save most existing vegetation and eliminate the major retaining wall. An attempt might be made to save the big maple, but it may die from th,e disturbance anyway. 4. Reduce the length of Building "E" so that it may be pulled up the slope, reducing or eliminating the 6 -9' retaining wall at the corner. Put low plantings on the slope below, except where high foundation walls need to be screened. The two buildings in this area, above the Boulevard, are the most critical to relate architecturally to Sunwood's buildings directly above. 5. Concentrate major tree screens and other plantings (greater installed density and substantial installed size) along the south and west sides of the entry roads. If it is difficult for your architect to more closely reflect Sunwood's architectural style, then perhaps intensive plantings can be used to "disassociate" the apartment buildings below the Sunwood road. They might then relate visually as a transition between the Gencor apartments and Sunwood Buildings A and B. 6. Additional recreation area should be provided on the site, as your group has expressed no interest in participating in the existing Sunwood common area main- tenance or use. The proposed area seems very small and inadequate, especially considering that most of the balance of the site would be unusable cut and fill areas. 7. Issues were discussed pertaining to the design of the entry road area, but we feel constrained to discuss this at this time, due to the filing of the lawsuit by Old Stone Bank since the review. Depending on the outcome of that suit, we would like to see a solution to the road design which fits with our overall design comments. This might include rebuilding the road to City of Tukwila base and surfacing standards, or possibly dedication to the City as a public road, with setbacks appropriate to a public road. • Sunwood III - Plans review April 4, 1990 - Page four 8. Two of the five street lights will need to be removed for median cuts along with an unspecified amount of landscaping. A new median planting and lighting plan should be required. We hope that these comments are constructive and timely. It has required considerable time for us as a group of "lay" reviewers of architecture to translate our concerns into constructive design changes, with the help of additional consultants. We look forward to an opportunity to review your next design changes submitted to the City, and hope that progress is being made to a solution which the City and Sunwood's residents can support. Yours very truly, cc: City of Tukwila Planning Dept. W. Gary Ackerman W. Duncan Findley 1 _)e"t/I\J C - Ryan S. Thrower, President Sunwood Homeowners' Assn. MAR ?9 ' 96 1 R; 617 RCir;FR. NF161FI 1 ARi-HTTF1T 9? ? -91 R1 P 1 l? ;�; � . ; �'•. ' ��_: " I ,', r` 1102 -19TH AVENUE EAST • SEATTLE, WA 98112 • (206) 322 -1192 March 29, 1990 Mr. Jack Pace, Sr. Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa 98188 Re: Design Review Application Comments - Landscape Concerns 62nd Avenue South Apartments, Tukwila, WA Dear Mr. Pace: This letter explains the•material delivered this afternoon (Thursday March 29, 1990)in response to your letter of February 21, 1990. In response to your "concerns ": A. See cross sections A -F enclosed. Also note that we have maintained view corridors through the project, B. We changed to sloped roofs so flat roofs are no longer an issue. C. To address variety, we have varied each_building extensively, by increasing modulation and by using a combination of stucco and cedar siding. We feel that this variety should be sufficient and further variety between buildings should not be required. D. See revised Site Plan. E. See revised Civil drawings and calculations F. See enclosed traffic report G. It is impractical to provide "internal walkways" other than the drive. H. Please see revised Landscape plan. 1. See enclosed title report. 2. See enclosed survey. 3. See enclosed traffic report 4. See revised civil drawings and calculations 5. See enclosed maintnance program. 6. See response by Associated Earth Sciences 7. See enclosed color board 8. Note there will be no mechanical equipment on the roof. 9. See Architectural sheet A10. 10. Review design submitted by Electric/Electric. 11. See enclosed color board 12. See enclosed sketches h1RR 29 '90 1F.:48 ROGER NEWELL ARCHITECT 322 -5161 P.2/2 Jack Pace March 29, 1990 Page 2 13. See enclosed cross sections 13. See enclosed sketches 14. See open space calculation sheet 15. See enclosed response by the Johnson Associates. 16. See enclosed response by the Johnson Associates 17. Dead bolts with minimum 1/2" throw on all exterior doors including patio doors. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Sincerely, (f—e/tZ Al Roberts Roger H. Newell, AJA ADR :sdf PERFORMING INCOME PROPE P.O. BOX 2458, KIRKLAND, WA 98083 -2458 • (206) 82 March 29, 1990 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 ATTN: Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner RE: 644. MAR 3 0 1990 PLANNING DEPT. ; 62nd Avenue. South Apartments, Tukwila, WA (Formerly the Sunwood Apartments - Phase III) Project #112 Dear Mr. Pace: Under this cover letter, as requested in your February 21, 1990 letter addressed to Al Roberts of Roger Newell Architects, we are transmitting the following: (1) Two (2) copies of, "Traffic Impact Analysis" prepared by Transportation Planning and Engineering, Inc. (2) Two (2) copies of Preliminary title report identifying current ownership as, "Citizens Service Corporation ". 1 Performing Income Properties, Inc. has a signed Purchase Agreement which allows for the development of the property. It is our understanding, upon your receipt of the above items, wee have satisfied those respective items as requested in your February 21, 1990 letter. Sincerely, PERFORMING INCOME PROPERTIES, INC. Gary R. Steinvall President GRS:sa cc: W.W. Jeude, UNIVEST File 62ND AVENUE SOUTH APARTMENTS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for PERFORMING INCOME PROPERTIES, INC. P.O. Box 2458 Kirkland, Washington 98083 -2458 Prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 112th Northeast, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Telephone (206) 455 -5320 March 28, 1990 iCTOR H. BISHOP P.E., President VID H. ENGER, P.E., Vice President APE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 - 112th AVENUE N.E., SUITE 110 - BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 TELEPHONE (206) 455 -5320 FACSIMILE (206) 453 -7180 March 28, 1990 Mr. Gary Steinvall, General Partner 62nd Ave. S. Limited Parnership PERFORMING INCOME PROPERTIES, INC. P.O. Box 2458 Kirkland, WA 98083 -2458 RE: 62nd Ave. S. Apartments Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Steinvall: We are pleased to submit this Traffic Impact Analysis for the 62nd Ave. S. Apartments. The analysis was prepared in accordance with direction given by the City of Tukwila. Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING Vi tor H. Bishop, P.E. President LH /ab Enc. TABLE OF CONTENTS I PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 Street System Speed Study Traffic Volumes Level of Service Sight Distance III. FUTURE CONDITIONS 3 Trip Generation Trip Distribution Levels of Service Sight Distance IV. MITIGATION AND CONCLUSIONS 6 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 62nd Ave. South Apartments is a proposed 72 unit apartment complex located to the north of Southcenter Blvd. and to the west of 62nd Ave. S. as shown in Figure 1. Access to the site is accomplished by means of Sunwood Blvd., an existing private road traversing through the site. Figure 2 shows thecsite plan for the development. The City of Tukwila has requested that this report examine the effects of this project on two intersection; 62nd Ave. S. /Southcenter Blvd. and 65th Ave. S. /Southcenter Blvd. which are contained herein. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Street System The streets surrounding the site include; Southcenter Blvd., a recently improved 5 -lane arterial with sidewalks and a 35 MPH speed limit; 62nd Ave. S., a two lane roadway with sidewalk on one side and no posted speed limit; S. 153rd, a two lane street with a 15 MPH posted speed limit; 65th Ave. S., a two lane roadway with 25 MPH speed limit and Sunwood Blvd., a private 2 -lane street with a divided median, sidewalk on one side and 15 MPH posted speed limit. Sunwood Blvd. is a 'closed system' providing access to the existing condominiums to the north of the proposed site and the site itself with no plans to connect or extend the roadway in the future. The condition of Sunwood Blvd is poor with large patches and alligatoring. From conversations with City staff, all public roadways within this study have no scheduled plans for improvements in the future. Bus service is provided in both directions along Southcenter Blvd. at 62nd Ave. S. and 65th Ave. South. 1 Speed Study A speed study was performed for Sunwood Blvd. on March 21, 1990 to determine existing patterns of driving. Vehicles were clocked traveling southbound or down hill just before the first curve. The average speed was found to be 18 MPH. The full results of this speed study are located in the technical appendix. Traffic Volumes PM peak hour turning movement counts were performed by this consultant on March 20 and 21, 1990 at the intersections of 62nd Ave. S. /Southcenter Blvd. and 65th Ave. S. /Southcenter Boulevard. Average Weekday Traffic (AWDT) counts were supplied by the City of Tukwila at these locations where available. The results of the counts are shown in Figure 3. Traffic signal warrants 'no. 1 and 2 were checked per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) at the 62nd Ave. S. /Southcenter Blvd. intersection. The warrants were not met. The Warrant Satisfaction Checklist is located in the technical appendix. Level of Service Level of service (LOS) calculations were performed at the above two intersections using the methodology outline in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual for unsignalized intersections. The results of the LOS calculations are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Existing Levels of Service Intersection LOS RC* Southcenter Blvd/ 62nd Ave. S. B 314 Southcenter Blvd./ 65th Ave. S. C 242 Reserve Capacity 2 As can be seen the two intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. What is not apparent from the calculations is the effect of gaps from the signalized intersections to the east of 65th Ave. S. and to the west of 62nd Ave. South. During the PM peak hour counts, gaps of up to 15 seconds were observed during the peak hour. The methodology for calculating levels of service does not take into account the proximity of signalized intersections to create predictable gaps. Therefore the actual operating conditions are considerably better than the LOS calculations indicate. Sight Distance Existing sight distance along Sunwood Blvd. for the southern- most project driveway was measured in the field. A + 230 foot sight distance was measured to the north which would be the critical distance as vehicles traveling downhill tend to be going faster. The AASHTO Green Book does not include a sight distance for speeds lower than 20 MPH but a distance of + 210 feet can be interpolated from graphs presented. III. FUTURE CONDITIONS Because of the relatively fast construction schedule of this project (construction is to begin in August 1990) the City did not feel it was appropriate to apply a background growth factor to simulate future conditions. Therefore the project generated traffic was added to existing traffic for future conditions with project. Existing traffic serves as future background conditions without project for purposes of this report. Trip Generation Trip generation for the proposed 72 unit apartment complex was calculated based on information found in the Institute of 3 Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition (Land Use Category 220, Apartments). The complex is estimated to generate 48 PM peak hour trips with 33 trips entering the site (68 %) and 15 trips exiting the site (32 %). Trip generation is shown in Table 2 below. Table 2 Trip Generation Land Use AWDT AWT PM Peak Hour Rate In Out Total 72 Apartments 6.103 439 33 15 48 (68 %) (32 %) The amount of pedestrian trips generated will be minimal with existing sidewalks and bus facilities providing adequate service. At 5% peak hour transit usage, an additional 3 peak hour transit trips may be generated. Trip Distribution Trips generated were distributed to the surrounding street system based on existing patterns and likely attractions and destinations. The majority of project traffic will be routed through the 62nd Ave. S. /Southcenter Blvd. intersection with 44% of the traffic directed along Southcenter Blvd. to and from the west of 62nd Ave. S. and 54% of the traffic directed along Southcenter Blvd. to and from the east of 65th Ave. South. The remaining 2% will be directed to and from the north along 65th Ave. South. The trip distribution is shown on Figure 4. The project PM peak hour traffic was added to the existing traffic to give future conditions and is shown in Figure 5. 4 Levels of Service PM peak hour levels of service for existing plus project conditions were calculated for the two intersections under study. The results are shown below in Table 3. Table 3 LOS Summary Reserve Capacity As can be seen from the table the LOS at Southcenter Blvd. /62nd Ave. S. goes from a LOS "B" to LOS "C ". However the reserve capacity is only reduced by 24. The Southcenter Blvd. /65th Ave. S. intersection will remain a LOS "C" with the addition of project traffic. Both intersections will remain at acceptable levels of service and again the actual operations of both intersections are considerably better due to the advantageous gaps produced by the close proximity of signalized intersections. Sight Distance From plans of proposed building locations it appears that the existing sight distance of + 230 feet will be increased by + 20 5 Existing Existing +Project Intersection LOS RC * LOS RC Southcenter Blvd./ 62nd Ave. S. B 314 C 290 Southcenter Blvd./ 65th Ave. S. C 242 C 230 Reserve Capacity As can be seen from the table the LOS at Southcenter Blvd. /62nd Ave. S. goes from a LOS "B" to LOS "C ". However the reserve capacity is only reduced by 24. The Southcenter Blvd. /65th Ave. S. intersection will remain a LOS "C" with the addition of project traffic. Both intersections will remain at acceptable levels of service and again the actual operations of both intersections are considerably better due to the advantageous gaps produced by the close proximity of signalized intersections. Sight Distance From plans of proposed building locations it appears that the existing sight distance of + 230 feet will be increased by + 20 5 feet due to the normal clearing of vegetation. Sight distance with the project should therefore be adequate. Sunwood Blvd. Traffic The projected daily traffic volume on Sunwood Blvd. with the -- existing 176 condominium units plus this project's 72 apartment units would be 1475 trips per day per the ITE trip generation rates. Therefore a pavement design criteria of 2000 vehicles per day should be adequate. IV. MITIGATION AND CONCLUSIONS This project has little impact on the surrounding street system with only a minor effect on surrounding intersection levels of service, which will operate at LOS C or better. Sight distance along Sunwood Blvd. is adequate and will not worsen with the addition of this project. Therefore, there appears to be no mitigation necessary to the street system as a result of the traffic generated by this project. The construction traffic necessary to build this project will likely worsen the pavement condition on Sunwood Blvd. and it may need to be repaved after project completion for compliance with City standards. The additional traffic generated by this project will not increase the traffic flow at 62nd Ave. S. /Southcenter Blvd. enough to meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants # 1 or 2. 6 ST 148TH ST N 150T' S- 4 >I • h �. S 147TH : 'ST 108 s 1SIST ST S 149TH 150T" ST ;, 149TH ST TN Fr 'DENT • • PARK . / DI ; e1 ""n O 1, L,q �11.uW0a��� 41'6',PO4, NORTHERN _, o S 157ND ST • -.. 3 153RD' :. ST ST SW En a > B - 24_-.:- .. • -I .. N i �� c I , LL O " onya es ' 0. I I' .1: h• 11 1; 1, I. kr-IC J ORace 2 ON Track �Q u u EQNO ST • w d'z . < NC � 0 eeTH ST I. T S 157TH ST 3T14 NT ENNI • PARK, . 25 E n i << E A1C - S 172ND Pt ST 175TH ST SW 33RD > ST • ST f 80W LAKE 9 �PK . :178TH 1; SAXON' 'DR SW -- TRy�N�pP IA SW SEGALEEPARk ■ 1. — ¢ 18 1n,� 1� 4tH d 1 tiCt. G• ET 44. - ' SARK /1114~ 3E( S� L1CK .. • _ > N 1e2ND GREfWBELT r 36 1- VICINITY MAP 62ND AVE. S. APARTMENTS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Z •1 �,t.el. f r..► • As 3AV .S. F Lib T b* r /1 1; / e� 1� I // / I ■ / [ / //; // [// // / 1 1 \\ 1 r .�.� .\ \,� b\ t1 - \ / / • / / / / / / ! ; / a / / I 1 / / / • / / / 1 '. / / / / I / /� / / 1 /i 1 [ / / / `/ / 1 1 // � / // / / I 1 \ 'I` .r Or / \ \ /'I // �/ / / / / / try+ .2,.: � ' ! —�! I / / / / II I 16 ' \ \' I I I l/ I r r/ / / // li { 7_— __L.1L 1 i\;1 1 ri —1 j 1 ,e 1 • l',4=_,. I., 1 r I i f P "1 , � , t - Kir a ' 1 / I I" --,' 1 I E i�F -I 11. ; 1 1 1 I I I. I 9 1 I r I 1 I Tt'I 1 -x 1 I I ! 1 I 1 — masse ' I rr I/ I I 1-- 9Y 1 t" i• A A a- -- 1 I I I / I i i i -x-• ;1- ;$ .. a ..,— 1 : I...�.. .. ).e._ rr ..T .n.....�.. o:6.:. - �•a} --. \.,- \ \ " 4 \ � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ !! + �� wP•I —* te.e ..%S ''.0∎ r.0 o. d. i¢ .• P. ..p P.' Or • .e0 o,• Ov - Oh. - •-A - IA- - - ?P- -ore" z J a_ W F- S. APAR MENTS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS W 0 z C`J EXISTING 1990 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND AWDT 62ND AVE. S. APARTMENTS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IFIGURE� pE. 3 1 PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 62ND AVE. S. APARTMENTS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS E 1-FIGURE� 4 C PROJECTED 1990 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT 62ND AVE. S. APARTMENTS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS E WARRANT. SATISFACTION CHECKLIST LOCATION %tic %' NO. LANES MAJOR ST. NO. LANES MINOR ST. POSTED SPEED „?z 85TH Z SPEED USE___Z OF VALUES VEHICLE VOLUME SUMMARY WARRANT NO. 1 WARRANT NO. 2 WARRANT NO. 100 70 7. MAJOR MINOR MAJOR MINOR 6(-)j 15') MINOR MAJOR q is DATE OF COUNTJ?1.__P'1°_ k TIME INTERVAL MAIN STREET BOTH APPROACHES MINOR STREET ONE APPROACH ?-l1 cv.,400 WARRANT NO. 1 WARRANT NO. 2 MAJOR MINOR MAJOR MINOR 70 100 70 100 70 100 70 0500 0600 47 - 8 54 0600 0700 /.$ b / ; /(;" 0700 0800 4 Vii, 4/z. 0800 0900 7,2_' ,= J / J e<3 X X 0900 1000 .�- 7 I `:; L 1000 1100 ,`'7 / 151 "-C3 1100 1200 513 64 % 583 r % I 8 2- 9 B / 3 / 2 L1 6z( ?4s � G;3 X )( k x X ,. 1200 1300 1300 1400 1400 1500 1500 1600 :?- -7-% / i ^j ' (?7 c ci.: 4 X 1600 I 1700 1700 1800 %. =' (,r• /L` )( x 1800 1900 (''' .7 I r /C14 I X )< 1900 2000 6r2- :f ; 75b 7 2000 2100 `//Z 7 ,k,y 2100 2200 Z `r'. 330 2200 2300 24, 3 , .. 2S 2300 I 2400 2 -2 !o Vi 7.4'c NUMBER OF HOURS % P 3 10 70 % WARRANT NO. I SATISFIED___YES N0_ N A 100 7. WARRANT NO. I SATISFIED___YES NO. WARRANT NO. 6 SATISFIED___YES NO___ COMMENTS /A5777.5,1 (774 .P'0 S 7� I97 Err- 70 Z WARRANT NO. 2 SATISFIED___YES NO__'_' IOOX WARRANT NO. 2 SATISFIED___YES NO 4 WARRANT NO. 8 SATISFIED___YES NO___ ox E. it) I vt.1 I CiL c� Vv4t Rv 19.i5 HCM: UNBIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PaSe-1 *******************************+***.*******************************+* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET35 PEA. HOUR FA[TC]P .91 AREA POPULATION 2�000C NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET~.... SOUTHCENTER BLVD NAME OF THE NORM/SOUTH STREET '6|D AVE S NAME OF THE ANAL'vST LDH DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) 3/23/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK EXISTING OTHER INFQPMATION.. .~ 7613n<-7X1`2- INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTEF�SE:TION TYPE: T_INTERSECTIOW MAJCR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST OCIN'ROL TYRE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB 011Iwies. .W1, MO. LEFT 89 0 THRU 79 374 RIGHT 0 33 NUMBER OF LANES - SB 28 0 67 LANES EB WB NB Sg 2 +6. Z ADJUSTMENT FACTORS• Paae-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRo:,DE ANGLE FOR- RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 90 20 N WLSTBOLND • 0.00 90 20 N NOFTH�OJND -~- • - •:E.]J|HE:UND 0.00 90 70 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION EACTBOUND WiSTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTH�OUND C9ITICAL GAPS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 MINOR RIGHTS MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS SB TABULAR VALJES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Tatle 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF =~70 • OM, 61111. filatA 5.20 EB 5.60 5.10 SB 7.30 6.80 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 0°00 0..00 0.00 5.20 5.10 6.80 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST-STREET SOUTH[ENTER BLVD NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET."▪ ▪ 62ND AVE .S DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 3/23/90 ; PM PEAK EXISTING OTHER INFORMATION.... C4PA:ITf AND MD7EMEN` LEVEL-OF-SERVICE MINOR STREET SE LEFT RIG�� MAJOR ETREET EE LEFT •OTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY v(pcPh) c (pcph/ p ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph> M SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS 34 61 924 105 738 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 347 73B 347 924 314 647 630 ��E OF THE EAST/WESTBTREET SOUTHCENTER BLVD NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET62ND AVE � DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 3/23/90 4 PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION..." EXZSTIN3 1985 HEM: UNSIGNALIZEZ INTERSECTIONS Page-1 *4.******************************** ****************************** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION A.IERAGE RUN.:IKG SPEED, MA-TOR STREET. • 35 PrAK HOUR FACTOR ~51 AFEA POPULA--OK 250000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SOUTHCENTER BLVD NAME C4' THE NORTH/SOUTH STREETf,2N3 AVE S NAME DF THE ANALYST LDH DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) 3/23/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED FM PK FUTURE + PREJ OTHER INFOR;,ATION.~~. g.r -rm/g»f7F62 lNTERSECT][]N TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSEETION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB ---- LEFT 101 0 ��� THRU 79 374 0 RIGHT 8 51 ~— 76 NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES 2 2 ALJUETMENT FACTORS Peee-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f,t) ACCELERATION LANE ANGLE FOR FISFT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EA3TBOoND 0.00 W"'STEJWD 0.�C NORTHBOUND --- SOUTHS:UWE 0.00 VEHICLE COMPOSITION 90 90 90 20 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTH8OUNE CRITICAL 8A4'S % SU TRUCKS • % COMBINATIOk AND Ry's VEHICLES 0 0 • 0 % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 O 0 O O TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGRTS SB 5.70 5.-10 0.00 5.20 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.60 5.10 0°00 5.10 MINOR LEFTS SB 7.30 6.80 0.00 6.80 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SOUTHCENTER BLVD NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET▪ 62ND .AVE S DATE AND TIME OF THE •AMALYSIS 3/23/90 ; PM F'K FUTURE + PROJ OTHER INFORMATION.... CAPACITY AND LEVEL-CF-SEWICE Page-3 POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MC�EMENT v(pcph c (pcph) P MINOR STF.EET SP :...EFT RIGHT MAJOR ETREET Ei LEFT ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH HESEFWE CAPACITY = c - LOS • R SH 122 IDENT%FYIN3 INFORMATION 37� 914 722 914 7�2 • 329 914 722 290 � 823 600 A NAME OF THE EAST/WEST, STREET SGUTHCENTER BLVD NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET62ND AVE S DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 7/2"1/90 ; PM PK FUTURE + PROJ OTHER INFORMATION...^ 198; HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ****************+************************************************4**~ 1[/EW7IFYING INFORMATION A�ZRAGE RUNNINE SPEED, MAJOR STREET." 35 P[AY H]t.JR FACTOR .9 AFEA F]�U_A-ICN 250000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREFT SOUTHCENTER BLVD NAME OF THE NORTH/GOHTH STREET 65TH AVE S NAME CF THE ANALYST LDH DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy 7/23/90 TIME FERICD ANALYZED PM PEAK EXISTING OTHER- INFORMATION..". rar 67x6s� INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TY-g-E: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WE NP SE LEFT 65 0 B? THRU 74 389 -- 0 RIGHT. 0 69 86 NUMBER OF LANES LANES EE WE NB SB 2 ALJUSTMENT FACTORS Pase-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN .CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANSLE FOR RIGHT TURNE FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 W[5TBJUN[ {.00 kOSTHBOUND SCUTHB[UND 0.00 VEHICLE COMP32ITION 90 20 �4 90 50 '70 N 20 N EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS % SU TRJCKE % COMEINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT %}IST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICA GAF MINOR RIG�TS SP 5.70 5.20 0.00 MAJOR LEFTS EP 5.60 5.10 0.00 MINJR LEFTS SB 7"70 6.80 0.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION *J.20 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SOUTHCENTER BLVD NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET85TH AVE G DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 3/23/90 PM PEAK EXISTING OTHER INFORMATION.... CAPAClTv AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE POTEN- FLOW~ TIAL RATE CAPA[I-rY NOEMEN` v(F:Fh� c (pcph) M:',JO:k STREET SE( LEFT RIGHT MAJOF ETREET EB LEFT ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOE R EH 109 105 79 • 688 IDENTIFYING. INFORMATION 351 894 351 894 688 247 789 A 609 A NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET S�UTHC�NTER BLV� NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET65TH AVE S DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 3/27)/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION..., EXISTING 1985 H[M: UNSlGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 *****************+******°******************************************** II)ENTIFYlNB INFORMATION RUNkIN;:. SPEED, MAJOR STREET35 FEAK HOUR FACT�R .9 • A.F4 250000 NAME 0;' THE EAST/WEST BTREE' • SOUTHCENTER BLVD NAME OF THE NORTH/ECUTH STREET 65TH AVE E NAME OF THE ANALYST LDH • DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) 3/27/90 Tllv'E PERIOD ANALYZED PM PK FUTURE + PROJ ���� ������ OTHER INFORMATION.... .' \�-Y^ F� INTERSECTION TYPE ANL, CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOF STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SE ~ ____;- __-- LEFT 65 0 ~- 91 THRU 75 403 0 RIGHT 0 71 -_ 86 NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB WB NB SB 2 -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Pass-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS(ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT' TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS GAS-BOUND 0~00 WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND SOUTr]CUND 0.00 VEHICLE COMPOSITION 90 90 9� � 20 N 20 N EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'G 0 0 0 VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 0 0 TAEULAR VALUES ADJUSTEr BIGHTDIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF MINOP RIGHTS SP 5.70 5"20 0"00 E.20 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.60 5.10 0.00 5.10 MINOR LEFTS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET SCUTHCENTER BLVD NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET65TH AVE $ DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 3/23/90 ; PM PK FUTURE + PROJ OTHER INFORMATION.... AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MO\'EME!,T v(pcph) c (pcph) MINUS STEE7 GB LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 111 105 ACTUAL MOVE-1ENT CAPACITY SHARED. CAPACITY c (pcpn) SH RESERVE CAPACITY � = c - v LOS R SH 369 686 79 674 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 674 886 674 23� 78C 5n5 NAME OF THE •EAST/WEST• STREET SOUTHCENTER BLVD NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET65TH AVE S 1)4TE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 7/23/90 ; | PK FUTURE + PROJ OTHER INFORMATION°°.. D.R. STRONG !ONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 • SHEET NO. ji3r. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY ?..2.7-#-* SCALE JOB /3 [ -Leo 6 . 7 OF DATE X74/?& DATE �,� / CQ �f TIAC«/I,E,c? # 7 ADD.6-v/..).a4 sraeM .4PRATAf'ay.7-5: 7i) & /' -s',, /Ai /2 er5fiviv s T o ',ire/I./wig-pa/0,47A /147,.5 ,e4rep-ieSr , ' D.R. STRONG • CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY DATE SCALE JOB OF DATE - X68-.3 z-- 3/z4/90 D.R. STRONG • ,CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB $-9-a2 G 8: 3 OF �L DATE .0-00 DATE D.R. STRONG .CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 • JOB B `l - a2 68. 3 SHEET NO. OF 3Z. CALCULATED BY \/ {i4 DATE 5724790 CHECKED BY I • DATE SCALE D.R. STRONG • ,c ONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB OF DATE - 02.4/3 DATE 32 3/02.7/90 D.R. STRONG • CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827-3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB OF DATE DATE ft' a6r3 32 07P0 P46--Oivac;7,)146-4/7-. D . 3, : 14o4pS ,7 7- agJ$ CPAT, y 0 -z a p 2.0 .5; .= e i1 h (, .6)C z2-0)* -LPL( 14g3 7/37 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL FIGURE 3.S.1H 100 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOPLUVIALS 100 -YEAR 24 -HOUR PRECIPITATION 3.4 ISOPLUVIALS OF 100 •YEAR 24 -HOUR TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES 0 '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mlles 1: 300,000 3.5.1 -13 /Pk eb c.--va.aP6rD =. 3 c/ Table 2- 2c.— Runoff curve numbers for other agricultural lands' Curve numbers for Cover description hydrologic soil group- Cover type Hydrologic condition A B C Pasture, grassland, or range— continuous forage for grazing.' Meadow — continuous grass, protected from grazing and generally mowed for hay. Brush — brush -weed -grass mixture with brush Poor ' 48 67 77 8.3 the major element a 35 . 56 7 77 Good 430 48 73 Woods —grass combination (orchard Poor 57 73 82 86 or tree farm).a Fair 43 65 76 ! 82 Good 32 58 . 72 79 Woods .° Poor 45 66 77 83 Fair 36 60 . 73 79 Good *30 55 70 77 Farmsteads— buildings, lanes, driveways, — 59 74 82 86 and surrounding lots. Poor 68 79 86 89 Fair 49 69 79 84 Good 39 I 61 .74 80 30 58 71 78 'Average runoff condition, and I,, = 0.2S. 21'uur: ' <50% ground cover or heavily grazed with no mulch. Fair: 50 to 75% ground cover and not heavily grazed. • Good: >75% ground cover and lightly. or only occasionally grazed. 31'our <50k ground co }_er. �_ cicr: a0 to 75'4 g and > 77 Guo 5rgrouIi l cup er 4Actual curve number is less than 30; use CN = 30 for runoff computations. sCN's shown were computed for areas with 50',i woods and 50% grass (pasture) cover. Other combinations Of conditions may be computed from the C•'s for woods and pasture. •!'uor: Forest litter, small trees. and brush are destroyed by heavy grazing or regular burning. • Fair: Woods are grazed but not burned; and some forest litter covers the soil. • d uud: Woods are protected from grazing, and litter and brush adequately cover the soil. '144.041- C/1/14c-tel l•c,� Pe :?a (CN p-oe. : ad", ,ti2t*5) c Ai �' _ . _.. _ ___.�'.�....�..:.�..,..� � �wyf'�,��.�- fey✓= 51 4rietivi (210- VI- TR -55, Second Ed., June 1986) . 2 -? • SI -ZGoc.3 3/2 Oa KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 132_ TABLE 3.S.2B SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (Published by SCS In 1982) Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban and urban land use for Type 1A rainfall distribution, 24 -hour storm duration. LAND USE DESCRIPTION CURVE NUMBERS BY HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP A B C D Cultivated Iand(1): winter condition 86 91 94 95 Mountain open areas: low growing brush and grasslands 74 82 89 92 Meadow or pasture: 65 . 78 85 89 Wood or forest land: undisturbed 42 64 76 81 Wood or forest land: young second growth or brush 55 72 81 86 Orchard: : with cover crop 81 88 92 94 Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, _ landscaping. good condition: grass cover on 75% or more of the area fair condition: grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area 68 :.I 86 '' 85 • 92 Gravel roads and parking Tots 7. 85 :9 91 Dirt roads and parking Tots 8 87 89 Impervious surfaces, pavement, roofs, etc. 98 - : • 08 1,,. 100 - 1 100 Open water bodies: lakes, wetlands, ponds, etc. Single Family Residential (2) Dwelling Unit /Gross Acre % Impervious ( 1.0 DU /GA 15 Separate curve number 1.5 DU /GA 20 2.0 DU /GA 2 shall be selected , for pervious and 2.5 DU /GA Impervious portion 3.0 DU /GA ' 4 of the site or basin 3.5 DU /GA '` 38 4.0 OU /GA • 42 4.5 DU /GA 46 ' 5.0 DU /GA 5.5 DU /GA 6.0 DU /GA 52 6.5 DU /GA 54 7.0 DU /GA 5 Planned unit developmen % 1 • rvious condominiums, apartm " -, mu • •e computed commercial business1 industrial areas. • • (1) (2) (3) For a Hand Ass Th detailed d k, Section es roof and emalning pe des pt on of agricultural = _rovers rarer ry rvbuvnui uiy,i wiu�y 4, ydrology, Chapter 9, August 1972. d away runoff is directed into street /storm system. ous areas (lawn) are considered to be In good condition for these curve numbers. Pexmos DEVELo gra • • POZd /ot/S cva Pd7) - zhvbgVc cr 6 exas*- sczr' scs 77.1cE z -tom 3.5.2 -3 I/90 • D.R. STRONG • CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB OF DATE DATE /, 7 7 4s / 5 ' NOT' Ipurg7= %:S 6/;f ' 5m/cc CN /oeE /�osl 4e4 �' Th4g 5'441 a 8S s Frb OoL" GOM %) 4Q P44a .Does Nar .. 4.4 -4-0f4 /ME✓ /OO$ s41241$ -' 0 - % 056 iimcq. is /NS/4A1 /ficA ✓T; 7 _ / 7, d ;A<1104r5 . x, Strong Con!sulting - gzneers ~ �� HYDRA Version 4.12 ���k1and, WA ^''=�' � ���/1�0n/b��'� ^/.�����c�»�~1�� �_`_-________ C:\89268\PRE.CMD /445~ g7/7 -5£r P4. 3 Page 1 l'Autus of DEFAULTS at start of run. ( * May be reset by SET) Command file : C:\89268\PRE.CMD : input units are read as : USA | :*'Output sent to display : Brief )* Output sent to printer : Off |* Output sent to file : Detailed Paper width in inches : 8.000 String to reset printer : 27 51 36 18 String to set printer to compressed : 17 15 String, to set printer to 8 lines/inch : 8 27 51 27 Name of printer : Epson, FX series Print heading at top of page : True Number of steps in hydrograph : 200 Step length in minutes : 10 Significant flow in hydrograph : 0.010 * Maximum plot value : Selected by HYDRA Type-of hydrographic plot : Compact Sanitary flow by Delay to start of actual storm • Rational Method computations SCS computations Continuous simulation computations : Diurnal Curve : 0.00 : Off : Santa Barbara : Off |* Maximum d/D for pipe design/analysis : 0.900 |* Match point position on pipe : 0.00 or Invert |* Number of allowable diam drops : 999 |* Mimimum drop thru manhole : 0.000 | Routing technique : Quick !* Calculate sanitary flows : True |* Calculate infiltration flows : True |* Calculate storm flows : True |* Calculate misc flows : True • : :Listing of acceptable diameters (Changed by the PCO command): ' 4 6 8 10 12 15 18 21 24 27 | 33 36 39 42 45 48 54 60 66 72 84- 90 96 102 108 114 120 132 7:22 28-Mar-90 89~ 166'~�� ���1 �- � ��r _~ Ale- ^'���. 1: JQB SOUTHCENTER APARTMENTS 2: TOT 3.9 Total rainfall : 30 78 <100 YEAR - 24_HOUR 1 3.90 Inches 3: REM UNIT HYETO8RAPH OF STORM 4; \HYDRA\DATA\24HUUR ----START OF SUG-FILE------ `1: KEM SGS Type lA Distribution (100 year 24 hour) ���_ �� ��� ��� ��, .~-~~=.~~ D' �' Strond Consulting���gineers ��� HYDRA Version 4.12 Kirkland, WA �� Page 2 • .L.�����e�^�� C:\89268\PRE.CMD 7:-)2 61=1/rivers A».s REM Ahovo comment is incorroct. The following data describes a unit ' 1: REM hyetograph for. a 24 hour storm of any recurrance interval (not /07- • 5: REM just 100 year). The interval period is 10 minutes (total number 6: REM of intervals 144 = 6 per hour X 24 hours). HYDRA's "SCS Type 1A" 7: REM distribution refers. to SCS Type 1A distribution for 24 hour storm 8: REM This data conforms to King County's hyetograph values. 9: 10: HYE 10 0.0240 0.0240'0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.024 O + 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: O + O + 0+ O + 0.0240 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0700 0.0360 0.036 0.0360 0.0360 0.0360 0.0360 0.0420 0.0420 0.0420 0.0420 0.042 0.0420 0.0492 0.0492 0.0492 0.0492 0.0492 0.0492 0.0570 0.057 0.0570 0.0570 0.0570 0.0570 0.0804 0.0804 0.0804 0.1080 0,108 0.2040 0.3240 0.1620 0.1080 0.0804 0.0804 0.0804 0.0528 0.052 8+ 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.0528 0.052 8+ 0.0528 0.04-.2 0.047.2 0.0432 0.0432 0.0432 0.042 0.0432 0.043 + 18: 0.0432 0.0432 0.0432 0.0432 0.0342 0.0342 0.0342 0.0342 0.034 + 19: 0.0342 0.0342 0,0�42 0.03420.034r 0.0342 0.0342 0.0300 0.��30 + 20: 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300n.030 O + 21: 0.0300 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0°0240 0.0240 0"0240 0,0240 0.024 0+ 22: ' 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0°0240 0,0240 0.0240 0"0240 0°024 O + 23: 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.024 0 + + 24: 25: + + 0+ 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.0240 0.024 O + 0.0240 0 0240 0 0240 0 0240 0 0240 0 0240 0 0240 0 0240 0 024 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ |^ ^ ^ / Step time : • 10.00 Minutes Total in original hyetograph : 1.00 Inches Total volume rain in production hyetograph : 3.90 Inches . ] Maximum intensity 1.26 Inches/Hr 26: • 27: RE• • ------ END OF SUB-FILE ------ 5: FDA 0,012 6 0 1.0 3 0.0049 <PIPE DATA / ' ,eapuipaz 7044 �044mM � • � • a9-.269.3 � ��N� R� Strong Consulting ����neers ���| � � r^ _ ,�' �� HYDRA Version � �� ��' - '= -� - -- ''= �w� '''�'' `~' ~~~'' 4.12 'Kirkland WA /�e Page 3 C:\89268\PRE.CMD Mannings n Minimum diameter : Minimum depth : Minimum cover : Minimum velocity : Minimun� slope : Maximum diameter : • 6: 7: REM PREDEVELOPED CONDITIONS 8: NEW PHASE III, AREA 4 & 5 9: SCS 1.77 0.005 98 85 17 Total rainfall falling on impervious : • .Impervious runoff : Portion off impervious : Peak CFS rainfall falling on impervious Peak CFS runoff from impervious : • Equivalant "C" off impervious : 7:22 28-Mar-90 �� ^���~~ u1' 446: . 0.0120 �3�� 32_ 6.00 Inches " 0.00 Feet 1.00 Feet 3.00 Feet/Sec 0.00490 132.00 Inches <AREA 4 125.29 CuFt 116.90 CuFt 93.31 % 0.0113 CuFt/Sec | 0.00728 CuFt/Sec • 0.65 Total rainfall falling on pervious : 24932.60 CuFt Pervious runoff :1 14991.98 CuFt Portion off pervious : 60.13 % • Peak CFS rainfall falling on pervious : Peak CFS runoff from pervious Equivalant "C, off pervious : Total rainfall falling on segment : Total segment runoff : Portion off segment Peak CFS rainfall falling on segment : Peak CFS runoff from segment.:; Equivalant "C" off segment :/ 10: INL 999 • 11: PIP 10 • 200 200 Length : Ground elevation up : Ground elevation down Lump sum cost : Link number Storm flow (no SF) : Design flow including SF : Combined SF : Design diameter : Invert elev up : Invert elev down : Slope : Depth of fluid in pipe : 2.24 CuFt/Sec 0.92 CuFt/Sec 0.41 25057"89 CuFt 15108.88 CuFt 60.30 % 2.26 CuFt/Sec 0.q3 CuFt/Sec 1 U 0.41 P�r���mm�Pm�wr 4��� �°�~/mmy°'24 ke <IMAGINARY PIPE 10.00 Feet 200.00 Feet 200.00 Feet 0.00 Dollars 1 0.928 Cuft/Sec 0.928 Cuft/Gec 1.000 8.00 Inches 198.28 Feet 198.22 Feet ' 0.00584 | | / 6.72 Inches • �� D. R: 5trong Consulting����ineers *Kirkland, WA - ~�~ . ����� C:\89268\PRE.CMD �:22 28-Mar-90 | • HYDRA Version 4.12 Page 4 '"� �"_.=._'" /1/7s: d/D : 0.840 Partial flow velocity o 2.936Feet/Sec /f81, *** WARNING - Actual ve1ocity=2.936 - when min requested is 3.000 /- 12: l3: END �3��-z����^�� �N�� - |)' •R. Strong Consulting rs ��� HYDRA Version 4.12 '�irkland, WA �����x�� Page 5 � - -/ _- C:i89268\PRE.CMD OF ANALYSIS ---- -- Run number on command file Number of links : Number of hydrographs Total sanitary population : Total sanitary area : Total storm area : Number of pumps : Number of reservoirs : Number of diversion structures : Number of inlets : Length of new, pipe : Length of existing pipe : Length of channel : Length of gutter : Length of transport units : Length of pressure pipe : 7:22 28-Mar-90 6 Z����r^� ^�m� ~_= ~~. ,^,/�. 1 28 o 0.00 Acres 1.77 Acres 0 0 0 1 10.00 Feet 0.00 Feet 0.00 Feet 0.00 Feet 0.00 Feet 0.00 Feet D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827-3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE DATE 020.3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL /7/32. FIGURE 3.5.1H 100 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOPLUVIALS 'iJij "RI 4ffli Magi __1 . 4L'i PLO', , Titt' ,-11rpa- ..4010,46.11 0,, '►/ 4 43 44 ,n0. ■ 3, Q5 %Nemts 100 -YEAR 24 -HOUR PRECIPITATION 3.4 ISOPLUVIALS OF 100 -YEAR 24 -HOUR TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mlles 1+ 300,000 3.5.1 -13 0►: 17'30" 1 640 000 FEET • SEATTLE P.O. 9 MI • 9- 2(84.3 3/z7/90 SHEET NO. 10 KING COUNTY AREA, WASHINGTON (DES MOINES QUADRANGLE) Foster Golf Course If drained, this soil is user row crops. It is also used for pasture. Capability unit IIw -3; no woodland classification. Urban Land Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations. In the Green River Valley the fill ranges from about 3 to more. than 12 feet in thickness, and from gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam in texture. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate. No capability or woodland classification. Woodinville Series The Woodinville series is made up of nearly level and gently undulating, poorly drained soils that formed under grass and sedges, in alluvium, on. stream bottoms. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual precipitation ranges from 35 to 55 inches, and the mean annual air temperature is about 50° F. The .frost -free season is about 190 days. Elevation ranges from about sea level to about 85 feet. In a representative profile, gray silt loam, silty clay loam, and layers of peaty muck extend to a depth of about 38 inches. This is underlain by greenish -gray silt loam that extends to a depth of 60 inches and more. Woodinville soils are used for row crops, pasture, and urban development. Woodinville silt loam 001o).--This soil is in elon- gated and blocky shaped areas that range from 5 to nearly 300 acres in size. It is nearly level and gently undulating. Slopes are less than 2 percent. Representative profile of Woodinville silt loam, in pasture, 1,700 feet south and 400 feet west of the north quarter corner of sec. 6, T. 25 N., R. 7 E.. Apl - -0 to 3 inches, gray (SY 5/1) silt loam, grayish brown (10YR 5/2) dry; common, fine, prominent, dark reddish -brown (SYR 3/4) and reddish -brown (SYR 5/4) mottles; moderate, medium, crumb structure; hard, friable, sticky, plastic; many fine roots; medium acid; clear, smooth boundary. 2 to 4 inches thick. 0— •Zeor3 3/1790 Ap2 - -3 to 8 inc gray (SY 5/1) silty clay loam, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; many, fine, prominent, dark reddish -brown (SYR 3/3 Aic,1 and 3/4) mottles and common, fine, prominent mottles of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) and red- dish yellow (7.SYR 6/6), dry; moderate, fine and very fine, angular blocky structure; hard, • friable, sticky, plastic; common fine roots; medium acid; abrupt, wavy boundary. 4 to 6 inches thick. . B21g - -8 to 38 inches, gray (SY 5 /1) silty clay loam, gray (SY 6/1) dry; common, fine, prominent, (7.SYR 4/4) mottles and medium, .promi- nent mottles of brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) dry; 25 percent of matrix is lenses of very dark brown (10YR 2/2) and dark yellowish -brown (10YR 3/4) peaty muck, brown (7.SYR 4/2) dry; massive; hard, firm, sticky, plastic; few fine roots; medium acid; clear, smooth boundary. 30 to 40 inches thick. B22g - -38 to 60 inches, greenish -gray (SBG 5 /1) silt loam, gray (SY 6/1) dry; few, fine, prominent mottles of brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) dry; massive; hard, very friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; strongly acid. The A horizon ranges from dark grayish brown to gray and from silt loam to silty clay loam. The B horizon ranges from gray and grayish brown to olive gray and greenish gray and from silty clay loam to silt loam. In places there are thin lenses of very fine sandy loam and loamy fine sand. Peaty lenses are common in the B horizon. These lenses are thin, and their combined thickness, between depths of 10 and 40 inches, does not exceed 10 inches. Soils included with this soil in mapping make up no more than 25 percent of the total acreage. Some areas are up to 15 percent Puget soils; some are up to 10 percent Snohomish soils; and some areas are up to 10 percent Oridia, Briscot, Puyallup, Newberg, and Nooksack soils. Permeability is moderately slow. There is a sea- sonal high water table at or near the surface. In drained areas, the effective, rooting depth is 60 • inches or more. In undrained areas, rooting depth, is restricted. The available water capacity is high. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. Stream overflow is a severe hazard unless flood protection is provided (pl. III, top). This soil is used for row crops, pasture, and urban development. Capability unit IIw -2; woodland group 3w2. 33. • KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAIY/M- • FIGURE 3.5.2A HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP OF THE SOILS IN KING COUNTY SOIL GROUP HYDROLOGIC GROUP* • SOIL GROUP HYDROLOGIC GROUP* Alderwood . Arents, Alderwood Material Arents, Everett Material Beausite Bellingham Briscot Buckley Coastal Beaches Earlmont Silt Loam Edgewick Everett Indianola Kitsap Klaus • Mixed Alluvial Land Neillton Newberg Nooksack Normal Sandy Loam C C B C • D D D Variable D C A A C C Variable A B C D Orcas Peat Oridia OvaII Pilchuck ; Puget Puyallup Ragnar Renton Rlverwash Sala! Sammamish Seattle Shacar Si Silt Snohomish Sultan Tukwila D D C C D B B D Variable C D 0 0 C D C D !Urban I Variable Woodinville HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS A. (Low runoff potential). Soils having high infiltration rates; even when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of deep, well -to- excessively drained sands or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. . B. (Moderately low runoff potential). Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of • water transmission. C. (Moderately high runoff potential). Soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting. chiefly of soils with a layer that Impedes downward movement of water, or soils with moderately fine to fine textures. These sobs have a slow rate of water transmission. D. (High runoff potential). Soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a hardpan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. From SCS, TR -55, Second Edition, June 1986, Exhibit Al. - Revisions made from SCS, Soil Interpretation Record, Form #5, September 1988. ell 3.5.2 -2 1/90 • cW-Ze$.3 3/27/1.4) KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 2Y3y TABLE 3.5.2B SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (Published by SCS in 1982) Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban and urban land use for Type 1A rainfall distribution, 24 -hour storm duration. LAND USE DESCRIPTION CURVE NUMBERS BY HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP AB CD Cultivated land(1): winter condition 86 91 94 95 Mountain open areas: low growing brush and grasslands 74 82 89 92 Meadow or pasture: 65 78 85 89 Wood or forest land: undisturbed Wood or forest land: young second growth or brush Orchard: • with cover crop 42 64 76 81 55 72 81 86 81 88 92 94 Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, landscaping. good condition: grass cover on 75% or more of the area fair condition: grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area 68 :' 86 vu 77 85 , • 92 Gravel roads and parking lots Dirt roads and parking lots 7. 85 :9 91 82 87 89 Impervious surfaces, pavement, roofs, etc. Open water bodies: lakes, wetlands, ponds, etc. 98 • 1:3.41 98 100 • 100 100 Single Family Residential (2) Dwelling Unit /Gross Acre % Impervious (3) 1.0 DU /GA 15 1.5 DU /GA 20 2.0 DU /GA 25 2.5 DU /GA 30 3.0 DU /GA 34 3.5 DU /GA 38 4.0 DU /GA 42 4.5 DU /GA 46 5.0 DU /GA • .. 5.5 DU /GA 0 6.0 DU /GA 52 6.5 DU /GA 54 . 7.0 DU /GA 56 Planned untt developments, % impervious condominiums, apartments, must be computed . commercial business and industrial areas. Separate curve number shall be selected for pervious and impervious portion of the site or basin . . (1) (2) (3) For a more detailed Handbook, Section Assumes roof and The remaining pe des iption of agricultural land use curve numbers refer to National Engineering 4, ydrdogy, Chapter 9, August 1972. d eway runoff is directed into street /storm system. ous areas (lawn) are considered to be in good condition for these curve numbers. POW/oas DtVQOPe0. G^/ _ e0S - vadV 3.5.2 -3 1/90 D.R. STRONG 'CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827-3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB OF DATE DATE • D.R. STRONG • CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 JOB d / ota' Q • 3 SHEET NO. OF 1...- CALCULATED BY _ DATE 3 OZ -7/9 b CHECKED BY DATE SCALE '-14 �'- �� U� • . vs ; biseme024,6- ,SATE "T 6—O&)d ?� j �o / 1,Splr i (41 arc: OU LYLF (.04.4 ..i2,is.11- USG: Ltr..11 Fit- 6%1JQ► ���•.' ,s z3.2. 12.34. 149,3 . C6Si43'1.4. ) C644341-) q•3'+ 3'4 . Ate- ftw-, 125.2. 3'3 I -- 52. Ir,9 c fir - /972: cf 1 3' 34" 7' 1: cFAF Ve 's z , f /ir1' • D.R. STRONG • •CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 • JOB OF SHEET NO. / DATE DATE CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE Alq - .ZCoe-s 3�- 3/2V 0 t: L EV 1:2.3.2 12.4,E I 2-Ti xlz t,e's 3o 3'd .28 r AO .4 xf7. =355- c i 4- 5-5 3'4 •71 xqt = (05 .4.3'4 ,1435.X141t' 5S CI. 6'0 .G j 414 1.0 'XgL 92- ,710e 1CO2.. a /459' C('A 4 •tg x 12>(0 = 1.23 1.4),"92„ 92- 1134 l,U x1912-. - 19.??/ A' i ,r rzU bq4 ►ti pre -bev. .GZi tz.36q.dif = 0,q3 cis =135.3''-3- : • D.R. STRONG .CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB OF DATE DATE I -:8 3 3L 3/x(/96 'c �.v�.L►A,hery - 4)evc40/3j4 6-,vT ConJV /77oIv-3 ` G, 3.457 ,NCB L wc.�rl- T/,tay j / 44;744 i0 / #6c : , WS - sc� jb/AG' /4 /M vt A -r -y ,Ar /R- COAle 2... 4 "/ToOr L zo 39-.168.3 - A_ ~-~=' ~ R. Strong ConsuIting�gineers • ��� HYDRA Version 4.12 Kirkland, WA ' _ Page 17 �___� • C:\89268\ROST-TIV.CMD • 9:26 28-Mar. -90 °°v _ � ����. �� ^���=~ ��°r�� | 72: -� -���� '�_�� .� __ ,__� �s 73: 7&� ^��2- 74: 75: • 76: 77:; 78: 79: 80: • 81: RES 123.2 0 0 5 0.26 411 0.49 978 0.64 + 82: 1631 0.76 2091 0.86 2187 0.93 <DETENTION PIP E Number of points on Volume/Discharge curve : 7 Maximum capacity of reservoir : 2187.00 CuFt Outlet elevation : 123.20 Feet Link number : 12 Storm flow (no SF) : | 1.578 Cuft/Sec Design flow including SF : 1.578 Cuft/Sec Combined SF : 1.000 Diversion hydrographs I - Incoming hydrograph in CFS ( X - Exit hydrograph in CFS V - Volume of Reservoir in CuFt divided by1000 0.00 0.50 1.00 •1.50 Time +---------+ ----+ + 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | | 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 : i | 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 | | | 30 0.01 0.01 0.00 | | | 40 0.02 0.02 0.00 | 50 0.03 0.03 0.00 | | | 60 0.04 0.04 0.00 | � | | 70 0.05 0.05 0.00 | 80 0.06 0.06 0.00 | 90 0.06 0.06 0.00 | 100 0.07 0.07 0.00 | 110 0.09 0.09 0.00 |* 120 0.09 0.09 0.00 |* | 130 0.10 0.10 0.00 |* 140 0.11 0.11 0.00 |* � 158 0.11 o.11 0.00 |* | 160 0.12 0.12 0.00 |* | 170 0.14 0.14 0.00 | * |' 180 0.14 0.14 0.00 : * | 190 0.15 0.15 8.00 | * | 200 0.15 0.15 0.00 1 * | 210 0.15 0.15 0.00 | * 220 0,17 0.17 0.00 | * 230 0.19 0.19 0,00 I * | 240 0.19 0.19 0.00 | * | 250 0.20 0.20 0.00 | * | 260 0.20 0.20 0.00 | * | | | .| 2.()0 + n-'Ft Gtrung Consultin� gineers • ���� �~ ^�� • ��� _ ��� HYDRA Version �'12 '- _ ~ -_----- ~ ��, ��_'� �_--_� �'-_ :Kirkland, WA Page 18 /y. �u�z�6757c r:\B9268\P05T-IV.CMD 270 0,20 0.20 280 0.23 0.23 290 0.25 0.25 300 0.25 0.25 �10 0.26 0.26 320 0.26 0.26 330 0.26 0.26 J40 0.29 0.27 350 0,31 0.28 360 0.32 0.29 370 0.32 0.30 2.80 0.33 0.31 390 0.33 0.31 400 0.39 0.33 410 0.46 0.36 420 0.47 0.39 430 0.55 0.43 440 0.64 0.48 450 0.93 0.53 460 0.64 1.21 | 470 1.54 0.74 1.69 | 480 0.92 ',177,77-4 /0�7 t____ 1.76J| 490 0.63 0.79 ^1.67=1 500 0.52 0.76 1.53 | 510 0.52 0.74 1.40 1 520 0.44 0.71 1.23 | 530 0.35 0.67 1.04 | 540 0.34 0.64 0.86 | 550 0.34 0.60 0.71 | 560 0.34 0,56 0.58 | 570 0.34 0.53 0,47 | 58n V.34 0.50 0.38 | 590 0.34 0.46 0.31 1 600 0.34 0.43 0.26 1 610 0.35 0.41 0.22 | 620 0.35 0.39 0.20 | 630 0.35 0.38 0.18 | 640 0.32 0.36 0.16 | 650 0.29 0.35 0.12 | X 660 0.28 0.33 0.09 | 670 0.29 0.32 0.08 1 680 0.29 0.31 0.06 | 690 0.29 0.30 0.06 | /00 0.29 0.30 0.05 | 710 0.29 0.29 0.05 | * 720 0.29 0.29 0.04 | * 730 0.29 0.29 0.04 | * 740 0.29 0.29 0.04 | * 750 0.29 0.29 0.04 | * i6o 0.26 0.28 0.03 | IX 770 0.23 0.27 0.00 1 * 780 (i.�3 0.23 0.00 } * 790 0.23 0.23 0.00 : * 800 0.23 0.23 0.00 | * 310 0.23 0.23 0.00 | * 0.00 | * | 0~00 1 0.00 | * 0.00 | * 0.00 1 * 0.00 1 * 9:26 28-Mar-90 �e41 5 4prs �7� -`�.2, 0.IH 0 /5.7.c..) � I /5.7.c..) �~ r | 0.07: | '74~'.4~~-r,-/ =. Apa ~� | 0.05 1 ' | • | | ° | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.31 | 0.41 | 0.64 | o _- - _ -*-. . | .~~_~'-r~| -.. '=.--_ ..:.4 7r,ps | . . /. ��� / `�/ �w*-**r- | ^' 100 6re. - fdrhie . / . | . | . '| V . ==. I 740.~t, • . . /^� / ' �� ' . r^m�� . | '-xww�~'4�h�' | � | | . | | | | 1 | i | D' R' .Strong. Consul±in -- 'Kirkland, WA ��� ^ r��2dr4. C:\89268\POST-IV.CMD . 820 0.23 0.23 •30 0.23 0.23 840 0.23 0.23 850 0.23 0.23 86V 0.23 0.23 870 0.23 0.23 880 0.22 0.22 890 0.20 0.20 900. 0.20 0.20 910 0.20 0.20 920 0.20 0.20 930 0.20 0.20 940 0.20 0,20 950 0.20 0.20 960 0.20 0.20 970 0.20 0.20 980 0.20 0.20 990 0.20 0.20 1000 0.19 0.19 1010 0.16 0.16 1.020 0.16 0.16 1030 0.16 0.16 1040 0.16 0.16 1050 0.16 0.16 1060 0.16 0.16 • 1070 0.16 0.16 108V 0.16 0.16 1090 0.16 0.16 1100 0.16 0.16 1110 0.16 0.16 1120 0.16 0.16 1130 0.16 0.16 1140 0.16 0.16 1150 0.16 0.16 1160 0.16 0.16 1170 .0.16 0.16 1180 0.16 0.16 •1190 0.16 0.16 1200 0.16 0.16 1210 0.16 0.16 • 1220 0.16 0.16 1230 0.16 0.16 1240 0.16 4.16 1250 0.16 0.16 1 260 0.16 0.16 1270 0.16 0.16 1200 0.16 0.16 1290 0.16 0.16 1300 0.16 0.16 1310 0.16 0.16 1320 0.16 0.16 1330 0.16 0.16 1340 0.16 0.16 1350 0.16 0.16 .360 0.16 0.16 0.00 | * | 0.00 | * | 0.00 | * 0.00 I * � 0.00 | * | 0.00 | * 0.00 | * � 0.00 | * | 0.00 } * 0.00 | * 0.00 | * | 0.00 | * 0.00 | * 0.00 1 * 0.00 | * 0.00 | * | 0.00 | * 0.00 I * 0.00 | * 0.00 | * 0.00 | * 0.00 | * 0.00 ( * 0.00 | * 0.00 | * 0.00 | * 0.00 | * | 0.00 | * | 0,00 | * 0.00 | * 0.00 ( * {).00 | * 0.00 | * | 0.00 | * 0.00 * 0.00|* 0.00|* | 0.00|* | 0.00|* | 0.00 | * | 0.00 | * | 0.00 1 * 0.00 | * 0.00 1 * 0.00 ) * 0.00 1 * |/ 0.00 | * 0.00 | * 0.00 | * 0.00 1 * 0.00 | * 0.00 | * 1 0.00 } * 0.00 1 * | 0.00 | * 1 ����'°��m�� _-. �~~«�^~^ 411 HYDRA Version 4.12 Page 19 -----=---- --------------== 9:26 28-Mar-90. �e ^��7s - ��- �/ ��. ~_ | 69~ z68^3 ' All D'`R. Strong Consulting HYDRA Version 4.12 'Kirkland, WA ~~_� Page 20 ^ 4.1/4/A44../9/ �~~���v���� [:\89268\POS1-IV.CMD 9:26 28-Mar-90 �� ����=~ �� ^��r�' 1370 0.17 0.17 0.00 | * ~~- "'��~° ''''~ 1380 0.17 0 17 0 00 | * | | | �^ ^ ^ ^ dl.... 1390 0.17 0.17 0.00 | * | | | 1400 0.17 0.17 0.00 | * | | 1410 0.17 0.17 0.00 | * | | 1420 0.17 0.17 0.00 | * | | 1430 0.17 0.17 0.00 | * | | | Time +--- + ---+ + + 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.0() / U • Z CHECKED BY W J u no! r✓o"7.. N /' z ?;,1 7//v/ soaMr/Nc`% n0 /09 110odwI ' Soo/pd (90-113) .. _. 4110211 if#CYa .67. 1' zr Nta 7 0/ 7'M'7 ?v 0 sfN N. • iii'. 014199 t 7//vti LL'% 't, c . a), k. trong Uunsu1t' _Engineers • Kirid.and WA ===============,„===���=r�====����=�====._==..� � C:\89268\POST-IV.CMD ' ^�/ 9:2 1 -74 ` pen ^��r�+ - « � 1 ~-- ' ��/r_�" ^�m� SOUTHCENTER -�.._._.._. �.�'^ = �,�. �uu/���w/�� APARTMENTS 09- Z.eg_3 HYDRA Version 4.12 - Page 1 �������=- - ~(� Analysis of Existing Pipes Invert San Sto Vel Design % Cap Par Link Long Diam Up/Dn Slope Inf Mis d/D CFS Q Full Remove Rep l 150 0 150~40 0.0167 0.0 0.1 2.25 0,09 5.43 147.90 ' 0.0 0.0 0.19 | 1.68 *** II 46 8 147.80 0.0804 0.0 0.2 4.84 0.19 5.08 144.10 0.0 0.0 0.18 3.68 Lateral length= 196 'Upstream length= 196 Analysis of Existing Pipes Invert San Sto Vel Design % Cap Par ink • Lpng Diam Up/Dn Slope In+ Mis d/D CFS 0 Full Remove Rep • / 3 34 6 147.90 0 1�8 0.0 4.57 0.09 .1 0 0 . "1 4 09 . . 4:52 144.10 0.0 0.0 0.17 2.02 -------------- + Lateral length= 34 Upstream length= .34 . . | / *** III Ahalysis of Existing Pipes / / Invert San Sto Vel Design % Cap Par Link Long Diam Up/Dn Slope Inf His d/D CFS 0 Full Remove Rep .1. 145 8 137.60 0.0100 • 0.0 0.3 ��52 0.29 22.45 136.15 0.0 0.0 0.36 1�30 5 138 8 136.05 0.0100 0.0 0°6 3.06 0.56 .42.83 134.67 0.0 0.0 0.52 1.30 6 68 8 134.57 0.1404 0.0 0.8 8.62 0"81 16.69 125.02 0.0 0.0 0.31 4.87 Lateral length= 351 Upstream length= 581 *** IV • Analysis of Existing Pipes Invert San Sto Vel Design % Cap Par Link Long Diam Up/Dn Slope Inf Mis d/D CFS Q Full Remove Rep 7 • 136 8 129.70 0.0213 0.0 0.1 2.45 0.09 4.80 126.80 0.0 0.0 0.18 1.90 • R. Strong Can sulti FOE rig ineers Kirkland, WA /14 C:\69268\POST-IV.CMD SOUTHCENTER APARTMENTS oq~z' ^~.-3 4.12 HYDRA Version 4 " Page 2 9:21 28-Mar-90 241-4//41/0- SAPTS 31/.)_ *** IV • Analysis of Existing Pipes Invert San Sto Vel Design % Cap Par Link Long Diam Up/Dn Slope Inf Mis d/D CFS 0 Full Remove Rep | 8 128 8 126.70 0.0100 0"0 0"4 2°86 0.44 ��4" 1�� � 125.42 0.0 0.0 0.46 1.30 9 30 8 125.32 0.0100 0°0 0.5 3.04 0°54 41.46 . 125.02 0 0 0 0 0 51 | ^ �� 30 . . . . ' . *** V Lateral length= 294 Upstream length= : 294 | Analysis' of Existing Pipes • Invert San Sto Vel Design • % Cap • Par Link Long Diam Up/Dn Slope Inf Mis d/D CFS 0 Full Remove Rep. 10 88 8 140.20 0.1818 0.0 0.1 6.14 0.15 2.63 124.20 0.0 0.0 0.14 5.54 Lateral length= 88 Upstream length= 88 *** VI Analysis of Existing-Pipes 'Jnvert San Sto Vel Design • % Cap Par Link Long Diam Up/Dn Slope Inf Mis d/D CFS 0. Full Remove Rep 11 8 6 120.20 0.0200 0.0 0.1 2.42 128.04 • 0.0 0.. 0.26 Invert ______________ Maximum Flow Values Link Up/Dn • San Inf Sto Mis Design Cost 0.09 • | • 10"6B 0.85 Reservoir 12 124.20 Discharge : 0.00 0.00 0.79 (),00 0.79 123.20 Stored : 0 0 1764 0 1764 Incoming : 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.00 � ' 1.58 Lateral length= 8 ' Upstream length= 971 0 Rawl-a VOA- s3. "14Zik. • .Z71-4 •{0 orb, Q -4— ZZ113 1•18 ----•?Nk.7.„ • '1.1"1-r g 9 "ri 1 z ZS tc:.z.. -trt • 91'91,1 cq.c-'0) Lvtrzi Lwax NI -2% 1)1 •nt c=wcA ict: 4 00 121 't,'■ 111 5.4 15.111 CP)%.N. •"Ssi.lt PS'ql "1 -ZIA SL- C.A.'1"Z " sL . 0)11 iLb1 Zierl" \ • zx3 1.71;12. 7 c****\ .\\`4A.Titlfr', GliC) lk:11 % le*A. -,1v1 4. c'•)\ • rrzz vzt %‘..\ 10==-7- 'ZIZrr.! :c•i1 bC+ Rn� i ti 51 9.95 _� 4Z, S6 Z } eSt ZS bb�b17 I gs'b17l S' g0'8p1 :. C 109'7 t C-171 -Ara-a .1`1. t om % 711.-3 wry c�r� ELF �iJ i16�� GG +� 21• Y GI ' \ 91 1171 ?oL ->'a wara z•Mr u0< Off, - %,° 5 . �r1. ��p\ ti �yb. � ��\ <. { Y �.1. nZ 74°)i- 0,99\ -0 }- bpi b5\ �b�1 1.5:-.79(1 ti �-,, , c"X")'1 72,E C, \' ZVI ?.0.091 .' ? 1931 '$; v Q -zr,1Q' e,aG 02. '1,51 •-:::,t aL'ti°)1 NA- n7 rv:1 61 — iCV2 %'b- 1). ct� `o' �Z- o - test? cg 91 JO' � 3 t,z s�'- T. Nyzro . _ . "g . in. SC. Slit .09 de 1�3 ' I751 El 175 $L' LSI x.01 %►. � Z 471o4 NANPA of •.1.= - ?- N*0crl rid azs? "'r Ci!. _ t4 1 Its 'Zt'C`,-,t (114,•1 a -Tap VII - ; ••bfi Vic)- p 'c bh 'r'' 1 WO -.---,-t : A -;.7 r;-\. ^ r-C��'t <bt�a ^+�11S+4`1ci N \- � r..aind\C Si C�'�2303 G 4'ar0•2 t\ -70c1J 4.1 Z3it+td'14 , c2°i`f%1 'cn� ( `CC'Si =�, Cam• �V \t-� ...r '31Z.. m1 1 von., VA TisqZ" CO 4;0 '3 ,ub!I5 +t" Ai crate VIZ s :5�\ sa 7,9 IVA y$ Co -Awa • - O GZ c.- - 5•0 9.90 •s1' ./kVa SOX 'sue ola 4� V491\ 1'0 Craz 0.09 �+$ '?%z9 361 $Z 2% -7S Sgt ‘09 ‘0 5� o c1 act, *)11a x.29\ 0.0' 5, ss1 11r Q cch p2- Z'4 \- tS\ +1' 11.991 alb\ I1IS 1 \6Lv • ::•-�; ter- ="�` � � �d�0 qZ �5zY"c- ti L� Nick gartn. - ?� Ear ,. 4 $o,. • 2. At ."31_ . We' $1 ciM Imo. . °Az s. s. z.L•��3� c.`v L.17 I 2g'rLt 4t 'SL \' 1. car, raga sVticev:►hizp ■ z -, sz o� cu. 4b g • • • S1 .. _. oSN-. rt,°Pr Lj�13' r:mil =iR1T� a. 4% �� o'' ti`s 1 % ait j ,mod •wbsv s� WP) sz 19-40 vt) 50 ',Lt `° ) -t7 'LL1 'Of .491.1 c;,*°^ LZ'LLI I'°1L1 q") ZS'iLI = 6 Z9'5LI ©Z6 ssva=) cicia -1"-AI l c� lT17 to r�.a "'ate 9£' -. c>1. rte\ ct t - s+,)1- 4't L CL, 'S ,`1SIZ gZ ,1'S\ S. ‘1.1 tom" Z: s CUL oy SL age 1.01} QZ . �5i• \1.} S 0-` 8 fig` VAS., L£ 7,.4') oZ zt-t oS1k.• . . Ct.t2171 '\ • 2.0• £°f'oLt 6��r Ze "LLI ot;v\ 6'Z•iiLI �L8 , tiMa• Ste- z, • A 2CJ ��,\ • oZ'il�'�? L6'SZt • • -: g'9.11 tio3 .� \\'C-,),1 -_?.`1 -1 c� S �.-�- t b: • • ; • 1 SZ V1-5)4 • 4. ,•••••••••••■•••• /am.. •,‘ •••■•••• c..111) ... ... • ... i , . 4 ... .... . • . • i Ai' 6k ; oilo- - - v - :', ', . e; -', 7 - : • • -i i i (. ' . ■ ; ; imoo • • Q9`17i,i Polk 1:7127:1:1 %* 2„ 05 \ cn c."...e • • I \I•VerriZRN, VCWIt ^s,Zr-V-MIA e0 •• • 1— Lb C'v, /49/610 7/7e)/./, • fn /,'; .90 9?' 0), c'IDX7-,L 17a —Zs Lam\ Ov1 9'92/ -\7'\ 1 0'22 l O'SZ GOEV BLS cT'- I I 1 . . ■ i . • , -;* •-•,-1-1-; -* - I I • . - • • L. • (,081 0'47 • "t■ o 'ER/ 6.9L1 c)* 07D -N D . * ; . : ; F • • .... • .. L. g'69r '741 11.'cr) • . 00-0 - 0.)41't•S!.;1 So>•0)1 . C) • . VA' 0'611 • it 0.9Ll , O.\ E 'bL l 6'691 \ L z'6sl L1 G`F� -RL GIJ LO'°)41 \ ;O\ °Ate Z.S E� 5'0P/ b' 221 cr)•oz 6t <, =IS LC). 04 '2LZca1 ..I `� 0911 .11 /... . ..... • . 11-9(AS: d Li- 53. " fiAvrAt'Dis L ; • ,• • zci COCI $ • • •: • • 10i9. / cr)("NCs- e_.- ■(N. MN.17\c":, 4 fo A t ei ei N 3 T r_ (J ;nom 1 t+Zni i r. cr ornL �4 3 _t1 a .__...._.__..._.____ . • 0 N 19 ,R� T Z,bc I l• 7t34-'et \o }\ • I ; 331330 - 5137111 �L°1'rZ p - n -S% 'Sb .7t-c)1 .a•; ' :'• `irnL • isMo -ZSz(..)H • �1V . - i�w-7a'dgt 3v r °77X"..)-q)_ Wes, ` tt • S7I12c • a1."1 V o a .1 CF,a1 1.10B1 c. 2._ r,°1\ -1 -, ATTACHMENT #8 March 28, 1990 89 -268.3 JOINT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR EXISTING ROAD AND STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES This Agreement is entered into between Southcenter Associates ( "SA "), a Washington corporation, and Sunwood Condominium Association ( "Association "), on its own behalf, and on behalf of each record Owner ( "Owner ") of fee simple title to that property described as Phase I and /or II of Sunwood, A Condominium. This Agreement relates to the maintenance and operation of an existing access road and sidewalks, ( "Road ") and to an existing storm drainage system ( "Drainage System ") to the extent located on property owned by SA, and also used by the Owners of Sunwood Condominiums for access to their property and for conveyance, detention, and release of storm drainage. WHEREAS, the Association represents, and is properly empowered to act on behalf of, each Owner of property described as Phase I or II of Sunwood, A Condominium, a.legal description of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, for purposes of making decisions with respect to the operation, maintenance, repair or replacement and improvement of common facilities and access roads utilized by the Owners, and is properly empowered by appropriate Condominium Dec- laration to assess and collect the related costs from the Owners, including the ability to lien and foreclose by suit, pursuant to the terms of the Condominium Declaration and related provisions of the Horizontal Property Regimes Act, individual .units of those DRAFT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 89268.3 - DRS Page 1 Owners who fail to pay their respective shares of those costs; and WHEREAS, SA is the Owner of property located adjacent to the property described as Phase I and /or II or Sunwood, a Condominium, which real property of SA's is described on Exhibit C attached hereto; and WHEREAS, a declaration of Easement, filed under Recording No. 7906150932, creates an easement, affecting both parcels of real property described at Exhibits A and B, for ingress, egress, drainage and utilities, as a covenant running with the land and for the mutual benefit and burden of the respective owners thereof; and. WHEREAS, it continues to be necessary for Owners of property de- scribed as Phases I and /or II of Sunwood, A Condominium, to utilize an existing access road and an existing storm drainage system located on the above - described property of SA for proper ingress and egress to their respective properties and for proper conveyance, detention, and release of storm drainage; and WHEREAS, the specific dimensions and location of this access road and drainage system are generally represented by Attachment "E" and shall be as mutually agreed by both the parties to this Agreement, after further review of appropriate related engineering or title report documents; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of SA, the Association, and all Owners of the property in Sunwood, A Condominium, to share in the costs of maintaining and operating this access road and drainage system; NOW, THEREFORE, in mutual consideration therefore, it is hereby DRAFT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 89268.3 - DRS Page 2 agreed by both parties hereto as follows: 1. SA shall maintain the above - described access road and sidewalks, if any, and drainage system, to the extent it is located on property owned by SA, also for the use of the Association and the Owners of property described as Phases I and /or II, Sunwood, A Condominium; 2. SA shall retain the final authority for determining the need for initiating, scheduling,. and /or contracting for any operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and improvement for the access road, sidewalks, and /or drainage system, subject to its providing reasonable prior written notice of any such work to the Association, except in cases of emergency; 3. Each party to this agreement will be responsible for its proportionate respective share of any and all costs related to the operation, maintenance, repair or re- placement and improvement of this access road, and /or drainage system. The proportionate respective share of costs for each party will be determined by the ratio of the total number of individual occupied dwelling units located on all of the property presently owned by SA to the total number of individual occupied dwelling units located on the property described as Phases I and II of Sunwood, A Condominium, provided the SA shall be .re- sponsible for a least percent of any such costs. As of the date of the execution and implementation of this Agreement, there are no occupied dwelling units DRAFT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 89268.3 - DRS Page 3 located on any of the property owned by SA, and accordingly, SA shall be initially responsible for the minimum _ percent of all these costs, while the Association shall be responsible for the remaining percent of all such costs. The respective proportionate share may be adjusted in the future pursuant to the above ratio, or by mutual agreement of both parties, should the number of occupied dwelling units increase or decrease on the respective properties, thereby altering the related ratio; 4,. The. Association may request permission by reasonable oral or written notice to enter upon SA's property for the purpose of observing any such maintenance and repair work, which permission shall not be :unreasonable withheld; 5. The Association shall pay SA for its respective propor -, tionate share of all related costs within 60 days of its receipt of related invoices or bills for SA. The Association may review all contracts, invoices, and /or bills related to this maintenance and .repair work at a reasonable and mutually convenient time and place; 6. The Association agrees to indemnify SA for, and save it harmless from, any loss or claim or expense of any kind, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred by SA and relating to or arising out of or in connection with the performance of any services by any party under this Agreement, which loss or claim or expense results from DRAFT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 89268.3 ='DRS Page 4 the negligent acts or omissions of the Association or SA or their respective agents, members, or employees; 7. The Association hereby authorizes SA to file liens and foreclose such liens, with the authority vesting in the Association pursuant to the provisions of the Condominium Declaration and the Horizontal Property Regimes Act, against individual units of Owners of Phases I and /or II of Sunwood, A Condominium, to the extent of their respective shares, to recover those costs and /or . obligations due SA by the Association pursuant to this Agreement, in the event that the Association should fail to pay those costs and /or obligations within a reasonable time; 8. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and bind, both .parties to this Agreement, as the owners and /or representatives of the owners of the real property de- scribed by the attached Exhibit A, B, and C, and their respective numbers, successors, assigns, subsidiaries, affiliated entities, directors, . officers, agents, attorneys, insurers, employees, beneficiaries, and legal and personal representatives. DRAFT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 8926,8.3 - DRS Page 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been signed by all parties hereto on this day of , 1990. Southcenter Associates By: Its: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF KING On this day of , 1990, before me appeared to me known to be the of Southcenter Associates who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated . that he /she was authorized to execute . the said instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 1990. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires DRAFT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 89268.3 - DRS Page 6 SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. By: Its: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of , 1990, before me appeared to me known to be the of Southcenter Associates who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he /she was authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 1990. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires C5: \89268 \Existma.doc DRAFT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - 89268.3 - DRS Page 7 8011130853 • --.—.. • . --That PO, t I DK Of Tf.Ct, • 9 end ip.•Interuri.en AddltiOn•iiThilltifOf'Sestt11, -. _-_-...-..... .—. . . ............_.__ _____. __ ._____ ....._......... - ..e.i.--ascordIng.-to- OW- II et--catordati..in-Vole---.1.0Lail.:P.ats,..pagej.:55.6-rfeP!0! P.f....:::: VI Mag. Cco.m..yi- Washington;' deietibed bi 'follcial.. ... . • •••.....:*. :•.3in ..-SegInnths at the Itternect106.:01...the .north_iind Of___Trf.CI 8 01:iild • 01111--wl-th -- - • - . .. .. . 0._ .... _ _ .. , -- the !.;:es a-144 in- of . 62nil lAvi:-5.—as_tone.eyed .io_thir..Clly...1)!._Tuk;iii la by Mitre/sent.: : .... raco rage:OM:kr 'It1 nv-County Neceleinfriio...-720.1079301•.thence40-1"iMintiri.;.01.7 7. ........ •_ fest So .a.i aisle •point . in said_teest PA NO n; %hang., $811!2$!27".1 .al#rgliiii*irt I a • "*. 4:0 ,::5.00.1.4wt L0-.Tn.rtart-line of Is ,d 1.0t. 8; thence 801.2111,0"Il along .theTiiiit — - --: 1 ine of said Tracts 8 ibnd 9 • distance of 420.00 feet' Its-the-TRUE POINT OF -IIEGINNIN;; thence $01•11140"ii 505.00 feet to the southeast corner of said - • -•- Tract 10; thrnc* N88'2P27N.628.46.feet.to-tha_southweit.corner of $0.0.7r4ct- —A.o; thsaTli:12'08421•1 sIong-the•west--1-1-nt-thereof--285.00-leet4--1.6rad S8825'27'1 108.00 feet; thence $28°29'271 25.00 feett,thonco W0.310311 155.00 feet; thence 1t28.25•27"111 114.00...feet; thence 141•)413)"t 130.8,7 feet : to s point wlich.teats N88'251274%1 free the TRUE. POINT OFAIEGINNING; thence. • .. 588.25'27"t :112.70 feet to the UWE POINT OF OLCINNINO . • • •-• '' " EXCt PT "Tri i-e.ri t1700 I eat of-woht-tot--1-1-ohd --tha.--east- 8 .00-hot_of-the_Loo th-Y:I. _foot of ••••-tot 10 as --oconteyed-to-the-C.I.ty..of-ladoello_ky died_ref.orfed....ender King County Recording ..-. No.790900611i. • - ..' SUB IECi7-ii :roVliiiii-ii7i61011-titnit:-*Toi-roiii4ctions.nreoiel17Sitliili*tii_lirt totilely-littN--the •Condominium-Daclarotion • of .-Suntroodi-37-Condotekotwis___ , s • • — • . . . . . • . ......__.. EXHIBIT A . . . A 5n- of .totia-8,..9--ond44.11-4ntarAll:00.444itlon. tt:LCity of --1411M1rr-according-to-the-pket-recorded-in-yolume 10 of pkrtsi-if'' page 95, records of King County, Washington, and that portion of 0') vacated 1.. 152nd Street described as follows: 877sel inn,. 3g.: at . theY. inter tOl_the ----- City *of Tukwila by instrument...recorded...under King.County7Rt$41V-10 . 7 .. •••• • • . -;;.-Ko;-72010703961 thence-S.01°21'40W 105.00-feet-to In anila poirli' n in'iai4 wait suarginr-thence-S88•15!2”E along laidisargir0;.00-ftet-: L'.1) to ilii-iiit line:of said-Lor8; -theridelS01•2P40144 ellonir the cast lire of said Tracts 0 and 9 a distance.of 420.00 feat'to : corner of said Lot 81 thence S02'08.21"W 745.04 feet 3. to the TRtE POINT OF BEGINN/No. SUBJECT tc covenants conditions and restrictions recorded contemporan- •ously with the Condominium.oeclaration of Sunwood, a Condominium. EXflJEI /4\,. • (3/23/90 174, a 206 827 7258 VALL CONST 04 Local betsc.ri Egan - Thane III Only, that portion of Trav :t II, Interurban Addition to City of Seattle, according to plat re :)riled In Volume 30 el Plats, page 55, records of King County, Washington. described, as follows: ee;innins at the horthisit corner of said Tract 11; thence W88•25'27 "N along the north J_ 1114 thcceof 300.86 feat; thence S01'21'40 "E parallel with the east tine of said Tract 11 .t distance of 3! :.9; feet to the northwest corner of a tract of land conveyed to " TPA Ke;o by deed recoreed under King County Receiving No.73122004911; thence S88'38'20 "E along the northerly 1Ire thereof 141.65 feet to an.engls'point Je said northerly line; • °— th• :qce NL1'2I!JW'i- l.15•.teet to an'ingle point in sold northerly line; thence cp $81 "33'26 "E along skid Northerly line 1S9.21 feet to the east line of said Tract 11; 's.ti,ct NG1'21'h0"E t.St.51 feet to the POINT or DEGtkNING. Ex ::PT.the east SAP) feet thereof as conveyed to the City of Tukwila by deed recorded unaiP._ K1 +, Courity 11e� :ord i i g 1 s:• 7909040616. - - - - -- -- __ .. $1.13ECT to cover.anto conditions and restrictions recorded Contemporan. ec'.+sly with the 1 :ondominium Declaration of Sunwood, a Condominium. .• . —. EYBI • 8. 1 3, I $ /`.,O 17:50 : Z 206 827 7256 STEINVIaLL CONST 05 LOT 1 OP CI9 RECORDED UNT TOGETHER OM US:J7i SO 1 EEI OP ?RACT 11 IN VOLUM 12 Y OF -TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NO. 61- SO -SS, ACCORDING TO TEE SHORT PLAT ER KM COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8112100489; 9; !At BASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS .14ND UTILITY PURPOSES OVER THE OR TEL %AST 460.86 FEET AND LYI!iG SOUTH OF THE NORTH 280.00 FEET IN'PER7RMR ADDITION TO 1 VITY OF SEATTLE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED 0P PLATS, PAGE SS. RECORDS OF RING COUNTY: • SITUATE IN IEE CITY OF TUKWILA. COUNTY OF KING. STATE OF WASHINGTON. • XHIIBIT c. • . 1 ON -SITE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR 62ND AVENUE APARTMENTS TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ATTACHMENT #9 89 -268.3 This maintenance program is for the on -site storm drainage system (System) as shown on the Plans prepared by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. presently represented by Drawing No. 89 -268 with date, November 13, 1989 and ultimately represented by the as -built drawings to be prepared by the Owner's Engineer and approved by the City of Tukwila. The System serves the southern portion of the 62nd Avenue South Apartments (Project). The System is comprised of approximately 1300 lineal feet of storm drainage conveyance pipe, 20 plus area drains /catch basins, and 125 lineal feet of 52 inch diameter detention pipe with accompanying flow restrictor /oil pollution control device for release to the existing storm drainage system on the west side of 62nd Avenue South. The following steps shall be performed in September and March of each year. In addition to this, the following steps will be fol- lowed at, during, or immediately after each storm noticed or re -. ported to yield more than 1 inch of rain in 24 hours: DETENTION PIPE AND MANHOLES Clean detention pipe vents of all debris and sedi- ment; 2. Clean all debris and /or sediment when deeper than 5 inches along 60 feet of the detention pipe length; 3. Seal all detention pipe joints /connections if leakage is detected, noted, or reported; 4. Insure that the manhole cover(s) is in place, re- moveable, and properly locked; 5. Repair the maintenance access ladder rungs if missing or broken; FLOW RESTRICTOR /OIL POLLUTION. CONTROL DEVICE 1. Remove all debris and sediment if within 6 inches of the orifice plate; 2. Structurally secure and seal the flow restrictor /oil pollution, control device to manhole wall if loosened, out of alignment, or leaking; 3. Make watertight or replace the gate if leaking or missing; 4. The gate must move freely, be raised with the in- stalled chain, and be watertight; 5. Check that the orifice plate is in place. CATCH BASIN /AREA DRAINS 1. Clean the inlet grate of all blocking vegetation, debris and /or sediment if more than 10 percent of the grate area is obstructed; 2. Clean the sump and properly dispose of de- bris /sediment if depth is greater than 1/3 of the distance between the sump bottom and the lowest invert; 3. Clean sump and properly dispose of any chemicals, pollutants, or any other floating materials that are present; 4. Clean all inlets /outlets of all debris and /or sed- iment; 5. Replace any cracked, damaged, and /or misaligned grates along with any accompanying locking devices; 6. Repair any cracks in basin or inlet /outlet pipes. CONVEYANCE PIPE 1. Clean and properly dispose of all vegetation, de- bris, and /or sediment in conveyance pipes if ac- cumulation exceeds 20 percent of the pipe diameter or reduces the free movement of water; 2. Repair any damaged or deteriorated protective coating; 3. Replace any pipe that is bent to decrease the pipe cross - section area by more than 20 percent. GENERAL The owner of the property that this System serves shall be re- sponsible for the continual operation and maintenance of the System in accordance with this Program and the requirements of the City of Tukwila, Department of Public Works. If drainage facilities are not maintained, the City of Tukwila, DRAFT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM - 89268.2 Page 2 Director of Public Works shall issue a deficiency notice to the owner of the System listing specific actions that must be taken to correct the deficiencies in maintenance. After 15 days, the Public Works Department will re- inspect the facility. If the deficiencies have not been corrected, the Director of Public Works may cause the deficiencies to be corrected using City crews or private contractors. In such instances, the owner of the System shall be obligated to pay all costs of reinspection and other costs incurred to correct the deficiency. If such costs are not paid, the Public Works Department will request the City Prosecutor to commence a lawsuit for collection of such amount. C5: \89268 \PROPMP.Doc DRAFT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM - 89268.2 Page 3 • D. R. STRONG • nsulting Engineers Inc. /flfl5/ ITE� 827-3063 N.E. 38TH PLACE, SU ,,���� L � KI KLAND, WA 98033 . (206) 8 3063 • - TO L FREE (Washington State) 1- 800 - 962 -1402 MAR 3 0 1990 FA NUMBER (206) 827 -2423 PLIANP.ItAG DEPT. March 28, 1990 Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Design Review Application 62nd Avenue South Apartments Dear Mr. Pace: 89 -268.3 We are writing in response to your letter to Al Roberts, Roger Newell Architects, on February 21, 1990 (Attachment #1). In that letter you outlined eight concerns and seventeen information needs that the review committee has related to the Design Review Application (DRA) for the 62nd Avenue South Apartments '(Project). D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers prepared the Road and Storm along with /Water /Sewer /ESC Plans (5 sheets, November 13, 1989, Drawing No. 89268, "Plans "). These Plans were included as part of the DRA. We have been retained by the applicant /owner (Southcenter Associates, Gary Steinvall), to address one of the itemized concerns (E) and three of the itemized information needs (Numbers 2, 4, and 5). The following responses are in accordance with the concerns /needs as outlined in your letter: CONCERN, E You are concerned about the "... adequacy of the on -site, stormwater detention system and the use of swales as shown on the plans ". In our view, addressing this concern is broken down into two parts, the proposed on -site stormwater detention system ( "Proposed System ") and the use of swales. Jack Pace March 28, 1990 Page 2 • • 1. The Proposed System was developed in accordance with the attached "Stormwater Analysis, November 13, 1989" (Attachment #2), which was submitted as part of the DRA. The Rational Method was used to perform this Analysis. As pointed, out on page 5 and 6 of this Analysis, "... Those portions of Phase III (62nd Avenue South Apartments) not able to use the existing detention facility (in Sunwood Boulevard, for Phases I and II) will drain to a new deten- tion pipe at the southeast corner of the Project. This fa- cility was designed for a 25 year storm with a 10 year re- lease rate." The concern that this facility was designed for this storm and release rate as opposed to a "... 100 year event /24 hour duration /pre - development condition "... is addressed as a separate item (Information Need, #4) be- low. The 25/10 facility is adequate for the following rea- sons: a. The existing topography allows for the conveyance, detention, and release of drainage in the vicinity of Buildings E, F, and G into the existing drainage system in Sunwood Boulevard (See Sheet 7 of 22 of the Analysis; Areas, 1, 2, and 3). The capacity of this existing drainage system was evaluated in the Analysis; b. The existing drainage system was designed to ac- commodate Sunwood, Phase I and II. This is confirmed by the original designers calculations and basin area map included in the Appendix of the Analysis; c. The existing drainage system was installed to provide more retention volume than originally calculated, be- cause all of Phase I and only a portion of Phase II were calculated to be included in the existing detention facility using a 10 year storm with a 10 year release relate. The detention volume used for the current Project going to the existing drainage system was calculated using a 25 year storm and a 10 year release rate; d. Review of the original calculations shows "conservative" discrepancies; e. The proposed drainage system was calculated in the Analysis using the same methodology as the existing storm drainage system (ie. the Rational Method); • • Jack Pace March 28, 1990 Page 3 f. The proposed drainage system takes advantage of existing topography in order to circumvent significant grading of the site for purposes of storm drainage con- veyance, retention, and release; The 25 year design storm with 10 year release rate was utilized as a result of a pre- submittal meeting with Phil Fraser (City of Tukwila, Public Works Engineer) and Jay Green (D.R. Strong) on November 6, 1989; g. h. The Analysis shows that the conveyance system, and the calculated detention capacity and release rate is ex- ceeded by the proposed detention facility in the southeast corner; i. Maintenance of the proposed storm drainage system will be performed by the Owner as described in Information Need, #5 below. 2. Swales for conveyance of landscape drainage as shown on Sheets 2 and 5 of the Plans were utilized and are adequate for the following reasons: a. Typical landscaping around each building must be sloped to drain to prevent ponding of irrigation and /or pre- cipitation; b. In order to prevent scouring /erosion, adequate landscaping will be installed as provided by the Landscaping Plan; c. In order to prevent large areas from draining to one location, Area Drains with accompanying conveyance to the proposed storm drain system are provided; d. The area between Area Drains are sloped to drain via small swales directed to the next area drain or catch basin; Jack Pace March 28, 1990 Page 4 e. The largest tributary area to an Area Drain is the one to the east and south of Building E being approximately 4300 square feet or 0.1 acre. Using the Rational Method for the 25 year storm with a C of 0.15 (per the Analysis), an I of 1.75 for 25 year storm, and A of 0.1 acres; Q = CIA = 0.15 (1.75) 0.1 = 0.026 CFS. The cross - section on Sheet 5 is for a 0.4 foot deep and 2 foot wide swale. Using a 3 to 1 side slope, this corresponds to a velocity equal to 1.4 feet per second at 1 percent per a standard nomograph. This then corresponds to Q = VA = 1.4 fps (2 (0.4) 2 sf) = 0.56 CFS which twenty times greater than 0.026 CFS. Therefore, the capacity of each of the swales exceeds what is anticipated to flow them; f. The swale is to be lined with grass which will dissipate and spread recurrent flows; The swale is intended to be unobtrusive yet effective. g- In addition to these remarks, the final design will address addition details and /or calculations requested by the City regarding the adequacy of the proposed drainage system. An additional concern registered by one of the City's staff relates to conveyance of possible leakage from the proposed detention facility to the existing storm drainage system in 62nd Avenue South. This issue apparently arises from a concern about possible storm drainage pipe leakage being conveyed onto the downstream property. There are two elements utilized in resolving this issue: 1. The Wall /Footing Detail provided by the Geotechnical Engineer (See Attachment #3 which is copied from Applied Earth Sciences, Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Re- port, 62nd Avenue South Apartments, 8911 -04G, November 17, 1989) shows the means by which percolating drainage, inter- cepted groundwater, and /or detention pipe leakage will be conveyed away from retaining walls. This drainage will be conveyed to the existing storm drainage system at 62nd Av- enue South. • • Jack Pace March 28, 1990 Page 5 2. The excavation for the proposed detention pipe will be sloped at approximately 1.2 percent and lined with 6 inches of drainage rock in order to collect any additional perco- lating drainage, intercepted ground water, and /or detention pipe leakage. The outlet of this drainage will be 6 to 12 inches below the inlet invert of Catch basin No. 2 (FROP) which is at approximately 122.0 feet and will be conveyed to Catch Basin No. 1 at 62nd Avenue South. INFORMATION NEED, 2: We have enclosed a copy of the current ALTA Survey by Triad & Associates (Attachment #4), Job No. 88 -313, November 22, 1988) with accompanying field notes as requested. For your convenience, we have also enclosed a copy of the as -built plans for Sunwood Phase I (Attachment #6, Triad Job No. 78 -006, October, 1, 1990). INFORMATION NEED, 4: You have requested a storm water detention plan which provides for a "... 100 year event /24 hour duration /pre- development release rate condition to protect downstream sites for life of project... ". We have enclosed (Attachment #7) an Addendum to our original Analysis which revaluates the proposed drainage system under these conditions. This Addendum provides a narrative de- scription of our assumptions, criteria and results with ac- companying supporting documentation. In short, the proposed storm drainage system is adequate for the 100 year storm condition described above and will therefore protect downstream sites for the life of the Project in accordance with standard storm drainage practice. INFORMATION NEED, 5: You have requested a Maintenance Program for the proposed drainage system and a copy of the existing Maintenance Agreement for the private roadway and private drainage system. After talking with yourself; Maxine Anderson, Tukwila City Clerks Office; Dave Hallinen, Project Engineer with Triad Associates in 1981; Stu Gilroy of Northwood Development, the original developer; Gary Steinvall of Southcenter Associates; and after reviewing the current Title Report, we have not been able to locate an existing Maintenance Agreement. We are endeavoring to locate such a document from the Sunwood Condominium Association and will forward it to you as soon as possible. Independent of this, we have prepared a draft copy of a Joint Road and Storm Drainage Facilities Maintenance Agreement between Southcenter Jack Pace March 28, 1990 Page 6 • • Associates and the Sunwood Condominium Association for your review and comment (Attachment #8). We have prepared a Maintenance Program for the proposed drainage system and have included it as Attachment 9. In addition to the above responses, we would like to provide the following information that may be helpful in your review and that comes as a result of discussions with city staff: 1. In order to provide a better picture of the project utilities, we have enclosed four profile views of the site (Attachment #10, 8 sheets, 11x17). These sections are gen- erated from Earthcalc's Digital Terrain Model of the site depicting existing and proposed grades. Each pro- file /section is followed by a plan view depicting its loca- tion in the Project. Each profile /section is shown with the significant proposed and existing utilities. 2. We have added additional details to Sheet 2 and 5 of 5 of the Plans and have included them for your review (Attachment #11). These details further enhance the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and show a construction easement off of the south property line for retaining wall con- struction. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. We are simultaneously transmitting a copy of this letter with attachments to your Review Consultant, Mike Aippersbach. Sincerely yours, D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. /\r5t4t7t1/ DONALD J. HILL, P.E. 0 DJH : dk enclosures cc: Mike Aippersbach, City Consultant Gary Steinvall, Owner March 28, 1990 Project No. 8911 -04G Gary Steinvall, General Partner 62nd Avenue South Limited Partnership PERFORMING INCOME PROPERTIES, INC. P.O. Box 2458 Kirkland, Washington 98033 -2458 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC Subject: City of Tukwilla Design Review 62nd Avenue South Apartments /Tukwilla, Washington (Formerly The Sunwood Apartments - Phase III Dear Mr. Steinvall: This letter is in response to the February 21, 1990 letter from Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, City of Tukwilla, regarding the City review of the design review application for the above noted 72 unit apartment complex. A copy of Mr. Pace's letter and it's attachments (Public Works Department comments on environmental review and Public Work Department comments on design review) are included. The items which are addressed in this letter will be referenced to applicable sections of these documents. Number 6 on page two of Mr. Pace's letter asks for a geotechnical /hydrological analysis to determine slope /soils stability of the proposal and any requirements for excavation /structural fill. This information was .previously provided in AESI's Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report for this project dated November 17, 1989. A copy of this report was originally provided to the City of Tukwila with the initial submittal package for this site. An additional copy is attached for reference and review. Number 13, paragraph 3, of Mr. Pace's letter requests a cross - section of a retaining wall to include footing drainage and granular backfill with "tie -in" into storm drainage system on civil drawing. This cross - section is included as Figure 2, Wall /Footing Drain Detail in the above referenced (and attached) soils report. The civil engineer will also include a similar cross - section on the civil drawings. The environmental review comment sheet from the Department of Public Works, page 1 (modified), third paragraph, Earth, items F and G, requires clarification of answers on erosion control. The erosion control plans, as designed by D.R. Strong and shown on their Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, dated November 13, 1989, and as 911 - 5th Avenue Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827 -7701 • • referenced on page 6 of the soils report by AESI has been reviewed and is considered suitable for the site. The concern by the Department of Public Works is that "standard construction" measures may not adequately control erosion on this steep hillside is noted. It does not appear that the proposed erosion control measures are standard but that they do indeed reflect the necessity to adequately control erosion on this particular site. Further explanation and recommended changes are as follows. Glacial till was encountered in most of the exploration pits which were excavated for our study within the upper 1 to 3 feet and noted as deep as 4 feet in two of the pits. The loose to medium dense top soils or fill materials overlying the till is considered to have a high erosion potential while the till itself is considered to have a low erosion potential due to it's compact state and silt /clay matrix. In order to reduce the potential for piping to occur in the upper loose materials in the areas where the silt fences will be placed, we have recommended to D.R. Strong that a gravel wedge be placed in front of the fences to slow the velocity of any run off water. This change will be implemented on the final erosion control design drawings. As part of the planned erosion and drainage control, it will be necessary to properly mitigate offsite water and sediment transport during construction of the proposed retaining walls along the lower edge (south) of the project. As currently designed there will be retaining walls up to 11 feet high along the bottom edge of the property. Construction of these walls is anticipated early in the project. Since the walls will be constructed on the property line, it will be necessary to obtain drainage easements from the adjoining property owners to provide room for mitigation of erosion concerns. We believe that a 10 foot wide drainage easement extending to the south of the 62nd Avenue South Apartment property would be adequate for this purpose. Drainage control measures should consist of a silt fence designed and built as on the previously mentioned erosion control plan by D.R. Strong and modified above (gravel wedge). In addition, a row of overlapping straw bails which are embedded a minimum of 6 inches into the soil are recommended to be placed above the silt fence to further reduce offsite drainage. If it is not feasible to obtain an offsite drainage /erosion control easement for purposes of this construction, it may be necessary to modify the lower retaining wall design from a reinforced concrete wall to a soldier pile shoring wall. This would result in less disturbance to the site which would reduce the potential for off - site sediment transport. A drainage system similar to that planned for the concrete wall, and connected to the on -site storm drainage system should be planned. 2 The on -site . detention system which is planned immediately to the north of the lower retaining wall in the southeast portion of the project will be founded on excellent bearing materials with a low erosion potential (till) and will be retained on the downslope side by the retaining system. To further reduce the potential for concerns regarding this detention system, two design changes are recommended which should be implemented on the design drawings: 1) extend the easternmost wall further to the west such that it is below the detention pipe at all locations and 2) the detention pipe excavation should be sloped to the east so that if it were to ever leak the water would flow to the low area. In the low area a catchment device should be installed and tightlined into the nearby storm system on 62nd Avenue South. In addition, the final and most important item associated with proper erosion control on this site will be to have all earth work associated items completed during the dry weather months of the year. The next item of concern which is shown on the attached page 2 (modified) of the Department of Public Works environmental review is the concern regarding the ability of Sunwood Boulevard to provide a safe travel surface with the increased traffic. In response to this concern, AESI recently drilled a series of 5 exploration borings along the roadway in order to determine whether or not the road was built to the minimum standards for which it was designed (see Figure 1 attached). Based on our field evaluation it was determined that the roadway does not meet the design specification attached in that it has an unsuitable subgrade and there was little or no evidence of the crushed rock base course or top course underlying the asphalt. Therefore it will be necessary, at a minimum, to rebuild the roadway to meet the previously approved design section (City standard). On page 2 of the Department of Public Works design review, the comment is made that the soils report shall identify borings to identify /quantify rock removal and method of rock removal. It is our understanding based on conversations with Mr. Phil Fraser of the City of Tukwila that it is their desire to have a "blast free" project. In other words, building foundations and utilities should not be planned such that they will encounter bedrock which is known to underlie the hillside. Based on the eight subsurface explora- tions which were previously accomplished for the prior mentioned soils report, there was no indication that bedrock would be exposed within approximately 16 -18 feet of the existing ground surface. As the project design has evolved it has become apparent that excava- tions on the order of 16 -18 feet may be required in the area of buildings E, F, and possibly D. For this reason, AESI has been requested to perform additional subsurface explorations in this area of the project in order to more reliably predict whether or not bedrock may be encountered during construction. This work has been scheduled and will be performed at the earliest possible date, but is not available at present. Once this additional field work is completed and analyzed a copy of the results will be forwarded to the City of Tukwila for their review. 3 If you have any question regarding these matters, please call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. kluNt, Gary A� Flowers, P.G. Principal Gary T. L.j7.ell, P.E., P.G. Principal GAF /sm D911 -04G DK3 /10/90sm 4 r01.i T. L 000 N. 1I 4I �P 0 WA .7H,/ F( Z N. ASS /ONAL EN ,Il;l� iv MAR 22 '90 14:34 RC'GEPNE11ELL TRANSMITTAL ROGER H. NEWELL AIA ARCHITECT ARCHITECT 322-5161 1111111111.1111111111111K 1111111111111111 1111111111111111 EMIR 111•11111111 11111111111.11 111111111111111 1.11.11111 1111111111111111UNIMINI 1102 19TH AVENUE EAST • SEATTLE 98112 • (206) 3221192 F. 1/9 PROJECT al0v2 A\)•) P-TY)17.NCT!,7, +)-)CY.Dtp JOB ft TO 'VIZ. alb COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION \ (ATI 6.1:-.YAITc%)S `t) REMARKS ok)-55C.0 t.)J1-rusi LI DU rArt,t, , Vv I( I r". BY AL.-- 12-0P*A2-1-e-D MAR 22 '90 14 :34 RCS' =ER fJ IELL ARCHITECT 322 -5161 • MAR 22 '90 14:35 ROGER r ELL ARCHITECT 322-51P.1 • iii ,.„ • - MAR 22 '90 14 :35 ROGER NIELL ARCHITECT 322 -5151 P.4 /9 MAR 22 '90 14 :35 ROGER NEWELL ARCHITECT 322 -5161 P.5.9 • MOP 22 '9A i4 ?6 POGEP MEMELL ARCHITECT 922 -5161 0 'o Hi:1P 22 '90 14:36 POGEP NE JELL AP(51ITEff322-51 P.7/9 • Ti 0 z -t 14 It i• IA 11 11 111 1 1 11 MAR EE '90 14:37 ROGER. 'F_WELL ARCHITECT 322 - 151 - NAR 22 '9n? 121 37 ROG=ER NEWELL ARCHITC'22 -`1E1' • i P.9 /9. ROGER H. NEWELL AIA ARCHITECT March 16, 1990 Mr. Jack Pace City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: 62nd Avenue South Apartments Our job number 8905 Dear Mr. Pace: • MAR 2 -0 1990 l :i t • 1102 - 19TH AVENUE EAST • SEATTLE, WA 98112 • (206) 322 -1192 This letter is to confirm our conversation on Thursday 15 March 1990. It is my understanding that in order for your staff and consultants to have the above mentioned project ready for the April 26th Public Hearing, you must receive all of the information by Thursday, 29 March 90 at 5:00 p.m. The information requested was outlined as the "concerns" from the Design Review meeting of 15 February 90 and discussed in our meeting with you 22 February 90. Also there are specific items which your consultant Michael Aippersbach has requested by Thursday 22 March 90 in order to complete his SEPA report. I am in contact with Mr. Aippersbach to find out exactly which items he will need early. After conversations with all parties preparing material for the B.A.R., it is our opinion; that we can perform by the deadline of 29 March 90. Sincerely, Al Roberts ADR:Ir 0 FdItcm 1 • CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKIVILA, WASHINGTON 98188 February 21, 1990 Al Roberts Roger Newell Architects 1102 - 19th Avenue East Seattle WA 98112 PHONE I (206) 433.1800 • Gary l.. VanDusen. Mayor • Re: Design Review application • 62nd Avenue South Apartments /Tukwila, Washington F,/ =,,.' 'd- I (Formerly the Sunwood Apartments - Phase III) Dear Mr. Roberts: On February 15, 1990, members of the City's Development Review Committee (DRC) met to review the Design Review (DR) application for the proposed 72 unit apartment complex on 62nd Avenue South. The Community Development Department conducted the review which included representatives from the Building, Fire, Police, Public Works Departments and our own consult n L J ',n„: N'2.�vt. During that review of both the development plans included in your DR application and the SEPA checklist, we identified several areas of concern with the adequacy of the information . with the SEPA checklist and the proposed design for the project. Outlined below are the areas of concern as well as the additional information we need from you to conduct our review, issue our the environmental determination and prepare the staff report for the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Our consultant indicated he received by courier a set of cross - sections dealing with view.blockage issues and a copy of the soils report, but it was received after our meeting. We are aware of your desire to get this project before the BAR a_oon as _possible. Therefore, timely submittal of this information-and €1T review time to evaluate the information is crucial to completion the environmental review, preparation of the staff report and placement of this application on the BAR'.s hearing calendar. Concerns AV A. Potential view blockage of condominium units to the north. B. The appearance of flat roofs from adjoining properties to '�. the north. /V C. Lack of variety of building types (they appear identical on the proposed plans). The review guidelines which the BAR uses to evaluate proposed projects are contained in Section 18.60.050 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). Guideline P. 2 /letter from J. Pace to A. Roberts Design Review application /62nd Avenue South apartments 2 -21 -90 (4)(G) addresses the issue of variety. D. Configuration of on -site traffic aisles to provide suitable fire equipment access. The narrowness of the existing private access road amplifies this concern. W.,n,,„, E. Adequacy of proposed on -site storm water detention, use of swales as shown on drawings. F. Traffic impacts of the project. ,�(� /��•• _ G. Lack of internal walkway from units to recreation facility. //, ,, //D( H. Useability of the required open space provided. Information /Data Needs for -SEPA Checklist and /or DR application ( 1. Preliminary Title Report indentifying ownership and any easements on the property. 2. Current survey complete with field notes. �w,✓F )47 3. A current traffic report providing trip generation and distribution for the site through the 62nd South /Southcenter Blvd. and 65th South /Southcenter Blvd. (Attached to this letter are more detailed comments regarding the scope of the traffic report from the Public Works Department. See comments from Public Works on Routing Forms for both Environmental Review and Design Review. 4. A storm water detention plan which provides for 100 -year . event /24 hour duration /pre - development conditions to protect downstream sites for life of project. See comments from Public Works on Routing Forms for both Environmental Review and Design Review. . A maintenance program for the proposed storm water drainage system . for the site. Copies of the existing maintenance agreements for the private roadway and the private storm water system. See comments from Public Works on Routing Forms for both Environmental Review and Design Review. 6. A Geotechnical /Hydrological analysis to determine slope /soils stability of the proposal and any requirements for excavation /structural fill. ty • • P. 3 /letter from J. Pace to A. Roberts Design Review application /62nd Avenue South apartments 2 -21 -90 See comments from Public Works on Routing Forms for both • Environmental Review and Design Review. 7. Clarification of top of roof appearance (material, color, texture, etc.) 8. Design /construction details regarding any visible mechanical equipment or fireplace flues above roof deck. 9. Design details for any trash and /or recycling enclosure or any proposed outdoor storage. cc,-;._71S). An exterior lighting plan for parking areas and walkways. /.may Also include any proposed lighting of building. jN 11. A submittal (a color board or a preferred 8 -1/2" by 11" high ° ,� / uality color photcopy) showing or describing all colors, 1� d ���' -'^- °'stains, etc. , for all exterior materials (trim, si ing, doors, signs, mechanical equipment, etc.). The submittal must list all exterior materials to be used. 12. A Perspective drawing showing north elevation. 4_7.5--- 13. The following cross - sections showing existing and finished profiles: - North /South through Bldgs A & B showing the location of the nearest habitable structure on the north and to the south property line showing centerline of Sunwood Drive - (North /South through Bldgs D & E showing the location of the nearest habitable structure on the north and to the south property line showing centerline of Sunwood Drive - West /East through Bldgs B & D showing both property lines, rockery and including the centerline of 62nd Avenue South AES - cross- section of retaining walls (concrete and rocery) to I include footing drainage and granular backfill (per soils report recommendation) with "tie -in" into storm drainage system on civil drawing. ._..o _,- ,NOTE: Some additional smaller section are needed to show relationship of retaining walls /rockeries to habitable structures, walkways, etc. See comments from Public Works on Routing Forms for both Environmental Review and Design Review. 13. Identify appearance of retaining walls and relationship to adjoining properties. rxt.,,,a4A/ 14. Slope analyis of required open space. P. 4 /letter from J. Pace to A. Roberts Design Review application /62nd Avenue South apartments 2 -21 -90 15. Revised landscape plans which include plant sizes and spacing of any ground cover at time of planting. 16. A letter /memo from the Landscape architect indicating: - That the plant material proposed is suitable with respect to soils stabilation. - that they have reviewed the civil plan dated November 13, 1989 and are satisfied that there is sufficient protection of the planting beds from storm water drainage. - That the site plan contains sufficient protection (wheel stops, curbing) to protect planting beds from vehicular traffic. - That the proposed selection and placement of trees contained in the landscape plan will not create future view blockage for either adjoining residents at the top of the hill or the units of the proposed complex. How existing topsoil will be retained and supplemented as necessary to use in planting beds or provisions to provide suitable soils for planting beds. - That the slope for any areas of the required open space to have sod installed is at a (4:1 max. slope) so that mowing can be easily accomplished. 17. ,Security hardware to be: used for exterior doors. We would like to meet with you to review these items. Please give me a call at 433 -1847. Sincerely, Jack Pace Senior Planner Attachment: Copy, PW Dept's comments - Environmental Review Copy, PW Dept's comments - Design Review cc. Michael Aippersbach, Consultant FROM:CITY OF TUKWILA TO: 206524 7341 B 16, 1990 2:16PM P.04 ROUTI C.i FORM CITY OF TIJKWILA DEFAATMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT > } � qui dlrlp.F °`' i�i�iaitl�rrtg Pub Wits 1 i fire 1 11)01104. (... i Parks /Rec ! :-. • FDIC: •'ii - 6 ) PROJECT suwwibp f H�;►k. ADDRESS i;2 mt. Ave, ' >��u�7'`'f ....S n,Lu vi. DATE 1RANSMITTED 2 r .7 - )� I1ES(ONsE r1t,QUE$1IE:t) f3YCcfi1L. 1W1[1t11'r .. i3/kl6 srAr•F COOnDINAIOR M,AttT1= {'.,I' -1t (.) . 'Tv!: DATE IUFSVUNSI r1E(;FIVEU The attaeheii'onvli•onniental checklist was received regarding this piojoct. Nlease ioview Eiid • .. comnmont below io.atjy(S9 the I'fSpnnsihir� official rognidirrc� Ih I1t +e:�lici'.1 ttuldrrniiiaiion. I ha" envitoturtontel review lilo Is available in the Planning Department through the abovo stall. coordinator. Corinnents regarcding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustnient and City Council should be submitted in tiro'cvitrntunl section boiow. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Item #10 - Page 3 - Add: Building permits, utility permits, including grade and fill permits Approvals include: geotechnical /hydrological study; traffic analysis Earth, Item P & G - clarify answers; provide specific description of potential erosions that may occur and specific measures to control erosion. It is not certin that "standard construction" measures will control erosion on this steep hillside. Transportation, d & g Page 16 -- Provide documentation allowing common access onto Sunwood Blvd. Trip generation and distribution for site through the 62 /Southcenter Blvd. and 65 /Southcenter Blvd. hourly signal warrant analysis )(Warrant I and Warrant II) of 62 /Southcenter Blvd. for existing and with Sunwood Phase III volume added. The purpose is to determine signal or other control needs for the increased traffic. Also, include estimated Sunwood pedestrian volume crossing Southcenter Blvd. @ 62nd for bus service or other pedestrian traffic purposes. What control measures are needed for 62 /Southcenter Blvd? Determine vehicle speed or private Sunwood Blvd. approaching FROM:CITY OF TUKWILA • TO: 2065247341 8 16, 1990 2 :15PM P.03 Trip generation and distribution for site through the 62 /Southcenter Blvd. and 65 /Southcenter Blvd. Hourly signal warrant analysis (Warrant I and Warrant II) of 62 /Southcenter Blvd. for existing and with Sunwood Phase III volumes added. The purpose is to determine signal or other control needs for the increased traffic. Also, include estimated Sunwood pedestrian volume crossing Southcenter Blvd. .@ 62nd for bus service or other pedestrian traffic purposes. What control measures are needed for 62 /Southcenter Blvd? Determine vehicle speed or private Sunwood Blvd. approaching new Phase III access. Check sight and determine sight distance to be available with construction (is it adequate for speeds?). Identify measures and design to maintain that sight distance. (There have been continuing Sunwood resident complains about Sunwood Blvd. chuckholes, raveling, etc). Determine street section, traffic index (is the street section between access and 62nd Avenue South adequate for the loads ?). What is needed to provide a Sunwood Blvd. (private road) street adequate to correct any deficiencies and serve the increased traffic without potholing, raveling or other failure? What time period will this serve - 3 years, 10 years? This information needs to be clearly communicated to existing Sunwood residents and in tka ODRA clo.;.u,uonL ruL ciLy orrlciais to recognize the private street (with over 1000 VPD) service life. It is anticipated that existing residents will request the City to "take over" a. substandard street that has failed; this evaluation is needed for that probable request as well as safety to Sunwood motorists and pedestrians traveling on a private street where chuckholes /raveling endanager travel. An annual drainage maintenance program is to be included with the plan, and adopted as part of the plan approval. Any surface water that results in 'enlargement or damage to downhill property and requires City intervention to protect the downhill property will result in costs of the City intervention to be paid to the City. Provide temporary erosion control plan diverting surface drainage, including maintenance schedule and nampower, equipment and materials availability. DRC review requested (. Plan submittal requested j ! Plan a pproved. an check date: '-- (S-90 Comments ptrepare(I by, t; F.ROM:CITY OF TUKWILA TO: tIrY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT to; '° �� Buildiri ' �I Planning Vpub Wks 1 I ;Fire : ( i POlitro "xy''( �•Parks/fl • 2065247341 FEB 16, 1990 2:14PM P.02 ROUTG FORM PERMIT NO.: t3 , -DR PROJECT SW4 vt)00 h 11 ADDRESS (1/34 k 5.61.(1h. � .....4.17(4,11tt/VV( PIVA UA1ETRANSMITTED 2-1.-90 _ _ I�L:;I�C�trStc REQUEST LD BY 2.45 '�U __..,........_. STAFF COOfDINATOn M. ippri :? 1, 14 �) rA {r) DATE' RESPONSE M.:CEIVED Please review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriato comments in the spaco below. Indicate crucial concerns by chocking tho box noxt to thy Iine(s) on which that concern is noted:..': DESIGN REVIEW Typical x- sections of development showing existing and final profiles (from base of slope to center lane of roadway of Sunwood Blvd.) to determine final slopes and appropriate retaining walls /rockeries for development. t'A geotechnical /hydrological analysis is necessary to determine slope /soils stability of the proposal and any requirements for. excavation /structural fill requirements. Provide a preliminary title report. Landscape architect shall provide analysis of plant, materials with respect to soils stabilization. Soils report shall identify borings to identify /quantify rock removal and method of rock removal. Footing drains /swales require additional clarification. A maintenance program for Bwales and storm system shall be provided. Detention: Provide 100 year event /24 hour duration /pre - development conditions to protect downstream sites for life of project. Identify temporary (construction period) and permanent drainage overflow control measures to prevent any erosion, drainage or increased flows. Provide copies of Maintenance Agreements for Sunwood Blvd. and drainage systems for roadway runoff.' Trip generation and distribution for site through the fROM:CITY OF TUKWILA Ali TO: 2065247341 • FEB 16, 1990 2:17PM P.05 new Phase III access. Check sight and determine sight distance to be available with construction (is it adequate for speeds ?). Identify measures and design to maintain that sight distance. (There have been continuing Sunwood resident complaints about Sunwood Blvd. chuckholes, raveling, etc.). Determine street section, traffic index (is the street section between access and 62nd Avenue South adequate for the loads ?). What is needed to provide a Sunwood Blvd. (private road) street adequate to correct any deficiencies and serve the increased traffic without potholing, raveling or other failure? What time period will this serve - 3 years, 10 years? This information needs to be clearly communicated to existing Sunwood residents and in the SEPA document for City officials to recognise the private street (with over 1000 VPD) service life. It is anticipated that existing residents will request the City to "take over" a substandard street that has failed; This evaluation is needed for that probable request as well as safety to Sunwood motorists and pedestrians traveling on a private street where chuckholes /raveling endanger travel. #3 Water, a,4 - Page 6 - Provide Temporary- Erosion Control Plan diverting surface drainage, including maintenance schedule and manpower, equipment and materials availability. Identify temporary (construction period) and permanent drainage overflow control measures to prevent any erosion, drainage or increased flows. Provide copies of maintenance Agreements for Sunwood Blvd. and drainage systems for roadway runoff. An annual drainage maintenance program is to be included with the plan, and adopted as part of the plan approval. Any surface water that results in enlargement or damage to downhill property and requires City intervention to protect the downhill property will result in costs of the City intervention to be paid to the City. 'ate: 7.7..1E -'. Comments prepared by: , FROM:CITY OF TUKWILA TO: CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , Planning .. • PROJECT GI1 1 OF TUKIMIIA —01-1F-ISM40 5a) PIY2K -Tr gi, ali2p1 Pg) ADDRESS S. ItO1 ft 5121:74y./ pewe I; A1E111ANSIA ITT E D 2-7:/o RESPONSE fiEOCJEqTEn BY (41-rtvictarif 7: 7. -.. Is STAFF COORDINATOR 14- A lefte..il3Aal ( 3 . PAGE. DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED .. . . --.4. ... -;,""r• . 1990 2:1BPM thsiVIRONMENBT1AL REVIEW ROUTING FORM EPIC: . . : • : . • • Lib Wks F. I Piro* P.06 . • • • The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project, •,Please*reviefkand..;,i••••-: comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold cletermlnatiOn.;;:Th9.:;•;:::::i9; • environmental ieillow file is available in the Planning bepartrnent through staff cootdinator.*, Comments regarding thiproject you wish carried to the Planning*Qemmissfori:.',. ..• •• • Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment • _•_ • section . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ITEM COMMENT Date:. t) elearnrYtnytto k... CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONIVILENTAL REVIEW RO TING FORM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . EPIC: 3i- 1 89 . . I TO • Building *F" Planning J Pub Wks 1 1 Fire LI Police Li Parks/Red • PROJECT Sumwtop pitis•E IL[ ADDRESS ‘,2. via okk, se-07,,. 4 ativo-u-orK }31k) asayu NJOIPMPLI3A(14 DATE TRANSMITTED. 2— 7 -90 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 2--/6--"70 STAFF COORDINATOR KAIPWRilAal (j 7&E) DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review and comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. The environmental review file is available in the Planning Department through the above staff coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below, COMMENT Date: 2_7/Y=70 Comments prepared by:: 09/14/89 , , FROJ•1 :CITY OF TIJKW I LA TO: CITY OF TUKCWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8uij l Yd. .�7J �'Iannitt Put wic:, 1 1 Fire 2065247341 FEB 16, 1990 2 :16PM ROUTSC,; 1` :ordM EPIC: - PROJECT Su J W L) PN tiE. la" . d4 1 1 ollee• I:: 1 i arksiRec. AoufEss N wet. Ave, .';c,tih E) '.costikoz.k 1:3 tue( cm:Ju t Any ki DATE TRANSMaTEU _ `.2 7...��6._. RESPONSE MOUES I ED BY • .7.15 -1 j3 1 �Lr srArF COORDINATOR M,Atii- rRsi' ;jl (.J • 1'l r) DATE IIESI'VNSr ri(:cr.ivEU • • The Otiaolted'onvironinental checklist was received regardin g this plojeci.. Please ivviavv ilrita :. ,comment below Io.wyis9 MO respnncilile official rognuiiiuj Ma thee:Jlivf'.l duldrinination. 'he • • environmental review file le available in the Planning 1•)eparlrt+onl through the 'above stall. coordinator. Connnents regarding the projecl you wish cnrriod to We Planning Commission, I3oard ut Adjustrnont and City Council ,houhi bo subniittod in MO cu1nn>>unl $ Ktiorr b0 10.W. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Item #10 - Page 3 - Add: Building permits, utility permits, including grade and fill permits Approvals include: geotechnical /hydrological study; traffic analysis 1. Earth, Item P & G - clarify answers; provide specific . description of potential erosions that may occur and specific measures to control erosion. It is not certin that "standard construction" measures will control erosion on this steep hillside. Transportation, d & g Page 16 Provide documentation allowing common access onto Sunwood Blvd. Trip generation and distribution for site through the 62 /Southcenter Blvd. and 65 /Southcenter Blvd. Hourly signal warrant analysis )(Warrant I and Warrant II) of 62 /Southcenter Blvd. for existing and with Sunwood Phase III volume added. The purpose is to determine signal or other control needs for the increased traffic. Also, include estimated Sunwood pedestrian volume crossing Southcenter Blvd. @.62nd for bus service or other pedestrian, traffic purposes. What control measures are needed for 62 /Southcenter Blvd? Determine vehicle speed or private Sunwood Blvd. approaching ;FROM:CITY OF TUKWILA T0: 2065247341 FEB 16, 1990 2 :15PM P.03 • • Trip generation and distribution for site through the 62 /Southcenter Blvd. and 65 /Southcenter Blvd. Hourly signal warrant analysis (Warrant 1 and Warrant II) of 62 /Southcenter Blvd. for existing and with Sunwood Phase III volumes added. The purpose is to determine signal or other control needs for the increased traffic. Also, include estimated Sunwood pedestrian volume crossing. Southcenter Blvd. @ 62nd for bus service or other pedestrian traffic purposes. What control measures are needed for 62 /Southcenter Blvd? crate. Determine vehicle speed ' private Sunwood Blvd. approaching new Phase I11 access. Check sight and determine sight distance . to be available with construction (is it adequate for speeds ?). - Identify measures and design to maintain that sight distance.. (There have been continuing Sunwood resident complains about Sunwood Blvd. chuckholes, raveling, etc). Determine street section, traffic index (is the street section between access and 62nd Avenue South adequate for the loads ?). What is needed . to provide a Sunwood Blvd. (private road) street adequate to correct any deficiencies and serve the increased traffic without potholing, raveling or other failure? What time period will this serve - 3 years, 10 years? This information needs to be clearly communicated to existing Sunwood residents and in tka ODPA cI ..uanc,nL A,j. ciLy ucziclals to recognize the private street (with over 1000 VPD) service life. It is anticipated that existing residents will request the City to "take over" a substandard street that has failed; this evaluation is needed for that probable request as well as safety to Sunwood motorists and pedestrians traveling on a private street where chuckholes /raveling endanager travel. An annual drainage maintenance program is to be included with the plan, and adopted as part of the plan approval. Any surface water that results in enlargement or damage to downhill property and requires City intervention to protect the downhill property will result in costs of the City intervention to be paid to the City. Provide temporary erosion control plan diverting surface drainage, including maintenance schedule and nampower, ? equipment and materials availability. DRC review requested (: 1 Plan submittal requested j ! Plan approved an check date:' f - 9 0 Comments r),rep.ued bye ._FROM:CITY OF TUKWILA ' TO 2065247341 FEB 16. 1990 2 :14PM P.02 ROU')G FORM CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEI.OPMENT I• ,��,; t+^• ^�,y7 •',/ry.: _+..wMw.. awn.... „.:....f...7 .,... •••.. ._.. .. V f «:Building 11:L...j Planning PnOJECT Sufi 1A100 f7 PERMIT NQ.. 63- •r /4 - K • ub Wks .I 1 Firo . Poilc© •; t .1 Parksf,Fjec., ADDRESS & AN, ' 61( _��tit1W ��Z� [ -771Vek DALE TRANSMITTED 2 -1 -`)Cs RESpoPiSE: IlEUuf=S.r Jr_ „, STAF=F COORDINATOR A. /ipret ?jpPl4 (j. mer ) DATE' RESPONSE . Please review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriate comments in the space b©low.l Indicate crucial concerns by chocking the. box next 10 tl., line(s) on which that concern Is noted:. DESIGN REVIEW Typical x- sections of development showing existing and final profiles (from base of slope to center lane of roadway of., Sunwood Blvd.) to determine final slopes and appropriate retaining walls /rockeries for development. A geotechnical /hydrological analysis is necessary to determine slope /soils stability of the proposal and any requirements for excavation /structural fill requirements. Provide a preliminary title report. Landscape architect shall provide analysis of plant materials with respect to soils stabilization. Soils report shall identify borings.to identify /quantity rock removal and method of rock removal. Footing drains /swales require additional clarification. A maintenance program for swales and storm system shall be provided. Detentions Provide 100 year event /24 hour duration /pre- development conditions to protect downstream sites . for life of project. Identify temporary (construction period) and permanent drainage overflow control measures to prevent any erosion, drainage or increased flows. Provide copies of Maintenance Agreements for Sunwood Blvd. and drainage systems for roadway runoff. Trip generation and distribution for site through the **ROM:CITY OF TUKWILA • TO: 2065247341 FEB 16, 1990 2:17PM P.05 new Phase II1 access.' Check sight and determine sight distance to be available with construction (is it adequate for speeds ?). Identify measures and design to maintain that sight distance. (There have been continuing Sunwood resident complaints about Sunwood Blvd. chuckholes, raveling, etc.). Determine street section, traffic index (is the street section between access and 62nd Avenue South adequate, for the loads ?). What is needed to provide a Sunwood Blvd. (private road) street adequate to correct any deficiencies and serve the increased traffic without potholing, raveling or other failure? What time period will this serve - 3 years, 10 years? This information needs to . be clearly communicated to existing Sunwood residents and in the SEPA document for City officials to recognise the private street (with over 1000 VPD) service life. It is anticipated that existing residents will request the City to "take over" a substandard street that has failed; This evaluation is needed for that probable request as well as safety to Sunwood motorists and pedestrians traveling on a private street where chuckholes /raveling endanger travel. #3 Water, a,4 - Page 6 - Provide Temporary Erosion Control Plan diverting surface drainage, including maintenance schedule and manpower, equipment and materials availability. Identify temporary (construction period) and permanent drainage overflow control measures to prevent any erosion, drainage or increased flows. Provide copies of maintenance Agreements for Sunwood Blvd. and drainage systems for roadway runoff. An annual drainage maintenance program is to be included with the plan, and adopted as part of the plan approval. Any surface water that results in enlargement or damage to downhill property and requires City intervention to protect the downhill property will result in costs of the City intervention to be paid to the City. 'ate: 1 S -- g _ Comments prepared by: , CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1.. r.;' . I TO: Li Building fl Planning 1.._J Pub Wks • PROJECT Sumwtop pti-KE ADDRESS A2, Act bacv.e, selt-i-k 4 stiAl uurti, Iu DATE TRANSMITTED 2— 7 -`,6 ' RESPONSE REQUESTED BY COW° L-1-AiPREP-36/V1-1' STAFF COORDINATOR M. ArppspA64-1 (i . '&1E) DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED ENVIRON NTAL REVIEW ROU G FORM EPIC: 34-8, Fire Li Police Li Parks/Rec The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review and comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. The environmental review file is available in the Planning Department through the above staff coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below. ITEM COMMENT 11-0 eavit zlidotaitnrat leziZ46 Date: p2-1-90 Comments prepared by:: 09/14/89 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 • December 13, 1989 Mr.Gary R. Steinvall P.O. Box 2458 Kirkland, WA 98083 -2458 *c OA ' la N N �. 686103U dk PHONE q (206) 433.1800 - Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor RE: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 through #89 -381 Dear Mr. Steinvall: This letter supplements my November 29, 1989 letter to clarify that this application is not now subject to the Sensitive Area Ordinance under consideration by the City. Sincere ;:il, L. Rick Beeler Director cc: Roger Newell • Hunt & Associates (206) 624 -0846 Z205-Seattle Tower '`-'I ird & University Se ttle, Washington 98101 Mr. Ron Eade 5851 South 152nd Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Draft Quit Claim Deeds R.S. Development /Sunwood Dear Mr. Eade: DEC ' 61989 • . De'ceniher 4, 1989 Friday my office received the executed Quit - Claim Deed from Salant Investments to Sunwood. We assume that this represents the requested 'formal withdrawal of Mr. Salant's earlier claim of encroachment by Sunwood. I have also received and reviewed the draft Quit -Claim Deed from Sunwood to Salant investments, and the map of the Quit -Claim areas which you say was prepared by your engineers (Delta). As a result of my review, I regret that I any unable to confirm to the Sunwood hoard that the Quit -Claim from Salant, nor the proposed Quit -Claim in return from Sunwood fairly represents a settlement of the areas In question. As a result of our phone conversations to date, I assumed that we are in agreement on the following status of the survey lines: 1) Mr. Salant agrees that the survey by Triad Associates for Sunwood Is the accurate survey, as a description of the true location of the common boundary (legally described as "the west boundary of Interurban Addition "). 2) The Triad resurvey dated August 2, 1988 picked up Delta's survey monument at the Southwest corner of the Salant parcel (L.S. # 18103), and the Leonard Schroeter monument at the Northeast corner (L.S. #8808), which Delta used. Triad noted the distances of those monuments from the line which they surveyed as being 3.25'(SE) and 2.04'(NE). 3) Delta's survey differed from Triad's on the conrnoh line by about 1.5 degrees, approximately twice the angle which would account for the distance discrepancies; there is therefore an implication of a difference in reference hearings. 4) You stated today that, to your knowledge, Delta drafted the Quit -Claim neap and legal descriptions from Triad's data. I attempted In my review to justify the proposed description of the mutually- recognized true boundary, hut was unable to do so, for the following reasons: a) The discrepancy at the Southeast corner is shown on the documents as 3.03', instead of 3.25'; this is unsubstantiated, Salant - Quit -Claim December 4, 1989 - Page 2 or is simply an error. The error should be corrected or documentation submitted for our review. b) You propose to describe the west boundary of Interurban Addition as bearing North 01 deg. 18 min. 48 sec. Past; no basis Is cited for this. The Triad survey included a record of the basis of bearings, substantiating the west boundary as hearing North 02 deg. 8 min. 21 sec. East. If you must draft a document with SCIrroeter's survey as a basis, in order to file a new Boundary Line Adjustment with the City, then the basis of the hearing should be stated to avoid setting up potential future problems. It is up to Delta to reconcile Triad's line with your lot line. Sunwood's Board cannot "Quit Claim" to some line they never claimed, and which is not substantiated otherwise as being the line referenced in their Titles. If the Sunwood Board, as distinct from all individual owners signing individually, can quit -claim anything, it would he all property lying westerly of the line described by Triad. c) With no resurvey, 1 assumed that the change in angle was calculated from Triad's surveyed discrepancies for the corner monuments. However, using a trigonometric calculator l could not verify this: the angles cited do not seem to substantiate the line distances shown, or vice- versa, using either Triad's or Delta's distances. I suggest that Delta submit a revised, signed drawing with supporting calculations for the change In angle, consistent with whichever distances they feel are accurate. 1 am enclosing my "non - engineer's worksheet" showing niy attempts to reconcile the documents with the known quantities. Delta can use that as a guide to how to demonstrate which Is correct. Yours very truly, John W. Hunt cc: Sunwood Board City of Tukwila Davis, Wright & Jones Enclosure THE GRANTOR( ) of County of KING , Washington, for and in consideration of QUIT -CLAIM DEED (Statutory Form) SALANT INVESTMENTS, a limited partnership , City of TUKWILA convey_ and quit claim_ to SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM. ASSOCIATION of in the City of TUKWILA , County of KING State of WASHINGTON all interest in the following described Real Estate: THAT PORTION OF LOT • 2 OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT NO 86- 21 —BLA, AS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 86060303'48; ALSO KNOWN AS "HEATHERWO.OD ", . DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT- THE. SOUTHW ST CORNER OF -SAID •LOT 2; - THENCE S 89 °49'53" E, 3.0.69 feet TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING S.89°49'53" E, 3.03 feet TO THE-SOUTHEAST—CORNER OF` SAID LOT 2; THENCE. Nv 00 °37'54" E, 2544.48 feet; THENCE• S 01 °18'48" W, 254.52• feet TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING • 385.29 SQ. FT. situated in the County of KING , State of Washington. Dated this 11-1-- day of N0Vf--.MBE 19 tS ` STATE OF WAS INGTON, County off //.10 do hereby certify that on this //J_ day ofC 1 appeared before me /� -�//� U GC_/1 -� to me known to be the i'd^ividual_ described in and wlYo• executed the within instrument and acknowledged that / LI— signed the same as and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. GIB F,N UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this '7 day of 19 7 / ss. (Individual Acknowledgment) , Notary Pt lic in and or the State of Washington, �/� , 19 81'personally free and voluntary act My appointment ex Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at �� = Washington, residing in said County. Quit -Claim Deed (Statutory Form) © Washington Legal Blank Co., Bellevue, WA Form No. 289 6/84 MATERIAL MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER. • , QUIT CLAIM Al 87° 20' CO'i6 ,o,a62 , Accolzr, G wlc L-r4 HEATHERWOOD. c4 • (� tiff N 4 pu/ r CL 4/N p / 1/\ /NESSrNEZwanD' (385.20 sq. -) i ` ' 4 m It o Al �°49's3° W. • ca J/T cL A/M F/ So oov /73.93 54. FY) P2oPERTY Li"i ,Qcco,2b /,J IA/ 77?!Ab 5U2vG -y SUNWOOD CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 29, 1989 Mr.Gary R. Steinvall P.O. Box 2458 Kirkland, WA 98083 -2458 PHONE 11 (206) 433 -1800 RE; Building Permit Applications #89 -362 through #89 -381 Dear Mr. Steinvall: Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor This letter is to confirm that the above applications are complete and vested under the 1988 Uniform Building Code, 1982 Zoning Code, as amended, 1977 Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, and Tukwila Municipal Code, Chapter 2.1.04, environmental review regulations. Let me repeat that the Board of Architecture Review and environmental review process will very likely cause revisions to the submitted site plan and design of the buildings. Therefore, we will not begin the Uniform Building Code review until the Board and environmental reviews are completed. Please contact Jack Pace, 433 -1847, to discuss the completeness of the application for Board of Architecture Review approval. Sincer . Rick Beeler Director cc: Roger Newell 11/20/89 11:14 'a' 206 827 7258 STEIN'' - . CONST. 02 • • Si EINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. PJ CC)NTfACTCrI November 20, 1989 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTN: L.R. Beeler RE: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 thru #89 -381 Dear Mr. Beeler: (206) 822 -6440 In response to your letter dated November 17, 1989, as you requested please be advised that on that date, we submitted two (2) copies of the complete soils report, stamped by a Washington State Licensed Soils Engineer. This submittal was acknowledged by a letter dated November 17, 1989, by Becky L. Davis (copy attached). It is my understanding that the items to be submitted under the above referenced building permit application are complete. In view of this, I request that you please forward a letter to thic office confirming your acceptance of this application and that our rights, and interests in this application have been vested. In addition, on November 17, 1989, we submitted all required documents for the Board of Architectural Review application. Thank you in advance, for your interest in this matter and your response to my request. Please contact me at 822 -6440 should you have questions. Sincerely, STEINVALL CONSTRUCTION CO. Gary R. Steinvall President GRS /kkh cc: Gary Ruff, Karr Tuttle Campbell Bill Jeude Warren Ballard Roger Newell, AIA File B11 -21 PU. BOX 24.'-,13 • K((-OKI AND, WASHINGTON (,-)8083•24SBv' • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Steinvall FROM: Steve Cary DATE: November 20, 1989 SUBJECT: 62nd Avenue South Project Friday P.M. all items for a complete application for the above referenced building permit were received by Becky Davis, Permit Coordinator, City of Tukwila (letter attached). In addition, Al Roberts from Roger Newell's office and myself met with Jack Pace with the Board of Architectural Review and went through the package we submitted to his section. He stated that all items for this package were complete and accepted. He also stated that his department would not be able to have this processed and ready to present to the Board until their regularly scheduled meeting on the last Thursday in February. Warren Ballard will have the label requirement resolved Monday and this will not impede any progress or acceptance of the application. Al Roberts is forwarding all copies of submittals to this office. Please advise of any additional copies we need for our files and I will obtain same. J CITY OF TUKWILA 62005u(/TNCEI.TERHouLEvARn, rllhlt11.t. ItASlIIN( ;70.V9,YI8s November 17, 1989 Steinvall Construction PO Box 2458 Kirkland, WA 98083 Attn: Gary Steinvall Plll)NE # (2I 6.. 4 :ia lmk Cary L. Vanl,hurn, Mayo, Re: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 thru #89 -381 Sunwood Phase III Dear Mr. Steinvall: This letter is to acknowledge that this afternoon the City received two (2) copies of the soils report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences Inc. to be included in the building permit application submittal for this project. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 433 -1851. Sincerely, Becky L. Davis Permit Coordinator cc: Rick Beeler, Director Duane Griffin, Building Official Jack Pace, Senior Planner Roger Newell Architect CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 17, 1989 PHONE N (206) 433- 1800 Gary L. l'anDnsen..1/ury Steinvall Construction Co. P.O. Box 2458 Kirkland, WA 98083 Attn: Gary Steinvall Re: Building Permit Applications #89 -362 thru #89 -381 (Sunwood Phase I Dear Mr. Steinvall: II) The building permit applications submitted on November 13, 1989, were incomplete due to the lack of two (2) copies of the complete soils report, stamped by a Washington State Licensed soils engineer. This information is necessary to review the building permit. The report must be submitted by 5 :00 p.m., November 20, 1989. I discussed the Board of Architectural Review application couple of weeks ago. The building ith you a the Board approves the project. Plea e�becawarre thatsthedBoardlmafty r likely require changes to the site plan, building locations and building design. This application must be submitted as soon as possible. g If you should have any questions on the building Duane Griffin, Building Official (433 -1849 Questions ptions a aboutcth B oacall ) of Architectural Review should be directed to Jack Pace,Senior Planner (433 - 1849). Sincerely, g. leak ce-Law L. R. Beeler Planning Director cc: Roger Newell Architect Stephen C. Cary, Steinvall Construction Co. Duane Griffen, Building Official Jack Pace, Senior Planner Becky Davis, Permit Coordinator Citizens Service Corporation NOV • 20 1989 PLAN; iNG i:)r�T• November 17, 1989 Mr. L. Rick Beeler, Director City of Tukwila Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, /SA 98188 Re: "62nd Avenue South Apartments" / "Sunwood Fhase III" Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for advising us of the application filed for building permits on the old "Sunwood Phase III" property, adjacent to our existing Sunwood Condominium.. We are submitting this letter as a formal request that you advise the Sunwood Homeowners' Associa- tion, Board of Directors, at 15255 Sunwood Boulevard, of any proposed hearing or other action regarding this application. We especially request that we be advised of any proposed SEPA Threshold Determination, or of any proposed determination that any previous environmental document would be accepted as fulfilling all or part of SEPA requirements. We have been advised that, under Tukwila Municipal Code Section 21.04.210(b)(5), you as the Responsible Official may determine that public notice may be required in any particular case. We ask that you do so in this case. We also ask that a copy of such notice be sent to our land use consultants, Hunt & Associates, 2205 Seattle Tower, 1218 3rd Avenue, Seattle 98101. There are a number of potentially significant environmental concerns which have not been considered in previous checklists, due to changed circumstances outside the project as well as changes in the project itself. We would like to review the complete submittal and comment, if necessary, on the nature and significance of these changes which must be taken into account in the final threshold determination. We appreciate your continued help towards appropriate and attractive development of our neighborhood. If you wish to discuss any of these matters further with us, please call me during the day at 393 -8398, or Mr. John Hunt at 624 -0846. cc: Hunt & Associates Ryan Thrower, Director Sunwood Condominium Homeowners' Association SillUk)OOJ t& Vb --t U K(A) ic, i'J q 8l 8m • ATTActim-tfor ./Pa STORM WATER ANALYSIS FOR 62nd AVENUE APARTMENTS TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR: Southcenter Associates 911 -5th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 PREPARED BY. D.R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 10602 N.E. 38tH PLACE. SUITE 101 • KIRKLAND. WA 98033 • (206) 827.3063 November 13, 1989 D.R. STRONG • CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827-3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB (2-6g, I 1 ' OF a� d'II► DATE IIIIj arT �T DATE r I /l ^ F,"ei S W oOD ,1.11. • I:Nrr2-0 ()OCT IQ'J EXiSf iJ 57 04144 A-crEr2.1tpc S TO(M 12.0rItti CorJcc-pr PNasc ILE AR.t- G N re PA-Ase. IZuriorr. Coarricte-AiTs • EXIST IN A b arroN1 Cac.c (>L.P -Tiom P o po sc t , D tn, t- (-Apo1J ColJveyPrNcE cA.Lcuc k- -1orJ6 PPE )Jmix Ex►+s err' v1 cioiry To i4' ST21.4 bE -Fmrom es..;C✓L, poNs Fog P.LAeL R.570 ! smWam`'.. Com Poit JWM S) Srz z i b E'i" e i `'l o.J (C t-G v G A fiTTTTo►.iS FOR. Su t, , CO N DO;t410 I J!v/3 errio ... SoNWava'. S46 AT: ..PL D.R. STRONG. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB 3 OF c2 p2 DATE I I l 1 M ��'F DATE '' i 3 /Cj S tI N t~)vvp D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 •( JOB 8q- SHEET NO. _ I OF a A +� CALCULATED BY 4 DATE CHECKED BY SCALE 7) , µ DATE Sure woop 1D' D.R. STRONG • 'CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. • 5 JOB OF CALCULATED BY DATE //�� CHECKED BY lj(t DATE SCALE 5 UN w oot • eee-4-ra--4-' &C-(--3 dc.(41,- 44- D.R. STRONG 'CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827.3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB 02 i / OF a A DATE I( (1'S O I 05h( DATE "/ SONwoo0 D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 • JOB Cl 1 -�O6•) SHEET NO. I OF a (�� CALCULATED BY DATE I I 1 t OI CHECKED BY M D�ATT.E�. /(/ %1111 ;j [ SCALE SUrI WAa� J.1.1, Rai SCil�C..Ci •75+ !oQ * I•17.l 0.0G, A4: D.R. STRONG 'CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB OF DATE DATE 4' t4-Aa,G aIC 0N1)QA1ELopOD : M0S--_y pevez 00gt• A USE ' ' d;. 8'S P P, ►+E p con to M i AMML,S try IVA ►lc-o) Kell% 57q/71 CX01613" Gi. LAN DScro p (4n. USE ;C °O,ZS 4 14 A; =. ,53+ .,1.5-4 15.7:. :.L -S5 4-c 1MP env togs .A -*.s* C ` 0.q 20-12.e4 +141-K1 P +- tZo c.r 11ge A S > s'=, , C : oz_ To dA,14L4 /114) 3.05 Less IMoat. 2.04o A. ' Egg 0.o� + .2s.0..e /,os • D.R. STRONG • CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827-3063 It JOB SHEET NO. / OF 01,2 CALCULATED BY DATE I t /I O ('�e`I CHECKED BY b;;;14 DATE ti] / 1ji 1 SCALE SvNw000TLC' 0�tCnlnl PA-2 T° D ;CS4-001,011/4-poo S) ; P1 R-�lA 'a i � 1).(214%/4 p rt E ir) ; V s e' r°' U`, 21c,I n1 Ai_ ' l� ern °J i { SEA C 13 1 r � ; G STD 2M ‘beQMu!e,6.cA- I,6uc.p. -x104 i R.1AD R- v•. 0/7 0 -70 (0v C A- Pscsair To PNasa i PIS PL-!kE N RME... Cty- At,!Gtt .. P sVNh�00 D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 •6 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY JOB OF DATE CHECKED BY b.:114 DATE S u,J WOOD SCALE A c-ru A-t- S V nt w coo PN-AASG A cc. ( f PL,J7t Fog 1 N P A,G 31E — ► -LL p(L,fk t N I J4 DcT 1o.J r+te.+ c.xp es p y - ar,IM�-1 -E�t I8-•7 t q,q t 15,4; t t9.9 9%' _ 63,1 (Di./ :Sv X `,/ 0c r /%,<; 57) Sp sr :1/43.90o ` 3.90o s /.r..41,35 (La A-0 , 431 x 4 Z _ iq 4 SS se: 5I0) 244 = 134 400 109 Jr Z2— = 2135% .YZX.22 yr3 _ ILE:3 ys'°I Li3210 4)ci75 230)1 2 , _ : I Y, 400 4.5 1* sF 192, .51'1 s r/143 900 57 /Ae- 5.75..... uStN4 fnosT conisc: v,►?"iVE 0Ziatt∎J t- C O.BS roQ 0. � C •A 0 .Z5 -, 5,-74- . Fs2 C' A ACV Amu Tb D.R. STRONG • CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827-3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY JOB OF DATE CHECKED BY 1):-...)14- DATE SCALE St)h) WOO D J-LL rva SJw° p► g C. A = I,, 7.3 ngc]z. To NMEIr - D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 • KIRKLAND, WA 98033 • (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. 1.2 CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB OF DATE D �f DATE 0;41.4 k r _I_ .1?2ovIi)Eta re4 M A� •1j1LTs ?AG' 912":� 8' _Jo„ 34' - (2 ca'` a /177.9. n Q7: • OLdMC ,? o, /39.0 7,5' .r /!5 7o7-• o74e_Gb 104... /11,8.38 ep it mist 11.4..c c_ s !NI o 2.E.- poa.T D.R. STRONG • CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827-3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB al- A( 00g. 1 OF a.2 itioisi >-,14 DATE /I/3/154r U/J OOD DATE I • • I, 1 ! Ei(IsTiNc, !• . . , . , 1 ' • 1 2 ECTOrJ 0 F-.:., Dc--71171TIot.1 q01....ume-7 ()4S4061- A+ N:EIAJ, I 1 -1 V. . , NEGGe411-141"L'I I :C 'A ro (1. Da7i-rioN • %-0 VPvIDt;II VT .r 1 21 170 65, eg& f!,-A) 67-40?-: 19 oiti?,(0,1A44 I( I /lo .1414 c-rs - A-apoue 7.(03 .Pa. P'.11-cor 6el-O' 'Doi :;e1 I ) 3 Z aF - p+is keNtar sew °rte.*: socrTs . 10-14-1/7 17457 71 k Ai IN . . SlaJ41-F Osttr ) 2'5 ' g 7/4 V. Atto 181 ;= 15-4(?CF ,s , • • V7- r Vs x c /.5-qf v.7 63 //, .27? Cr . CiA .7,6,1 1 D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB OF DATE PL DATE Svnlwax) 1I� rt uSrt 71 :c 2: UTIL,t -C G ('STIy4 f' 'uTyi �(Z- tC:�i1L T�GStGrJ (?CYt. P1IL c.ae i P P GvN6tNtINiVM;S 'S'l'b4M �... e-rtpqrior, C O` 10 3 i'2wt S. j79 •V(teaoieeb .II, CF Pkou, oa• = u, 7( 3g° r�s PJ1)ILr P►+Ase . .pestc.r%). VA • 01(.53f. ?5' VR6c4 ■Mgo { 4. PA- r . ©a«T... . 1‘.?3 .ps(.3r: -RS gJitr :. 0.4 2- PerA5Ellr, - p Lo o osec 7,63 ( < 71- ti) ott-tai JIr ., teSicsJ).. Is L . VPou,b biz-1ods palrA*e s CoefLe 1113 tit4t~iti?4tr IN Twin *.-00,42-T! bP6 -ro eg.c>Q C fns iog.,, „0,%.c Ae516rJ T2' ! D.R. STRONG • 'CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB OF DATE DATE SO a WOO b DS' a68-.1 a.2 671 7 n./ 644C0614-7/0/1./5 To/L. ,4/1e*s /a r Zec LSrSe. e. Dt� Mq -J; .� /a,✓ o� 67. xis7„/,i, f Low pit f /Mp t- . /,A E /0 Aim/. azv'd7 /6-; / . ate, p ✓� 1.8 3 /4 /N. /,,� V' 6 Lsrr. 7 / 75" J lenrad/S447/-uf /D . r geWsrA1410 7_ ,.l ►�*-1,4x (1.77 +0.06) . 33 cf5 J E LM��J��iO� Or tee y cllei D ; bereidl10 aLdME D.R. STRONG • CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. %• 6. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE 0;14. JOB U • v�c�a • 1 OF DATE DATE SVthhoo I7T 357 477 0 ,42q. v.S//v41 c S y4. Sp4E4444e mppf .:S■N4cr 0e fraee o v 21-1 _ , S • T�zf 4o Qo' T - 2-5 7%4R1 _ 6159-25 = 60.9 34aar 404f_ 4/0x.29 rgS — 764. l 7/e 3 cf /MAew., sCA 17R.3y,z.q,r177) _ o9:9 cF xequ e = 12019: cf lic jza�-' VUe -u.(4 /',e0 CO 1a.1/ 4/ - 5-5Iq$ Arc' c ;159 deif. j- 3G A Pc e 7.1 efAf 9 ofd e C iz• v D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 JOB 'J , 0262Y. • I SHEET NO. OF Ca a2�f (1� CALCULATED BY DATE I I jI✓IpQ{,1 CHECKED BY bJ 0+ DATE 1`/r/1/111" l SCALE S On%W OC)Q 00/ 06 09 01 0.9 OS OF 0? O/ it! IL 1111.* 1970/ ice'' /.ire AS= ■Mp■■■■■M.M.■ ■M ■HNN ■.■YO.■. i —� '!ago - _ - . . ■■ aan�Na.Z�-=--- - -r iw sTTamsr� ■.■q.M.■H.NM .M OM..■ � mp --- =•"1i RETENTION /DETEt. _ _.,N BASIN EQUATIONS AREA 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM 25 YEAR DESIGN STORM TYPE OF OUTLET PEAK /STORAGE TIME (MINUTES) MAXIMUM STO�jAG€ VOLUME (FT3 /AC) PEAK STORAGE TIME (MINUTES) MAXIMUM ST FFL�AG VOLUME (FTJ /AC RENTON— ORIFICE -WITH HEAD 2820 T 3420 T T = -25 +� T = -25+ 2138 o T +25 - 40 Q0T QG T +25 - 40 Q0T SEATTLE CONSTANT FLOW vs = 2820 T 60 Q T Y _ 3420 T 1r 1175 T =_25+ 1425 . *� T = -25+ Qo T +25 0 60 Q0T T +25 0 TACOMA ORIFICE WITH HEAD vs = 3000 T 40 Q0T vs 3510 T 40 1Qo5 T -25 +y T = -254 Qo4 7 25 T +25 QoT CONSTANT FLOW vs = 3000 T vs = 3510 T T._25+-11 1250 1463 - 60 Q0T T 25 T = -25 +� 4 o _ 60 Q T +25 Q0T NORTH BEND ORIFICE WITH HEAD vs - 3607T 40 QOT vs 4T+25 329 2255 6 T =. T=_254 -Q -25 +I2 0 T+25T - 40 Q0T CONSTANT FLOW vs = 3607T 60 vs = 4329 T ,(1503 1804 7=-25+11-7,;-- T = -25+ Qo T +25 Q0T T +25 60 QoT SNOQUALMIE PASS ORIFICE WITH HEAD 6522 vs = 8T 4076 T = -25 +1 Qo 5013 T=-25 +j T +25T 40 Q0T Q0 +25T -'40 Q0T CONSTANT FLOW vs = 6522 T vs = ,8020 T T�5 60 Q0T T=_2542718 3342 T = -Qo 60 T T +25 Qo -25+ SKYKOMISH ORIFICE WITH HEAD vs 4T645T -40 vs 4920 T 2603 T=-25 +� T= 3Qo5 Qo Q0T -25+ T +25 40 Q °T CONSTANT FLOW vs = 4164 T vs = 4T T= -25 +'� 1-7435 T =_25+ 2Q00 T +25 - 60 QGT +25T 60 Q0T 25 Ye. I LOCATION tINCREMENTAL1RUN -OFFS I i AREA •COEFFIC. i. A I' C IFROM I -TC . ACRES I LC Flit 9ce'{III_ .;t2. tell ex is -21 1 Ceti 0 le 7 AC F AC TIME OF CON- RAINFALL CENTRATION INTENSITY TC RUN -OFF 0 (Y AC I) PIP_ DIA. SLOPE VELOCITY AT DESIGN 0 L FLOW ENGT TIME IN SYSTEM alp ` rFvu- vw� MINUTES INCHES /HR. C F. S INCHES F. P. S. FEET MIN. GRAdN9- INVERT- ,69 .15 5.2. a .(.05 . 78 la !1S .04 ,23 20 .35 5.3,2 A. 63 •941 5 4.0 45 .1? .6l 1.35 CeZ .2I cP ' - 5.L 02:4.5 ,37 g 45 .la 3., ce3 i . 30 .61 .21 . 34, . 57 lam. 3 L.1 a.44 (.37 9 /.0 3.9 /4.0 140 1d .60 .10 .35 35 5,1 u irel5Le.44-i . 39 . b4 8114 • CB'131 . 12. . 0 I�"�t , t,(5 3 tg.-°2I • L (0 . & I I .a7 .2.7 .7 a.44( .GCS 8 /.o 3.7 t3v 51 1.3 5 .02 .35 7.3 a .35 .1(2. 8 /. o 3 •g 30 .13 .57 1 35 ,09 1.10 7.4 a -34 a.57 3L 3.b 15 .07 .15 53 8�6 1 ..ZP . lc, .69 Ce''1b & 15 , 50 , h9 4 . 14 .69 ce$L 4 . *la -- { X13 et at .340 I .h9 5.5 s t8.2 .15 .35 .35 ,I0 . 2.5 .45 .45 ,70 3.` 5-1 5.1 • td. .q 8 7.7 8.5 3o .ale . 34 s•g a•5$ •se L•t� .2.53 I.77 4.4/ -'4 /0.o 11.5 17 as .bG 65.09 I0 .OP .33 .32. .2 •85 52. 7.8 ,• Clog, .32 .(29 ',1 c6114 USWB'CHART • STORM FR .Z't. s.c;.. �.� .57 1.0 3.5` 145 .69 :45 1.35 tt3 3.7 10.5 3-7 13•$ 3 -7 7.4 -1�•5 10 7.? 135 3.7 .+S S. AG a. '.5 .72 '+/.8 6.4 .35 3.o • 8.o S hAi nn O NCY • a5 Yt.• 1 -j`lc, w t t_ o1/4 , �1 A i.Oi . NAME OF PROJECT 'VE CO FICIENT • i CALCULATIONS BY %-eA 4 s/ ss 3.2-7 -r .G9 '-.o6 14G2 At REMARKS: vT. FIELrws I+YD fi,4UL.tCs (" OE wge-re L)seb Fort vo d /t4) Q' - ► �.. .�sr ta'r S FAQ JOB NO rn- 2&x'(DATE II II SHEET _OF _SHEETS 3.g Ac7UA.4. 4) , ; OK - CuwSExvispys- :LOCATION I j • • 1 INCREMENTAL AREA "_ . A • RUN -OFF COEFFIC. C -" AC E AC TIME OF CON -. CENTRATION TC RAINFALL INTENSITY I RUN -OFF 0 (I AC I) PIPE DIA. SLOPE VELOCITY AT DESIGN . 0 NGT FLOW TIME SYSTEM /� QFd1.6.. 0ECR FROM TO • ACRES MINUTES INCHES /HR. C F. S. INCHES TO F. RS. . FEET MIN. 6ROutl9 *YERT- eReto D- INVERT Celt excel 1.7?- .WI %AA. az, .2 •A5 a•1S ►a.._ b.$ IY -..- �S ! .35 )0.5 1a.5 . :. --- _- Y e.D ■ r A- N YD 08.13 . '2 .69 - ._I7. 5.5 c2•6 .4q 1.o 2.5 4o . . 314 .6.3 3.1 Y•tY es Ill ,.1 0 .. -. 4 -.. - . D7 -5.5_. a,c . .18 a -3 .2-7 105 A .95 4.6 - .G7 1 • . e • .I o .69 -.5 a.4 ,18 8 .7 1.5 VP) .IS ).1 3 -2. Yb c8g .[o .61 - .a7 5.5 -z.6. - . ►g ( )'.D 5..2 '3 .11 z•7 ►3 YD. C.& - .10 . .b9 - .o'1 5.5 .6 •ig 8 a•X 2.5 La .13 .2 •v . 5;5 Y -do -. - • .o1 5•5 _7.4 J? L P•0 g•5 10 .19 ..1,-S, " 401 1 {. • I • , • USW.B.CfWRT STORM F REOUENCY'aZ7 :. _.. I IIPE COEFFICIENT ^ NO: dN grii°(e S I'M WOO 11 REMARKS: �t,A'S ► _.w uC G t • r6 �:..:- _. TO <<,� < <- vJ F�2 V. , d/1 ��i s fir !� Vr r� To N�� NAME OF PROJECT CALCULATIONS BY - - - JOB NO. &' 24/8'8ATE II' 13/Si SH_ET_OF_SHEETS ".•••••••••;.• ••••!..,,• ■••••••• •:••• ▪ •• •••• • •••••••••• •••••••.......•••••.•-• ••••• •••.• ,••■■■•••&• 1yuu • ••••••••••■• 1000 600 600 500 400 300 200 1 3 I MI MINNS SUN= 11=:: =MY= 21 MIR= == cal =7.11=Vromusamesars ismsommurapopisgemasolum INIMIIIIIINalles=1111111W111111111 11111111111111111111111111.1111111111161111111[11111 111111111111111111111111111111r/ALain 11111111/11111U11 weir flow. 0.9.i39 Drti3/2 • • ; 1111111111107471.11111MMIMI IMMINNE4rAillainininUM Legend Orlflce flow. Q03.752.14: 1111111MMIWOOMMINIIIIIIIII ' , ! • • • • . : . • • t• • I i 1 ! i 11 '!1! VhvASIIMIIIIIIIIIIIII H:,...... 11MEMILEMIEUMMMOT . :j:.:11§0.1M111111 ----,--- -,÷.....E1111111111111111NAN •-jillinip •._____, • ___,_ IMEMENFM•MOW4"...1 NIMISIMM =====.14•7■••:.......................= .....mmi swelommilm mu smerpturemer aol.eenA.N. ...............amene am ease .1.....ww■•■•••••••■•enamsommusalisitoweuesemererAemm......■ me.....somos we sie lall BS ■11.111110.1.1. 11111111•111•11 NININ MO 1110/laii2741=1 Millrill01 OIMMINIKIIN ISM Ma: IBM IN 011:, AGOGNIGGSPDGEGOMIGGIONSMIGMISIGW266 =MI. 111111111111•1111116111111111•1111111=FAMM4F0/11111163111•11•11111161M•111111111111.11111111611111 11/1111.1=61111NIMSBENIMigarrigileninalliiiillialillia 1111110111111111111111111111111111111111111WOMAKMAIEWMINIMOU NMI IIII IN II II Ill 11111111111W111111111111111111111111111116VMMOIN111111111111111111111111111MIM illffignummonalugy AprinmsaMMIIMINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 30 111111111111111111111111111111117 AITAIMMIIIIMMIIIIII111111111 MENEENSEMMI : $, :._,.: :. •......... f.gli-g!ffillilliffill MMO§ %P. • :717.-. EIKIBIll1111 al . :-:,Tf...--:: "."------. 7.-1A-74.,4 115111111111 20 //mmmum..::4.11.11111111111111 . 4444- 4.4 1 ... :I. • .111111 firnvillnal:-.4".± i I ' : Ell."1.111226 ifil IS i =111Nom=f iffir 4jMOU=s5wown son= Nam NM 111111:111211171 if /111.1111111 Ill 11.1111rar AligligelliallilaillNiMinalln=i1::::::=21118 .11*7 ArgOArillailligilMainliallargratallinll . EmiguiriFinifilliBlrumura11911111111111111 ' .""""'"'111111111111IMMENUME111111111111 Wir gralli11111111ME;:t 7 NEM1111111ll / difiliffill11111Wfirit 01111111111111 rif AM-111111111111 - ELM urIiiIllIllllll 06 02 ID . 2D 3D 4D 5D GD SD 100 =1..•••==== Riser Inflow rves 1••••••■ Source: set . awassed from mit 01 1164r USDA • -SCS 6.5z.. • • • . •• . • •• • .. • • • ..• • . • ••• • I.* 0(...•:. C..)i;'' “‘ 4 4 .* . . . , : ••1 . 0 III-73 ( -,- CA ii;j.',.1 - :-:•.7? 2_. Dr 177 a i . . . .• . . .....• • • • .......• • .. • .. • - • •-•.*** : : .•:• • • • • • D.R. STRONG • CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. 10602 Northeast 38th Place Suite 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 (206) 827 -3063 SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE JOB OF DATE DATE R S .t•loA.nt.•a a. •In.;/ t wlll.� jfuK.r�l %., ilf� 0_ tt i._41 ongaRat o II /K L has I C El 9 ENTtON I ;..� .•. 41 Fli D . - - TON_ 1 s IF M {I _ J 1,1 JUM01101c- — - - - - - -- C SIAM . A �jM 1 - �13V 1 i ' 1 1 �li1w 8 fA'[R OR �'�� +� � j I --26 I l l 2 IL t LI tai I 1 6 it • ( I jj t rt) — t — — 4) :ff . •ttasl ! • .'/ � •cc1 ' I —1 I Isr 11 1 IBC". a....a a - � u . ►rte lQ G '1 no I 1102.12 0.11 1101N S 1961 EXHIBIT. 'PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUMS STORM DETENTION CALCULATIONS .TUKWILA, WASHINGTON AVEM irdavreata emar ANSE, V7 VBEINIMIZOW Roy E. Lewis, Jr. Job No. 78 -006 March 13, 1979 ENGINEERING SURVEYING Revised May 4, 1979 PLANNING /7/ ✓O /1//�G99 �9b'/ ✓7f/Y re_)" yfi_z 9,Y/4/07_ 9r/ /ls /7 7 1�'//.1 fir% 77//� X07 , 747,07077,0/ .Sl/ // 'O (42/4;;42 010P ( 7f,// M ?0WW t // /le �,w� ✓���i�' /7X /f � 12:71/ Y//1 O //�/ / /�/�/t'1/rO5 �//1 �✓ 1 / ��0 //!O�'� 9.67 77//1' (vozz7��_470 ( /1/r14 .9�,017 /y�-7/rr?c.>— .7,v1 (vim (/if X7�V�1t9 ' 1soW/7y s/ 2 Y5 -M/2V ,s'fMOrs -� /Y7/1g" /7zt & 7 ( / /r //O ,79b' / / /dY0' / ✓r/� //1/�OS' Ofez ,�/G2,w/O pMd /1/077G'//Y , /I/ 977M/ /(7< �c147 // /.,-;e5V' 7,/ /Y/ �'Ob'/•' /d�'O' Y>d7/ ,7c ✓//, , /,67A1 QZ/7 /l/ - >1 ?• 77 //lf ' Z /S ,/O s 11074 jf'J%✓/�/'/Y/,;nR 700%�'O -47.4W4Y 7fii "RY /S�' 79G'///,,,0 Y7 -I 01/7/ /./ ,Y//7 ' -OW .7 -/ O/'//' 0"' 95 ' / -7 ?d /a -///0/)// (.r/� 107' % ?v /7� ,?)%/ 7v %a �f�l 6'/6,/s - S /r, >77/ Y—i O//7747, 7 O /1NY- j' 2),07d iB(e6 .rPL9y DErE, fief edlee/frvs3- 4IiE�Ii /s - s�19 De-76 /ia/61l /D4/ Dim .77/ /45- £/ /77xv - 4 6 S/rt/- 7A/ 10,E.S D`..P* .SE/0 -4Es drt/D 4-- .e.00t/D �'DI/I'- �= D, 25 7 /10E D` e'Orl/ee r/e/17ZDrt/- //U /T ///G e26611./4/(1 T /,4 _ 1, /%i / / /!/1ES /38 Tr C // 3% ) 'i/e - /3'?) 70 = / 77 /iw/-4-5 20(Fr e Z9 ; 14aE = 455/?J Tc'.92�/ /,rives e/.3/4"7" C /D,4 0 ; l�.�al = /,.5 ; Tc = 237 1/vam's 22.E /r C /5 :3: j4?I .As.c. S2'/,l /.vv,Es TOTAL•' Tc = ZZ, 56 /,J /•w/ses /owe /4/TE�tr /7/ C /, /4/I,7 5 = 497 /% do 6)Exi37-bve = c1z,4 = 10, 20)(0, 9717,4/) _ /,1 er,c.s 067 -1 /, / //t//�T/W a "ire//T /O/✓ i/O` ww zfli4 /USE6 _pre CO,✓497d /,/S, meza4' / /4- ,ve,P7, 739M.fE5 - l = -412C /,SD DES Of/,�� /,EVES - D, 7D 47ff ''f'I Ol//'lE•+'E - e, O•6oD So : Q,Q�COk/,1,B1� 4,euow,46 e - QCris7/�JG = . /,D9elf3 .4L'Avsr (39)(a Bs) y` l/• 5-4)(6 ,70) ,4 (0,78)1,0,) &.5/4'4' /D-014 4'Ofd '61/0 .44W1 6,9,z7,0A S T= -25 it ✓ /7� V o, /BS - 7Z, 5-9 /�l/'l' ✓ (ZSZo) (7Zs9) 1 / y : 72,,59 7 2S 1 lo, /BS�7zs9) /.5100 9 l'l,�r,1 1C Vr= I3- 144) /(Z3 &tJ5-) /(,& k 74 74A 7= /2, /70���r, zga- ae,f/V(fr eizcf,aTia/5 40/41//5 - .5-*79 , er?, /z /a✓ v/ « 1‘_zo/ acD //,E 1/D/// /l2 8'- go" .39 =/2'= i L 2261 !l 4' - /4.910.0 0;27 e//.fr. 31/ ,----(.;/e r a7D.C?4,7; TDT/IL /r,e C•r17G'� 415 /4/ r& ,' : / 92597 �a & #'(992-- /.iI)rz 641z 6 '3 (/192- i5) /g /T 44 tof owe- /I9, 9!),r 194 L C MM (/1792- /39,82)8 fz T?,,Ie C,,e/ /e/.S��JIG /aRe- 2/9G4 er/f7: 2/5,39 l'GV 20/D6 a7i 203,58 M✓f. 89609 (),7>; 7W,% D z6%'T /Dif% doL,/ - Pwyr&22 = /2 4.4 e r7.- 2 /7OC6i•Fr. //, 3c 0/g /gCe S/2 /fro 2 / 69 aOaexl 134.'v ‘/.1 //r �l�f�F2DlT/ i�r� r= /9792-/39,iB 6' 74' Q /14 .0170 .04e 12(9, z)1879� a 0979 J ,r Q' a,‘2/21H 4100929) = a55-9/ fT 4737/4/ ..SL" 414 if it i S10NA��'� 1 -18.8/ Ex!-1I@IT STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS for SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUMS - PHASE II and THE SUNWOOD SHORT PLAT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Prepared by: Roy Lewis • Job No. 78 -006 January 26, 1981 ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING 1 • • • .. /10. a7/;f 4'/41A) 6gIZCO / %// / / /� /c ^D6ve/ l �� � Glli 1 . /// /,. V/(/ /GOOD �i*/7 /_ %� G ✓/ 6Z7612-,; / /%/` - /// . ' Gdi /� /lam / %D / ✓% ; or;OA /�/ 77,7- ■ I.. ' lei% .G - ✓/'�� �. 77,7/ // /Y / %/. � '. /'/ zm /•/ ' ' ' / i ,::-.-2,-k...2,-.:::=6 /://‘ ,r-Z/z,;(e;!::S.' . 7-A :7:..:e/7./ ,f/e \7NWM" /10.' ,ZZ"-../x'. AW::,//,Z.Z 7,-4 - 4 /, . i 57,46. ./x*7-;.77a/./_, ,i-777A/14 /1&i.- • .7 %.)6i G` 7/0_ /'1D,e7: 1 i 7,J OD l/T /L /I-7ZD . 1 % ✓6" �� /.1 / /rs>' .� /D-)d6. . /40!%/ /'( • y�� or /� • . 1/ 6//a 217/./l/� /M /Bi 2 0 3 ,E iozz 0=x 7DL D` 729 D M&' 2 7d.t,/ TP 7 i T4 ✓7/O/,% 2/ 7 /I / 7/ /J- 6.‘'4°1• 7 // %-4 /%/%' l/"',/,/1 6/4,1/4 /l/ /7' T/ %%/E,& MI JI46 6i //e T///i /J .CO. 7 / /0/(0 z/e /9/4/4 = (729D idezt0ID. /5,s /DBS /// 7%' laG1'l /o/d /0 fwi77e:. DYe.zz,z/D Fz4e, 77/42 _ X02// >i.U�/7E5 T/ >/6 a4110-9/ ' �D/ ! D� = _,J ' �,� /✓ i/ J,' 5/TY Ioy 7 r ./. D%�%/��i71 _ '� / �� e G 4 /S77,o4 r £ez/1 l/Ofj.S" /�% 4,?& ,5/4/ - /, 3 �'fs .4495 //get � ���1 /�i ! /DS �' ( 1D zd68 /P4(-1 At 4 /°re >s,/&/..� = /Z7 � /�' != :13D £/��l,E ✓E /card - _?� /S /_._...�.: _- . -- - D,B23/ /A/le. 1'6 /4Y.4 D.91///de._ 7 DDS' JOR/DGD Z avOa+rJ I4V/5- �4' , 9 DF • ,CEOU /, Z,6 De_ris7/.uv _ /, 443 a = .Vaev 2,1v/5 O, 552 Cf:S / 1�i,G 25 tr /Dove = 2S t o' 0 - 3/5D /,/,./74(-5 ooze r (ZBZo)(ei,50 = (876,0)(2/6) = zz9g cU <r Ogze. ,4WD ,4444/ , f/6 0, 7Y7/G .6i/4V/7D /J l/OLl/ /.ice .l'.EDI Z?2; GB 'v.°. Z /4/�/- ,44? to :? = �7 X 7 ""/&-: /gy. 4 /�/g6 /- 71g g� ,e2-:.-'2,7//. - ,..' %/. =."2' :-:, ='F -. i ( % _ = / / ::Z J O60/712,1777 7 D, toZ 17 21.37;.-J9) e9,A6,43'' %42,r 4/ /og, eb/ ., . ,.. /2',DF> �,� 4;7•- /7 /4,6,6/-/442 - "7 fey // //./ 74Z . /4 /_ ./T , JZ2 /4/ •c%/✓T /G F�Ua./ ro 7/// /� ' ,7!) %� G ,�,r'/ 7y / ✓� D /�� �� �,� � ,44%/./77. r /Z//.,;-/G ,• / ra- : /47— /r /o 7. • "!::> i • • • UILD1WG PERMIT APPLICATION OF TUKWILA rtment of Community Development - Building Division Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 206) 433 -1849 PLAN CHECK .NUMBER FEES (for staff use only) BUILDING'PERMIT FEE . PLAN.:; CHECK'FEE :. BUILDING.SURCHARGE• ENERGY;SURCHARGE OTHER•... ' ....:.. > .:...'.:.... f:' . SITE ADDRESS 62nd Avenue SW & Sunwood B PROJECT NAME/TENANT 62nd Avenue S Apartments ..., TYPE OF W New Building LJ Addition WORK: 0 Rack Storage O Reroof DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE: One - twelve unit apartment building SUITE # lvd. VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION - $ ASSESSOR ACC U , T # Parcel A: 00 -020p-01 Parcel B: 3 9 00- 020ti -03 U Tenant Improvement (commercial) L J Demolition (building) 0 Remodel (residential) 0 Other: BUILDING USE (office, warehouse, etc.) For rent apartments NATURE OF BUSINESS: Apartment rental WILL THERE BE A CHANGE IN USE? L No LJ Yes IF YES, EXPLAIN: SQUARE FOOTAGE - Building: 11,882 SF Tenant Space: Area of Construction: WILL THERE BE STORAGE OR USE OF FLAMMABLE, COMBUSTIBLE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE BUILDING? (20 No 0 Yes IF YES, EXPLAIN: CONTRACTOR Steinvall Construction Co. 'rvr �'" vrnvcn Citizens Service Corporation PHONE ADDRESS 21195 140th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA m ZIP 98005 CONTRACTOR Steinvall Construction Co. PHONE $22 -6440 ADDRESS P.O. Box 2458, Kirkland, WA ZIP 98083 — WA. ST. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE # STEINCC 131 CQ EXP. DATE 2/11/90 ARCHITECT Roger Newell Architect PHONE 322 -1192 ADDRESS 1102 19th Avenue East, Seattle, WA ZIP 98112 BUILDING OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT .CONTACT PERSON Gary R. Steinvall PHONE (206)822 -6440 ,PPLICATION SUBMITTAL In order to ensure that your application is accepted for plan review, please make sure to fill out the application completely .and 'follow the plan submittal checklist on the reverse side of this form. Handouts are available at the Building counter which provide more detailed information on application and plan submittal requirements. Application and plans must be complete In order to be accepted for plan review. JALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION Valuation for new construction and additions are calculated by the Department of Community Development prior to application submittal. Contact the Permit Coord!natcr at 433 -1851 prior to submitting application. In all cases; a valuation amount should be entered by the applicant. This figure will be reviewed and Is subject to possible revision by the Building Division to comply with current fee schedules. WILDING OWNER / AUTHORIZED AGENT If the applicant is other than the owner, registered architect/engineer, or contractor licensed by the State of Washington, a notarized letter from the property owner authorizing the agent to submit thfs permit application and obtain the permit will be required as part of this submittal. XPIRATION OF PLAN REVIEW Applications for which no permit is Issued within 180 days following the date of application shaft expire by limitations; The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days upon written request by the applicant as defined In Section 304(d) of the Uniform Building Code (current edition). No application shall be extended more than once. If you have any questions about our process or plan submittal requirements, please contact the Department of Community Development Building Division at 433 -1849. 1 DATE APPLICATION ACCEPTED PRINT NAME G R. Steinvall ADDRESS P.O. Box 2458 DATE ((p3 /st PHONE 822 -6440 CITY /ZIP Kirkland, 98083 DATE APPLICATION EXPIRES 5- 13-T) (1'1'61118 I c) g (r) tai;, }I +ri�'`� l' qq rl0 ErV IR�01V4 ITAL tHECKL 1ST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: ..,.)-..Vbr.Ata 2. Name of applicant: . Sarnq__CJENTEt2 A sso , l;(ntr•No. Epic F i Ie No. 3i: _ Fee $100.00 Receipt No. 7;NNAc. dNT 3. Address and phone number of appli ant and contact person: n k-12. ' . � i� '�' • N:i6sL 322 - I152 4. Date checklist prepared: ll� 13 �89 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila . 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 5 w10 * -i-tn e LINE ON PP-03 --r 7.. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 1■10 '8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or. will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. et.mp-4tAm TAA, 0-4 6 t u ST E+As ' P PA-0 Felmo riC, st- — 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. 'Pa0QING 10.. List any government approvals or . permi tc that will he needed for lour proposal, 11. Give brief, complete. description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E. requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. _C -°WSJ <N GAF 72 _Qn Cr APT cot•Ai. t NcUjrat 1_Ca 151 p wb Pc24_, 12 Location of the proposal. Give sufficient.i'nformation for 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 applica- tions related to this checklist. L'2 __SUE S :, nd SU 1J 1N�Q t—VD . _{ TV t< Lt 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? j5 t4L_- -3- 'IQ BE COMPLETED BY APPLI•T B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 410 I valu1iL ion for 11Wi:y Ofliy • 1.. Earth a. General description_of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep. slopes, mountainous, other What is'the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope).? 4D ' 42rs.c>G 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. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, 'type, -and approximate quanti- • ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate .source of fill St-r. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. 'N a ; '[>Gl p. eed 4 (AN -1426‘.-- MAN Ta $0-L use. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? CQ'SX 1&11_121E-___CChetx,e0 41). h.v,il4At list for. _ Agency W.0 Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control cro`iuri, or • other irnp,acts to the earth, if a ny:_.____.____�___..�._ -apt oN • 6nr11.4O&. P(- J 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 emissions. or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. $6. c. Proposed measures.to reduce or control emissions or • other impacts to air, if any: V ERTI $`( (0 245 120 c4- 1(%f 3. Water Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal. streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and .provid• names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. rlu • III Evaluation For llgriicy 1I e_ Only 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 uE • '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. lAoZ APpy , _ 4.) Will the proposal require • surface water withdrawals or diversions ?' Give general, description, purpose, . and approximate quan- tities, if known. '�lo 5) Does the proposal lie within • a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. o 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. INS.p Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. • Iets 2)• Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following. chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals. or humans -the system(s) are expected to serve. 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. e< t- TIW. To�2t�n — e- STi6Ns' iv -- Ttts' "Law 2A-n QN�F_�A�.1b4e10 s-rof l ST N 1 FLct ZTtc_naN aL . g- ATE- _F,.cL(C'Tt Evaluation for Agency Use Only. • All - Evaluat :ion .for Ailoru ;y U,o) Qn ly 2) Could waste materials .enter ground or surface waters? If so, gen rally describe._ ^_ 1,44 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: • sT -4t i0 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other, evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or . grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered ?d., _KE. tl;S_� V6LtArrEF� � c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. 1\16`t -N ' 411 • 411 Ev:aluation fOr " A(Wity Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on .the site if Jiktuasso.) A 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: _birds: hawk, beron, eagle, songbirds, other: PiA--ct-Je FirgagAm mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: 'N'eA■)E - NqcE fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. tjell.)e c. Is the site part of- a migration route? If so, .14a0 d. Proposed Measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:siti____Ater_u_c_pa_LE E va1u.a, 1: ion for - Agency Use Only • 6. Energy'and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor') will be used to meet the completed. project's energy needs? Describe whether. it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.• b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? .If so, generally describe. 'No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: -11- e. aEaW(020 _ GQD4✓ $Y C41 bc2 'COY. al L 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion', spill; or hazardous was'.te, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1io :1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- . mental health hazards, if any:. • b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for •example: traffic, •equipment, operation, other)?__Am —1QAMpsc. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a .short- term or a. long-term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. (OW' W•16VNE.' atI1W-IT "TeZtAt -213 purt 0 .!.o-z.) pwyk 3) Proposed measures to reduce •or control noise impacts, if any:_____t_tN,le_ .8. Land and. Shoreline Use • a. What is- the current use of the site andadjacent Properties? _SIWJetalT_ cO IAJONA; A*P17. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, • describe. • NeD c. Describe any structures on the site. Vi-We Evaluation foi- Agency Use Only • Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the s i te? 1.6 kg APA02-T telEUTS f What is the c rrent comprehensive plan designation g. of the site? . 1114■4 .4 7—•••••■-• • I 1 If applicable, what is •the current shoreline master • program designation of the site? Nrrr___AA,eutcAst_E h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? -7.i.luvl‘'{-3 K.2„521Q..e.QpNix: a*MSL. 1. ?)6 41.1aDME.._ SLT • - j. .Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 1•,)dliNg k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement , impacts, if any: k....)01- 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing .and projected land uses and plans, if any: 1)LoWS .S0Q>N1111TC)'--ri • 6r1-4-r -ref! Ev;linAtion for; • Agency Ot;e Only • • 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing ?_ tLN tT5 �_..M \DYJIJ�.__:IN?scM_�_� b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. Nvo NL c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 1 6-r Pu c 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? • 1a aW - cA 2�- /.yc -- b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? tq6N1.6 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Kj-4- /PaLdSLAE Lvnlual: ititi Agency Use Only • 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light .or glare will the proposal. produce? What time of day would it mainly occur ?• l•U(oftT l2Dt� . _ .�1F:1ti1.__ ICJ.roS��. A.. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 'N o c. What existing off -site. sources of light or glare ma.y affect your proposal ?� d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any,:_- X41 12. Recreation . a. What designed and - informal recreational oppor -• tunities are in the immediate vicinity? • (I'r'It err rsr Pt tea, L b. Would the proposed project displace lny existing recreational uses? If so, describe. kjcl c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Ev11W11: h)il ('Or Agency Use Only • 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed 6n, or pro - posed .for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe:Z1�.? • • Evaluat:ion• for • Agency Use Only b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any : ��(�P1Pl�c aBt 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing . street system. Show on site plans, if any. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? '\\--e2 — AAA/iu c. How•many parking spaces would the completed project have ? - How many would the project eliminate? • •. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads br streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate.whether public or private). '4-.) e. Will the project. use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air.transportation? If so, generally describe.j f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would'occur. 77 — 30 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if 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. .N Alm Q ,apY b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. s. • 16. Utilities • a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service', telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. 4.ib4ARA.AE b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate• vicinity which might be needed. C. Signature The above answers my knowledge. I relying on them t Signature: Date Submitted: are true and complete to the best of understand that the lead agency is make its decision. /13 l23_9_ PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. Evaluation for Agonty U1sA Only . / //Y.(1,1! /3107 /NV /N) Al? 83 /NV. (S.) /32.82 /NV. (W.) /32.98 /NV. (E.) /32 90 /54.32(cacc.) /.59. t /(L cent) 2r acid cONc. CURB r 6-1/7TER (TIP /CAL FIGURE 2 CITY OF TUKWILA ROADWAY SPECIFICATION 23' /5. RANT //,G' 5TR /P 2" C0/0/31. DE /TH C7. 8 " 4SPH4 /T CONC. /"4 "4.1/N. caw/T. DEP/N CR. Coe/R51 t'z ".H /N. C041PT DEP1H CR. SURE. &75E COU,PSE ROAD SECT /ON A - NO SCALE " 4 =6" • I I r.J L1 r -� vEP -1 FF =177.0 I i J ..._/110. • 180 160 v EP -2 ; • 1.J-1-.1 I 1 t 1 Building "A" FF =153.9 L - -Z r - - --r _—Z .r-- t---- 1_r - -� • FIGURE 1 � SITE AND ALORATION PLAN 62nd AVENUE S. APARTMENTS rEP 180 -r—'-- -I r"---, J- 7 -I nr-, EP -90 ; _ ; oEP -11 i' r - -u ©EP- 7 - - --' Ll ` 1- Proposed Buil FFa 1644.7 F // Building • 150 r -z1 S rr'? vEP -4 \ Building "B" 1 FF =134.4 1 f---- r- -t_r--t Proposed Building o EP -3 oEP -13 140 170 f_= aEP -8 Building "E" 1 FF =155.9 r L_ oEP -5 J Proposed Building P -14 —1 r-1 1 I J 1 z, - -`_; - -, __ 1 -,40 5 Building „p„ p EP -6 r/ 1 L - -- L- -I 1, FF =133.2 L - -Z� - - - -J-- 1- 1 -z- tr /- oEP -15 11 L Building "C" FF =133.7 Note: Finished floor elevations provided by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers from a map entitled Road and Storm Drainage Plan, Sheet 2 of 5, dated 13 November, 1989. r � ' I Property Line EXPLANATION • 0 EP-1 Exploration Pit Approximate Location 0 30 Scale in Feet 60 NOVEMBER 1989 PROJECT NO. 8911 -04G SOCIATEC EARTH SCIENCES, INC 903 • 5th Avenue, Kirkland, Washington 98033 vEP -1 X70 180 FIGURE 1: SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN 62nd AVENUE S. APARTMENTS rr ti.i r-, 3 rrz r 4EP -7 -- }-+ Proposed Building "F" i% 180 170 Building • v EP -2'� 160 � I I L- -'EP -8 ti 4 Building "E" 0 i -- - - %i ; •- Ll Building "A" I r --- s--ti._r-L_t f__J 150 L -L _r -- r- -ti. .r- L--- -r -J� r-J- I r L 1 --r - -1 rr- - -J L_--4 vEP -4 \Building, "B" r ti L - --t r Proposed Building o EP -3 1"?• 140 Proposed Building vEP- -- L - - -J Y ti "D" [A EP-6 ?� Building "C" ti _r - -i .r t- - Lr -J 1 Property Line EXPLANATION EP-1 Exploration Pit Approximate Location Exploration Boring Approximate) Location SEB -1 N • • c N 0 30 60 • Scale in Feet APRIL 1990 PROJECT NO. 8911 -04G ASSDCIATE Z.A E EARTH SCIENCES, INC 903 • 5th Avenue, Kirkland, Washington 9803: • r_—, i I r-J L1 ti ,__I r --) vEP -1 1 FF =177.0 1 I i J L__J 180 • FIGURE 1 r, vEP -11 EP r �__j pEP -7 -- - ti 4EP -10 180 Proposed Building FF=164.7 644.7 F // Building - � - J' -'L I I L ,EP -8 ti vEP -2----- 160 i Building "A" I'-` -- I, FF =153.9 N r I-__1 = _s--t- r--t - - - -L j..- -J ti L - --L 1-- --- r-- t -r - -ti 150 r L--� --1 r'r -t l I 1- vEP -4 `► \Building "B FF =134.4 r Proposed Building v EP -3 oEP -13 1- 40 4 wilding "E" FF =155.9 r vEP -5 lf140 ti L 160 J Proposed Building 'L- r---" ; -- LJ i .--.,F -L P -14 � L- Building "D" vEP -6 r„ FF =133.2 /-r I .. L--tr-- --r--L y Building "C" �30� DEP -15 FF =133.7 730 L-- ts-- - -r - -z _ - Lr -- Note: Finished floor elevations provided by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers from a map entitled Road and Storm Drainage Plan, Sheet 2 of 5, dated 13 November, 1989. Property Line EXPLANATION l EP- 1 SITE AND SCPLORATION PLAN 62nd AVENUE S. APARTMENTS Exploration Pit Approximate Location 0 30 Scale in Feet 60 NOVEMBER 1989 PROJECT NO. 8911 -04G IASI ASSOCIATED EARTH SCCIENCES, INC 903 - 5th Avenue, Kirkland, Washington 98033 180 oEP -1 0 • FIGURE 1: SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN 62nd AVENUE S. APARTMENTS r.rz - -. r— - '_'1 rrti-1 I , I I I II L - -J 51Ep-7 L' -- J 4 ti Building "F" l'. j 180 17 0 • r..r I I r---t 1......r -L1 1 —__J L_ - -J r IJ 1 Building "A" • r I 1 rr ' 1 160 r r- N- I L —_� 4 wilding "E" Proposed Building 150 150 r - -- f----I rr-t -1 vEP -4 LI \Building "B" I r _ _Z r---- r--t_r Proposed Building --L_ j--- r -z.r -, - - -- r__ oEP -3 'Jo 150 Proposed Building vEP5 / f rL r---, _J -- 1 I --'''..,/ - l -- -J - - -J ri 1 A4° 1- Building "D" v EP -6 e..../ t, -I, /r 1 ri 1 I � ti L Building "C" L--' ,.__-- J- --t_r- L-- r-- -_,r —z r- -Lr_Lr —J \414. Property Line EXPLANATION oEP -1 SEB -1 cr. c • 62nd Avenue SW Exploration' Pit Approximate Location ExplorationiBoring Approximate Location 0 30 60 Scale In Feet APRIL 1990 - PROJECT NO. 8911 -04G ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 903 - 5th Avenue, Kirkland, Washington 98033 YY' L V1 V :'ail/ to, . . ›IME-1010HOMOC41,1M ouaz1714wZOZw Za �`° °xs °a0 o w a aU W aa • H Z C4 • UcnxN'0O w 0 coNH O H U O 1 El � W'z U En ° aa E.103��wH>4 ..OZ Upye l� HaiHmo0 O H O 1_, C4 w H H z w 1,4 U aU H - zI .0H0w4/ H w w U]MMW1 -4411 z w�u)aw.a> 0`" Kt a - o �0 w . c cn • HH0 H�W gZcDc En Ozw xawaZ VJ axoxf=+H HwCnwwN0NaPUHO' • • t .., zJ L. 4 k-1- 0 , 0 u� v u^ ft FE CD Z N u u ...CI LU J J •: ;r1 'T Z U O . 1- J U �T LU F- Ul Z C:1 G F- ul • f•••1 ct F- iJi O 1r .-. tY ' O CD U • I CL CB #12 TYPE TYP6.2,1i1 6R ToP 17'.5"..S" 65,474)7) /7 YARD DRAIN (W, IN' /7 ToP 177.00. /E • 175-.00 EX CB TOP /641. oG 8 " /E(EX, /N) /60.57 /2 " /E(EX, /N) /6o.#9 /2'' /E (4c-flour) /60 (w, /N) /6 EX G13 7DP /5-3. S6 /E /i/0.35- (NE /N) /'19. 90 TYPE s, w/ GRATE roP /SY. oo (E, /N) /So. 90 (n; /N) /5-0.90 (S, our) /so. 80 CB #IIA REMOVE. EXISTi'16 -Oita MATcH NEW ACCE • PAVEM Eal r WITH _ ,STu1G A4VJ (J!T LA • EE WOTES) TYPE r '/ GRAT TOP /65: .r (N11N) /6z.S0 (S, OUT /6 2.40 . 1 NBB ° • CB. #II TYPEI, w / GRATE* TOP • /6f /0 (A/, /A/) /6 /. /0 (E our) /6/. 00 CB #I0 FF = 177. 117.0 C "H • d "r f !00 TYPES, w / GRATE' ToP /51.7 (W,14) P/7.890 (S, OuTjOa/ lo 8W Mt.} .SS .1370Ry 14/000 F "DME UNDER CONJT. YARD DRAIN rap /52.90 /E /so. y0 YARD DRAIN TOP /it 'I. Yo M. 147.90 CB #9 3Y 6s- //' /1.18 ;Z`r(iv,rav 10 ",� ira -- -- TYPE 1, ,I� 6RATE ToP /90.10 (E, Our) 1_3X 60-- - - - -- CB #8 TyPEll, w/ 6 RATE 7bP /4'7. S (/v, (w, /A/) /36. IS (E; cur) /36.Or (NE 119) /9 '/.10 8 .. Pi ihs RETAIAIuIG WALL (190.) SEL SWILL MAIL.. !/N 1 ac /;'E!D PA NW CIA/ YARD DRAIN ToP /3/.70 /E /29.70 t. ".m/ 4 PI f- 0 >0=E40 1 Q'HLa`Z0C4e,N GCIUGGZrn04WZOZW 3 P El C4 = C4 Po • o • .N UcHnx "00 o.:azz° o 'z EaHH Hpa0 a,NaaAw >4 u°�wu�Hc a��z03�WN>+z .oz z aNncax w a ua� a� a H O Z OH H Q v U W H H Z W a V H O 4 uvWu W xz� 1)caavi aH 'w0 w H o cn 0ozzOoo�0 •44 u)E-4WZH.•E1 PIV)V) 03 HCGZO0cO' OHZw W Hw0wwNLsNaH°QHO> O \� V \� ( \, t3 a3 83 a zz In ►- I- c, w- LL Li. 0 CU 0) ;) I •� r•i 62ND AVE CROSS SECTION: II tl LULU . Q Q --17-. CU CU u- • Ul J J ▪ Q. I- L) Z! r-+ *t + Cu 0) O F- r-+ UJ CC O• O - • i Q j�ylla Pt- " ei �/10Wfig! vL x(11JfrciJit 7.5'•S M %S•0 °, 50"S. J 7977, /000'! 02% It N -.0 cc 0606 0 o/ dal- a -� I a `7 n 1 .214i 88018 0/Y24V 8�8s JPPJ/lYar, 49/ 1 ToPM0/,0J7 01' ?PPP/ (N/) 7/ a/ 18 i // tl -- --11'hs' hl PO. (x/ • • -. .349.7 JN �.�Af.le, 5. o Rem' ! .LNfll l� W '0!Y :71W. /7 H16'0N /111/ (5) JY if fLf (7) 11 1Dfli 01Y/ PP R/ fJ'VEr. a% fr5111(7H /J,/.a KTLI WO no ft 9l/ (4Y Noy/ 3/ / Off t/)) 40.a •. N°JS •siati SPY P rl .1g9s''. . 0665/ (dno 's) g/ 00'09/ (N/ ) 2/ .L71/1/ Y008 X . AOW2 I O L 9Nr)1Mfed b"49/V/01 P vds /a J feelJNO ri— 02'05/(lnQ'5) 06' OS/ (Ni w) .06'0S/ 0/ 13) 0055/ dof ]J V ?l) /M 'T ;i& ' . • ,, • . • • -,t • a C) • . >----7- . . . . , . , . : . 11111111111fr' 1 ..... , . , '). --: * 1. . , . . . . . a OL ..‘i 1).:314-,....14..Q_.1,..... •, I . . . >.--7.- : , .. . ....... IN , .... .. 111 • .... —.......... II ....... - ........... „ CI. cii fl • . . ' - ...... .... • .. • • i - .................... i i . ■.1) *2 . .. i. ...:, , .. . ci) %.1 a? • • . • • . - >4 = EA 0 I CI EA 0 Z el al C.) C4 Z CA 1.4 43 Z C) Z 41 .cZ . FA C).1-4 03 C) 43 4 C) P4 0 1.4 = CU EA C4 = CI g al • • 41 14 • CO c.n• 0 al - - 41 E4 ' Z • C 4 :3 • . a c) 01 Og 0 C) Z 1 8 EA E-4 /-4 304 C1 CA N EA Cu c4 's.141 >4 AC > 0.1 Fi C.) • 1.4 „ . 01 41 z C.) O 44 0 a4 g 0 C4 = 4 az fT. iil D (.44 tl PI >1 Y'il , E Z 41 C/) CII4 I—I • g KC 1-1 Z• rsti)PagZ 1.I EA () E▪ A . .. Z • "" • r, H Ili 41 41 C.) El CD . 41 co 1.4 E-I c) 41 0 N 41 43 EA 0 C.) .4 41 z 1.4 44 cn Ci) 14 44 4 RI i 231 .2 En c) 2 in E; u; HZ0(.7 CO Ci) 0 H Z 41 41 M $14 41 C4 Z u) EA 43 0 44 41 cy ..a 0.1 Fil 151 E3 P, t '--> " Z Lfl F- Ul U1 0 C. V) ' U. I— U— V) ,JO V) OD CI IN IL()LflCU(UCU 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 EN V) 0) 62ND AVE. HORIZONTAL SCALE VERTICAL SCALE .0 () CU V) C) ■- • • • • x :r co al cu ul CO 03 OJ Ul T-4 CU CU t r 5- «!<- \\\ \>" \ • • „ . O'c,41 11) z • 1,(6, Ec) f,;" 4907 • o • .„ 6?. sugy.):4;1-7, l41 (? /55.8 52.5 (47.5 145.8 (42.5 148.8 /37. (35. / V. 138. X27. } 7 d Y Gcl'ANoar ME11 -1A CROSS SECTION: 62ND AVE. 5. APTS. HORIZONTAL SCALE = .50.00 FT /IN. VERTICAL SCALE = 5.00 FT /IN. POINT # 1 2 44 G (:x: ) 12 ^c.6 151.1 151.5 275.5 275.4 41 1 . 8 463.0 (y) 145.7 127.4 - 42.0 - 41.4 - 20.0. -21.0 - 15.9 rv►r12 Sew,2/ /s2.r / 417S /J�•S /3So IJOZ /dc'., /2'2'. /7670 117.1 fx1:77/ ✓67 nir! gg8:3 THIS SECTION PROVIDED BY EARTHCALC (2 7 .. MAR . 90), WHICH GENERATED. %TS CUT /FILL REPORT FROM D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, - DRAWING NO. 89- 268, NOVEMBER 13, 1989, ROAD & STORM DRAINAGE PLAN, SHEET 2 OF 5. EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES PLACED ON THIS SECTION- BY D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS /DJH,:PER THE SAME PLANS, SHEET ' 2 &. 3 OF 5. SEE ACCOMPANYING PLAN. VIEW FOR SECTION LOCATION.. 74 li 1 6 u r \, * ` PRa For0 bR00No 'ROPc -1= c IrSS(7P) ,ir<G)Nb. 4 0 "*,rISA1...T I I l; 58 188 151 1 1 1 j ;I - _'1_- -__� I 20! 258 388 ! X98 488 _458 Ii ,n, I f ....., , N1L!- I -'1._ 1 588 Gcl'ANoar ME11 -1A CROSS SECTION: 62ND AVE. 5. APTS. HORIZONTAL SCALE = .50.00 FT /IN. VERTICAL SCALE = 5.00 FT /IN. POINT # 1 2 44 G (:x: ) 12 ^c.6 151.1 151.5 275.5 275.4 41 1 . 8 463.0 (y) 145.7 127.4 - 42.0 - 41.4 - 20.0. -21.0 - 15.9 rv►r12 Sew,2/ /s2.r / 417S /J�•S /3So IJOZ /dc'., /2'2'. /7670 117.1 fx1:77/ ✓67 nir! gg8:3 THIS SECTION PROVIDED BY EARTHCALC (2 7 .. MAR . 90), WHICH GENERATED. %TS CUT /FILL REPORT FROM D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, - DRAWING NO. 89- 268, NOVEMBER 13, 1989, ROAD & STORM DRAINAGE PLAN, SHEET 2 OF 5. EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES PLACED ON THIS SECTION- BY D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS /DJH,:PER THE SAME PLANS, SHEET ' 2 &. 3 OF 5. SEE ACCOMPANYING PLAN. VIEW FOR SECTION LOCATION.. 74 –� • • Ld: ,\ ,r 4.1 FF . 133.9 ia0.4 .. Li.�11- / 16* 04 ' • GON 1- 8 "x6 "— REDUCE MJ x FL "TEE FL 2 -6 "x REDUCER FL x.--MJ �s --CONCRETE x.--MJ COCC(ING 12 `� • 5,-- �\ • N CB 'O lS3. /40 42 /E(CZ:.' /40.4t, • • S yJ: mi /19; / 53. C.rNNCGT TO OpAD CND MA,N. VERIFY EXA r S.S.,KH • TOP /. f. /34.13 D 12J .r /0 ".f4N /74RY..JEAVE,P �ECN0. 8Z851'6_, -157 .! - 8"x -6"- TEE MJ x FL 1 -6" GV FL x MJ CONCRETE BLOCKING Cd. • ILW 13514 12-1f. (iNJ /3268 /2` /.1. (GC/71 32 63 BUILDING "D" CLEANOUT TOP 133.0 6" ►E IZB.z E4 /30.1 25 6 "PVc S =0.38 2- 4" P.I. VALVES es CB • TOP /2700 12 " /.E. (lN) 124.27 /2%E (0(!7)12 FF. /337 SO , 8"PV S= 0.05 ss I WH. -TOP/2347 /. E CENlfiP 65 0/ 1') 22; PVC ,Sr= O, ti.0 E HELD Pe2re71/EL U1/f! L /NE Der 14;t7// • ea MI 0111110 7 /5247 k� EX. TOP /23. L17� EX. /E //6. 66 d• " /E, /N //6.86 • w \7 Q9 - /L2P //6.75 /t'/E. ( /NJ /13.6 0 /t' /E(0UI1/13.75 4 /32 80. ;20.80 '28.w 'Z7 -q0 BUILDING "C" CLEANOUT 7bP / 33. So 6 " /E /79 -.70 . . , 35 .80 5;6 "PVL 5 = 0.97.0 S ;w 1 2- y,r90° ELMS WNLRETE 13 t1x_KrN 20• MH #I roP //V /19,7(4 8 " OUT //c •Sy E•G IZ'1.o MH #2 ro